I'm Keeping It

[algreen345]

Despite my initial misgivings, the UMC-1 has turned out to be pretty terrific and I'm keeping it.

A few lessons learned after using it a fortnight:

1. There still are some funny stream problems via HDMI. I had a WDTV Live and the UMC-1 would not play audio from it via HDMI. I could send the audio and video to the TV and the audio back to the UMC-1 via toslink and it worked fine. As I could not get this to work, I just sold the WDTV Live. Problem solved.

2. In its place I bought an Acer Revo R1600, which is a little Intel Atom-based PC. It has an NVIDIA ION 9400 GPU that puts out both 1080P video and HDCP Audio via HDMI. I have XBMC LIve running on it in Ubuntu Linux. The little box is fast, silent, and low power.

The UMC-1 upconverts video streamed from Europe and it looks terrific. It's like watching normal TV. Some of the signals from Germany look like 720p. The audio is also terrific, except I have to stop one track or stream before starting another. You can't just pick a track, listen for a few seconds, then pick another. The UMC-1 doesn't play the music from the next track without a short pause.

I've learned to live with this and hope Emotiva will fix this irritation in the next firmware release.

I also use this box to stream FLAC's from my music server and they sound really good.

TV and Bluray look great at 1080p. I don't know what the UMC-1 is doing to make the picture look better but it does. Colors are richer, images are sharper.

I was on the fence about keeping it. But I sold my LMC-1 for the same price I bought it 9 months ago, and the convenience factor of HDMI, improved sound and video of this thing, makes me want to keep it.

It is a step up from the LMC-1. I see that now.

Of course the remote is cheap. I wish it had discrete buttons for each input, as well as buttons for each EmoQ setting. My setup is only 2-channel. EmoQ produced some interesting results. It really matters where you put the micophone, what else is going on in the room, where you stand, etc. I ran it three times and got similar results. I think it works, and I like that I can assign a different setting to each input. I just wish I could flip back and forth between the settings from the remote to test the sounds better.

But overall, the UMC-1 is great. Thanks Emotiva.

[BillBauman]

Thanks for posting your solutions for the things that you were able to address. I'm glad you're enjoying the UMC-1. Be sure to let us know what you think when you get the next firmware update (hopefully in the next few weeks).

[moe]

I agree,thanks for posting,I'd say you're not alone on many of these thoughts.

[Woodpecker]

Mar 6, 2010 14:11:07 GMT -5 algreen345 said:

I just wish I could flip back and forth between the settings from the remote to test the sounds better.

Actually you can change between the EMO-Q eq settings and what would be no eq settings. That is if this is what you are saying?
While listening to a source, go into the EMO-Q part of the menu where it shows the three stored settings. If you have not done any manual eq settings and have saved the EMO-Q settings to lets say 'manual eq setting 1' and have setting 2 and 3 left untouched(flat), you can toggle between the two. Basically applying either the non eq'd setting, or the EMO-Q settings while the source is playing. It will not change things like distance, x-over, or levels. Only the actual eq'ing will be applied.
I've tried this many times and the EMO-Q eg settings livened up my midrange making it sound smoother to me. A positive for my setup for sure.

[roadrunner]

Emo-Q is a very powerful and flexible tool. Don't be afraid to play with it. If you like tweaking things, this tool is heaven sent. It allows you a great deal of control over the signal being sent to your speakers. Enjoy! ;D

[bootman]

The remote was a compromise to keep cost down.
The rational was that many would just use a universal remote anyway.
So the cost savings was passed down to the consumer.

Like many equipment, there are compromises that one has to deal with at certain price points and the question then becomes, are the compromises worth my time and cash.
It appears that in your case it was.

Please hang around and post more thoughts and setup tips for others that may share similar setup experiences to yours.

[red5ive]

Mar 6, 2010 14:11:07 GMT -5 algreen345 said:

Despite my initial misgivings, the UMC-1 has turned out to be pretty terrific and I'm keeping it.

I feel exactly the same, and I've made the same choice as well. I was reluctant to move the unit out of my second setup (no dvr) into the main setup as I didn't want the wife to have to "deal with" the UMC considering all the reports I've read on DVR audio drop-outs. Well, I finally decided over the weekend to try it out in the main setup in place of my 886. Not a single audio drop-out with the DVR. My wife is a channel "jumper" and during the entire Oscars show she sat through last night, it worked without a hitch. I've been testing it thoroughly all weekend as well with rapid channel changes, constant REW/FF/Pause. It syncs just fine, and signal lock is not noticeably faster or slower than my Onkyo PR-SC886.

I'm happy to say that despite some of the other issues I have that are on the current issues list, they aren't enough to render the unit unusable in the main room. My wife does not have to contend with any of them, and she is actually happier as the center channel clarity is just pristine.

Another thing that I found which was an issue in my second setup (office) is the UMC is not happy with my URC remote sending it commands at close distances (I'm within 3 ft of the UMC in my office). I thought this was a problem with the UMC itself as remote commands would randomly error within the first 2 minutes of startup. This does not happen at all in the main room with my Harmony One or the same URC remote where the sitting distance is ~14'.

The audio quality in 2-channel music - as I expected - is nothing short of spectacular given this price point. Compared to my PR-SC886... well, there is no comparison. The UMC is much more musical. The midrange is more open and detailed, yet is still smooth as silk. The midbass detail is excellent, and the low end is more controlled. Not to knock the 886 as the overall tonal quality is very similar to the UMC, which signifies that neither are coloring the sound - but the UMC just handles jazz, classical, and folk rock with more elegance and clarity. Higher resolutions (176.4 kHz and 192 kHz) are also a huge difference with the UMC. I haven't done much listening with high res until getting my 886 last June so I'm not exactly knowledgeable in this dept., but I could never tell the difference between 44.1 kHz and 192 kHz (or anything in between) with my 886. I figured it was just gimmick. Not so with the UMC-1 - the differences are immediately noticeable. I don't know all the interworkings with it, but I do know that I prefer higher resolution now. I can't remember exactly how Dan phrased high res with the UMC it in one of the webcasts, but I think it was something along the lines of "it just sounds pristine." I completely agree.

For HT, in the pure surround modes (DTHD, DTS HDMA) without additional processing like Audyssey on the 886, the UMC also edges out my 886, especially with center channel clarity and expansiveness in the sound field. However, that gap is reduced significantly with Dynamic EQ engaged on the 886. Overall, however, I still feel Audyssey couldn't edge out center channel clarity, thus I prefer the UMC for AQ.

Where video is concerned, I prefer the Rheon HQV processing on the 886 as the picture just looks sharper to me. Granted I haven't done any kind of ISF calibration, I still side with the 886 with what I can do with my calibration disc. However, I'm more concerned with audio so this difference isn't a big concern with me as the UMC PQ is still excellent, even if it is a global setting.

I was initially going to sell the UMC and replace it with an XMC-1 when it releases, but after getting a taste of it in my main setup I'm now planning on replacing the 886 with an XMC-1 and will keep the UMC in the second setup. I'm happy.

[roadrunner]

Redseive

Nice write up comparing the two units. Well done.

[BillBauman]

red5ive, what are your sources for this superior musical experience, and how are they connected?

[LCSeminole]

Red5ive, Thanks for sharing. I look forward to the center channel experience that you mentioned, just as soon as I can get a UMC-1 in my rack. ;D

[LCSeminole]

Mar 8, 2010 15:56:04 GMT -5 BillBauman said:

red5ive, what are your sources for this superior musical experience, and how are they connected?

He's got an ERC-1 listed in his signature, or do you mean cd's/dvd's/blu-rays?

[red5ive]

Mar 8, 2010 15:56:04 GMT -5 BillBauman said:

red5ive, what are your sources for this superior musical experience, and how are they connected?

Uh ok, I suppose I did use the word superior, even if I do a Ctrl + F on this thread and that word first appears in a post after mine.

For CD/SACD Oppo BDP-80 set to DSD for SACD, both over HDMI

And laugh at me all you want, for high res (192 kHz) I'm using a PC with a built-in ADI AD1988B HD audio over coax with Flac and DTS stereo material, and for 176.4 kHz I'm streaming to a PS3 slim using PS3 media server also with the same FLAC/DTS material and the PS3 doing 176.4 kHz conversion.

[red5ive]

Mar 8, 2010 16:08:51 GMT -5 LCSeminole said:

Mar 8, 2010 15:56:04 GMT -5 BillBauman said:

red5ive, what are your sources for this superior musical experience, and how are they connected?

He's got an ERC-1 listed in his signature, or do you mean cd's/dvd's/blu-rays?

Oops, thanks for noting that out, lcseminole. I didn't realize it was still in my sig, but I'll yank it shortly. I sent the ERC-1 back within the 30 days after not being able to hear a difference with it with my 886, digital or analog. This was last September. I figured my 886 was doing an exceptional job, though I now wish I still had it after having tasted the UMC in my main setup. I'm considering purchasing another one very soon here, however I'm contemplating if I want to go the UPA-1 route first.

[LCSeminole]

Mar 6, 2010 14:11:07 GMT -5 algreen345 said:

Of course the remote is cheap. I wish it had discrete buttons for each input, as well as buttons for each EmoQ setting.

You do know there is an optional remote due out soon that will have the direct input buttons? It will be similar to the ERC-1 remote in build but a little bit longer.

[pmd918]

Thanks for the reviews, guys. Nice to hear something positive among all of the complaints.

Mar 8, 2010 16:21:27 GMT -5 red5ive said:

Mar 8, 2010 15:56:04 GMT -5 BillBauman said:

red5ive, what are your sources for this superior musical experience, and how are they connected?

Uh ok, I suppose I did use the word superior, even if I do a Ctrl + F on this thread and that word first appears in a post after mine.

For CD/SACD Oppo BDP-80 set to DSD for SACD, both over HDMI

And laugh at me all you want, for high res (192 kHz) I'm using a PC with a built-in ADI AD1988B HD audio over coax with Flac and DTS stereo material, and for 176.4 kHz I'm streaming to a PS3 slim using PS3 media server also with the same FLAC/DTS material and the PS3 doing 176.4 kHz conversion.

Red5ive, are you sure about the DSD output for SACD's? It was my understanding that the UMC-1 cannot handle DSD. There were some long discussions on the topic.

[red5ive]

Mar 8, 2010 20:54:34 GMT -5 pmd918 said:

Thanks for the reviews, guys. Nice to hear something positive among all of the complaints.

Mar 8, 2010 16:21:27 GMT -5 red5ive said:

Uh ok, I suppose I did use the word superior, even if I do a Ctrl + F on this thread and that word first appears in a post after mine.

For CD/SACD Oppo BDP-80 set to DSD for SACD, both over HDMI

And laugh at me all you want, for high res (192 kHz) I'm using a PC with a built-in ADI AD1988B HD audio over coax with Flac and DTS stereo material, and for 176.4 kHz I'm streaming to a PS3 slim using PS3 media server also with the same FLAC/DTS material and the PS3 doing 176.4 kHz conversion.

Red5ive, are you sure about the DSD output for SACD's? It was my understanding that the UMC-1 cannot handle DSD. There were some long discussions on the topic.

You're correct. I'm sending the raw DSD stream and the UMC converts it to PCM. I don't know if there's any additional processing by the UMC if I send it as PCM from the Oppo, so I figured just send it DSD and let the UMC take care of it. Either way I can't tell the difference. Now, I'll note I've read nothing on this and this is just my impression of what's happening. If I'm wrong or if PCM from the Oppo is the correct method, please let me know.

[hemster]

red5ive, I to have my Oppo set to send DSD to the UMC and let the UMC convert it. I did try out sending PCM from the Oppo. I must admit, I can't tell the difference also. So I have decided to let the UMC do the conversion and it sounds great!

For those that are wondering.. yes, the UMC will convert DSD to PCM.

Enjoy your SACDs!

[hogweed]

You can set the Oppo to DSD but if the UMC can't decode it, the Oppo defaults to PCM. I know on the analog outputs of the Oppo, the way to tell if you're going to DSD is the volume on the Oppo doesn't work except to mute. PCM you can control volume. I don't know if it's that way over HDMI. I know I can tell the difference and I prefer DSD.

[hemster]

I have mine connected via HDMI. I don't use the volume on the Oppo but use the UMC volume control. With HDMI, I couldn't tell the difference in quality. But then my old ears could be fading!

[jmilton]

That tricky Oppo says it is sending DSD, but it lying and really sending PCM. Or so some think....