|
Post by mysterymachine on Aug 21, 2011 18:36:49 GMT -5
If you use a cable box or such similar components, connect it directly to your TV. Then, connect the TV audio via optical to the UMC-1. That is guaranteed to solve audio/CC drop issues. otherwise, eat humble pie and let Emo do your reflash update. I used to report anemic surround output. I HAVE RECENTLY DISCOVERED THE SURROUND TRIMS ON THE REMOTE. (This public confession makes me feel free). Now I can officially report that thing is operating flawlessly (for me that is). Honestly, I dont think that some of you guys updates were done complertely even though it showed that. No offense! I still get dropouts that way... when changing channels it will change from DD 2.0 to DD 5.1 and some channels to PCM and sometimes the UMC loses audio when changes in the format. The TV is just passing the audio signal. But this is a known issue and I am sure newest update will fix. On the trims on the remote... well its one of those rare features that I thought "I'll never use that" and now I do all the time, especially for the sub as it seems movies vary so much on how aggressive they are with the sub and its good to know that these trims are temporary because inevitably I'll forget to change it back otherwise. (since dolby volume is system wide and not by input I wish it was temporary as well)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2011 4:16:42 GMT -5
If I weren't committed to the XMC-1 I would jump all over the UMC-1. Screw To heck with the 3D, no way for me, the UMC-1 as is with a new FW update is an amazing deal at $499. I would then use it for a bedroom unit when my XMC-1 arrived. (I hope I'm not talking myself into one here.) ;D (Hey, wait a minute! ..... someone tell me if my senior citizen mind is fuzzy here ..... $499 for the UMC-1 ..... presume for the sake of argument that the XMC-1 original estimated price of $999 goes up to $1199. If I get 40% off the $1199 that makes it a net of $719.40 for the XMC-1. $719.40 + $499 = $1218.40. Thats's a total of $19.40 cents more for the UMC-1 and the XMC-1 together than just the XMC-1. I lose the 40% upgrade certificate for the XMC-1 but I might never use it at my age. Then I could just keep the UMC-1 sealed and .......... hmmm interesting ........ what do you think?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2011 4:27:20 GMT -5
Chuckie, I agree. The UMC-1 with the promise of better firmware and the assurances that the XMC-1 is coming make it a really great purchase, esp. for $500. I probably won't get the 3D upgrade, there's nothing in 3D that I wouldn't prefer seeing in 2D.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2011 4:35:56 GMT -5
Theresa, what do you think of my additional thoughts I just added above?
"..........(Hey, wait a minute! ..... someone tell me if my senior citizen mind is fuzzy here ..... $499 for the UMC-1 ..... presume for the sake of argument that the XMC-1 original estimated price of $999 goes up to $1199. If I get 40% off the $1199 that makes it a net of $719.40 for the XMC-1. $719.40 + $499 = $1218.40. Thats's a total of $19.40 cents more for the UMC-1 and the XMC-1 together than just the XMC-1. I lose the 40% upgrade certificate for the XMC-1 but I might never use it at my age. Then I could just keep the UMC-1 sealed and .......... hmmm interesting ........ what do you think?) .........."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2011 4:49:41 GMT -5
I think thats good thinking. The UMC-1 is a bargain even at $699, at its clearance price it's a no brainer. It still takes some patience to put up with the drop-outs but for me that's not a big deal except when it happens when someone else is present, which has happened to me. Frankly I doubt that the next firmware will get rid of all the problems but it's still a good a wonderful sounding unit to me and the Marantz isn't worth $1000 more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2011 5:05:12 GMT -5
Theresa, you have a PM!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2011 5:24:00 GMT -5
Thanks for the PM. I am enjoying my DIY speakers too much to replace them and just last week upgraded the tweeter in the center to the $212 Aircirc Illuminator SS tweeter. It really has made my center more neutral and totally non-fatiguing. So I wouldn't have any place to even store additional speakers. They are a tremendous buy though and would recommend them to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by calvinhobbe on Aug 22, 2011 7:41:20 GMT -5
I received a PM from Big Dan when I asked about those areas not in the US or Europe and Emo will look after them if you are up to a self install etc!
Good news for all you "others". Thanks again Dan!
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Aug 22, 2011 12:45:32 GMT -5
Chuckienut I was getting ready to PM you about picking up an UMC-1 for the very reasons you outlined in your post above. For less than $20 incremental investment you would have both the UMC-1 and the XMC-1. Whether you kept and used the UMC-1 is an option you need to consider based on your specific needs and on how much longer it will be before the XMC-1 actually comes to market. With the use of an external phono stage, Emotiva's upcoming stand-alone unit, or an USP-1 pre-amp you may not even want to purchase the XMC-1. Doing that would meet all you current needs and leaving you with a 40% Off Certificate for some future processor... even more food for thought. The clearace pricing may force you to evaluate your options sooner than you had planned on. Decisions, decisions...
|
|
|
Post by essheil on Aug 22, 2011 13:25:59 GMT -5
so if the problems associated with the UMC-1 regarding hdmi may occur on the new xmc-1, that means the problems will be 3 dimensional (just kidding). So both the good and the bad will be enhanced in three dimensional. Awesome! That means we need a three dimensional repair tech, basically MAX HEDGREN from the 80's! I think I'll wait til the new processor gets out and purchase it. The price for the UMC-1 is a steal currently and is very tempting but I'm curious with the bells and whistles of the NEW XMC-1. I mostly bipass HDMI audio and use opticals or toslink and RCA or XLR for my oppo but for relatives I have to use the HDMI for both. I think the problems with the current UMC-1 is very minimal in regards to hdmi connections. you can always just use the hdmi for video only. Hdmi was designed for simplicity not necessarily for optimal peformance in audio. It just depends on your system!
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
Post by jamrock on Aug 22, 2011 17:39:20 GMT -5
essheil wrote: ... "Hdmi was designed for simplicity not necessarily for optimal peformance in audio. It just depends on your system!" I would disagree somewhat with that statement. I think RCA that was designed for simplicity. With HDMI, the only simplicity was for connectivity, in that it can carry 8 discreet channels of high resolution audio and 1080i/p video simultaneously. So, you reduce the clutter of cables from 9 to 1. However, when you consider HDCP handshake protocol, signal transmission (distance) problems, cable weight & connection insecurity, this is no simple matter or cable. It is the most convoluted invention to hit audio since someone yelled, WATSON!
|
|
|
Post by thepcguy on Aug 22, 2011 20:44:08 GMT -5
essheil wrote: ... "Hdmi was designed for simplicity not necessarily for optimal peformance in audio. It just depends on your system!" I would disagree somewhat with that statement. I think RCA that was designed for simplicity. With HDMI, the only simplicity was for connectivity, in that it can carry 8 discreet channels of high resolution audio and 1080i/p video simultaneously. So, you reduce the clutter of cables from 9 to 1. However, when you consider HDCP handshake protocol, signal transmission (distance) problems, cable weight & connection insecurity, this is no simple matter or cable. It is the most convoluted invention to hit audio since someone yelled, WATSON! If you open up a HDMI cable, it's made up of a bunch of tiny wires much like a ethernet cable, even telephone wires. And wire's primary function is just to transmit a signal. The simplicity term is accurate: just one cable for audio and video. It's the HMDI standard (or whatever you call it) that's screwing us up.
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,921
|
Post by hemster on Aug 22, 2011 20:50:05 GMT -5
essheil wrote: ... "Hdmi was designed for simplicity not necessarily for optimal peformance in audio. It just depends on your system!" I would disagree somewhat with that statement. I think RCA that was designed for simplicity. With HDMI, the only simplicity was for connectivity, in that it can carry 8 discreet channels of high resolution audio and 1080i/p video simultaneously. So, you reduce the clutter of cables from 9 to 1. However, when you consider HDCP handshake protocol, signal transmission (distance) problems, cable weight & connection insecurity, this is no simple matter or cable. It is the most convoluted invention to hit audio since someone yelled, WATSON! If you open up a HDMI cable, it's made up of a bunch of tiny wires much like a ethernet cable, even telephone wires. And wire's primary function is just to transmit a signal. The simplicity term is accurate: just one cable for audio and video. It's the HMDI standard (or whatever you call it) that's screwing us up. +1. HDMI = Heavily Dumb Media Interface! ;D
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,773
|
Post by klinemj on Aug 24, 2011 20:41:36 GMT -5
I've had HDMI in my house since ~'06. And, truthfully, I have never (knock on a HUGE piece of wood for extra good luck) never had any issues.
At one point, I thought my Denon 3806 had an issue w/its HDMI output or with the HDMI cable to my projector, but I soon learned the real issue was with my projector - which ended up dying (in a manner completely unrelated to HDMI). Once I got a new projector, all was fine.
The upside was that the issue I thought I was having w/the 3806 led me to decide to get a UMC-1...which I love!
I am glad I don't have the issues that lead others to dislike HDMI because I actually like it.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by jefft51 on Aug 24, 2011 21:16:07 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will ) but the HDMI is generally not the problem and makes connections simple. The problem is the HDCP protocol that goes with it, having to handshake across different equipment/manufacturers each with their own (sometimes incorrect) implementation of the spec.
|
|
|
Post by doc1963 on Aug 24, 2011 21:24:46 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will ) but the HDMI is generally not the problem and makes connections simple. The problem is the HDCP protocol that goes with it, having to handshake across different equipment/manufacturers each with their own (sometimes incorrect) implementation of the spec. I would agree with you, to some extent, and add misguided EDID to the equation.
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Aug 25, 2011 1:56:02 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will ) but the HDMI is generally not the problem and makes connections simple. The problem is the HDCP protocol that goes with it, having to handshake across different equipment/manufacturers each with their own (sometimes incorrect) implementation of the spec. I would agree with you, to some extent, and add misguided EDID to the equation. Doc1963 I would agree with you and add that HDMI is a constantly changing set of rules for playing the game. The Licensing Holders make it nearly impossible for vendors to release perfectly working HDMI products by changing what is allowed and how it can be accomplished. What worked well in previous model years is often disallowed for the next model year. Isn't Hollywood's paranioa fun to deal with? NOT!
|
|
|
Post by ladesign on Aug 25, 2011 9:51:44 GMT -5
Some have said it already, but it is HDCP that (mostly) causes the pain and HDMI that gets the blame. The handshaking and key exchange issues are mostly the result of HDMI being the carrier of HDCP and having to deal with it.
Again, just to be clear, HDMI has changed, but it isn't constant. In most cases, actually improvements that, if properly implemented, deliver benefits: A 4K capable signal path, ARC, ability to carry high-bandwidth, multi-channel audio, the ability to carry 3D and allow the source to inform the sink of the type of singal present so that the display may adapt, and so forth. HDMI isn't the total devil and when you take a deep breath and view it from a longer perspective, we'd be no where close to where we are today in audio and video path quality if things were left to component, or for that matter, Firewire.
Same for ICT: You can't blame HDMI for having to deal the cards dealt by the studios.
HDMI sure ain't perfect, but it is better and more useful than some give it credit for.
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Aug 25, 2011 10:43:55 GMT -5
That said, the connector itself leaves a LOT to be desired.
|
|
|
Post by neuronbob on Aug 25, 2011 12:05:15 GMT -5
I was very glad to read of the coming upgrades mentioned on page 1 of this thread and elsewhere. Still plugging away with my UMC-1 as a dedicated 5.1 processor and am happy with the sound quality. Will probably be changing out the video board when the time comes. Kudos to Emotiva for continuing to work with us, the demanding audiophiles!
|
|