|
Post by marcl on Nov 14, 2023 9:59:40 GMT -5
For those like marcl with multiple subs and a need to cross over mains to subs there maybe a new solution - minidsp has just announced a Flex HTx with 8 in 8 out plus eARC over HDMI input for 8 channel PCM plus a few other bits and pieces in it. I have 4 subs in the corners using a Venue360 so I I would possibly see it replace the 360 to cross over and manage the mono/LFE from to 4 subs plus cross my mains to the 2 front subs for stereo. Could even try a double Dirac sandwich πππ€ͺπ€ͺ. Later when G4P goes ART and multisub management, it would allow me to remove the passive cross overs in my 3 way front electrostatic panels and tri amp them with active cross overs and suitable filters ( which I wanted to try for ages). Only slight issue is it's US$1K. π€π€£π€£ I'll take a close look at this. It seems for my particular wants and needs they often approach then veer off a bit with more mainstream features and functions. Right now I only run subs and L/R Magnepan woofer modules through the miniDSPs. Kind of philosophically adverse to the double A/D/A being applied to my LCR. Although I sure could use the functionality to fine tune time alignement and crossovers.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Nov 14, 2023 10:16:48 GMT -5
For those like marcl with multiple subs and a need to cross over mains to subs there maybe a new solution - minidsp has just announced a Flex HTx with 8 in 8 out plus eARC over HDMI input for 8 channel PCM plus a few other bits and pieces in it. I have 4 subs in the corners using a Venue360 so I I would possibly see it replace the 360 to cross over and manage the mono/LFE from to 4 subs plus cross my mains to the 2 front subs for stereo. Could even try a double Dirac sandwich πππ€ͺπ€ͺ. Later when G4P goes ART and multisub management, it would allow me to remove the passive cross overs in my 3 way front electrostatic panels and tri amp them with active cross overs and suitable filters ( which I wanted to try for ages). Only slight issue is it's US$1K. π€π€£π€£ I'll take a close look at this. It seems for my particular wants and needs they often approach then veer off a bit with more mainstream features and functions. Right now I only run subs and L/R Magnepan woofer modules through the miniDSPs. Kind of philosophically adverse to the double A/D/A being applied to my LCR. Although I sure could use the functionality to fine tune time alignement and crossovers. I too am philosophically adverse to an additional A/D/A stage. However... ... I use Venue360's to split the 7 RMC base channels for bi-amp; LCR and Surrounds. I output the LFE/Mono Sub from the RMC to the Venue360 and split it to separate Subs for additional control. I am happy with the results regardless of my philosophy. Sanders Electrostats uses the Venue360 for it's controller.
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Nov 14, 2023 10:42:02 GMT -5
I'll take a close look at this. It seems for my particular wants and needs they often approach then veer off a bit with more mainstream features and functions. Right now I only run subs and L/R Magnepan woofer modules through the miniDSPs. Kind of philosophically adverse to the double A/D/A being applied to my LCR. Although I sure could use the functionality to fine tune time alignement and crossovers. I too am philosophically adverse to an additional A/D/A stage. However... ... I use Venue360's to split the 7 RMC base channels for bi-amp; LCR and Surrounds. I output the LFE/Mono Sub from the RMC to the Venue360 and split it to separate Subs for additional control. I am happy with the results regardless of my philosophy. Sanders Electrostats uses the Venue360 for it's controller. What I would do is send LCR to such a device, then use it to integrate the L/R 3.7s, CCR, DWMs and subs for all three so that in the XMC-2 they all look like they are Large. Then only send LFE to the subs and send Bass Management to the Large LCR ... a bit like what I do today with just the L/R, but with total control of crossovers and timing. Then let Dirac deal with them like they were three full range speakers.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,156
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 14, 2023 11:12:49 GMT -5
Sanders Electrostatics (now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time)... (I seem to recall a DIY Sanders Electrostatic amplifier project in Audio Amateur a long time ago.) And, yes, there are plenty of good reasons why, if you're going to do digital processing, it's clearly better NOT to convert back and forth. However there is one mitigating factor for subwoofers - that appears in several related ways. Simply put... the audio signal that you feed to subwoofers has relatively limited bandwidth requirements. This means that, at a given level of "performance", everything we're talking about is easier to do if you're only looking at frequencies under a few hundred Hz. It's easier to design a D/A or an A/D that delivers a given level of accuracy if you only need a bandwidth of 500 Hz or so. And, likewise, any conversion or analog circuitry will be less critical of noise entering the system, because the last stage can be a 500 Hz low-pass filter. ("Since the sub and its associated electronics won't play hiss you don't have to worry so much about avoiding it along the way.") And, also likewise, latency isn't as critical, because a few extra microseconds here or there won't cause much of a phase shift at the frequencies covered by a sub either. However there is another thing that I would point out - also "philosophically"... And that is that we need to be somewhat careful to "avoid getting carried away" when designing systems that include subwoofers... We must always remember that THE ROOM is going to be a limiting factor... And, at least for now, the subwoofer itself, and its cabinet and drivers, will probably be the single most significant limiting factor... Until we come up with some new and more effective technology the "final output device" is going to be a big heavy piece of cardboard being pushed around by an electric motor. And, even though we've been trying for a lot of years, and experimented with some other interesting options, that STILL seems to be the best and most practical solution we've come up with. I'll take a close look at this. It seems for my particular wants and needs they often approach then veer off a bit with more mainstream features and functions. Right now I only run subs and L/R Magnepan woofer modules through the miniDSPs. Kind of philosophically adverse to the double A/D/A being applied to my LCR. Although I sure could use the functionality to fine tune time alignement and crossovers. I too am philosophically adverse to an additional A/D/A stage. However... ... I use Venue360's to split the 7 RMC base channels for bi-amp; LCR and Surrounds. I output the LFE/Mono Sub from the RMC to the Venue360 and split it to separate Subs for additional control. I am happy with the results regardless of my philosophy. Sanders Electrostats uses the Venue360 for it's controller.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Nov 14, 2023 11:27:49 GMT -5
I too am philosophically adverse to an additional A/D/A stage. However... ... I use Venue360's to split the 7 RMC base channels for bi-amp; LCR and Surrounds. I output the LFE/Mono Sub from the RMC to the Venue360 and split it to separate Subs for additional control. I am happy with the results regardless of my philosophy. Sanders Electrostats uses the Venue360 for it's controller. What I would do is send LCR to such a device, then use it to integrate the L/R 3.7s, CCR, DWMs and subs for all three so that in the XMC-2 they all look like they are Large. Then only send LFE to the subs and send Bass Management to the Large LCR ... a bit like what I do today with just the L/R, but with total control of crossovers and timing. Then let Dirac deal with them like they were three full range speakers. I think my goals are similar but implemented in a different way. LCR and Surrounds are all the same and full range with 15" woofers. System has controlled directivity from 740Hz on up. LCR and Surrounds work well without Subs. I normally run the system with LCR and Surrounds set full range. Distance and rough level are set in the RMC. PEQ, fine level, crossovers, and driver timing are set in the Venue 360. Subs are Center Mono from the RMC, and split in the Venue 360; I can do phase steering ala Trinnov with the Subs but haven't heard a need for it yet. BTW, I set the RMC Sub distance a little longer than physical placement. It improves the timing and quickens the sub-bass by putting the Sub closer in the mix. Height channels are crossed in the RMC at 80Hz. I do have a preset in the RMC that crosses the LCR at 60Hz, Heights at 80Hz, and Surrounds run full range. I rarely use it. There is a slight change between presets, but no real improvement when adding LCR to the G3P Bass management scheme. I don't like sending bass management from the surrounds to the Subs. I do have to account for the additional 2.7ms of latency in the Venue 360 used at 24bit/96K. I recalculate the RMC Distance in the Height channels to properly time align the heights. The height channels do not use the Venue 360. Dirac... Ahhh... Well... Dirac...
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,156
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 14, 2023 11:31:16 GMT -5
It would be really nice if there was an effective way to generalize about things like whether sample rate matters... but I've come to the conclusion that it simply cannot be done... There are simply FAR too many variables involved. In most cases we haven't actually heard "the original performance" so we really don't know "what it should sound like"... And, even if we were actually there, it would sound very different depending on where you sat in the venue, and things like how crowded it was the day the recording was made. And, with multitrack recordings, the different tracks may actually have been recorded in different studios, on different days, or even on different continents... And those tracks were also probably recorded on different microphones, digitized using DIFFERENT A/D converters, and perhaps even recorded at different sample rates, or even in different formats. Then they were mixed using all sorts of interesting software (and, these days, that mastering software has gotten very interesting). We also tend to take many things for granted... For example, when converting digital audio to a significantly HIGHER sample rate, it is quite possible to do so in a way that is "acoustically pretty darned transparent". (If you look at the output spectrum it is very clean... with virtually no aliasing... and no visible artifacts.) However, if you look at actual tests of software used to do sample-rate conversion, while half of it seems to perform near perfectly, the other half does not. In fact many popular commercial products seem to produce quite flawed results when doing a simple upsampling... And some of those not-so-perfect products are probably the ones that were used to master one or two of your favorite albums... Is this because whoever programmed them was not a very good programmer? Or is it because someone decided that "even though the numbers look bad it actually sounds nice"? Or is it just because nobody was paying much attention that day? (Your guess is as good as mine.) The upshot of all this variation is that, even if your system could be "perfect", the detailed provenance of most of the content you're going to be playing on it is somewhat of a mystery. Therefore the best you can really hope for is a good sampling of how well it works with the content you actually listen to. ...................................... My mileage doesn't change but yours in your room with your system may. Hence YOUR mileage may vary
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Nov 14, 2023 11:47:27 GMT -5
It would be really nice if there was an effective way to generalize about things like whether sample rate matters... but I've come to the conclusion that it simply cannot be done... There are simply FAR too many variables involved. In most cases we haven't actually heard "the original performance" so we really don't know "what it should sound like"... And, even if we were actually there, it would sound very different depending on where you sat in the venue, and things like how crowded it was the day the recording was made. And, with multitrack recordings, the different tracks may actually have been recorded in different studios, on different days, or even on different continents... And those tracks were also probably recorded on different microphones, digitized using DIFFERENT A/D converters, and perhaps even recorded at different sample rates, or even in different formats. Then they were mixed using all sorts of interesting software (and, these days, that mastering software has gotten very interesting). We also tend to take many things for granted... For example, when converting digital audio to a significantly HIGHER sample rate, it is quite possible to do so in a way that is "acoustically pretty darned transparent". (If you look at the output spectrum it is very clean... with virtually no aliasing... and no visible artifacts.) However, if you look at actual tests of software used to do sample-rate conversion, while half of it seems to perform near perfectly, the other half does not. In fact many popular commercial products seem to produce quite flawed results when doing a simple upsampling... And some of those not-so-perfect products are probably the ones that were used to master one or two of your favorite albums... Is this because whoever programmed them was not a very good programmer? Or is it because someone decided that "even though the numbers look bad it actually sounds nice"? Or is it just because nobody was paying much attention that day? (Your guess is as good as mine.) The upshot of all this variation is that, even if your system could be "perfect", the detailed provenance of most of the content you're going to be playing on it is somewhat of a mystery. Therefore the best you can really hope for is a good sampling of how well it works with the content you actually listen to. My mileage doesn't change but yours in your room with your system may. Hence YOUR mileage may vary The closest thing to end to end provenance I've seen is when Mark Waldrep took 20 recordings that he personally recorded and mixed at 96/24. His process did not include compression or significant processing as his goal was as pure a signal path from microphones to final delivered recording as he could get. He offered clips of each at original resolution as well as 44.1/16. He let hundreds of people download the files and report their impressions. In his AES paper on the survey he provided statistics that there was no significant correlation with sample rate and listener opinions. He also stated that he himself could not tell the difference. So then as you say, add in all the potential variables that are NOT included in Waldrep's test.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Nov 14, 2023 11:56:40 GMT -5
Sanders Electrostatics (now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time)... (I seem to recall a DIY Sanders Electrostatic amplifier project in Audio Amateur a long time ago.) And, yes, there are plenty of good reasons why, if you're going to do digital processing, it's clearly better NOT to convert back and forth. However there is one mitigating factor for subwoofers - that appears in several related ways. Simply put... the audio signal that you feed to subwoofers has relatively limited bandwidth requirements. This means that, at a given level of "performance", everything we're talking about is easier to do if you're only looking at frequencies under a few hundred Hz. It's easier to design a D/A or an A/D that delivers a given level of accuracy if you only need a bandwidth of 500 Hz or so. And, likewise, any conversion or analog circuitry will be less critical of noise entering the system, because the last stage can be a 500 Hz low-pass filter. ("Since the sub and its associated electronics won't play hiss you don't have to worry so much about avoiding it along the way.") And, also likewise, latency isn't as critical, because a few extra microseconds here or there won't cause much of a phase shift at the frequencies covered by a sub either. However there is another thing that I would point out - also "philosophically"... And that is that we need to be somewhat careful to "avoid getting carried away" when designing systems that include subwoofers... We must always remember that THE ROOM is going to be a limiting factor... And, at least for now, the subwoofer itself, and its cabinet and drivers, will probably be the single most significant limiting factor... Until we come up with some new and more effective technology the "final output device" is going to be a big heavy piece of cardboard being pushed around by an electric motor. And, even though we've been trying for a lot of years, and experimented with some other interesting options, that STILL seems to be the best and most practical solution we've come up with. I too am philosophically adverse to an additional A/D/A stage. However... ... I use Venue360's to split the 7 RMC base channels for bi-amp; LCR and Surrounds. I output the LFE/Mono Sub from the RMC to the Venue360 and split it to separate Subs for additional control. I am happy with the results regardless of my philosophy. Sanders Electrostats uses the Venue360 for it's controller. Did a few projects back in the day from Audio Amateur and Speaker Builder. Good Folks. Yea. Using additional A/D/A is philosophically adverse. Yea. Perhaps the 24bit/96K Venue360 Could have more problems above 500Hzβ¦ Perhaps. I can run my RMC-1L volume up to Spinal Tap +11, and what I hear from my high efficiency CD/Horn tweeters isβ¦ wait for itβ¦ NOTHING. Dead silence. No hiss. Same as with the Subs. Itβs a good testimony to the high S/N of the RMC and of the Venue360. Agreed? I account for latency in the whole chain, and a whole bunch of other things that Emotiva never addresses. Thatβs because I know what Iβm doing. I check myself all the time to βavoid getting carried awayβ. Thanks for your advice and concern.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,156
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 14, 2023 12:27:36 GMT -5
There is one problem that I always have... The guys who do these great quality minimally processed recordings never seem to have what I want to listen to... And the stuff I listen to rarely has any provenance at all. I really hate it when I find a really cool place to buy great recordings... and they don't have a single thing that I actually want to listen to. I also hate the fact that I have a few really great quality recordings, which I use to demo and audition equipment with, but whose actual musical content I don't especially enjoy. (You can only listen to that one really great recording of "The Flight of the Valkyrie" so many times... and I actually like that one. ) That's one huge benefit of listening to things like Jazz and Classical music... At least some of the time you have a choice between many different performances of the same piece... Or even multiple recordings of the same performance... However, with virtually all Rock, Pop, Metal, and other modern music... You're basically stuck with one version, produced by one studio, with almost no provenance at all... And, even if you had the exact provenance, it really doesn't matter... If you like that group, you don't have any other options, so "you're going to take whatever they give you anyway". (At least a few recent "hi-res remasters" of classic albums have been really excellent... but there are precious few really good ones.) In response to Mark's test results... I have absolutely heard a few CDs that sounded spectacularly good... (Enough to prove that the format itself is quite capable of doing so.) However, even in those situations, there is still some degree of justification for using hi-res recordings... That justification is "slack" or "room for sloppiness". To put it bluntly, when recording or mastering something in 16/44k, you have to exercise actual care... You have to actually keep track of things like overload levels, and noise floor, and not "editing things to death"... Using a higher sample rate, and more bit depth, grants "a lot more slack to cover for sloppiness"... This presumably "frees good artists to pay more attention to their art because they can pay less attention to fiddly details"... And it also helps to at least improve the odds that those with... less than stellar technical skills... can still deliver an... acceptable... product. (Sort of how having plenty of tarps helps even a sloppy painter avoid messing up the carpets too badly.) (Also sort of how, with the cameras in modern phones, at least a few more of the pictures actually end up more or less in focus. ) The closest thing to end to end provenance I've seen is when Mark Waldrep took 20 recordings that he personally recorded and mixed at 96/24. His process did not include compression or significant processing as his goal was as pure a signal path from microphones to final delivered recording as he could get. He offered clips of each at original resolution as well as 44.1/16. He let hundreds of people download the files and report their impressions. In his AES paper on the survey he provided statistics that there was no significant correlation with sample rate and listener opinions. He also stated that he himself could not tell the difference. So then as you say, add in all the potential variables that are NOT included in Waldrep's test.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Nov 14, 2023 12:38:23 GMT -5
There is one problem that I always have... The guys who do these great quality minimally processed recordings never seem to have what I want to listen to... And the stuff I listen to rarely has any provenance at all. I really hate it when I find a really cool place to buy great recordings... and they don't have a single thing that I actually want to listen to. I also hate the fact that I have a few really great quality recordings, which I use to demo and audition equipment with, but whose actual musical content I don't especially enjoy. (You can only listen to that one really great recording of "The Flight of the Valkyrie" so many times... and I actually like that one. ) That's one huge benefit of listening to things like Jazz and Classical music... At least some of the time you have a choice between many different performances of the same piece... Or even multiple recordings of the same performance... However, with virtually all Rock, Pop, Metal, and other modern music... You're basically stuck with one version, produced by one studio, with almost no provenance at all... And, even if you had the exact provenance, it really doesn't matter... If you like that group, you don't have any other options, so "you're going to take whatever they give you anyway". (At least a few recent "hi-res remasters" of classic albums have been really excellent... but there are precious few really good ones.) In response to Mark's test results... I have absolutely heard a few CDs that sounded spectacularly good... (Enough to prove that the format itself is quite capable of doing so.) However, even in those situations, there is still some degree of justification for using hi-res recordings... That justification is "slack" or "room for sloppiness". To put it bluntly, when recording or mastering something in 16/44k, you have to exercise actual care... You have to actually keep track of things like overload levels, and noise floor, and not "editing things to death"... Using a higher sample rate, and more bit depth, grants "a lot more slack to cover for sloppiness"... This presumably "frees good artists to pay more attention to their art because they can pay less attention to fiddly details"... And it also helps to at least improve the odds that those with... less than stellar technical skills... can still deliver an... acceptable... product. (Sort of how having plenty of tarps helps even a sloppy painter avoid messing up the carpets too badly.) (Also sort of how, with the cameras in modern phones, at least a few more of the pictures actually end up more or less in focus. ) The closest thing to end to end provenance I've seen is when Mark Waldrep took 20 recordings that he personally recorded and mixed at 96/24. His process did not include compression or significant processing as his goal was as pure a signal path from microphones to final delivered recording as he could get. He offered clips of each at original resolution as well as 44.1/16. He let hundreds of people download the files and report their impressions. In his AES paper on the survey he provided statistics that there was no significant correlation with sample rate and listener opinions. He also stated that he himself could not tell the difference. So then as you say, add in all the potential variables that are NOT included in Waldrep's test. Good Rant. There is some great music that well recorded. Of course a lot of it is classical or Jazz. A 'few' of the newer ATMOS titles are very good recordings and good music. When the music moves me, I just try to play dumb with the provenance of the recording. The bad recordings are usually not That bad, but I would like the industry to improve. Btw, it's the 'FLIGHT of the Bumble Bee', and 'RIDE of the Valkyries'... www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGU1P6lBW6Q
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Nov 14, 2023 12:41:25 GMT -5
There is one problem that I always have... The guys who do these great quality minimally processed recordings never seem to have what I want to listen to... And the stuff I listen to rarely has any provenance at all. I really hate it when I find a really cool place to buy great recordings... and they don't have a single thing that I actually want to listen to. I also hate the fact that I have a few really great quality recordings, which I use to demo and audition equipment with, but whose actual musical content I don't especially enjoy. (You can only listen to that one really great recording of "The Flight of the Valkyrie" so many times... and I actually like that one. ) That's one huge benefit of listening to things like Jazz and Classical music... At least some of the time you have a choice between many different performances of the same piece... Or even multiple recordings of the same performance... However, with virtually all Rock, Pop, Metal, and other modern music... You're basically stuck with one version, produced by one studio, with almost no provenance at all... And, even if you had the exact provenance, it really doesn't matter... If you like that group, you don't have any other options, so "you're going to take whatever they give you anyway". (At least a few recent "hi-res remasters" of classic albums have been really excellent... but there are precious few really good ones.) In response to Mark's test results... I have absolutely heard a few CDs that sounded spectacularly good... (Enough to prove that the format itself is quite capable of doing so.) However, even in those situations, there is still some degree of justification for using hi-res recordings... That justification is "slack" or "room for sloppiness". To put it bluntly, when recording or mastering something in 16/44k, you have to exercise actual care... You have to actually keep track of things like overload levels, and noise floor, and not "editing things to death"... Using a higher sample rate, and more bit depth, grants "a lot more slack to cover for sloppiness"... This presumably "frees good artists to pay more attention to their art because they can pay less attention to fiddly details"... And it also helps to at least improve the odds that those with... less than stellar technical skills... can still deliver an... acceptable... product. (Sort of how having plenty of tarps helps even a sloppy painter avoid messing up the carpets too badly.) (Also sort of how, with the cameras in modern phones, at least a few more of the pictures actually end up more or less in focus. ) The closest thing to end to end provenance I've seen is when Mark Waldrep took 20 recordings that he personally recorded and mixed at 96/24. His process did not include compression or significant processing as his goal was as pure a signal path from microphones to final delivered recording as he could get. He offered clips of each at original resolution as well as 44.1/16. He let hundreds of people download the files and report their impressions. In his AES paper on the survey he provided statistics that there was no significant correlation with sample rate and listener opinions. He also stated that he himself could not tell the difference. So then as you say, add in all the potential variables that are NOT included in Waldrep's test. Waldrep has made the case that it makes sense to record 96/24 for the headroom and to ensure nothing is lost if some plugins are used in mixing. For sure. I am fortunate that I like jazz and classical recordings so I have a lot of good stuff to choose from. But also now some variety of stuff is being made available as Dolby TrueHD Atmos in the form of MKV files.
|
|
|
Post by webmst007 on Nov 14, 2023 15:50:47 GMT -5
Well ! Didn't realise we were so closely aligned ! I use my Venue360 with large electrostatic panels and subs. So currently my large 3 way front panels ( stand at around 2m tall) are built with passive cross overs and driven by a single amp. So I'd like to upgrade to a tri amp setup with active cross over at some point. Currently, the 360 does my 4 subs ( in a Harmon style layout in a well treated room which obviously I'd love G4P to handle at some point but I manage presently using REW and MSO to add a bunch of filters to the Venue360 to manage currently. The minidsp kit ( either this new unit or a flex etc ) would make that a lot easier to manage. The Venue requires manual filter editing ( truely a pain ) whereas I could upload automatically on the minidsp. I concur with Paul - the Venu360 is silent - I've used that device in PA applications for a while and it stays well behaved even at performance levels. I'm assuming this new unit will potentially run Dirac ART and BLDC at some point. But as you pointed out Paul - it does potentially confuse the layout design for existing AV processor owners if you don't have a specific need for this device. There is an upgrade power supply mod for the Venue360 from Teddy Pardo and there is also an internal mod from DBX to the main board connections. They got the GUI right and it's proved quite a popular bit of kit - I think that's due in part to it's user friendly interface which is really quick and simple to use and implement designs for live work.
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Nov 22, 2023 8:43:27 GMT -5
|
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,384
|
Post by Lsc on Nov 23, 2023 12:13:54 GMT -5
Dang it! I just ran Dirac two days ago and my subs are finally integrated well enough to not use reference stereo for music. It finally sounds better on most material with Dirac! I found a new way to run Dirac btw. I use my noise cancelling headphones while running it. Much more tolerable.
|
|
|
Post by oldwood on Nov 24, 2023 9:10:03 GMT -5
Hi everyone,
I have been asked to help an in law with a XMC-2 to set up the processor and run Dirac to create some filters.
I run an Anthem with ARC room correction, so my understanding of the XMC-2 is not that good. Their needs are not very complex, but I have a few questions about the process. I would like to run 2 measurements, 1 with the curtains open for day time listening and 1 with curtains closed for nighttime listening. They have one wall that is all windows, and it is going to have a big effect if the curtains are closed or not.
They have 3 inputs they use, and I would like to set up each as a separate input with each filter giving me 6 total inputs on the remote.
On the Anthem I can set up virtual inputs and assign an HDMI source a filter and any other settings I need for the input. So it is not a problem to have 2 inputs with HDMI 1 as the source and different filters for the 2 inputs.
In reading the XMC-2 manual, it did not seem like it was possible to have 2 inputs with the same HDMI source and apply different settings to each input then save it as a separate source?
Is this possible on the XMC-2?
My other question is about DIRAC registration. The XMC-2 was purchased in 2021 so is not registered, so I filled out the form to register the MAC with DIRAC. Is there any way to verify the registration has been accepted other than setting up the LBB and starting the DIRAC software to see if it recognizes a registered product? It is a 300 km drive round trip and I do not want to drive in only to find there was a holdup in the registration, but it would be hard to explain over the phone the process of setting it up to verify the registration.
Any help would be appreciated, I have read through the forum and the manual and have watched some of the tutorial videos.
TIA
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,429
|
Post by geebo on Nov 24, 2023 9:59:05 GMT -5
Hi everyone, I have been asked to help an in law with a XMC-2 to set up the processor and run Dirac to create some filters. I run an Anthem with ARC room correction, so my understanding of the XMC-2 is not that good. Their needs are not very complex, but I have a few questions about the process. I would like to run 2 measurements, 1 with the curtains open for day time listening and 1 with curtains closed for nighttime listening. They have one wall that is all windows, and it is going to have a big effect if the curtains are closed or not. They have 3 inputs they use, and I would like to set up each as a separate input with each filter giving me 6 total inputs on the remote. On the Anthem I can set up virtual inputs and assign an HDMI source a filter and any other settings I need for the input. So it is not a problem to have 2 inputs with HDMI 1 as the source and different filters for the 2 inputs. In reading the XMC-2 manual, it did not seem like it was possible to have 2 inputs with the same HDMI source and apply different settings to each input then save it as a separate source? Is this possible on the XMC-2? My other question is about DIRAC registration. The XMC-2 was purchased in 2021 so is not registered, so I filled out the form to register the MAC with DIRAC. Is there any way to verify the registration has been accepted other than setting up the LBB and starting the DIRAC software to see if it recognizes a registered product? It is a 300 km drive round trip and I do not want to drive in only to find there was a holdup in the registration, but it would be hard to explain over the phone the process of setting it up to verify the registration. Any help would be appreciated, I have read through the forum and the manual and have watched some of the tutorial videos. TIA It is not possible to set up virtual inputs with the XMC-2 so your idea of making 2 inputs from one will not work. There are two completely separate speaker presets so if using a Harmony remote you could make multiple activities using the same input with one using preset 1 and the others using preset 2. Each preset has it's own speaker configuration and can have up to three Dirac filters as well as a User EQ selectable within the preset. Contact Emotiva about the registration.
|
|
|
Post by oldwood on Nov 24, 2023 10:12:54 GMT -5
"It is not possible to set up virtual inputs with the XMC-2 so your idea of making 2 inputs from one will not work."
I was afraid that was the case.
I am trying to make the process as simple as possible for them as they are not very technologically inclined, but I will need to go in another direction with it.
I will look into the remote, but fear even that may be confusing for them. There is only so much that can be done to make a fairly complicated processor easy for them to use, but I'll do what I can.
I did talk to Emotiva about the registration, and they said it usually happens in 24 hours. I thought there might be a process to submit the MAC to DIRAC to verify the registration, but I am getting the feeling that is not possible.
Thanks, Gerry
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,429
|
Post by geebo on Nov 24, 2023 12:28:26 GMT -5
"It is not possible to set up virtual inputs with the XMC-2 so your idea of making 2 inputs from one will not work." I was afraid that was the case.
I am trying to make the process as simple as possible for them as they are not very technologically inclined, but I will need to go in another direction with it. I will look into the remote, but fear even that may be confusing for them. There is only so much that can be done to make a fairly complicated processor easy for them to use, but I'll do what I can. I did talk to Emotiva about the registration, and they said it usually happens in 24 hours. I thought there might be a process to submit the MAC to DIRAC to verify the registration, but I am getting the feeling that is not possible. Thanks, Gerry
For any input you can set defaults one of which is what preset to use. Changing the preset is as simple as a button press. Each preset will have a filter assigned to it (1 of the 3 Dirac filters or User EQ) and it's a little more involved to change that. You can rename those presets to something like Movies and Music but you may find one preset will work fine for any given input for a variety of material and make changing those presets unnecessary for them.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,156
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 24, 2023 12:43:43 GMT -5
OK.... 1. Your information is correct... You cannot configure the XMC-2 so that the same PHYSICAL HDMI Input will appear as two VIRTUAL HDMI Inputs. (You cannot assign the same physical input to two different buttons.) 2. However there are several OTHER ways of doing what you want. For example, on your XMC-2, you have two "Speaker Presets", which are essentially "complete virtual setup sets". And EACH Speaker Preset can have up to three sets of Dirac Filters to choose from. So... You could configure both Speaker Presets with the same configuration (the speakers you have). You could then create one set of Dirac Live filters with your "daytime preferences" and set it as the default filter set for Speaker Preset 1 ... You could then create another set of Dirac Live filters with your "night-time preferences" and set it as the default filter set for Speaker Preset 2 ... You would then be able to choose between those two sets of Dirac Filters by simply changing the Speaker Preset. (You can select between the two Speaker Presets using a single button on the remote control.) So you could change between your "daytime settings" and "night-time settings" using the Speaker Preset button on the remote control. 3. The "MAC Address Registration" normally only takes a day or two. (But it is done manually so that can occasionally take longer.) HOWEVER it is REALLY SIMPLE to find out whether it has been done or not. PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY... If the MAC address has not been registered, AFTER you run the software, and AFTER it connects to the processor, you will see A POPUP IN THE PROGRAM saying "no registered device detected" or something similar to that. If you have any other issues, like the software not detecting the processor over your network, then it is FOR SOME OTHER REASON. (In which case you may need to contact us to help you figure out why.) Hi everyone, I have been asked to help an in law with a XMC-2 to set up the processor and run Dirac to create some filters. I run an Anthem with ARC room correction, so my understanding of the XMC-2 is not that good. Their needs are not very complex, but I have a few questions about the process. I would like to run 2 measurements, 1 with the curtains open for day time listening and 1 with curtains closed for nighttime listening. They have one wall that is all windows, and it is going to have a big effect if the curtains are closed or not. They have 3 inputs they use, and I would like to set up each as a separate input with each filter giving me 6 total inputs on the remote. On the Anthem I can set up virtual inputs and assign an HDMI source a filter and any other settings I need for the input. So it is not a problem to have 2 inputs with HDMI 1 as the source and different filters for the 2 inputs. In reading the XMC-2 manual, it did not seem like it was possible to have 2 inputs with the same HDMI source and apply different settings to each input then save it as a separate source? Is this possible on the XMC-2? My other question is about DIRAC registration. The XMC-2 was purchased in 2021 so is not registered, so I filled out the form to register the MAC with DIRAC. Is there any way to verify the registration has been accepted other than setting up the LBB and starting the DIRAC software to see if it recognizes a registered product? It is a 300 km drive round trip and I do not want to drive in only to find there was a holdup in the registration, but it would be hard to explain over the phone the process of setting it up to verify the registration. Any help would be appreciated, I have read through the forum and the manual and have watched some of the tutorial videos. TIA
|
|
|
Post by oldwood on Nov 24, 2023 14:21:59 GMT -5
"So you could change between your "daytime settings" and "night-time settings" using the Speaker Preset button on the remote control."
That is what I was looking for, they need something simple like push this button for daytime and this one for nighttime.
Thanks, Gerry
|
|