UMC-200 or XMC-1

[ron526]

With price and minimal sound difference not being considered what is the best "next move" from a UMC-1?

Just a quick gut, with some thought, reaction.

Xlr not a concern.

Thanx,
Ron526

[bootman]

Jan 23, 2013 11:16:11 GMT -5 ron526 said:

With price and minimal sound difference not being considered what is the best "next move" from a UMC-1?

Just a quick gut, with some thought, reaction.

Xlr not a concern.

Thanx,
Ron526

What are you looking for in your next prepro?

[ron526]

Nothing more than UMC-1 functionality and sound.
I know the easy choice is the 200.
Trying to evaluate pure hardware/functionality.
I think I know what's best, but there may be somethings
I am not considering.

Ron526

[AudioHTIT]

How about IP (network) control, DLNA, more digital input options? Easier firmware updates? TaCT? If you just want an updated UMC-1 then the 200 is it, but the XMC-1 should be in a different league.

[regulator]

If you can afford the XMC-1 why not just get it? You may find some of the features useful in the future. I would think its a huge step over the UMC-200

[Erwin.BE]

I think TacT will cause more than a minimal sound difference.

[ron526]

I'm questioning the price differential based on TACT.
My room, basement is not ideal.
Speakers, LCR, in built in shelves, no sound
treatments, but it basically, to me, sounds good.
I know things can always be/sound better.
Will TACT compensate for reflection points, or
is this a function of speaker placement and room
treatments?

Ron526

[Deleted]

TacT Will butter your bread in the morning. Plus, it will jump out of yer car and fill the tank for you at the gas station. You know you *need* this...

-RW-

[rtg97229]

Jan 23, 2013 16:07:46 GMT -5 @rlw said:

TacT Will butter your bread in the morning. Plus, it will jump out of yer car and fill the tank for you at the gas station. You know you *need* this...

-RW-

Sounds amazing. I'll order one right now!

[billmac]

Jan 23, 2013 16:39:40 GMT -5 rtg97229 said:

Sounds amazing. I'll order one right now!

Good luck with that . There might be a few people in line before you .

Bill

[chaosrv]

Well, the UMC-200 is available now. The XMC-1, is sadly not. What do you consider to be a useful difference? Sound quality is a big one and shouldn't be dismissed. Both product specs are clearly listed on the Emotiva website.

One advantage (apart from availability) the UMC-200 has over the XMC-1 is bluetooth support, though the dongle has not yet been released.

Do you have room for the XMC-1? It is quite a bit taller than the UMC-1/200. That could be a consideration as well.

PLUS, if you buy the UMC-200, you'll still get 25% off the XMC-1 if you decide to try it out after it is released.

[ron526]

Maybe we'll have a side by side comparison soon.
That would be really helpful.

Thanx to all,
Ron526

PS anyone near 06611

[Erwin.BE]

Jan 23, 2013 16:05:37 GMT -5 ron526 said:

I'm questioning the price differential based on TACT.
My room, basement is not ideal.
Speakers, LCR, in built in shelves, no sound
treatments, but it basically, to me, sounds good.
I know things can always be/sound better.
Will TACT compensate for reflection points, or
is this a function of speaker placement and room
treatments?

If you don't measure, you won't know if it's your brain accustomed to the anomalies of the room or the lack there off.

Reflection points play an indirect role for digital room correction (DRC) : let's say you have carpet on the floor. This is not ideal because it will absorb the high frequencies but will reflect the mid frequencies and cause a louder but muddied mid frequency reception for the listener. DRC will reduce the mid frequency SPL but will do nothing to make things better.

So, proper room treatments, especially at early reflection points cannot be replaced by any built-in DRC.

My HT-build is a wide and large room (28' x 22') but normal height (less than 9'). And there's glass at the right and back side. So symmetry is also in danger.

Here's what I will do, but to be confirmed with in-room measurements:

* floor: hard, probably industrial concrete floor
* ceiling: as absorbent as possible by using 4" thick absorbers with 4" plenum. This will be effective down to the 125 Hz region. The ceiling will acoustically "disappear", just like in nature.
* walls & glass: obviously hard, but with a 2' high diffraction board at ear level all surrounding the perimeter, even before the glass walls. Diffraction works if the distance to MLP is sufficient. And that's the case since the room is wide enough.
*front wall: acoustic transparent projection screen fixed at a freestanding "isle" containing storage and covered with absorption panels (behind the screen)
*in order to block the LCR first to floor reflection points: use blocks of foam covered with textile, doubling as "coffee table" and footrest...
* bass absorption: tbd, but double drywall with Green Glue will deal with it to some extent. The room size helps here also.

Hence, TacT will be the icing on the cake. But as I said before: a $700 UMC will do better in a well treated room than a $5,000 pre-pro in a bathroom... A few grand will get you lots of material to realize this.

[Gary Cook]

Sorry if this comes across as argumentative, it's not intended to be, please treat it as being inquisitive;

Jan 24, 2013 14:45:22 GMT -5 Erwin.BE said:

Reflection points play an indirect role for digital room correction (DRC) : let's say you have carpet on the floor. This is not ideal because it will absorb the high frequencies

My experience with raised (to ear level) tweeters this is not true ie; there is no carpet between my ears and the tweeter.

but will reflect the mid frequencies and cause a louder but muddied mid frequency reception for the listener.

Again personal experience has shown me that is very much dependant on the pile of the carpet, the distance to the listener and the directionality of the speakers.

DRC will reduce the mid frequency SPL but will do nothing to make things better.

Assuming that there is actually excessive mid range, which I'm not convinced that there is, without correction then logically reducing it will in fact reduce it.

So, proper room treatments, especially at early reflection points cannot be replaced by any built-in DRC.

Doesn't this contradict the carpet claim? If that claim is correct then surely the first reflection point is the floor? Yet you have no treatment on the floor, which is industrial concrete ie; sealed (unless you want concrete dust throughout the house) which makes it close to glass level reflective.

The rest I understand.

Cheers
Gary

[richardrc]

Hi Gary, I have been following Erwin's HT build and I can say nothing is being left to chance.

There are treatments on the floor and side walls at the primary reflection point.

Your point about the carpet not concrete is a good one and I too have pondered it. If timber or a hard surface is better, then why do profesionally done cinemas always use a carpet? The only thing I could think of was so that you didn't hear people, ie localised noise, footsteps etc.

Perhaps the carpet is detrimental to the HF dynamcis of the room, so if you can leave it out all the better? Certainly leaves the question open for further study and discussion for my eventual HT room

Erwin...

[Gary Cook]

Jan 24, 2013 20:09:31 GMT -5 richardrc said:

Hi Gary, I have been following Erwin's HT build and I can say nothing is being left to chance.

There are treatments on the floor and side walls at the primary reflection point.

Your point about the carpet not concrete is a good one and I too have pondered it. If timber or a hard surface is better, then why do profesionally done cinemas always use a carpet? The only thing I could think of was so that you didn't hear people, ie localised noise, footsteps etc.

Perhaps the carpet is detrimental to the HF dynamcis of the room, so if you can leave it out all the better? Certainly leaves the question open for further study and discussion for my eventual HT room

Erwin...

Thanks Erwin, I did note that he had foam blocks "covered with textile, doubling as coffee table and footrest" but how many in a room of that size? If it's a 5.1/7.1/7.2/9.2/11.2 etc that's lot of blocks in what would be strange (for foot rest and/or coffee table) locations.

I agree with furher study and discussion, hence the questions.


Cheers
Gary

[cwt]

Gary ;I think that was an invitation to Erwin to elaborate on his thoughts ; had to look again myself ;its all in Richards dots ;D
True that high frequencies from a tweeter are more directional due to shorter wavelengths but just add it depends on the design [dome ; cone etc] ..

The treble frequencies reproduced by a tweeter are highly directional. Therefore, tweeters are evaluated based on their dispersion characteristics, or the size of the area they can effectively cover. This is often referred to as off-axis frequency response, and in an effort to improve this response, some devices are coupled to a horn. A horn tweeter directs output in a specific direction. By contrast, a dome tweeter disperses sound over a full 180— area, but can distort more easily.

Some interesting stuff here about designs that overcome the directivity issues and one that utilises floor reflections as has been mentioned

www.linkwitzlab.com/Constant_directivity_louds.htm

[AudioHTIT]

Jan 23, 2013 18:40:22 GMT -5 ron526 said:

Maybe we'll have a side by side comparison soon.
That would be really helpful.

Thanx to all,
Ron526
PS anyone near 06611

I've posted this before, but it keeps coming up and I feel people are minimizing the differences between the UMC and XMC. Here's my UNOFFICIAL comparison of the feature differences - made by using the product sheets, EmoFest reports, and pictures.

So going from UMC-200 to XMC-1 you get:
- X Series build quality, metalwork, components, and Tiffany connectors (point XMC)
- Balanced 7.2 XLR on XMC vs Single ended 7.1 RCA on 200 (point XMC)
- TaCT on the XMC vs EmoQ 2 on 200 (expected point XMC)
- Bluetooth on 200 (point UMC - optional)
- 7 HDMI XMC vs 4 HDMI 200 (point XMC)
- Bigger OLED Display on XMC (point XMC)
- TI chipset XMC vs Cirrus on 500 (probably point XMC)
- USB stick firmware update on XMC vs PC/USB cable on 200 (point XMC)
- Reference quality Analog input (XLR & RCA) on XMC (point XMC)
- Network IP control & setup on XMC (can I give this 50 XMC points ;~)
- Streaming network audio on XMC - details unknown? (point XMC)
- USB Audio/Driver on XMC (point XMC)
- "Flexible & Expandable Platform" on XMC (unproven, possible XMC point)
- AES/EBU input on XMC (point XMC)
- 3 digital in (TOSLink & coax) on XMC vs 2 digital in on 200 (point XMC)
- Digital Out (TOSLink & coax) on XMC (point XMC)
- Rec Out on XMC-1 (possible point XMC)
- True analog "Tape Loop" on XMC (point XMC)
- 4 (programmable?) trigger outs on XMC vs 1 trigger on 200 (point XMC)

[Golden Ear]

When you buy an entry level, it will give you what sound signature of that brand would be. Higher end model will give you feature sets for variety of connection and configuration. Top of the line unit offer more of feature sets and little refinement in overall sound quality than their entry level.

[ron526]

Goldeneye,
In your short statement you have said a lot.
Thank you and all the others.
Must go back to the budget committee.
XMC is now the front runner, even if I don't
need all of its' features. Maybe later tho'.
Regards and thanx to all.
Ron526

Anyone near 06611?