AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › The "Official" Emotiva Ultra-Lite Owners/Impressions Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The "Official" Emotiva Ultra-Lite Owners/Impressions Thread - Page 10  

post #271 of 481
6/28/06 at 11:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nhan
But doing it this way, I'm not sending DD2.x to the LMC1 in its original form, right?
Correct, you're not sending a DD signal in its native bitstream.
Quote:
The DVD player would be doing the decoding and sending a PCM signal to the LMC1 (both via the digital and analog stereo).
The player's digital outputs will be sending a PCM signal while the analogue outs will be sending that same signal but already converted to analogue.

Keep in mind that when the player decodes/unpacks a compressed DD stream, it is no different than when the processor does it. Data flagged for the left channel can only end up in that channel, whether decoded in the player or processor.

So it doesn't matter that the DD 2.0 signal wasn't decoded in the LMC-1. The resulting 2-channel PCM signal would have been identical to the one from the player.
Quote:
I couldn't really tell a difference. But that really doesn't prove much.
Are you kidding? It demonstrates that the LMC-1 can convert an analogue signal to digital and back to analogue transparently. Now it's possible that the surround processing masked some of the differences. As Gonk suggested, try it again using only your front speakers and subwoofer. This way, the surround processing won't distract you. If the differences remain negligible, be impressed.

Basically you're testing the suggested work-around: using an analogue connection, and whether there is any degradation or penalty paid for not using a digital connection.

Sanjay

AVS Top Picks

post #272 of 481
6/28/06 at 11:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CEGUY
Why is everyone dodging the main issue? The software in the LMC-1 has been designed improperly -period. Every workaround to get some kind of DPLll or DPLll-X. involves electronic gymnastics and a sonic compromise of one sort or another. From a marketing point of view it is just unwise for AV123 to ignore such a fundamental shortcoming.

I suspect that they will announce that they are going to address the problem once and for all, and modify units both for present and prospective owners so that PLll-X works as advertised. Anything less than this just sets them up for ongoing criticism.
CEGUY,
I don't think that this issue has been dodged by anyone. Both consumers and the Company have recognized that this may not be the ideal situation but it is what it is. I also think that the product has and is properly represented in their description as it states "Dolby Pro Logic IIx for turning your 2-channel sources into 5.1/6.1/7.1 " Which is exactly what it does. Sure I don't think it is the best way to implement this technology but that is how it was implemented and it is within the rules from Dolby. I think at this point everyone who loves all the other aspects of the LMC-1 are just trying to figure out how to bypass this particular area of concern.

By the way I am one of the people who cancelled their order due to this issue as well as the slow boot time and have purchase just the LPA-1 amp and a different processor. So I am in no way defending the implementation, it is just getting old hearing everyone say the same thing over and over again. It is what it is and if you don't like the way it was done then move on to something else.
post #273 of 481
6/28/06 at 11:39am
I don't think anyone is dodging the main issue. Only making suggestions on a complicated workaround if the LMC-1 doesn't get an DLPIIx upgrade.

It would be great if they could make a change to allow this, and it certainly would persuade me to make a move towards the lmc-1. If not I'll look for something else that meets my demands. :)
post #274 of 481
6/28/06 at 11:45am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CEGUY
Why is everyone dodging the main issue? The software in the LMC-1 has been designed improperly -period. Every workaround to get some kind of DPLll or DPLll-X. involves electronic gymnastics and a sonic compromise of one sort or another. From a marketing point of view it is just unwise for AV123 to ignore such a fundamental shortcoming.
We're not dodging or ignoring anything - we are simply attempting to clarify what workarounds exist for PLII/PLIIx functionality.

While this particular situation is unusual, it is disingenuous to pretend there are not issues that need to be worked around in many A/V devices. Just take a look at half the threads at AVS. If this is a ‘deal breaker’ for you, so be it – there is nothing wrong with coming to that decision. Others however are interested in their options for the LMC-1, as they view this unit as offering great bang-for-the-buck.

Also note, “Every workaround to get some kind of DPLll or DPLll-X. involves electronic gymnastics and a sonic compromise of one sort or another†is not true – you need to change the ‘and’ to and ‘or’. The workaround I defined previously, while involving gymnastics as you have stated, does not make a sonic compromise.
post #275 of 481
6/28/06 at 12:46pm
CEGUY's got a good point - we can come up with work-arounds, but at the end of the day the way that the LMC-1 provides PLII and PLIIx does not match what Dolby describes. That is the real issue in my mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nhan
I couldn't really tell a difference. But that really doesn't prove much.
Are you kidding? It demonstrates that the LMC-1 can convert an analogue signal to digital and back to analogue transparently. Now it's possible that the surround processing masked some of the differences. As Gonk suggested, try it again using only your front speakers and subwoofer. This way, the surround processing won't distract you. If the differences remain negligible, be impressed.
I'm not sure if that's how I'd read the results, Sanjay. It sounded like Nhan was comparing the way the LMC-1 handled a PCM input to the way it handled an analog input produced by a run-of-the-mill DVD player and not hearing much difference. In that scenario, the analog signal was produced by the player's DAC's (which was then flip-flopped to digital and back to analog again) and the PCM signal only passed through the LMC-1's DAC's. That approach would be a good way to compare DAC quality. What player are you using, Nhan?
post #276 of 481
6/28/06 at 12:55pm
I cancelled my order for the LMC-1 because of the PL II/IIx issue but i will purchase one if they address and correct this issue.
post #277 of 481
6/28/06 at 12:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani
Correct, you're not sending a DD signal in its native bitstream. The player's digital outputs will be sending a PCM signal while the analogue outs will be sending that same signal but already converted to analogue.

Keep in mind that when the player decodes/unpacks a compressed DD stream, it is no different than when the processor does it. Data flagged for the left channel can only end up in that channel, whether decoded in the player or processor.

So it doesn't matter that the DD 2.0 signal wasn't decoded in the LMC-1. The resulting 2-channel PCM signal would have been identical to the one from the player. Are you kidding? It demonstrates that the LMC-1 can convert an analogue signal to digital and back to analogue transparently. Now it's possible that the surround processing masked some of the differences. As Gonk suggested, try it again using only your front speakers and subwoofer. This way, the surround processing won't distract you. If the differences remain negligible, be impressed.

Basically you're testing the suggested work-around: using an analogue connection, and whether there is any degradation or penalty paid for not using a digital connection.

Sanjay

Thanks, Sanjay and Gonk.

When I say, "I couldn't tell a difference. But that doesn't prove anything.", I was referring to that one scene I tested out with one movie. It may not have been the best of DD2.0, or there may be other scenes in the movie that would make the processing more of a difference. Also, discs may have more pronounced effects.

Most of the programming I watch are either DD5.1 or PCM, so the work-around isn't really necessary for my case. But there are those that do watch quite a bit of those with DD2.0 coding, so it may benefit them more to have the workaround in place. I'll be anticipating Mark's announcement, like everyone else on this matter :)
post #278 of 481
6/28/06 at 12:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonk
CEGUY's got a good point - we can come up with work-arounds, but at the end of the day the way that the LMC-1 provides PLII and PLIIx does not match what Dolby describes. That is the real issue in my mind.

I'm not sure if that's how I'd read the results, Sanjay. It sounded like Nhan was comparing the way the LMC-1 handled a PCM input to the way it handled an analog input produced by a run-of-the-mill DVD player and not hearing much difference. In that scenario, the analog signal was produced by the player's DAC's (which was then flip-flopped to digital and back to analog again) and the PCM signal only passed through the LMC-1's DAC's. That approach would be a good way to compare DAC quality. What player are you using, Nhan?
Re: what I heard--it was one brief scene in "Pleasantville". Hardly enough conclusive evidence, hence my comment about it not proving anything. I can test with more material, but it's such a pain when you have DD5.1 you can listen to ;) :D

I'm using a Zenith DVB318.
post #279 of 481
6/28/06 at 1:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonk
It sounded like Nhan was comparing the way the LMC-1 handled a PCM input to the way it handled an analog input produced by a run-of-the-mill DVD player and not hearing much difference. In that scenario, the analog signal was produced by the player's DAC's (which was then flip-flopped to digital and back to analog again) and the PCM signal only passed through the LMC-1's DAC's. That approach would be a good way to compare DAC quality.
I don't know how good a comparison it would be of DAC quality, since the analogue and digital signals are both going through the LMC-1's DACs. Remember that the analogue signal is converted to PCM as soon as it enters the LMC-1 and then converted back to digital using the LMC-1's DACs. So if those DACs have a sonic signature, it will be on both signals.

Also keep in mind that you're not only listening to DACs but also the LMC-1's analogue-to-digital conversion. Only one of the signals is going through the ADCs. If Nhan heard a negligible to non-existant difference between the two signals, then it points out that LMC-1 has very well implemented A/D conversion. Although the difference might be more noticeable when he does the comparison without surround processing.

Sanjay
post #280 of 481
6/28/06 at 1:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nhan
Re: what I heard--it was one brief scene in "Pleasantville". Hardly enough conclusive evidence, hence my comment about it not proving anything.
Understood. But the results look promising so far. Test out some more stuff, especially 2-channel music (either on DVD or CD). If the analogue connection turns out to be close enough to the digital hook-up, then the suggested work-around seems like a viable alternative (at least for the moment). You can use the digital connection for multi-channel and the analogue connection for 2-channel.

Sanjay
post #281 of 481
6/28/06 at 1:26pm
Thread Starter 
When you say 'viable alternative', shouldn’t it be with the caveat that good source DAC’s are needed – or the audio will suffer?

Even if the A/D conversion is great (let’s say transparent) in the LMC-1, doesn’t it come down to the old ‘garbage in, garbage’ out scenario? If you are using a source’s analog out, for example a digital cable box, you’re going to be at the will of its DAC’s.
post #282 of 481
6/28/06 at 1:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin_HT
When you say 'viable alternative', shouldn’t it be with the caveat that good source DAC’s are needed – or the audio will suffer?
Sure. Though ultimately it will depend on what each person hears in his system.

For example: if you try the same experiment with your cable box and have a hard time hearing the difference between the analogue and digital connections, then the work-around will be viable for you (at least for that source). If not, then you'll have to look for alternative means.

Of course, if the LMC-1 can be modified, then that may be the best work-around. But for the moment, we have to deal with the LMC-1 the way it currently is.
Quote:
If you are using a source’s analog out, for example a digital cable box, you’re going to be at the will of its DAC’s.
Its DACs, its analogue stage, etc. Though again, it depends on whether you hear a difference in your system.

Sanjay
post #283 of 481
6/28/06 at 2:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani
Understood. But the results look promising so far. Test out some more stuff, especially 2-channel music (either on DVD or CD). If the analogue connection turns out to be close enough to the digital hook-up, then the suggested work-around seems like a viable alternative (at least for the moment). You can use the digital connection for multi-channel and the analogue connection for 2-channel.

Sanjay
Will do without the 2x layering. I've already done several comparison between my DVD player's DAC and the LMC-1's DAC during beta testing for CDs (2-channel only--with subwoofer, that is). I use the Zenith for DVD video and the Pioneer 563A for CD/DVD-A/SACD listening. The Pioneer has a pretty good DAC in itself. The difference between it and the LMC's DACs (which was the beta version, and not the one that is "beefed up" in the production units) was not that great. The LMC's DACs was marginally better with CDs. As I recall, PCM sent via the digital connection was better than the stereo analog.

I have replaced the 563A with an Onkyo Universal player (which I suspect may be very similar based on the GUI). I'll try the comparison with
post #284 of 481
6/28/06 at 2:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani
I don't know how good a comparison it would be of DAC quality, since the analogue and digital signals are both going through the LMC-1's DACs. Remember that the analogue signal is converted to PCM as soon as it enters the LMC-1 and then converted back to digital using the LMC-1's DACs. So if those DACs have a sonic signature, it will be on both signals.

Also keep in mind that you're not only listening to DACs but also the LMC-1's analogue-to-digital conversion. Only one of the signals is going through the ADCs. If Nhan heard a negligible to non-existant difference between the two signals, then it points out that LMC-1 has very well implemented A/D conversion. Although the difference might be more noticeable when he does the comparison without surround processing.

Sanjay
You've got a good point about the fact that the the LMC-1's DACs were active in both cases. The most precise way to compare the LMC-1's DACs to the source player's DACs is to connect the source player to the LMC-1's 7.1 direct input (since that's the only way to avoid the A/D/A conversion process within the LMC-1).

My thought about Nhan's original test (comparing PCM stereo output to analog output) was that the PCM is only converted to analog by the LMC-1 while the analog is first converted to analog by the player (thereby permanently affecting the signal quality depending on how good a DAC is being used) and subsequently bounced from analog to digital and back by the LMC-1. The LMC-1's DAC is the one constant, but the player's DAC is added to the mix in the case of the analog - and in many DVD players the analog section is something of an afterthought since digital output is the preferred avenue. If the player's DAC is not as good as the LMC-1's DAC, then the analog half of the test would yield end up not sounding as good no matter how good the LMC-1's A-to-D stage is.
post #285 of 481
6/28/06 at 2:19pm
Thread Starter 
sdurani,

Yep - that's why I highly recommend those that are on the fence to give it a test-run.

30-day money back guarantee makes trying it out a no-brainer in my opinion. After playing around with it, if you decide the feature-set accomadates your needs ... I can think of no better deal in the industry.
post #286 of 481
6/28/06 at 9:09pm
Just so we can make a comparison, does anyone know exactly which DACs are used in the LMC-1? Have they ever announced that?
post #287 of 481
6/28/06 at 9:36pm
The irony about all of this is the endless claim that the EMO has great SQ for the given price, implying the user would use the EMO's internal DAC. Yet the work around offered to avoid the DPLIIx unique design choice is to use analog inputs thus bypassing the EMO's internal DAC with the original digital signal from the source. Hmmm ???

BTW, I do not dispute the claim of excellent SQ from the EMO UL. I have heard beta samples, but mostly used with a digital signal input.
post #288 of 481
6/29/06 at 3:59am
I've seen several references in this thread to the slow boot time of the LMC-1. Can anyone tell me how long it is?
post #289 of 481
6/29/06 at 4:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by slksc
I've seen several references in this thread to the slow boot time of the LMC-1. Can anyone tell me how long it is?
The general boot time I have heard from folks is right around 15~18 seconds...

Wishing you all the very best...

mls
post #290 of 481
6/29/06 at 4:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rmassey
The irony about all of this is the endless claim that the EMO has great SQ for the given price, implying the user would use the EMO's internal DAC. Yet the work around offered to avoid the DPLIIx unique design choice is to use analog inputs thus bypassing the EMO's internal DAC with the original digital signal from the source. Hmmm ???

BTW, I do not dispute the claim of excellent SQ from the EMO UL. I have heard beta samples, but mostly used with a digital signal input.
... in one given situation :)

The EMO UL guys will be sent out to review with 5 different reviewers... I think they'll prove themselves very worth while and a bloody good choice vis-a-vis SQ (given price noted)... etc.

I will have further word about the UL guys later this week, or early next...

All the best rm...

mls
post #291 of 481
6/29/06 at 4:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by keelmoose
Just so we can make a comparison, does anyone know exactly which DACs are used in the LMC-1? Have they ever announced that?
I've asked The EMO Boys to chime in and give the details you've asked for...

All the best...

mls
post #292 of 481
6/29/06 at 5:58am
Thanks, and at the same time, is there any progress on the digital amp receiver you've mentioned in the past?
post #293 of 481
6/29/06 at 6:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by keelmoose
Thanks, and at the same time, is there any progress on the digital amp receiver you've mentioned in the past?
My pleasure...

Please forgive me for not being able to share the data with you... I defer to my partners in issues like this... but I know they will chime in as the day begins back home...

Indeed... we have two digital amp "Receivers" in the queue right now... I expect to be saying a lot more about one of these real quick...

The Big Dog DMR is a Monster... and the little one (125 X 7) is also really a neat product... Being able to connect to a computer to do many "nifty" tasks is really fun and exciting...

More later to be sure...

Wishing you all the very best... and good night...

mls
post #294 of 481
6/29/06 at 7:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark L. Schifter
... in one given situation :)

mls
Although in what seems to be a pretty common/popular situation, based on comments in this thread, wouldn't you say?

Thanks for chiming in Mark. :)
post #295 of 481
6/29/06 at 7:37am
A pretty common and popular situation - and one that Dolby's description of Pro Logic II and IIx says should work without a workaround... :confused: Maybe MLS's upcoming announcement includes some way to bring the LMC-1's Pro Logic II behavior into compliance with Dolby.
post #296 of 481
6/29/06 at 11:21am
Gonk, you've been a very helpful and straightforward poster at many forums and, as you know, I've praised and welcomed you at most of the ones at which I participate. But, I'm at a loss to explain your constant haranguing on this point.

In light of the fact that you 1 - have an informal relationship with, and favorable bias toward, competing Outlaw products; 2 - have no intention, and never had one, of purchasing the Emotiva ULs; and 3 - have pounded away at this point over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, on this and other forums, it does cause one to question your motives.

I suspect that if Emotiva is in violation of compliance with Dolby standards, Dolby will either have something to say about it, or will take action to correct it. Meanwhile, for goodness sake, please give it a rest. You've made your point, and we are well aware of where you stand on this issue. :(
post #297 of 481
6/29/06 at 12:01pm
A few days ago, I posted a problem that I was having with video drop-outs and have finally gotten time to continue with my experiment. Perhaps others will have additional suggestions.

To refresh everyone's fading memory, I am having video drop-outs fairly frequently using the CABLE input. I am using a Motorola DCT 6200 and it is a fairly new box. The display is a Samsung DLP. The video drops out very irregularly, but often. when I move the component cable (I have tried more than 1 cable, by the way), over to the AUX input, and change the input to AUX using the remote, the video stays on. My last test was stopped after 3 hours.

Today's test: I set up the LMC with the component cable in the CABLE input and plugged in directly to the display. The signal lasted approximately 30 minutes. Without turning off the LMC, I moved the cable over to a new Sony LCD display. No signal. I then moved the LMC end of the cable over to AUX and changed inuts with the remote. Got signal. Then moved cable at LMC end back over to CABLE, changed inputs again, got signal. Then lost signal after 8 minutes.

My conclusion is that the LMC has a problem 'holding' its 'CABLE". What has been consistent is that the processor re-sets every time I change inputs, and the video signal is fine (on the CABLE input) until it loses it's 'hold' or command.

I am working on this with Sean.
post #298 of 481
6/29/06 at 12:11pm
I really don't see the need to avoid this discussion (IIx) and I have seen a few attempts in this thread to ask posters to stop the discussion. All posts I have read by gonk are accurate and respectful, and quite helpful IMO. The alternate implementation of IIx on EMO seems like a very valid topic of discussion to me, especially given that Mark has illuded to an update to address the concerns. What's the problem?
post #299 of 481
6/29/06 at 12:22pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rmassey
I really don't see the need to avoid this discussion (IIx) and I have seen a few attempts in this thread to ask posters to stop the discussion. All posts I have read by gonk are accurate and respectful, and quite helpful IMO. The alternate implementation of IIx on EMO seems like a very valid topic of discussion to me, especially given that Mark has illuded to an update to address the concerns. What's the problem?
I have only asked in the past to stop this discussion in-so-far as preventing useless bitching.

If someone has something new to add, or has a question they need clarification on - by all means, go for it.


My reasoning for making such a request is simply to stay within the confines of this thread - ie. to prevent a further derailing. Other than for the above criteria, I don't see how restating what is already known adds to this thread.
post #300 of 481
6/29/06 at 2:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonk
A pretty common and popular situation - and one that Dolby's description of Pro Logic II and IIx says should work without a workaround... :confused: Maybe MLS's upcoming announcement includes some way to bring the LMC-1's Pro Logic II behavior into compliance with Dolby.
... gonk --- Good Morning.

First and most importantly to me is this We are in complete compliance with Dolby as well as with Cirrus Logic

I understand from others that you have a good handle on how things work in the audio universe... I'm glad... It does not mean though that you understand every implementation of a particular chip-set and it's behavior. I can lead you to the gentleman that's in charge of this (product) at Cirrus for a more complete understanding...

I have no problems answering questions... (where I'm allowed)... and I also have no problem talking about the obvious value that these units represent... Where I DEFINITELY have a problem is when we are to "defend" something that just doesn't require it... You have an understanding based on app. notes or discussions with other people in and around our industry (I would suspect) and/or their implementation(s) and your understanding(s) while complete in many areas is actually "not fully vetted" in this area. We ARE properly using the part given the architecture and system performance parameters --- within their given sub-sets of (their) use...

I'll have more to say at a later date about all of this to be sure...

All the best...

mls
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
This thread is locked  

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › The "Official" Emotiva Ultra-Lite Owners/Impressions Thread