|
|
Post by hsamwel on Dec 11, 2021 12:46:34 GMT -5
Ttocs, You have been speaking to people at Emotiva correct? I was going to call tech support just so they don’t forget about this issue, but I would think that would be pointless if you have already been doing that. Yes, I've spoken directly to Emotiva about this bug specifically, as recently as within the last couple weeks. It's very important to me - and all of us - that this gets fixed asap and I've explicitly expressed this to them very recently. Even so, I don't have a clue about the timing of when a cure might be in a firmware release. I can only speculate, like I've done recently. But my hopes were buoyed in a major way when Keith said what he said on December 2nd HERE , third post down from the top. With that said, more voices = better. Actually, I think they haven’t fixed the issue fully and know it. That’s the delay IMO. I’m actually a little concerned regarding the competence with their coders. Or the whole code is a complete mess. Making it really hard to change/fix. The latter would explain a lot! |
|
|
|
Post by ElectricKoolAid on Dec 13, 2021 9:51:26 GMT -5
Yes, I've spoken directly to Emotiva about this bug specifically, as recently as within the last couple weeks. It's very important to me - and all of us - that this gets fixed asap and I've explicitly expressed this to them very recently. Even so, I don't have a clue about the timing of when a cure might be in a firmware release. I can only speculate, like I've done recently. But my hopes were buoyed in a major way when Keith said what he said on December 2nd HERE , third post down from the top. With that said, more voices = better. Actually, I think they haven’t fixed the issue fully and know it. That’s the delay IMO. I’m actually a little concerned regarding the competence with their coders. Or the whole code is a complete mess. Making it really hard to change/fix. The latter would explain a lot! This is my concern as well. I guess time will tell but things aren't looking good... |
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs 
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 5,033
|
Post by cawgijoe on Dec 13, 2021 10:29:34 GMT -5
Actually, I think they haven’t fixed the issue fully and know it. That’s the delay IMO. I’m actually a little concerned regarding the competence with their coders. Or the whole code is a complete mess. Making it really hard to change/fix. The latter would explain a lot! This is my concern as well. I guess time will tell but things aren't looking good... All I know is that they are working the issue. I also know that results usually don't come quickly. So I've learned to be patient. All the rest is speculation. |
|
|
|
Post by ElectricKoolAid on Dec 13, 2021 11:56:26 GMT -5
This is my concern as well. I guess time will tell but things aren't looking good... All I know is that they are working the issue. I also know that results usually don't come quickly. So I've learned to be patient. All the rest is speculation. It is certainly speculation, no arguments there. My main issue is that an issue like this should be very high priority. I think a point fix would be called for. I typed up a big response about this and then deleted it all regarding this issue, but I'll leave it alone for now. |
|
|
|
Post by msimanyi on Dec 13, 2021 12:47:04 GMT -5
It's just as easy to assume that it *IS* a very high priority for them, and that it's a very complex process.
I'd prefer that they release it when they're satisfied it's "right", and until then I'll be patient.
|
|
|
|
Post by ElectricKoolAid on Dec 13, 2021 12:59:36 GMT -5
It's just as easy to assume that it *IS* a very high priority for them, and that it's a very complex process. I'd prefer that they release it when they're satisfied it's "right", and until then I'll be patient. I'm sure it is complex...going back to my comment I think though an issue like this would be prime candidate for a point fix release seeing that this issue was noticed by many of us as soon as we updated our processors when the issue was introduced. I'm honestly not sure how it was noticed during QA testing...looking past that - if a single, IMO very high priority, fix takes 5 months that's a sign not enough resources are being devoted to getting it resolved. Please keep in mind I'm not trying to be overly critical, I want this processor to succeed and be the best it can be....I do enjoy my XMC-2 for what it is, but this specific issue should have been priority #1 when it was identified and not bundled in with a major firmware update 5-6 months down the line. Just my opinion, I'm not the CEO, just a suggestion really. EDIT: Looking back through this thread, I realized that this issue has been going on even longer than 5 months... ttocs and others have been making this issue known for a long time...that only furthers the point myself and others are making - the fact that this isn't priority #1 as far as updates go for these processors is crazy to me... |
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Dec 14, 2021 1:40:00 GMT -5
It's just as easy to assume that it *IS* a very high priority for them, and that it's a very complex process. I'd prefer that they release it when they're satisfied it's "right", and until then I'll be patient. I'm sure it is complex...going back to my comment I think though an issue like this would be prime candidate for a point fix release seeing that this issue was noticed by many of us as soon as we updated our processors when the issue was introduced. I'm honestly not sure how it was noticed during QA testing...looking past that - if a single, IMO very high priority, fix takes 5 months that's a sign not enough resources are being devoted to getting it resolved. Please keep in mind I'm not trying to be overly critical, I want this processor to succeed and be the best it can be....I do enjoy my XMC-2 for what it is, but this specific issue should have been priority #1 when it was identified and not bundled in with a major firmware update 5-6 months down the line. Just my opinion, I'm not the CEO, just a suggestion really. EDIT: Looking back through this thread, I realized that this issue has been going on even longer than 5 months... ttocs and others have been making this issue known for a long time...that only furthers the point myself and others are making - the fact that this isn't priority #1 as far as updates go for these processors is crazy to me... Exactly my point as well. I think this issue have been with us for more than a year. That it has changed over firmware versions is also very worrying.. This would imply they have done something but failed. But if they are devoting all they can to this issue and still haven’t got it fixed yet it IS concerning. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Dec 14, 2021 2:36:51 GMT -5
I'm sure it is complex...going back to my comment I think though an issue like this would be prime candidate for a point fix release seeing that this issue was noticed by many of us as soon as we updated our processors when the issue was introduced. I'm honestly not sure how it was noticed during QA testing...looking past that - if a single, IMO very high priority, fix takes 5 months that's a sign not enough resources are being devoted to getting it resolved. Please keep in mind I'm not trying to be overly critical, I want this processor to succeed and be the best it can be....I do enjoy my XMC-2 for what it is, but this specific issue should have been priority #1 when it was identified and not bundled in with a major firmware update 5-6 months down the line. Just my opinion, I'm not the CEO, just a suggestion really. EDIT: Looking back through this thread, I realized that this issue has been going on even longer than 5 months... ttocs and others have been making this issue known for a long time...that only furthers the point myself and others are making - the fact that this isn't priority #1 as far as updates go for these processors is crazy to me... Exactly my point as well. I think this issue have been with us for more than a year. That it has changed over firmware versions is also very worrying.. This would imply they have done something but failed. But if they are devoting all they can to this issue and still haven’t got it fixed yet it IS concerning. The issue of +3db small speaker bass for more than one sub or more than one large speaker playing bass management started with 2.0 or 2.1 late summer 2020. With 2.2 and continuing with 2.3 there was an additional several db bass boost. |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator 
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,162
|
Post by ttocs on Dec 14, 2021 8:55:06 GMT -5
Exactly my point as well. I think this issue have been with us for more than a year. That it has changed over firmware versions is also very worrying.. This would imply they have done something but failed. But if they are devoting all they can to this issue and still haven’t got it fixed yet it IS concerning. The issue of +3db small speaker bass for more than one sub or more than one large speaker playing bass management started with 2.0 or 2.1 late summer 2020. With 2.2 and continuing with 2.3 there was an additional several db bass boost. This is a good point. I don't recall if I ever tested prior to FW2.0. Maybe I'll load up 1.10 again and check. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Dec 14, 2021 9:25:09 GMT -5
The issue of +3db small speaker bass for more than one sub or more than one large speaker playing bass management started with 2.0 or 2.1 late summer 2020. With 2.2 and continuing with 2.3 there was an additional several db bass boost. This is a good point. I don't recall if I ever tested prior to FW2.0. Maybe I'll load up 1.10 again and check. Looks like it was definitely there in 2.0 with Dirac with Large Fronts. This plot is from August 2020 with the dotted line showing bass management only going to Large Fronts. Large Fronts also feed the sub through a splitter. LFE goes only to center sub output.  |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,162
|
Post by ttocs on Dec 14, 2021 10:02:20 GMT -5
Testing FW1.10 (or possibly earlier) vs FW2.3 will only show a possible difference with User EQ, not Dirac, because of course Dirac started with 2.0. This would only be for discovering a Last Known Good BM. Might as well have some fun testing stuff while keeping this BMbug in view of everyone until it's fixed.
If I recall, BM when using a Dirac EQ varied a bit from firmware version to firmware version, but that part isn't of interest to me - just that BM gets fixed whether or not Dirac is involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Dec 14, 2021 10:13:00 GMT -5
Testing FW1.10 (or possibly earlier) vs FW2.3 will only show a possible difference with User EQ, not Dirac, because of course Dirac started with 2.0. This would only be for discovering a Last Known Good BM. Might as well have some fun testing stuff while keeping this BMbug in view of everyone until it's fixed. If I recall, BM when using a Dirac EQ varied a bit from firmware version to firmware version, but that part isn't of interest to me - just that BM gets fixed whether or not Dirac is involved. There was a different BM bug before Dirac, so it applied only to User PEQ at the time. Starting with FW 1.10 - the first release where all PEQ worked properly including for subwoofers - there was an issue if no subs were configured and fronts=large, or if center sub=LFE and fronts=large. In either of these cases bass management from small speakers was being sent to the large fronts after PEQ was applied to the large fronts. Thus BM from small speakers was not subject to the large fronts PEQ. |
|
|
|
Post by markc on Dec 21, 2021 11:05:21 GMT -5
It's been a further 7 days, so I feel duty bound to bump this for no other reason than I am annoyed that I have to.
|
|
sealman
Minor Hero
You shouldn't have decorated your saloon with my friend!
Posts: 78 
|
Post by sealman on Dec 22, 2021 15:15:35 GMT -5
Wondering if the new units shipping with 2.4 have the bass bug?
|
|
|
|
Post by msimanyi on Dec 22, 2021 15:37:49 GMT -5
I have one of those units and last weekend I re-ran my Dirac calibration process. I have three subwoofers connected to each of the RMC-1 outputs, set to Mono for each channel. I'm running all speakers as Small to minimize the bass boost.
I did not run REW against it after the calibration, as I didn't have a long enough HDMI cable to make the connection. (The electronics are in a closet behind the television.) That cable has been delivered, so I'll be able to get more meaningful data together shortly.
But... the bass was elevated to the point where I turned down the levels for the subs through the preset menu, plus I manually turned down the subs via their own controls. The result sounds fantastic to both me and my brother who is temporarily WFH at my house during the pandemic. And I mean really, really fantastic. I'm beyond thrilled with the current results.
So just my opinion, but I'd guess 2.4 solely addresses a hardware change in the unit, not anything related to Dirac or bass management. Edit: And that's consistent with posts from Keith that I've read on these forums.
|
|
|
|
Post by ElectricKoolAid on Dec 23, 2021 15:04:46 GMT -5
Someone on another forum messaged me and asked about my experience with the XMC-2 and if it was worth upgrading from the XMC-1. I told him that I have a hard time recommending it in it's current state. What works for these is great, but the issues can be extremely frustrating. I know that there's not really any perfect 16+ channel processor on the market, save for maybe something like a Storm or Trinnov, but even still, I'd be much more eager to recommend an Emotiva G3 processor once this and a few other issues are fixed, and then even more so if DLBC was also added. Until then, if I'm being honest I'd steer clear.
Anyways, (early) Merry Christmas to everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by muslhead on Dec 28, 2021 8:32:11 GMT -5
Someone on another forum messaged me and asked about my experience with the XMC-2 and if it was worth upgrading from the XMC-1. I told him that I have a hard time recommending it in it's current state. What works for these is great, but the issues can be extremely frustrating. I know that there's not really any perfect 16+ channel processor on the market, save for maybe something like a Storm or Trinnov, but even still, I'd be much more eager to recommend an Emotiva G3 processor once this and a few other issues are fixed, and then even more so if DLBC was also added. Until then, if I'm being honest I'd steer clear. Anyways, (early) Merry Christmas to everyone. It's best to always be honest. Try to never be responsible for other people's misery. Emotiva is a rat hole that one should not wish upon anyone. |
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 5,033
|
Post by cawgijoe on Dec 28, 2021 9:20:02 GMT -5
Someone on another forum messaged me and asked about my experience with the XMC-2 and if it was worth upgrading from the XMC-1. I told him that I have a hard time recommending it in it's current state. What works for these is great, but the issues can be extremely frustrating. I know that there's not really any perfect 16+ channel processor on the market, save for maybe something like a Storm or Trinnov, but even still, I'd be much more eager to recommend an Emotiva G3 processor once this and a few other issues are fixed, and then even more so if DLBC was also added. Until then, if I'm being honest I'd steer clear. Anyways, (early) Merry Christmas to everyone. It's best to always be honest. Try to never be responsible for other people's misery. Emotiva is a rat hole that one should not wish upon anyone. Wow! A rat hole…..really!! Some here are actually happy with the upgrade. Again….wow. |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,162
|
Post by ttocs on Dec 28, 2021 10:17:36 GMT -5
This thread is for the Elevated Bass Management bug, not for debate of other topics.
It's tough enough to keep Emotiva on track, so please keep this for this particular bug, which is highest on my list of things to fix.
|
|
|
|
Post by donh50 on Dec 28, 2021 16:15:20 GMT -5
Things like this made me scrap the plan to trade in my XMC-1 for an XMC-2 (plus I have a different processor now). But, and apologies since I read the first few pages but not the entire thread, I am wondering about a solution I used years ago for a different processor that had a crossover issue with BM. (Nothing like this -- the LFE crossover and BM crossover were coupled and fixed for all channels, making it difficult to blend multiple speakers with different capabilities. LFE above the crossover setting was not sent to any other channels, unlike the Dolby block diagrams of the day, potentially leading to a "hole" in LFE between the crossover setting and the LFE upper limit of ~160 Hz.)
The solution I used was to use an external analog crossover after the processor. This could be a purely analog unit (I used a dbx223 for a while) or a hybrid DSP-based unit like a miniDSP with analog I/O. The high/low crossover outputs went to the main power amps and subs. To the AVP, the speakers were "large", and the crossover split the low frequencies from mains (e.g. L/R speakers) to the subs. I placed the subs appropriately for the room, not necessarily next to the mains. The AVP's room correction program then handled phasing/timing of the signal so the result was coherent.
I think this would provide a workaround, but with several caveats, mainly that it is complicated. Obviously the crossovers add money (and size, weight, power) to the system cost. And you would have to use room correction (Dirac Live in this case) all the time or the subs and mains would not be integrated (it depends upon the room correction program to align the subs to the other speakers over frequency). While my original system used one stereo crossover, handling just the front pair, I believe this bug means you would have to use a crossover for every channel, and essentially "throw away" the LF content for the speakers not paired with a sub. E.g., two subs would allow you to send L/R signal to them, but you'd have to roll off the LF sound to the other speakers (which are also set to "large" to avoid the BM boost bug).
Edit: Reading back over this mess, it would probably work, but is way too complicated for most of us (me too). Better Emotiva just fixes the bug. Chances are a lot of users are happy with the extra bass, at least until something bad happens due to a net 10+ dB boost from the bug + target curve. Note 10 dB boost is asking for 10 times the power from the sub; if you have a 6 dB boost in your target curve and another 8 dB from the bug, then 14 dB boost is 25 times the power!
|
|
