|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Oct 21, 2024 19:11:32 GMT -5
So with the delay again with the new upcoming gear does that mean no new software updates? I thought there was one that was coming out this past summer? Announced, that there might be another Software Update for the G3 - but I would not count on that. G4 is the the priority to be out by end of this year. It’s possible the new firmware (or an alternate compilation) could run on both the G3P and G4P, that would certainly make things easier for them going forward, but then it probably still wouldn’t be released until the G4Ps hit the street, so idle speculation at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by aswiss on Oct 22, 2024 5:56:22 GMT -5
Announced, that there might be another Software Update for the G3 - but I would not count on that. G4 is the the priority to be out by end of this year. It’s possible the new firmware (or an alternate compilation) could run on both the G3P and G4P, that would certainly make things easier for them going forward, but then it probably still wouldn’t be released until the G4Ps hit the street, so idle speculation at this point. From a Handling perspective, I agree with you.
But this will not work, due the large modifications done for the G4. Audio and Video Board are new. And its Web based, Dirac built in (without an external Device) etc. - I don't think this will work on both G models.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 22, 2024 9:23:34 GMT -5
While it might be de rigueur, the problem I have with the 15.1, 19.5, etc. nomenclature in this thread, is that it's too ambiguous. We've seen the rear panel of the RMC-1+, and have no reason to believe the XMC-2+ will be any different (except slots and thingies). This tells us that while 7.1.6 will work, that 7.3.6, or 7.2.6 won't (even though they're within the channel count), so people shouldn't get their hopes up that they might — if they also want to use DLBC. With the RMC-1+ (sans cards) or the XMC-2+ (no options), I had hoped for 7.2.6 or 9.2.4, out of the box*. We really are only getting hints what flexibility the Channel and Sub cards will have, and don't know when they're be available (though I'm confident my examples will be covered). I understand that 15.1 does not indicate my examples should work, but it also doesn't tell you that 7.3.4 will, and I'm somewhat ignoring the Dolby/DTS layout differences. Maybe I'm just pining for the 'early days of emersion' where we got to add a .x to our signature. —AudioHTIT : 7.2.4 ... aspiring to 9.3.6 * The G4P Dolby configurations I see out of the box (corrections welcome): 9.1.6, 9.1.4, 9.1.2, 9.2.4, 9.2.2, 9.3.4, 9.3.2 7.1.6, 7.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.2.4, 7.2.2, 7.3.4, 7.3.2 5.1.4, 5.1.2, 5.2.4, 5.2.2, 5.3.4, 5.3.2 (don't think 5.1.6 a thing) 3.1.4, 3.1.2, 3.2.4, 3.2.2, 3.3.4, 3.3.2 1 The sub counts greater than x.1.x are for DLBC (if and when available) 2 Do we know if the bi-amp option is there, or if the bug is fixed? The most fashionable and customary things in home audio is confusion. It’s part of making and spending money, establishing sects of gurus and followers, and of course a lot of chest thumping. Who’s the Pan! Edit - Sound stage Production sets a layout and monitoring standard, and Reproduction sets a different set of standards and a degree of agreed upon acceptable compromises. Both have been a moving target. What might be de rigueur today might not be de rigueur tomorrow. Terms change, the lexicon changes, the Canon changes; My recordings remain the same unless new mixes are created – There’s gold in them thar old hills… IMO, some work needs to done on fully and generally defining Channels, Objects, and Positions, so common communication can ensue, and de rigueur becomes less of a moving object – pun intended. Then, specific subset communications per a manufacturer’s device become clearer. Clarity is Not always a goal in the Industry. To add to your ‘out of the box’ G4 configuration list we also have 3-9.1-3.0: 3 to 9 odd numbered base channels; 1-3 Sub channels; and zero heights. I think we will have enough configuration options to cover 95% of the bases - out of the box. The addition of a Sub expansion module would cover 99% of the bases; for a possible 9.5.6. Per the Dolby layout diagrams, 5.1.6 is not a thing. "The sub counts greater than x.1.x are for DLBC (if and when available)", and for other forms of bass management. I currently manage 2 Subs with dbx AutoEQ. My Sub management is set up to manage 4 possible Subs with the Center Sub output on the RMC-1L; input to a dbx Venue 360. I could manage 6 Subs with the dbx Venue 360, using the one Center Sub output on the RMC-1L. Or, I could manage up to 12 Subs using the L&R Sub outputs on the RMC-1L and 2 dbx Venue 360's. A G4, with DLBC, and a Sub expansion module, would be simpler and probably better. DIRAC DLBC could make the corrections, and a 5 Sub limit is hardly a limitation. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Park on Oct 22, 2024 9:50:15 GMT -5
Simple question: new plus model will support Roon? My roon server is connected RMC-1L directly via HDMI, and I set it as Onkyo receiver and it worked with some twicks. Roon tested or Roon ready, all will be good - and if it supports network streaming, and can use as roon bridge or dac, that will be great… In one of the podcasts I remember Dan saying the outboard streamer was seeking Roon certification, but no idea if that would carry over to what might be part of the G4P. At least it tells you they consider it an important feature for a streamer. I see. Finger crossed and wait… major AV brands such as Marantz, Denon, Onkyo, Pioneer, Integra, Arcam, Storm Audio, Trinnov has Roon Certified or at least Roon tested devices… Emotiva has none. It is time to Emotiva moving forward, that I believe. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Park on Oct 22, 2024 10:08:53 GMT -5
Roon has no difficulty recognizing my XMC-2 as an XMC-2. I'm using a Mac mini connected via HDMI to the XMC-2. I have the same problem as Stephen Park. Roon does not recognize the RMC-1L and as such won't allow dsd to be sent over hdmi- either 'native' or 'DoP'. It offers DoP, but it doesn't work. I need to 'convert to pcm' in the Roon Nucleus. My Oppo 103 is recognized by Roon and allows dsd over hdmi. Does this mean that Emotiva has worked with Roon re the XMC-2 but not the RMC-1's ?? View Attachmentstephen Parks- Does the RMC-1 have the same chips (?) as the Onkyo?? Does that allow you to pass dsd over hdmi? ttocs said that his Roon recognize XMC-2 as XMC-2, but, in fact, Roon has no “Emotiva” brand and none of its models on their official device list. If it was there, I should use it instead of Onkyo. I set my RMC-1L as Onkyo because, it is connected my HP mini PC via HDMI, using WASAPI connection. Roon could not recognize RMC-1L and it just shows as WASAPI device, so I can set it whatever I want, Roon can show me the brand list, and I can choose “similar” device from it. There was no Emotiva brand on the list, so no XMC-2 I can choose. I Just select Onkyo TX-RZ70 and name it RMC-1L. See my attchment pictures, you can find how I made my device name on Roon. On the first picture, click pencil icon and write “RMC-1L”, and click device to move second picture, and click “Not your device?” then third picture shows up, choose similar device for it. As you can see, there is no Emotiva. On “E” brands, those 9 brands was all. And, yes, no DSD nor DoP works. Only “Convert to PCM” works. With Roon, you can use OPPO-203 as renderer, and it can use DSD BUT ONLY STEREO, NOT MULTI-CHANNEL DSD. I think Roon can’t send DSD nor DoP through HDMI. But through LAN is ok(Oppo is recognized by Roon via network). That is why I ask RMC-1+ for Roon support, because it might have streamer capable, so maybe it can connect Roon via network and Roon can recognize it as DSD and multi-channel capable device. Just hope. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Park on Oct 22, 2024 10:42:11 GMT -5
I don't see an option for me to 'identify this device'. It just doesn't show up. The attachment is on my last post, previous page. you need to open the device setup screen
In the next screen, click on the Link ttocs image shows “XMC-2 HDMI” is not from Roon database. You can see “Speaker” icon instead of actual device graphic icon. Apple device find the connected device name as XMC-2 and lable it on HDMI output device. That is showing on Roon. As I said on my last post, there is no Emotiva device on Roon database…. My desktop PC sometimes shows HDMI device as “Emotiva” but never “RMC-1L”…. And my HP mini PC never shows any brand nor device name but only “WASAPI”. Weird… |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 22, 2024 11:23:17 GMT -5
As the famous quote from long ago says: "The great thing about standards is that there are so many of them". (And, of course, it isn't going to hurt anyone's feelings if the speaker layout they recommend for their decoder, or the internal channel layout in their content, doesn't work especially well with their competitors' decoder.) I should also point out that, according to Dolby, there is no need for more than x.1.x - so one subwoofer or "subwoofer channel" - in a home system. Although, of course, they don't seem to care how many physical subs you have, or how you manage them after the fact. (They do use more LFE channels in their theater systems but all of the "official home layouts" are x.1.x ) I should also note that "the internal bi-amp option" on every AVR or pre-pro that I've ever seen is merely an internally configurable equivalent of a y-cable. It's just routing the same signal out of two more physical connectors; I don't know of any that give you actual high-pass and low-pass filters (maybe the Trinnov does but I've never looked.) Arguably having separate level trims for each output in the pair could conceivably be slightly useful if you were using mismatched speaker parts or amps... Except that, with "vertical bi-amping" or "horizontal bi-amping", you would normally be powering two halves of the same speaker, using identical amps, with identical gains, anyway. (But my point is that nobody is giving you real bi-amping anyway.) The most fashionable and customary things in home audio is confusion. It’s part of making and spending money, establishing sects of gurus and followers, and of course a lot of chest thumping. Who’s the Pan! The difference between Pro and consumer is - Pro sets a standard and consumer sets the degree of agreed upon acceptable compromises. Both have been a moving target. What might be de rigueur today might not be de rigueur tomorrow. Terms change, the lexicon changes, the Canon changes; My recordings remain the same unless new mixes are created – There’s gold in them thar old hills… IMO, some work needs to done on fully and generally defining Channels, Objects, and Positions, so common communication can ensue, and de rigueur becomes less of a moving object – pun intended. Then, specific subset communications per a manufacturer’s device become clearer. Clarity is Not always a goal in the Industry. To add to your ‘out of the box’ G4 configuration list we also have 3-9.1-3.0: 3 to 9 odd numbered base channels; 1-3 Sub channels; and zero heights. I think we will have enough configuration options to cover 95% of the bases - out of the box. The addition of a Sub expansion module would cover 99% of the bases; for a possible 9.5.6. Per the Dolby layout diagrams, 5.1.6 is not a thing. "The sub counts greater than x.1.x are for DLBC (if and when available)", and for other forms of bass management. I currently manage 2 Subs with dbx AutoEQ. My Sub management is set up to manage 4 possible Subs with the Center Sub output on the RMC-1L; input to a dbx Venue 360. I could manage 6 Subs with the dbx Venue 360, using the one Center Sub output on the RMC-1L. Or, I could manage up to 12 Subs using the L&R Sub outputs on the RMC-1L and 2 dbx Venue 360's. A G4, with DLBC, and a Sub expansion module, would be simpler and probably better. DIRAC DLBC could make the corrections, and a 5 Sub limit is hardly a limitation. Yes. The Sub nomenclature needs some definable common context because, as you state, according to Dolby, there is ONLY one home Subwoofer channel – x.1.x. The de rigueur speak for multi-subs can be confusing to some people. The new DTS .2 Sub nomenclature needs some definition - What is it? Emotiva used to separate L&R Sub information with their old Sub management scheme – did they not? The "the internal bi-amp option" on every AVR or pre-pro that I've ever seen is merely an internally configurable equivalent of a y-cable.” is bad implementation and confusing language. IMO it’s marketing baloney. Is it intentional? IIRC, a Trinnov will actually make ‘real’ bi-amp outputs for the user. And, their routing is a true matrix. Add some lines of code to your FW to make ‘bi-amp option’ functional and useful. IMO It would be more useful than a Wide channel. How hard would it be for Emotiva to make routing a true matrix for all but the core 5.1.2 or 7.1.2 channels; To make 6-8 of the 16 ‘out of box’ outputs truly configurable for common possible options? Let’s get the de rigueur du jour "vertical bi-amping" or "horizontal bi-amping", out of techno-speak, and call things as they are. Either you are truly bi-amping with a Hi and Lo pass electronic crossover, or you are using marketing baloney to sell wire and amps. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 22, 2024 12:49:29 GMT -5
I kind of sort of agree with you... but I'm afraid I don't see it as especially surprising... OF COURSE Dolby would prefer for your Dolby Atmos content to only play well on equipment that has the Dolby Atmos logo on it... That fact encourages you to buy equipment with that logo on it; and so encourages manufacturers to be willing to pay to license that logo. And, once you have equipment with that logo on it, you're going to prefer Dolby Atmos content... Which will, in turn, encourage content creators to encode their content using Dolby Atmos instead of one of the other options... They really gain very little by being interoperable with other standards. Back when DVDs were "the thing" most DVDs were encoded in DTS... with some supporting both... Dolby has now apparently pretty well taken over that market... So, yes, they're going to do their best to make sure that Dolby content plays best on equipment with a Dolby logo on it... And that equipment with a Dolby logo on it works best with Dolby content... (And, since MOST equipment DOES carry that logo... and so does most content... this works out pretty well for the consumer.) PROFESSIONAL equipment is different because more of the customers in that market already have more equipment... And pro customers tend to hang onto equipment and content longer... So they are more concerned with interoperability and compatibility between new gear they buy and stuff they already have... The actual new object-oriented formats are quite complex internally... And a lot of that complexity is quite proprietary... So it's not at all as simple as "converting those objects into different formats"... like you sometimes can with objects in your favorite CAD program. So it would require extensive changes from everyone to develop some new sort of "open and compatible object format"... And there is virtually no interest in making those changes... especially when one of the major selling points of each system is how well it handles their proprietary content... Dolby has little incentive to share their proprietary details so that a Dolby Atmos disc will play better on a DTS decoder... and vice versa. (Making sure that their content plays well on OTHER PEOPLE'S GEAR is obviously NOT very high on their priority list.) The most fashionable and customary things in home audio is confusion. It’s part of making and spending money, establishing sects of gurus and followers, and of course a lot of chest thumping. Who’s the Pan! The difference between Pro and consumer is - Pro sets a standard and consumer sets the degree of agreed upon acceptable compromises. Both have been a moving target. What might be de rigueur today might not be de rigueur tomorrow. Terms change, the lexicon changes, the Canon changes; My recordings remain the same unless new mixes are created – There’s gold in them thar old hills… IMO, some work needs to done on fully and generally defining Channels, Objects, and Positions, so common communication can ensue, and de rigueur becomes less of a moving object – pun intended. Then, specific subset communications per a manufacturer’s device become clearer. Clarity is Not always a goal in the Industry. To add to your ‘out of the box’ G4 configuration list we also have 3-9.1-3.0: 3 to 9 odd numbered base channels; 1-3 Sub channels; and zero heights. I think we will have enough configuration options to cover 95% of the bases - out of the box. The addition of a Sub expansion module would cover 99% of the bases; for a possible 9.5.6. Per the Dolby layout diagrams, 5.1.6 is not a thing. "The sub counts greater than x.1.x are for DLBC (if and when available)", and for other forms of bass management. I currently manage 2 Subs with dbx AutoEQ. My Sub management is set up to manage 4 possible Subs with the Center Sub output on the RMC-1L; input to a dbx Venue 360. I could manage 6 Subs with the dbx Venue 360, using the one Center Sub output on the RMC-1L. Or, I could manage up to 12 Subs using the L&R Sub outputs on the RMC-1L and 2 dbx Venue 360's. A G4, with DLBC, and a Sub expansion module, would be simpler and probably better. DIRAC DLBC could make the corrections, and a 5 Sub limit is hardly a limitation. Bottom line for me – It does not, and should not, matter to the consumer if Dolby, DTS, AURO, IMAX, etc., are different codecs. This is internal to the manufacturers, and as you state, ‘proprietary’. Cross-decoding has never made any sense to me. I don’t like the results of current upmixing. This stuff is not on my priority list. I don’t see or like reproduction as an effects generator. Others may think and use their systems differently. My comment about “The difference between Pro and consumer” has nothing to do with equipment. I see I wasn’t clear enough. I edited my original post for clarity. It’s about the difference between Pro production standards for speaker positioning and monitoring on a sound stage, and reproduction standards for speaker positioning and monitoring in a home space. The two standards do not match with Dolby ATMOS. The reproduction layout compromises that Dolby allows for best reproduction have little connection to the recording. But, the Dolby Atmos logo is on the processor and the recording, Soooo it must be OK Also, it does matter if a consumer has to use different speaker layouts/positions to playback different surround formats with best reproduction. This is an Industry flaw that is ReAlLy squirrely, even if most people won’t care or perceive a difference. We shouldn’t have to pick a compromise speaker layout to accept codec differences. Most people will not have multiple speaker layouts in their homes. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 22, 2024 13:19:17 GMT -5
Dolby Atmos is even more complicated than that... It looks like you're commenting on the difference between what a studio would have and a "home Atmos setup"... But you must also remember that both the hardware and the content encoding are very different between "theatrical Atmos" and "home Atmos" too... The two versions of the content are the equivalent of two different mixes prepared from the same master content... As I understand it, the encoder can prepare both from the same mix, or the "home version" of the mix can be customized to be somewhat different... And the theater hardware is also very different... with most theaters having either 32 or 64 channels... With all of those speakers designated as both individual object speakers and members of bed groups... (And, while in theory the same content can be made to work well with both, we all know that there are going to be "optimizations".) So, if a movie was mastered in Dolby Atmos for theatrical release, it would seem to make sense for the studio to use that layout... Then they can produce the home mix more or less automatically from the original mix... Or they can entirely remaster and remix it to be better optimized for the home arrangement... And, if the latter, then you have yet another decision... Does the mastering engineer master it to "take advantage" of "full featured" systems with 7.1.4 or 9.1.6 speakers... Or does he instead optimize it "to make sure that it sounds good on low end 5.1.2 systems"... His answer will probably depend on which he thinks most of his listeners actually have... or maybe what the guys who are paying him think about that... (Are they more interested in "impressing their high-end customers" or in "satisfying their low-end customers"?) The problem is that all of this leads to the existence of an awful lot of variables to consider... And, yeah, I've actually seen tablets, with two little 3/4" speakers inside them, and an Atmos logo on the top... And let's not forget that new Atmos headphone standard... (Can't miss out on any of that franchise business I guess...) Just remember that, from Dolby's point of view, the answer is quite simple... If you, and every other customer, demand their movies in Dolby Atmos, and refuse to buy content in other formats, then everyone will start using that format, and there won't be a problem...  ....................................... Bottom line for me – It does not, and should not, matter to the consumer if Dolby, DTS, AURO, IMAX, etc., are different codecs. This is internal to the manufacturers, and as you state, ‘proprietary’. Cross-decoding has never made any sense to me. I don’t like the results of current upmixing. This stuff is not on my priority list. I don’t see or like reproduction as an effects generator. Others may think and use their systems differently. My comment about “The difference between Pro and consumer” has nothing to do with equipment. I see I wasn’t clear enough. It’s about the difference between Pro production standards for speaker positioning and monitoring on a sound stage, and reproduction standards for speaker positioning and monitoring in a home space. The two standards do not match with Dolby ATMOS. The reproduction layout compromises that Dolby allows for best reproduction have little connection to the recording. But, the Dolby Atmos logo is on the processor and the recording, Soooo it must be OK Also, it does matter if a consumer has to use different speaker layouts/positions to playback different surround formats with best reproduction. This is an Industry flaw that is ReAlLy squirrely, even if most people won’t care or perceive a difference. We shouldn’t have to pick a compromise speaker layout to accept codec differences. Most people will not have multiple speaker layouts in their homes. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Oct 22, 2024 17:02:05 GMT -5
… "The sub counts greater than x.1.x are for DLBC (if and when available)", and for other forms of bass management. I currently manage 2 Subs with dbx AutoEQ. My Sub management is set up to manage 4 possible Subs with the Center Sub output on the RMC-1L; input to a dbx Venue 360. I could manage 6 Subs with the dbx Venue 360, using the one Center Sub output on the RMC-1L. Or, I could manage up to 12 Subs using the L&R Sub outputs on the RMC-1L and 2 dbx Venue 360's. A G4, with DLBC, and a Sub expansion module, would be simpler and probably better. DIRAC DLBC could make the corrections, and a 5 Sub limit is hardly a limitation. I specifically mentioned DLBC, because if the subs are plugged directly into the processor (any of the three onboard subwoofer ports, or presumably the sub expansion) then DLBC will correct them individually. So in my 7.3.4 entry for example, the base G4P can accept direct connections for all 14 speakers and subs, and therefore not only will Atmos work properly, but DLBC will correct them all properly (or as well as Dirac allows). So while other Bass Management can be used, the point was to allow the onboard technologies (Atmos/DLBC) to function without any additional cards or boxes (like miniDSP). This is also why I listed the multi sub configurations (like x.3.x), which normally are just for bragging rights. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Oct 22, 2024 17:29:45 GMT -5
… I should also note that " the internal bi-amp option" on every AVR or pre-pro that I've ever seen is merely an internally configurable equivalent of a y-cable. It's just routing the same signal out of two more physical connectors; I don't know of any that give you actual high-pass and low-pass filters (maybe the Trinnov does but I've never looked.) Arguably having separate level trims for each output in the pair could conceivably be slightly useful if you were using mismatched speaker parts or amps... Except that, with "vertical bi-amping" or "horizontal bi-amping", you would normally be powering two halves of the same speaker, using identical amps, with identical gains, anyway. (But my point is that nobody is giving you real bi-amping anyway.)… Although it would be cool to have an active crossover inside the processor available for bi-amp, let’s set that aside. The discussion is that the G3P (and presumably the G4P) in bi-amp mode, is NOT an internal Y cable. If it were, we would expect that the exact signal that is present at the Left / Right main outputs, would also be present at the Left / Right Wide outputs, when they are in bi-amp mode. But as ttocs articulated, that’s not the case, the ‘Wides’ channels always take a digital path. If you are using most of the modes that makes no difference, but if you’re using Reference Stereo, then the Wides signal (which might be driving the tweeters) is delayed, and it’s audible. I called this a bug because it’s not documented, but it could also be called a limitation. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 23, 2024 9:18:25 GMT -5
My point was that, if you actually want to bi-amp a pair of speakers, you can simply use two actual Y-cables to do so. What you seem to be talking about is driving a pair of front wides with the same signal as the front mains for stereo content... But being able to switch between doing that and using them with decoded content, as actual front wides, for surround sound content. (Which is something you cannot do with external Y-cables or with a "hard wired internal connection" unless the routing on that connection is switchable). From what I remember, on most units that offer that "bi-amp" option, that choice is somewhat permanent... You get to configure that extra pair of speakers as "surround speakers" OR as "a bi-amp output that duplicates the front outputs"... (But, if you configure those outputs to mirror the main outputs for stereo content, you cannot then use them as separate channels for surround content.) In any case, adding that option to our current processors would entail a change to the analog audio routing... Which would require a redesign of the analog board... I agree with your interpretation... We didn't mention this in the documentation because it isn't something that you would specifically expect to be able to do... But, yes, it is a "limitation" in the sense that it is not an option we offer. … I should also note that " the internal bi-amp option" on every AVR or pre-pro that I've ever seen is merely an internally configurable equivalent of a y-cable. It's just routing the same signal out of two more physical connectors; I don't know of any that give you actual high-pass and low-pass filters (maybe the Trinnov does but I've never looked.) Arguably having separate level trims for each output in the pair could conceivably be slightly useful if you were using mismatched speaker parts or amps... Except that, with "vertical bi-amping" or "horizontal bi-amping", you would normally be powering two halves of the same speaker, using identical amps, with identical gains, anyway. (But my point is that nobody is giving you real bi-amping anyway.)… Although it would be cool to have an active crossover inside the processor available for bi-amp, let’s set that aside. The discussion is that the G3P (and presumably the G4P) in bi-amp mode, is NOT an internal Y cable. If it were, we would expect that the exact signal that is present at the Left / Right main outputs, would also be present at the Left / Right Wide outputs, when they are in bi-amp mode. But as ttocs articulated, that’s not the case, the ‘Wides’ channels always take a digital path. If you are using most of the modes that makes no difference, but if you’re using Reference Stereo, then the Wides signal (which might be driving the tweeters) is delayed, and it’s audible. I called this a bug because it’s not documented, but it could also be called a limitation. |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 890
|
Post by richb on Oct 23, 2024 9:51:30 GMT -5
My point was that, if you actually want to bi-amp a pair of speakers, you can simply use two actual Y-cables to do so. What you seem to be talking about is driving a pair of front wides with the same signal as the front mains for stereo content... But being able to switch between doing that and using them with decoded content, as actual front wides, for surround sound content. (Which is something you cannot do with external Y-cables or with a "hard wired internal connection" unless the routing on that connection is switchable). From what I remember, on most units that offer that "bi-amp" option, that choice is somewhat permanent... You get to configure that extra pair of speakers as "surround speakers" OR as "a bi-amp output that duplicates the front outputs"... (But, if you configure those outputs to mirror the main outputs for stereo content, you cannot then use them as separate channels for surround content.) In any case, adding that option to our current processors would entail a change to the analog audio routing... Which would require a redesign of the analog board... I agree with your interpretation... We didn't mention this in the documentation because it isn't something that you would specifically expect to be able to do... But, yes, it is a "limitation" in the sense that it is not an option we offer. Although it would be cool to have an active crossover inside the processor available for bi-amp, let’s set that aside. The discussion is that the G3P (and presumably the G4P) in bi-amp mode, is NOT an internal Y cable. If it were, we would expect that the exact signal that is present at the Left / Right main outputs, would also be present at the Left / Right Wide outputs, when they are in bi-amp mode. But as ttocs articulated, that’s not the case, the ‘Wides’ channels always take a digital path. If you are using most of the modes that makes no difference, but if you’re using Reference Stereo, then the Wides signal (which might be driving the tweeters) is delayed, and it’s audible. I called this a bug because it’s not documented, but it could also be called a limitation. I have been using the Y connectors for years. On the Marantz 8801, the bi-amp is available in all modes. I tried to get a technical response but was never able to confirm the implementation. IMO, Marantz implementation of Pure Direct is vague. In this way, when you turn on Bi-Amp and pure direct, the DSPs remain active. So, ersatz pure direct. I prefer the EMO method. It should just be documented. - Rich |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 23, 2024 10:10:31 GMT -5
My point was that, if you actually want to bi-amp a pair of speakers, you can simply use two actual Y-cables to do so. What you seem to be talking about is driving a pair of front wides with the same signal as the front mains for stereo content...But being able to switch between doing that and using them with decoded content, as actual front wides, for surround sound content. (Which is something you cannot do with external Y-cables or with a "hard wired internal connection" unless the routing on that connection is switchable). From what I remember, on most units that offer that "bi-amp" option, that choice is somewhat permanent... You get to configure that extra pair of speakers as "surround speakers" OR as "a bi-amp output that duplicates the front outputs"... (But, if you configure those outputs to mirror the main outputs for stereo content, you cannot then use them as separate channels for surround content.) In any case, adding that option to our current processors would entail a change to the analog audio routing... Which would require a redesign of the analog board... I agree with your interpretation... We didn't mention this in the documentation because it isn't something that you would specifically expect to be able to do... But, yes, it is a "limitation" in the sense that it is not an option we offer.Although it would be cool to have an active crossover inside the processor available for bi-amp, let’s set that aside. The discussion is that the G3P (and presumably the G4P) in bi-amp mode, is NOT an internal Y cable. If it were, we would expect that the exact signal that is present at the Left / Right main outputs, would also be present at the Left / Right Wide outputs, when they are in bi-amp mode. But as ttocs articulated, that’s not the case, the ‘Wides’ channels always take a digital path. If you are using most of the modes that makes no difference, but if you’re using Reference Stereo, then the Wides signal (which might be driving the tweeters) is delayed, and it’s audible. I called this a bug because it’s not documented, but it could also be called a limitation. Couldn't a person temporarily drive a pair of front wides with the same signal as the front mains for stereo content... just by using 'All Stereo' and programming a preset with just the L&R and Wides as active/on? Some limitations are good - helps to not tweek ourselves into twouble... |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 24, 2024 9:53:37 GMT -5
Any new information about G4 expansion modules would be appreciated. My interest is in a Sub expansion module. Is it ok to say this at the G4 thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Oct 25, 2024 14:38:51 GMT -5
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 25, 2024 14:52:30 GMT -5
The short answer is that you CAN do what you suggested... The only real limitation is that there is no PURELY ANALOG path between the Front Mains and the Front Wides... This means that there's no way to use the Bi-Amp option in Reference Stereo or with DSD content... And, of course, using a Y-cable will give you that pure analog path... But you won't be able to switch it on and off at will... .................................... Couldn't a person temporarily drive a pair of front wides with the same signal as the front mains for stereo content... just by using 'All Stereo' and programming a preset with just the L&R and Wides as active/on? Some limitations are good - helps to not tweek ourselves into twouble... |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Oct 25, 2024 14:54:40 GMT -5
Any new information about G4 expansion modules would be appreciated. My interest is in a Sub expansion module. Is it ok to say this at the G4 thread?As the OP (and interested party) I believe expansion board discussion belongs here as well, as they can't be used anywhere besides a G4P (though we know the Phono, and Balanced In boards also work in the G3P). I would further include details about the Sub and Channel boards dealing with their configuration possibilities, or other details about their use. I would agree with the other comments, that when the discussion gets to more generalized Atmos / DTS topics, and details that might apply to all processors, that it probably belongs in a dedicated thread. I think the mods seem to have a good take on where that line is, but certainly there will be specific topics where we want to know if a 'general' Atmos configuration, is 'specifically' supported by an expansion board and there may be some cross discussion. Just my take. Edit: Looks like said mods have found the line! |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 25, 2024 15:52:32 GMT -5
Any new information about G4 expansion modules would be appreciated. My interest is in a Sub expansion module. Is it ok to say this at the G4 thread?As the OP (and interested party) I believe expansion board discussion belongs here as well, as they can't be used anywhere besides a G4P (though we know the Phono, and Balanced In boards also work in the G3P). I would further include details about the Sub and Channel boards dealing with their configuration possibilities, or other details about their use. I would agree with the other comments, that when the discussion gets to more generalized Atmos / DTS topics, and details that might apply to all processors, that it probably belongs in a dedicated thread. I think the mods seem to have a good take on where that line is, but certainly there will be specific topics where we want to know if a 'general' Atmos configuration, is 'specifically' supported by an expansion board and there may be some cross discussion. Just my take. Edit: Looks like said mods have found the line! Excellent! Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 25, 2024 15:56:07 GMT -5
The short answer is that you CAN do what you suggested... The only real limitation is that there is no PURELY ANALOG path between the Front Mains and the Front Wides... This means that there's no way to use the Bi-Amp option in Reference Stereo or with DSD content... And, of course, using a Y-cable will give you that pure analog path... But you won't be able to switch it on and off at will... Couldn't a person temporarily drive a pair of front wides with the same signal as the front mains for stereo content... just by using 'All Stereo' and programming a preset with just the L&R and Wides as active/on? Some limitations are good - helps to not tweek ourselves into twouble... Got it. I bi-amp with an outboard crossover. I can switch each section on or off at the outputs of the crossover. |
|
