|
|
Post by SteveInNC on May 28, 2020 7:49:08 GMT -5
OKAY, here's where is gets different. Playing the movie Red bluray. Nasty gun fire scene culminating with the concussion bomb. I set the system for 5.2 - no rears Neural:X now plays A LOT LOUDER, which now makes it the about the same volume or maybe a tick louder than Surround which did not change volume at all. edit: In other words, I don't need to alter the volume level between the two modes to achieve the same volume. Change the system back to 7.2 Neural:X now plays quieter again. Other than these differences, I don't hear anything that's muffled sounding. Again, once I discovered a volume level difference I made sure to change the volume so the tests were level matched. You guys mention some missing sounds. Please give me a movie scene that's 5.1 with missing sounds to try. Actually, the quirk here is not in the action of the Neural: X playing the same volume as surround in the 5.2 config. If you were playing a 5.1 PCM or Dolby or dts source in a 5.2 setup, then Neural:X should not even appear as an option in the Surround Menu. i.e. Not available for user selection nor able to be implemented by Surround "Auto". 5.1 to 5.1 has no available upmixing on the XMC/RMC-1 and this is correct behaviour. ( Unless you use the RMC/XMC-2's faulty bi-amping from the front wide channels, where Dolby and dts upmixers are enabled and auto-utilised inappropriately, as I also highlighted previously) Neural:X would be there if you were playing 2.0 / 2.1 dts or PCM in a 5.2 setup, however. If you are not bi-amping using Front Wides, then I suspect it was just one of those menu quirks where Neural:X shows up as engaged and it actually wasn't (thankfully!) and so sounded the same as "Surround" Can you direct me to that info? I have not seen anything on that in the couple months I've been studying on the XMC-2. I don't have my system set up yet but, was planning on biamping with the front wides. Do we know if this is in the pipeline to be fixed? Thanks for your time. |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator 
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,168
|
Post by ttocs on May 28, 2020 8:08:54 GMT -5
Can you direct me to that info? I have not seen anything on that in the couple months I've been studying on the XMC-2. I don't have my system set up yet but, was planning on biamping with the front wides. Do we know if this is in the pipeline to be fixed? Thanks for your time. Bi-Amp can be found at: Setup:: Speakers:: Preset 1:: Size:: Front Width:: Bi Amp Front/None/Lg Front Width/Sm Front Width |
|
|
|
Post by markc on May 28, 2020 8:24:54 GMT -5
Can you direct me to that info? I have not seen anything on that in the couple months I've been studying on the XMC-2. I don't have my system set up yet but, was planning on biamping with the front wides. Do we know if this is in the pipeline to be fixed? Thanks for your time. Bi-Amp can be found at: Setup:: Speakers:: Preset 1:: Size:: Front Width:: Bi Amp Front/None/Lg Front Width/Sm Front Width ... but it has a fault that means you probably shouldn’t use that method and stick to Y cables. Using Front Wides to internally bi-amp causes the XMC-2 to automatically use surround upmixers for 5.1 sources in a 5.1 setup and the same with 7.1 sources in a 7.1 setup It must be to do with the surround detection mode reading a flag wrongly set by the speaker configuration in the Emotiva somewhere flagging that Front Wide speakers are in use when they are not Using Dolby Surround to “not upmix” 7.1 to 7.1 doesn’t seem to affect sound quality, although I only gave a quick listen However, when dts Neural:X is auto enabled, just because the bi-amp setting is used, you get the problems outlined in the pages above when you play a dts source. Neural:X Kicks in when it shouldn’t as it is not required and tries to “upmix” 7.1 to 7.1 and causes the main channels to be changed with regards to volume and tonality and blurs the mix (for a lot of users, but not all, for some reason) Your question was “Is it in the pipeline to be fixed?”! The issue hasn’t been acknowledged or mentioned by anyone at or associated with Emotiva, so hopefully they have been silently working on fixing it (or removing the bi-amp Setting for the Front Wides altogether if the incorrect flags cannot be fixed.) |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Park on Aug 26, 2020 13:51:26 GMT -5
I am awaiting my refund for the RMC-1 and have shopped around for a replacement. So, technically, I am still an owner (and I have some PA-1s). A colleague has a similar setup and started out with an HTP-1 and overall likes it, but like many people in this hobby, he wonders if he's leaving something on the table. I borrowed this HTP-1 and minimally set it up for a day here. By minimum, I mean I didn't do stuff like set speaker distances or Dirac, or the triggers or any equalization, I just wanted to see overall how it sounded and behaved. Behavior was flawless, no issues with dropped sound or crashes/lock ups, swift and predictable HDMI switching using HDMI1.4 and 2 sources with both 4k and 1080i. Things that would always cause you pause on the RMC1 (is it going to work? is it going to lock up or drop audio) just worked and everything behaved more swiftly too. I was literally shaking my head in disbelief the entire time I used it knowing full well that this stuff would just cause the RMC1 to puke. DTS NeuralX worked and sounded correct to my ears... no crazy low volume levels or distortion or random noises. It really puts the RMC1 to shame in just about every way and further proves that it's not the cables or source equipment... it was the RMC1. If you want something that works, there's simply no comparison. He also confirmed that he has seen no operational issues. With the amount of switching and listening I did,m this would have caused the RMC1 to stumbe hundreds of times and required several reboots. Sound wise, it was comparable, just less "bright", I always felt the RMC-1 was a bit too bright in the high frequencies without any equalization or calibration, and the HTP1 is more neutral. But I overall felt they were comparable in terms of SQ quality. I focused on 2 and some multichannel 192khz FLACs, not movies, played via Zappiti over HDMI. I turned off my subs to eliminate any type of crossover issues (I didn't set any of that up). With rock tracks with heavy mid-bass the sound was pretty much identical. With something like Norah Jones, the RMC1 is just brighter, and I feel it's exaggerated (I had no EQ on the RMC1). I don't have a quantifiable basis for saying that, just a feeling due to a lot of listening. I ordered the X9, and we agreed to swap again once I get it here and get it going. Apparently the X9 is built to order and takes some time. I am looking forward to the sound of the 9038PROs. I have several DACs in my headphone tube setup and the 9038PRO implementations are just amazing to me. They have truly a unique sound that, to me, is far superior. How this will translate into the actual experience on a pre-pro (as obviously the DACs are only a portion of the signal path), remains to be seen. I am really sorry to hear that you eventually drop RMC-1. I know it is frustrating that we waiting for something worked flawlessly with RMC-1 which in fact is no problem at all with other brands such as HTP-1, anthem, even Onkyo or Marantz. Yes, you are right, it is not caused by faulty cables or wrong configured devices, not even by RMC-1 itself but by firmware, for sure. My former but still owned Onkyo's flagship processor PR-RZ5100, when I just move all cables to there from RMC-1, just everything works fine, no need to worry cable certification and compatablity, no need to spend my money for upgrade graphic card, no need to cold boot, no need to sources switch back and force, no need to worry about something goes wrong and not working. My PR-RZ5100 is still working like it always do. No hassle for 4K, DD+ over ARC, Analog inputs, biamp options, LFE, lost signal for chroma sampling depth or whatever. RMC-1 SHOULD work like this before it is handed over to consumers, am I think wrong? Of course there is something which I can't give up my RMC-1 despite all mentioned hassles is that that I can describe as "Nuance" which came from somewhat superior quality sound than other big time brands such as Denon or Marantz... and I like the way it sounded... that makes me hold back to do the refund yet. Still I have hope and expectation that perhaps next firmware will do the magic for us and do for all. I do not want imagine that Emotiva perhaps think like RMC-1 customers as open beta testers...? Hope that I am mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Aug 29, 2020 8:36:48 GMT -5
.......... 2) Allow using digital crossovers to off offload each amp from amplifying the out of band signal. This is not available with the current implementation so of no use. - Rich To this point, it appears to me that the Bi Amp option just provides a duplicate of the L/R outputs to the Front Width output, with no crossovers available. Is that right? No documentation of this feature that I could find in the manual. If this is the case, yeah it seems no different from a Y cable. To get the benefits of biamping you would have to provide an analog or digital active crossover to feed the pairs of high/low amplifiers ... or use a passive crossover at the mid/high speaker inputs. Very curious implementation. At the risk of "only tool I have is a hammer so everything looks like a nail"  ..... seems to me the better and more universal answer is something like a miniDSP HD fed from a digital output. Then you configure crossovers appropriately and feed the pairs of high/low amplifiers from there. ~ $205. p.s. are the Digital Outputs always the L/R with processing applied? i.e. identical to L/R Front Outputs with Size, Levels, Dirac/PEQ, Distance |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 890
|
Post by richb on Aug 29, 2020 8:51:07 GMT -5
.......... 2) Allow using digital crossovers to off offload each amp from amplifying the out of band signal. This is not available with the current implementation so of no use. - Rich To this point, it appears to me that the Bi Amp option just provides a duplicate of the L/R outputs to the Front Width output, with no crossovers available. Is that right? No documentation of this feature that I could find in the manual. If this is the case, yeah it seems no different from a Y cable. To get the benefits of biamping you would have to provide an analog or digital active crossover to feed the pairs of high/low amplifiers ... or use a passive crossover at the mid/high speaker inputs. Very curious implementation. At the risk of "only tool I have is a hammer so everything looks like a nail" ..... seems to me the better and more universal answer is something like a miniDSP HD fed from a digital output. Then you configure crossovers appropriately and feed the pairs of high/low amplifiers from there. ~ $205. p.s. are the Digital Outputs always the L/R with processing applied? i.e. identical to L/R Front Outputs with Size, Levels, Dirac/PEQ, Distance It is my understanding that expansion boards would be needed to implement separate crossover for the bi-amped channels. I am not overly concerned about amplifying out of band frequencies because I don't clip my amplifiers even when I play movies at levels that are too loud for me and my family members. So, I agree there is no real benefit in using the setting. I don't want to add a device into the chain that adds an A/D and D/A conversion. - Rich |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Aug 29, 2020 9:07:33 GMT -5
To this point, it appears to me that the Bi Amp option just provides a duplicate of the L/R outputs to the Front Width output, with no crossovers available. Is that right? No documentation of this feature that I could find in the manual. If this is the case, yeah it seems no different from a Y cable. To get the benefits of biamping you would have to provide an analog or digital active crossover to feed the pairs of high/low amplifiers ... or use a passive crossover at the mid/high speaker inputs. Very curious implementation. At the risk of "only tool I have is a hammer so everything looks like a nail" ..... seems to me the better and more universal answer is something like a miniDSP HD fed from a digital output. Then you configure crossovers appropriately and feed the pairs of high/low amplifiers from there. ~ $205. p.s. are the Digital Outputs always the L/R with processing applied? i.e. identical to L/R Front Outputs with Size, Levels, Dirac/PEQ, Distance It is my understanding that expansion boards would be needed to implement separate crossover for the bi-amped channels. I am not overly concerned about amplifying out of band frequencies because I don't clip my amplifiers even when I play movies at levels that are too loud for me and my family members. So, I agree there is no real benefit in using the setting. I don't want to add a device into the chain that adds an A/D and D/A conversion. - Rich Yes, depending how you do it. You could use an analog active crossover (I think I still have one from when I biamped my Magnepan Tympani 1Ds in the 80's and 90's). I was thinking the miniDSP HD with digital input, assuming I'm correct that the digital outputs of the RMC/XMC duplicate the L/R outputs with processing. Then all you're doing is bypassing the RMC/XMC DACs and using the miniDSP DACs at the final output. No extra A/D/A stage. |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,168
|
Post by ttocs on Aug 29, 2020 9:12:59 GMT -5
To this point, it appears to me that the Bi Amp option just provides a duplicate of the L/R outputs to the Front Width output, with no crossovers available. Is that right? No documentation of this feature that I could find in the manual. If this is the case, yeah it seems no different from a Y cable. To get the benefits of biamping you would have to provide an analog or digital active crossover to feed the pairs of high/low amplifiers ... or use a passive crossover at the mid/high speaker inputs. Very curious implementation. At the risk of "only tool I have is a hammer so everything looks like a nail" ..... seems to me the better and more universal answer is something like a miniDSP HD fed from a digital output. Then you configure crossovers appropriately and feed the pairs of high/low amplifiers from there. ~ $205. I think you're right, it's just a duplicated Left/Right in the digital domain. I think you are right again that it's no different than a Y-cable, so it's only for passive bi-amping while using the speaker's built-in crossovers. p.s. are the Digital Outputs always the L/R with processing applied? i.e. identical to L/R Front Outputs with Size, Levels, Dirac/PEQ, Distance If I understand your question, "Digital Outputs" being the Width, then I believe you are correct. Left and Left-Bi-Amp are identical in the digital path, twins. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Aug 29, 2020 9:42:19 GMT -5
.......... 2) Allow using digital crossovers to off offload each amp from amplifying the out of band signal. This is not available with the current implementation so of no use. - Rich To this point, it appears to me that the Bi Amp option just provides a duplicate of the L/R outputs to the Front Width output, with no crossovers available. Is that right? No documentation of this feature that I could find in the manual. If this is the case, yeah it seems no different from a Y cable. To get the benefits of biamping you would have to provide an analog or digital active crossover to feed the pairs of high/low amplifiers ... or use a passive crossover at the mid/high speaker inputs. Very curious implementation. At the risk of "only tool I have is a hammer so everything looks like a nail" ..... seems to me the better and more universal answer is something like a miniDSP HD fed from a digital output. Then you configure crossovers appropriately and feed the pairs of high/low amplifiers from there. ~ $205. p.s. are the Digital Outputs always the L/R with processing applied? i.e. identical to L/R Front Outputs with Size, Levels, Dirac/PEQ, Distance We have a winner. Lonnie confirmed the bi-amp function on this board a couple of months ago... in a post response to me. Bi-amp mode is nothing but a DA'd (Distribution Amplifier)/ paralleled output of the L/R outputs. Without any ability to process audio with the re-purposed wide channels. It wastes 2 expensive channels that Could be used for more useful purposes. Bi-amp mode for a re-purposed wide channel does not bi-amp anything, as the term is appropriately used. Outboard processing is needed to bi-amp speakers. A Y cable is more functional, doesn't waste channels, and doesn't significantly alter the output levels from L/R. The outputs from L/R are low impedance. Amplifier inputs are generally high impedance; often in a ratio of 1/100 or even much higher. We are no longer in the era of transformered circuitry or need to consider power transfer, possible ground problems, or impedance matching. I'd also like the answer to your p.s. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Aug 30, 2020 6:51:35 GMT -5
Notwithstanding debates over passive vs active bi-amping, bi-amping simply means two amplifiers. The XMC-1 and RMC-1 Bi amp setting is designed to do this. (But fails for technical reasons) They DO allow bi-amping (Albeit passive) of FL and FR using the FWL and FWR channels to output to a second amp (=bi-amping) HOWEVER, most importantly, this feature doesn’t work! On the XMC-2 and RMC-1!!! Do NOT use it! Unfortunately, using the Front Wide channels to bi-amp has an internal error. Somewhere in the processor, it causes a flag to be enabled that activates upmixers - either Dolby Surround Upmixer or the awful DTS Neural:X The processor “thinks” you have front wide speakers even though with the bi-amp setting they now are simple duplication of FL and FR If you have a 5.1 speaker setup and play 5.1, no upmixer should be activated. The same when playing 7.1 audio in a 7.1 speaker setup This is true even when bi-amping. Except in the Emotivas. This wasn’t fixed in 2.0 from what I recall ( I can’t text it as I am not reinstalling 2.0) The end result of this most troublesome if you play 5.1/7.1 DTS in a 5.1/7.1 system. Neural:X kicks in and drops the volume by 6*dB and in my system at least, corrupts front channel audio, seemingly extracting some sound to non existent channels. Your description of 'bi-amping' is incorrect. I hope people who read these posts will spend the time to discover the facts. Do I understand the argument correctly? One issue is the Emotiva Biamp feature doesn't work correctly, in part because enabling it triggers unwanted upmixing. The second separate issue is that as the term "biamp" is typically used, it includes the ability to split the signal into high pass and low pass outputs, driving separate amplifiers, and ultimately driving mid/high and bass speakers separately. This is usually done with an active crossover in the line-level signal path before the amplifier. The Emotiva implementation does not provide any crossover. The relative merits of active vs passive crossovers, as well as the technical benefits of biamping itself, are not part of this discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Aug 30, 2020 7:48:59 GMT -5
Your description of 'bi-amping' is incorrect. I hope people who read these posts will spend the time to discover the facts. Do I understand the argument correctly? One issue is the Emotiva Biamp feature doesn't work correctly, in part because enabling it triggers unwanted upmixing. The second separate issue is that as the term "biamp" is typically used, it includes the ability to split the signal into high pass and low pass outputs, driving separate amplifiers, and ultimately driving mid/high and bass speakers separately. This is usually done with an active crossover in the line-level signal path before the amplifier. The Emotiva implementation does not provide any crossover. The relative merits of active vs passive crossovers, as well as the technical benefits of biamping itself, are not part of this discussion. No sir. At least not my part. I had no interest in discussing any part other than what I said, which is the labeling of this particular output, the so called, and mislabeled, 'by-amp' feature and option for the Wide output. Everyone else has added the additional arguments, which are tangential, and continue beating the dead horse of the malfunctioning output. A function that is going to be fixed. And, a mislabeled function that will not 'bi-amp' anything, even if fixed. Perhaps a bit more reading comprehension and less emotional reaction would be helpful for some. This became an argument by others and went off the rails. What you describe as 'a separate issue' was my only issue. It's the only thing I addressed. Nothing to get mad about. The 'bi-amp' function is Not a bi-amp function. You offered the complete answer: Some processors do offer a real 'bi-amp' feature. A separate parallel output with no crossover processing is NOT a bi-amp feature. It's just a parallel output, which in the case of the RMC, would be more adequately implemented with Y cables, and no possibility of malfunction in the RMC. The kicker is no additional cable or output is required to input an external crossover. If Emotive really wants to fix this, either remove the malfunctioning feature and offer the suggestion of Y cables for paralleling outputs as needed, or, add crossover dsp to the processor, so the 'bi-amp' feature is a real feature, instead of a waste of 2 expensive channels which could be purposed for something useful, and not something that creates more confusion for people, and, an unnecessary engineering and customer relations problem for Emotiva. I.E., don't tweek yourself into twouble. Thank you for asking. p.s. I still have a real question for Emotiva or anyone else who might know: Are there licensing restrictions on how the channels can be purposed in the processor? |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 890
|
Post by richb on Aug 30, 2020 11:15:16 GMT -5
Do I understand the argument correctly? One issue is the Emotiva Biamp feature doesn't work correctly, in part because enabling it triggers unwanted upmixing. The second separate issue is that as the term "biamp" is typically used, it includes the ability to split the signal into high pass and low pass outputs, driving separate amplifiers, and ultimately driving mid/high and bass speakers separately. This is usually done with an active crossover in the line-level signal path before the amplifier. The Emotiva implementation does not provide any crossover. The relative merits of active vs passive crossovers, as well as the technical benefits of biamping itself, are not part of this discussion. No sir. At least not my part. I had no interest in discussing any part other than what I said, which is the labeling of this particular output, the so called, and mislabeled, 'by-amp' feature and option for the Wide output. Everyone else has added the additional arguments, which are tangential, and continue beating the dead horse of the malfunctioning output. A function that is going to be fixed. And, a mislabeled function that will not 'bi-amp' anything, even if fixed. Perhaps a bit more reading comprehension and less emotional reaction would be helpful for some. This became an argument by others and went off the rails. What you describe as 'a separate issue' was my only issue. It's the only thing I addressed. Nothing to get mad about. The 'bi-amp' function is Not a bi-amp function. You offered the complete answer: Some processors do offer a real 'bi-amp' feature. A separate parallel output with no crossover processing is NOT a bi-amp feature. It's just a parallel output, which in the case of the RMC, would be more adequately implemented with Y cables, and no possibility of malfunction in the RMC. The kicker is no additional cable or output is required to input an external crossover. If Emotive really wants to fix this, either remove the malfunctioning feature and offer the suggestion of Y cables for paralleling outputs as needed, or, add crossover dsp to the processor, so the 'bi-amp' feature is a real feature, instead of a waste of 2 expensive channels which could be purposed for something useful, and not something that creates more confusion for people, and, an unnecessary engineering and customer relations problem for Emotiva. I.E., don't tweek yourself into twouble. Thank you for asking. p.s. I still have a real question for Emotiva or anyone else who might know: Are there licensing restrictions on how the channels can be purposed in the processor? Not everyone will use all 16 channels and all customers pay for them. If a user does not use the analog input and these height channels, then they use output that are otherwise unused. I have compared vertical bi-amping and single amping the Salon2s and 3 of us could reliably could tell the difference. Many implement a bi-amp feature as a copy without separate crossover settings. I am not sure I trust any processor to implement an active crossover because an accidental reset could fry your tweeters. However, separate crossovers can reduce the voltage amplification for out-of-band frequencies which is completely safe because passive crossovers are in place. I'll try that if it becomes available but I doubt there would be an appreciable difference. There is always an option to spit output so it seems low impact. - Rich |
|
|
|
Post by hytram on Sept 7, 2020 21:53:29 GMT -5
Updated to 2.1 on XMC2
backup settings
Factory Reset
powercycle
upgrade FW
Factory reset
restore settings
powercyle
(yes, probably too many Factory resets and powercycles, but that's the tech in me)
all OK
load new Dirac filters (different curve)
watch movie and notice low volume and low dynamic problem in DTS NeutralX has gone (think it was gone in 2.0) so the 2 things that have changed since I noticed it last was is FW 2.X and now biampping fronts via the width chs
didn't like Dirac filters, but getting closer, (too much bass and a little too much mid removed)
went to power down XMC-2 and the whole unit was frozen both with remote and front panel, had to hold down the front power button for 10 Secs to power down
close, but no cigar
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Park on Sept 8, 2020 2:43:47 GMT -5
watch movie and notice low volume and low dynamic problem in DTS NeutralX has gone (think it was gone in 2.0) so the 2 things that have changed since I noticed it last was is FW 2.X and now biampping fronts via the width chsYou briefly mention about bi-amping which is hot for me. What do you mean "2 things that have changed...."?? I quite don't understand what you said.... Can you explain more with detail...? |
|
|
|
Post by hytram on Sept 8, 2020 8:17:35 GMT -5
watch movie and notice low volume and low dynamic problem in DTS NeutralX has gone (think it was gone in 2.0) so the 2 things that have changed since I noticed it last was is FW 2.X and now biampping fronts via the width chsYou briefly mention about bi-amping which is hot for me. What do you mean "2 things that have changed...."?? I quite don't understand what you said.... Can you explain more with detail...? You don't understand what I said? I am not quite sure I understand what I say half the time 🤣 I was having the DTSNx problem,which is playing DTS material, its sounds fine using Surround Mode, but in DTSNx mode I would get a drop of both volume and dynamics.. Sounded really dull. It's now fixed (well watched a full movie in 5.1 DTSHD and its seemed fine) I haven't been paying a lot attention when it exactly got fixed...but The only things that have been changed since I last noticed the low volume/dynamics are 1. Upgraded from 1.19(was that the last of the 1.x FW?) To 2.0/2.1 FW 2. Changed my front speakers from single amping to bi-amping using the fronts and Width Ch outputs via the menu set up. So one of theses things fixed my DTSNx issues I only mentioned the biampping because I am sure it's been mentioned in posts regarding the DTSNx issue **Edit There is a 3rd thing that changed All my TV viewing is via a set top box. It was going into HDMI 1 of the XMC2 then to the TV It changed to the STB HDMI going straight to the TV and then optical from TV to optical 3 of the XMC2 Did this so the wife can watch the TV while I pay around with the XMC2 and the 2 don't effect each other. |
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Sept 8, 2020 8:40:32 GMT -5
You briefly mention about bi-amping which is hot for me. What do you mean "2 things that have changed...."?? I quite don't understand what you said.... Can you explain more with detail...? You don't understand what I said? I am not quite sure I understand what I say half the time 🤣 I was having the DTSNx problem,which is playing DTS material, its sounds fine using Surround Mode, but in DTSNx mode I would get a drop of both volume and dynamics.. Sounded really dull. It's now fixed (well watched a full movie in 5.1 DTSHD and its seemed fine) I haven't been paying a lot attention when it exactly got fixed...but The only things that have been changed since I last noticed the low volume/dynamics are 1. Upgraded from 1.19(was that the last of the 1.x FW?) To 2.0/2.1 FW 2. Changed my front speakers from single amping to bi-amping using the fronts and Width Ch outputs via the menu set up. So one of theses things fixed my DTSNx issues I only mentioned the biampping because I am sure it's been mentioned in posts regarding the DTSNx issue I think it was Markc who mentioned that Neural:X misbehaved when having less than 11.1 speakers and bi-amp widths was used. I think it upmixed to them as they were real wide speakers. I haven’t tested this on 2.1. I hope you haven’t missed the talk here about front wide bi-amp? You can’t use the bi-amping with true analog throughput as in Reference Stereo with any of the analog inputs. |
|
|
|
Post by jbm2021 on Mar 29, 2021 15:52:29 GMT -5
Hello, I am new to this forum. Now that I have refined my stereo setup, planning on further refinements for my HT. Mine is a 7.1.6 setup. www.dolby.com/about/support/guide/speaker-setup-guides/7.1.6-overhead-speaker-setup-guide/If I were to upgrade/refine, I am debating between the RMC-1 vs RMC-1L. Is there anything in the hardware or software/firmware that will make one of the above a better choice for 7.1.6? It is purely for HT though the same system will be used for 2-ch stereo music with a different DAC and front end How stable is the latest version of the Firmware when it comes to reliability of HDMI switching, reliability of audio and video? When front width channels are used to bi-amp front left and front right, is the issue mentioned by markc still something that is relevant? emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/56879/rmc-owners-thread-post-firmware?q=biampSorry, if these topics were covered earlier. Finally when front width channels are bi-amped will DIRAC work for both the FL and FR and the bi-amped channels? I appreciate any pointers and inputs. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by atomic4877 on Mar 29, 2021 20:06:24 GMT -5
Hello, I am new to this forum. Now that I have refined my stereo setup, planning on further refinements for my HT. Mine is a 7.1.6 setup. www.dolby.com/about/support/guide/speaker-setup-guides/7.1.6-overhead-speaker-setup-guide/If I were to upgrade/refine, I am debating between the RMC-1 vs RMC-1L. Is there anything in the hardware or software/firmware that will make one of the above a better choice for 7.1.6? It is purely for HT though the same system will be used for 2-ch stereo music with a different DAC and front end How stable is the latest version of the Firmware when it comes to reliability of HDMI switching, reliability of audio and video? When front width channels are used to bi-amp front left and front right, is the issue mentioned by markc still something that is relevant? emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/56879/rmc-owners-thread-post-firmware?q=biampSorry, if these topics were covered earlier. Finally when front width channels are bi-amped will DIRAC work for both the FL and FR and the bi-amped channels? I appreciate any pointers and inputs. Thanks! For the differences between the RMC-1 and 1L, there is no hardware/software differences. The only difference is the expansion slots on the RMC-1 and the processor is a bit larger. The hardware and firmware has been very stable for me. The menu navigation delay is very good and input switching is much improved. |
|
|
|
Post by jbm2021 on Mar 29, 2021 21:12:07 GMT -5
Hello, I am new to this forum. Now that I have refined my stereo setup, planning on further refinements for my HT. Mine is a 7.1.6 setup. www.dolby.com/about/support/guide/speaker-setup-guides/7.1.6-overhead-speaker-setup-guide/If I were to upgrade/refine, I am debating between the RMC-1 vs RMC-1L. Is there anything in the hardware or software/firmware that will make one of the above a better choice for 7.1.6? It is purely for HT though the same system will be used for 2-ch stereo music with a different DAC and front end How stable is the latest version of the Firmware when it comes to reliability of HDMI switching, reliability of audio and video? When front width channels are used to bi-amp front left and front right, is the issue mentioned by markc still something that is relevant? emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/56879/rmc-owners-thread-post-firmware?q=biampSorry, if these topics were covered earlier. Finally when front width channels are bi-amped will DIRAC work for both the FL and FR and the bi-amped channels? I appreciate any pointers and inputs. Thanks! For the differences between the RMC-1 and 1L, there is no hardware/software differences. The only difference is the expansion slots on the RMC-1 and the processor is a bit larger. The hardware and firmware has been very stable for me. The menu navigation delay is very good and input switching is much improved. Thanks for confirming that there is no real hw/sw differences and the stability. I appreciate it. |
|
|
|
Post by benvader0815 on Dec 11, 2021 18:16:30 GMT -5
markc: Thank you for the information. That is not what I want to read and I could not understand why emotiva don't make a Speaker Routing possible but the I have to live with that. I find it make more Sense to change between Wide speakers and Top middle. Nobody of my Friends use wide speakers but more Overhead speakers and multi subs or DBA. An alternate Processor of another Brand? Arcam is to buggy and worse when I read the review at the ASR Forum. Anthem was better tested at ASR but it seems that it don't have a perfect firmware. Also I like Dirac and the PEQ in the Emo Pros. First I had a DDRC-88A and one XMC-1 V1 and one V3 but I wanna Upgrade to immersive Sound. At the moment a Tonewinner AT-300 works in my 2.0 system - the base-OEM-Pro for the comming MC-1. Also I own a CX-A5100 but it is just 7.1.4. My Idea was to wait for a new Yamaha CX-A but there ist nothing in the Horizon and it think it will be max 7.1.4 again. I was looking to the monoprice HTP-1 but unfortenatly it is still not released in Europe or Germany. Furthermore my price for the rmc is massiv cheaper than the list Price so I bought it. hsamwel: I don't want to biamp... I could but at the moment my IMG Stage Line STA-2000D works in Bridge Mode.
|
|
..... seems to me the better and more universal answer is something like a miniDSP HD fed from a digital output. Then you configure crossovers appropriately and feed the pairs of high/low amplifiers from there. ~ $205.
