|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 11, 2024 10:46:42 GMT -5
The wear and tear on a vehicle is way different than electronics. It's the delta change of the tech inside that should be looked at. Without looking into the things that may happen in the future right now you can get the updated codecs and dlbc(hopefully) for 500 assuming you realize the RMC-1 modules were useless so go with the XMC-2+. If you found value in the modules those upgrades cost 1500. Let's not forget the first gen was marketed as modular parts which I think would make people think upgrading subwoofer modules was an option and dlbc would become available for all investors in the rig. When and if it sounds better we can add that value to the delta. What about the five years of use you got from the old item. Worth nothing? And then you have to account for the current market value of the used item. It's not $5k. $3.5k is pretty generous at 70% of the original $5k full price which most people did not pay. It's still worth something is my point. It still has plenty of tech to warrant its trade in value. It's not like the seats are worn out and the engine life has been cut in 1/2. I think your mistaking my assertion that the actual value added so far is what the modular mentality of the first model was supposed to have carried over. Most of the perks of the new gen is dlbc and codecs to me. That's firmware not hardware in my eyes. I get the future 8k ability and switching and speed is a added value to some but my utility would have been filled through firmware until the expansions come. |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 3,435
|
Post by Lsc on Oct 11, 2024 10:48:28 GMT -5
No pricing had been finalized until this week. How the trade-in process works hadn't been finalized until this week. All the banter about one thing or another might be fun to examine for some, and might be an interesting exercise in logic, but that's all. The pricing for trading in and purchasing a +Series processor is now a reality. And when I consider the fact that the RMC-1+ will handle more subwoofers than any other Dirac enabled processor other than Storm for 4 times the price, I find it to be an INCREDIBLE DEAL! I mean, who does this? We'll send you the new processor, and then you send us your old one after you receive the new one, really? This gives us the chance to compare old to new, and if we don't like the new, send it back. Well I liked the old deal better. It’s what I budgeted for based on what Emotiva previously told us. And I agree with you…the folks at Emotiva are amazing people. I can have very different opinions on how they can improve (it’s actually what I do for a living) but nonetheless, they are great people…Lonnie being my favorite. He is probably the worst project estimator because he is always over optimistic on delivery timeframes but he is honest, has a ton of knowledge and can explain things in plain English vs the technical's mumbo jumbo that only folks like PaulBe can understand 😬. I also understand that they would probably lose money on every unit that was sold on the $699 upgrade especially because the G3P on the secondary market doesn’t have the highest value and therefore they made a business decision. But not everyone can afford to be as affable. Still at the point of how much better the + models sound especially with owning the XMC2 (bought it on day 1) I have the most to shell out. |
|
|
|
Post by audiogeek on Oct 11, 2024 10:55:57 GMT -5
I think some of us with XMC-1s may just upgrade to a traded in XMC-2 if avail. I don’t need much except Atmos capability and the newer DIRAC in my next house…. I see that as a much less expensive solution for people that don’t need all the extra features or the nth degree of DAC improvement, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Oct 11, 2024 10:57:22 GMT -5
What about the five years of use you got from the old item. Worth nothing? And then you have to account for the current market value of the used item. It's not $5k. $3.5k is pretty generous at 70% of the original $5k full price which most people did not pay. It's still worth something is my point. It still has plenty of tech to warrant its trade in value. It's not like the seats are worn out and the engine life has been cut in 1/2. I think your mistaking my assertion that the actual value added so far is what the modular mentality of the first model was supposed to have carried over. Most of the perks of the new gen is dlbc and codecs to me. That's firmware not hardware in my eyes. I get the future 8k ability and switching and speed is a added value to some but my utility would have been filled through firmware until the expansions come. You'll just have to decide if the $1.5k trade in price is good for you. Are the tangibles worth it to you or not. For me, the $2k price to move from my RMC-1L to an RMC-1+ is easily worth it. I traded in an XMC-1 for my RMC so like most others I wasn't in the "paid full price" category and my upgrade price would have been $1,499 to a 1L if they had kept the model in the line up. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 11, 2024 11:08:25 GMT -5
I do want to step in and clarify something here... Sound itself is not a series of waves which arrive at our ears in specific shapes... All of the pictures you see that look like that are simply convenient ways to visualize how sound acts in certain situations... What we HEAR is a sequence of changes in pressure that are detected by our eardrums... What you see in those pictures is a graphical presentation of the way those changes in pressure arrive at our ears... and how they get there... At higher frequencies, where it still makes sense to think of sound as waves, a line source is generally used to even out energy distribution. For example, in live venues, overhead mounted line sources are used to help deliver similar sound levels to the front and back rows as to the center row. With a single driver the sound level falls off as the square of the distance; with a full line source it falls off linearly. Because of this a line source enables you to deliver similar levels, and a similar frequency response, over a wider range of distances. However, at the very low frequencies where subwoofers operate, it makes more sense to think of speakers as "adding sound pressure to the room". So, in that context, you are NOT "trying to make pretty waves"... What you're trying to do is to deliver a similar amount of PRESSURE everywhere in the room. The difference is sort of like the things you would thing about when you're pouring a new cement deck... One consideration is whether the surface is smooth and not bumpy or rippled... And an entirely separate consideration is whether the entire surface is level... Even though the same considerations of things like gravity and physics apply to both... you don't look at those two the same way. I realize I'm rambling a bit here... But what I'm getting at is that ideas like "creating individual waveforms that you would then let dlbc perfect" are very nice and poetic... But they aren't necessarily an accurate representation of what's going on... or of what you're actually trying to do... (To be quite blunt... while that sounds very cool... I'm not quite sure exactly what it means... or how I would know when I've achieved it.) The object is to get most of the sound, from all of the speakers, to arrive at your ears at the proper times... so you need to try to avoid being distracted by the poetry. Point taken. So if I read this right you would even place the mic at the mlp for the mindsp to group arrays and then the dlbc can handle those arrays with limited sub outputs from the RMC-1+? Or would you simply use a ton of y splitters.. We should both cut out the poetic and the unproductive. At the risk of speaking for KeithL KeithL : KeithL is not writing in poetic language. He is trying to productively explain a somewhat difficult concept in layman’s language. Key points in his post: 1. Sound itself is not a series of waves which arrive at our ears in specific shapes... 2. … you are NOT "trying to make pretty waves"... What you're trying to do is to deliver a similar amount of PRESSURE everywhere in the room. It’s not poetry. It’s psychoacoustics – physics; acoustics; perception; the ear/brain design and connection. I distill this into ‘We don’t listen in waveforms’. See writings and talks by Floyd Toole for a more complete discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 11, 2024 11:37:35 GMT -5
No pricing had been finalized until this week. How the trade-in process works hadn't been finalized until this week. All the banter about one thing or another might be fun to examine for some, and might be an interesting exercise in logic, but that's all. The pricing for trading in and purchasing a +Series processor is now a reality. And when I consider the fact that the RMC-1+ will handle more subwoofers than any other Dirac enabled processor other than Storm for 4 times the price, I find it to be an INCREDIBLE DEAL! I mean, who does this? We'll send you the new processor, and then you send us your old one after you receive the new one, really? This gives us the chance to compare old to new, and if we don't like the new, send it back. Well I liked the old deal better. It’s what I budgeted for based on what Emotiva previously told us. And I agree with you…the folks at Emotiva are amazing people. I can have very different opinions on how they can improve (it’s actually what I do for a living) but nonetheless, they are great people…Lonnie being my favorite. He is probably the worst project estimator because he is always over optimistic on delivery timeframes but he is honest, has a ton of knowledge and can explain things in plain English vs the technical's mumbo jumbo that only folks like PaulBe can understand 😬. I also understand that they would probably lose money on every unit that was sold on the $699 upgrade especially because the G3P on the secondary market doesn’t have the highest value and therefore they made a business decision. But not everyone can afford to be as affable. Still at the point of how much better the + models sound especially with owning the XMC2 (bought it on day 1) I have the most to shell out. I explain things very well. Here is some plain English advice for you - Put your $50K Gotham Subs inside of your L&R - Not on the outside. Sort of like how they are positioned at the Gotham site. Space them so the distance between them is 1/2 wavelength of 90 - 120 Hz. Adjust spacing till you hit the sweet spot. You may need to adjust distances from the front wall. Thank me later. No payment required. It's a similar arrangement to what the Pros use in an ATMOS soundstage. It's a similar arrangement to what ttocs uses - and he uses a stack for other benefits. ttocs Your Gotham's are also a small stack. Plain enough for you? |
|
|
|
Post by foggy1956 on Oct 11, 2024 11:39:03 GMT -5
I think some of us with XMC-1s may just upgrade to a traded in XMC-2 if avail. I don’t need much except Atmos capability and the newer DIRAC in my next house…. I see that as a much less expensive solution for people that don’t need all the extra features or the nth degree of DAC improvement, etc. Doubt it will happen but still hoping they'll offer DLBC on the current XMC-2, I don't believe they have officially said no? |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 11, 2024 11:46:45 GMT -5
It's still worth something is my point. It still has plenty of tech to warrant its trade in value. It's not like the seats are worn out and the engine life has been cut in 1/2. I think your mistaking my assertion that the actual value added so far is what the modular mentality of the first model was supposed to have carried over. Most of the perks of the new gen is dlbc and codecs to me. That's firmware not hardware in my eyes. I get the future 8k ability and switching and speed is a added value to some but my utility would have been filled through firmware until the expansions come. You'll just have to decide if the $1.5k trade in price is good for you. Are the tangibles worth it to you or not. For me, the $2k price to move from my RMC-1L to an RMC-1+ is easily worth it. I traded in an XMC-1 for my RMC so like most others I wasn't in the "paid full price" category and my upgrade price would have been $1,499 to a 1L if they had kept the model in the line up. If I could take their expansion statements as a product announcement and guarantee I would be all on board. I like LSC's idea to just have a separate higher channel count release model instead of making any of us question whether the RMC-1+ will be the one. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 11, 2024 11:47:35 GMT -5
Point taken. So if I read this right you would even place the mic at the mlp for the mindsp to group arrays and then the dlbc can handle those arrays with limited sub outputs from the RMC-1+? Or would you simply use a ton of y splitters.. We should both cut out the poetic and the unproductive. At the risk of speaking for KeithL KeithL : KeithL is not writing in poetic language. He is trying to productively explain a somewhat difficult concept in layman’s language. Key points in his post: 1. Sound itself is not a series of waves which arrive at our ears in specific shapes... 2. … you are NOT "trying to make pretty waves"... What you're trying to do is to deliver a similar amount of PRESSURE everywhere in the room. It’s not poetry. It’s psychoacoustics – physics; acoustics; perception; the ear/brain design and connection. I distill this into ‘We don’t listen in waveforms’. See writings and talks by Floyd Toole for a more complete discussion. Our discussion was in reference to the room with 20ish subs. How do they wire those? Do they throw out the minidsp or utilize it when limited to a theoretical 5 channels? Answer me that and I'll find more use in his response because he brushed past what I was asking and corrected a concept that doesn't answer it. I DO value his opinion and would be curious if the trinnov waveforming or the dirac art developers could make a more valuable case for the laymen like me to understand what they are trying to do. Level it or form it? Does a pressure level in one place interacting with another in another place in specific manner count for forming? Or is the mention of waveforming counterproductive because of the visuals it provides? I do think he'd but heads at Trinnov based on words not concepts. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Oct 11, 2024 11:54:51 GMT -5
Lots of interesting takes here on the G4P announcements, especially the expansion cards, and what’s most unclear to me is the configuration of the RMC-1+ slots, and whether (or when) two of them can be ‘outputs’ (eg. 1 subs, 1 channels). I can’t imagine how 28 channels were discussed at the release over five years ago, and this is actually a question.
The comments about only wanting to make cards that people will buy seems specious, they have always known the number one desire of RMC-1 owners (in terms of expansion) is channels and subs, it was a no-brainer to make these first. The reason the phono and balanced modules came first was because the circuits were already designed, and implementation was relatively easy; it also allowed them to test the user install experience, and show progress. The reason they’re now included with the RMC is that they didn’t sell well (stock), and as a bone for choosing the top dog with expandability (how long will that last?)
That’s all well and good, but it ignores the elephant in the room, namely Dolby. How it happened might be interesting to know (though irrelevant now), but I think they dug themselves in a hole when they followed Dolby’s cross mixing restrictions, that don’t allow DTS Neural X with Dolby material, and the DSU with DTS content (have we heard anything about that?). Without knowing the details, I just think that the coding involved in some way locked them down, and made it difficult to design, build and implement the channel and sub boards, without either a major software rewrite, new hardware, or both (which is what we now have). Also the moving target of channel configurations, Atmos enhancements, and DTS:X Pro, would require a high level of design and coding insight to accommodate without major changes (hopefully future evolution is now being considered).
So I would hope that the 4-channel sub and channel boards, and the slot configuration that is required to accommodate them, are truly on the same track for release as the main processor. I personally don’t need them any time soon (but should eventually), and I know they are the top concern of many here. The ‘user experience’: video switching, pops and clicks, consistent channel and sub levels, Atmos/DTS/ IMAX enhancements, are what I look forward to — and really — I need a speaker preset trigger!!!
As always, my comments are made with no special insight to the goings on at Emotiva, except what I read here and elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 11, 2024 11:59:09 GMT -5
At the risk of speaking for KeithL KeithL : KeithL is not writing in poetic language. He is trying to productively explain a somewhat difficult concept in layman’s language. Key points in his post: 1. Sound itself is not a series of waves which arrive at our ears in specific shapes... 2. … you are NOT "trying to make pretty waves"... What you're trying to do is to deliver a similar amount of PRESSURE everywhere in the room. It’s not poetry. It’s psychoacoustics – physics; acoustics; perception; the ear/brain design and connection. I distill this into ‘We don’t listen in waveforms’. See writings and talks by Floyd Toole for a more complete discussion. Our discussion was in reference to the room with 20ish subs. How do they wire those? Do they throw out the minidsp or utilize it when limited to a theoretical 5 channels? Answer me that and I'll find use in his response because he brushed past what I was asking and corrected a concept that doesn't answer it. I DO value his opinion and would be curious if the trinnov waveforming or the dirac art developers could make a more valuable case for the laymen like me to understand what they are trying to do. Level it or form it? Use 4 stacks of 5 high, or two stacks of 2Wx5H. Now you are back to something that is functional and manageable - with 2 or 4 Sub channels; and within the theoretical 5 channel limit. Use the fifth channel for ButtShakers. All good multi-Sub use both level and forming. 'Waveforming' - a Trinnov word - is a marketing term. Few of us get to fully understand every technical concept. Concepts come and go. You are arguing beyond your paygrade. |
|
|
|
Post by adam631 on Oct 11, 2024 12:05:23 GMT -5
Now that the podcast is out, I think that we can pretty much rely on the trade-in pricing being final. I'm really not happy about the price jumping from $699 to $1999 but I understand why it changed, and I'm still going to update my processor from XMC-2 to XMC-2+ because I feel like I'm still getting my moneys worth on the upgrade. Just waiting - really eagerly - how and when the trade-in process is implemented for European customers. Update: It looks like the "future of processors" page has also been finally updated. At least the old pricing is now removed  Can you please share the future processors link? I can't find it on their page. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 11, 2024 12:09:24 GMT -5
Our discussion was in reference to the room with 20ish subs. How do they wire those? Do they throw out the minidsp or utilize it when limited to a theoretical 5 channels? Answer me that and I'll find use in his response because he brushed past what I was asking and corrected a concept that doesn't answer it. I DO value his opinion and would be curious if the trinnov waveforming or the dirac art developers could make a more valuable case for the laymen like me to understand what they are trying to do. Level it or form it? Use 4 stacks of 5 high, or two stacks of 2Wx5H. Now you are back to something that is functional and manageable - with 2 or 4 Sub channels; and within the theoretical 5 channel limit. Use the fifth channel for ButtShakers. All good multi-Sub have both level and forming. 'Waveforming', per Trinnov, is a marketing term. Few of us get to fully understand every technical concept. Concepts come and go. You are arguing beyond your paygrade. The Jagman post was describing about 5 arrays in different locations spanning under seats behind seats and in front of the room. So you splitters can do it all for 5 arrays. What about me who has 4 corner arrays, a mbm center screen array, a nearfield seat array, and potentially a rear seat nearfield array? Do I program my left mbm with my left corners and right with right? To get those down to 4 and then program my nearfield mlp as one and if I get the nearfield in the rear program those with rear corners to bring them down to 2 arrays. Granted nearfield are usually calibrated for vibration not room spl.. I'm taking this away that how I outlined grouping these is the best way around a 5 subwoofer limit vs 8. This all goes to hell if there is a single sub limit due to no expansions That's where you're wrong I'm not arguing. Just looking for good teachers and leaders. It's the people who stifle discussion that make the worst leaders. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Oct 11, 2024 12:10:00 GMT -5
Point of this thread is G4 processors. Lots of other stuff to read through in the green room that quite a few of us aren't interested in. Copy and paste is easy enough. Anyway for those interested in what he posted here it is. Don't get the internet attitude of telling people to search or what ever when you can give a answer... ...Source for video was a Zidoo (8K Pro, I think) playing MKV files... For anyone that might be interested I was able to verify from vcautokid 's pics that it was a Zidoo Z3000 Pro used in the Dream Theater room. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 11, 2024 12:16:10 GMT -5
Use 4 stacks of 5 high, or two stacks of 2Wx5H. Now you are back to something that is functional and manageable - with 2 or 4 Sub channels; and within the theoretical 5 channel limit. Use the fifth channel for ButtShakers. All good multi-Sub have both level and forming. 'Waveforming', per Trinnov, is a marketing term. Few of us get to fully understand every technical concept. Concepts come and go. You are arguing beyond your paygrade. The Jagman post was describing about 5 arrays in different locations spanning under seats behind seats and in front of the room. So you splitters can do it all for 5 arrays. What about me who has 4 corner arrays, a mbm center screen array, a nearfield seat array, and potentially a rear seat nearfield array? Do I program my left mbm with my left corners and right with right? To get those down to 4 and then program my nearfield mlp as one and if I get the nearfield in the rear program those with rear corners to bring them down to 2 arrays. Granted nearfield are usually calibrated for vibration not room spl.. I'm taking this away that how I outlined grouping these is the best way around a 5 subwoofer limit vs 8. This all goes to hell if there is a single sub limit due to no expansions That's where you're wrong I'm not arguing. Just looking for good teachers and leaders. It's the people who stifle discussion that make the worst leaders. I gave you good advice. You'll have to manage your own subwoofer idiosyncrasies. I'm not your guru. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 11, 2024 12:20:33 GMT -5
The Jagman post was describing about 5 arrays in different locations spanning under seats behind seats and in front of the room. So you splitters can do it all for 5 arrays. What about me who has 4 corner arrays, a mbm center screen array, a nearfield seat array, and potentially a rear seat nearfield array? Do I program my left mbm with my left corners and right with right? To get those down to 4 and then program my nearfield mlp as one and if I get the nearfield in the rear program those with rear corners to bring them down to 2 arrays. Granted nearfield are usually calibrated for vibration not room spl.. I'm taking this away that how I outlined grouping these is the best way around a 5 subwoofer limit vs 8. This all goes to hell if there is a single sub limit due to no expansions That's where you're wrong I'm not arguing. Just looking for good teachers and leaders. It's the people who stifle discussion that make the worst leaders. I gave you good advice. You'll have to manage your own idiosyncrasies. Would you agree I'd be better off with 8 outputs of dlbc instead of 5 for my situation? And would you agree 1 output if I was limited to 9.1.6 without expansions might render the dlbc less than ideal? I get you think your helping the discussion efficiently but the discussion can't be simply be put to bed when we don't know if we are limited to 11.5.8 or 9.1.6. Would my 88 minidsp group those speakers well for me automatically because you know this is not my specialty. I farm. This is the reason I want more sub channels. More automation. And I do think Trinnov chose the term waveforming because they are forming and leveling a sound wave if that's what you say they are doing or is that breaking the paygrade jargon? |
|
|
|
Post by Hair Nick on Oct 11, 2024 12:21:03 GMT -5
Now that the podcast is out, I think that we can pretty much rely on the trade-in pricing being final. I'm really not happy about the price jumping from $699 to $1999 but I understand why it changed, and I'm still going to update my processor from XMC-2 to XMC-2+ because I feel like I'm still getting my moneys worth on the upgrade. Just waiting - really eagerly - how and when the trade-in process is implemented for European customers. Update: It looks like the "future of processors" page has also been finally updated. At least the old pricing is now removed Can you please share the future processors link? I can't find it on their page. This page will continue to update over the next couple of weeks with all the updated info. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 11, 2024 13:01:49 GMT -5
I can't give you a simple answer because it depends on several different things... Also, to be quite honest, I haven't actually worked with DLBC, and I suspect that the results you get from it will vary in different situations. (There are ALWAYS going to be compromises, and assumptions, and "secret sauce"... the Holy Grail has NOT finally been discovered... because it doesn't exist... sorry...) One big question is about your priorities... and whether you do most of your listening alone... The reason for that question is that there is no such thing as a solution that will produce optimum results at every spot in the room. So you are going to be choosing between getting the best possible result at your MLP or making a compromise to get decent results over more of the room. (And I'm pretty sure that something like DLBC will do a better job of figuring out that sort of compromise... because there are just so many variables involved.) It also depends on what subs you have... I'm personally a fan of "symmetrical non-symmetry"... I very much prefer left/right symmetry whenever possible... So, for example, if I had five identical subs, or two pairs and an odd one... I would locate two identical subs next to each of the front speakers... or maybe in the two front corners... And maybe another identical pair halfway down each of the side walls... And maybe an odd one in the center of the back wall... (I know we're not supposed to be able to localize subs... but I still prefer symmetry from left to right... to me it just sort of feels better.) Also, assuming that the room is symmetrical, I would assume the symmetrical pairs to act the same. (For example, if the two front subs are identical, and the same distance from the walls, and from the MLP, I would expect identical performance, and I see no reason not to treat them as a single sub, using a splitter...) (And, in that case, I think using three outputs, especially with DLBC, would be plenty good, for even five or six subs.) BUT, if you have all different subs, or have to arrange them asymmetrically, or your room is asymmetrical, or if you have a wide seating area... and you have more than three subs... THEN I think I would prefer to let the MiniDSP handle them all individually... then have the RMC-1+ handle them as a single "array". (With that sort of asymmetry you're going to want to individually adjust things like distance and level.) The bottom line here is that I think it should be fine to group similar subs, similarly placed, as "a single group using a splitter"... But, if you have different subs, or an asymmetrical room or placement requirements, or asymmetrical distances from the MLP, then they might benefit from "individual treatment". And, if you have more subs than sub outputs on the RMC-1+, then this could be an issue. (So you might gain by the miniDSP's ability to handle more than three individually and the additional manual array handling options it offers.) And, as for the microphone... If your priority is the best result at the MLP then put the mic AT the MLP. And, if they ask you to take multiple measurements, do so, but group that pattern close to the MLP. This will help minimize the effect of things like very small area cancellations and comb filter effects from reflections. But, if your priority IS to compromise, and get the best result over the widest area, then use the widest suggested pattern. I'd love to offer you a simple answer... But, to be quite blunt, I've NEVER encountered a system that I would ASSUME would always deliver the best possible solution... One more piece of advice I would offer would be to use your ears more and your meters less... It certainly doesn't hurt to start by aiming for good measurements... But you don't need to spend endless hours trying out every option and trying to get that last 0.1 dB of accuracy... Pretend like you're both the installer and the customer... And, when the customer thinks it sounds really good, stop and listen to some music... or watch some movies... It's way too easy to fall into the rabbit hole of never-ending adjustments and tweaks... (Just remember that the content itself varies... so you're never going to find a solution that works perfectly with all of it.) I do want to step in and clarify something here... ........................... Point taken. So if I read this right you would even place the mic at the mlp for the mindsp to group arrays and then the dlbc can handle those arrays with limited sub outputs from the RMC-1+? Or would you simply use a ton of y splitters.. We should both cut out the poetic and the unproductive. |
|
|
|
Post by aswiss on Oct 11, 2024 13:38:56 GMT -5
Change the Rules:
Emotiva is the Owner and can change their rules as they like. No one need to continue with the brand if the new rules are not aliked.
Upgrade does no longer exist, because it was never meant to an Upgrade. Something you can just add or change within your device. One of the reasons I went for Emotiva RMC-1 5ago.
The new model has so many changes, that its no longer possible to do - fine with me.
My concern is about trust.
Emotiva annaounced prices a long time ago, and now raised them (It was always written that prices may change).
Emotiva announced dates which have never been kept - it was with Firmware Updates, as it took 3+ yrs to get a more or less stable procuct (only for my experience).
I can understand the raise of the price - no other company offers a 70% value for an 5 year old product to buy a new one.
But it adds to the relative poor experience with waiting for promised things, like the Balanced OUT Expansion modules which never made to the market (afaik) or the long times for a good Firmware.
Now its again another 3 months waiting, and unsure how all that procedure works out for European customers, regarding price and timeline.
I keep my fingers crossed, that this time promises will be kept.
|
|
|
|
Post by acepaul on Oct 11, 2024 13:40:58 GMT -5
Anyone, please raise your hand if you’re going to install 8 subs. Hmm, that’s what I thought 😜 Russ Yes, I have 4 subs now and plan to go to 8 as I finish the HT room. Being able to manage all of them through DLBC would be great! I could then repurpose my miniDSP Flex to some other projects. |
|
