Still happy with my UMC-1 except for...

[bborzell]

the single thing that I have to deal with each and every time I go to use my system; the remote is so far from equal in quality to anything I have seen from Emotiva that I am dumbfounded that it was decided upon as the interface between the UMC-1 and human beings.

I am really surprised that folks who have complained about the remote have apparently drifted off to other things. Notwithstanding the FW update issues and the interest that has understandably been directed in that direction, the fact remains that the UMC-1 remote fails in pretty much every category that a remote might be evaluated from.

o Paging through double digit inputs makes no sense.

o No lighted keypad when virtually all HT use of the remote will be in a darkened room.

o Construction quality is sad indeed, what with the already peeling adhesive top constantly reminding me how much better this thing should have been.

o There must be something going on inside with respect to keypad contact because sometimes I can aim it right at the sensor from 2 feet away and still get no response on the menu.

o It's so small, it gets lost in the room.

What I do like about it is the dedicated keys for Zone 2. It still has the paging through each unwanted input in order to get where you want to be, but it's easy to turn Zone 2 on and off. My Rotel remote (which is superior to the UMC-1 remote in every other way), didn't handle the Zone 2 controls as easily.

I don't accept the premise that Emo didn't deliver on the remote because they figured most enthusiasts would buy a 3rd party remote anyway. My OPPO BDP-83 was certainly not the victim of that logic.

Additionally, the apparent fix of paying for a competent remote or buying a USP-1 in order to qualify for a remote that works for both boxes falls short of satisfying a reasonable expectation that high quality electronic equipment should have controllers of equal quality.

I believe that Emotiva should bite the bullet and take care of the one shortcoming of the UMC-1 that will not go away after the FW fixes are in by sending out adequate remotes to all who have purchased the UMC-1. Given that it is possible, if not likely, that the anticipated new remote will eventually be shipped with later UMC-1s, it makes no sense for those of us who bought early to have to continue to interface with our UMC-1 with a toy like remote.

[hemster]

Apr 18, 2010 12:37:18 GMT -5 bborzell said:

...
o Paging through double digit inputs makes no sense.

Unused inputs can be suppressed by setting them to "Visible: No" in the menu. This way you won't have to page through them.

HTH

[roadrunner]

The primary reason that the UMC-1 comes with the cheap looking plastic remote control is that Emotiva polled the customers during the design stage; and, the response was overwhelmingly for Emotiva to furnish a minimal cost remote control. Most of the responders stated that they already owned 3rd party universal remote controls and did NOT want a high quality remote to accompany the UMC-1.

The furnished remote, although cheap looking, is surprisingly effective in the day-to-day usage of the UMC-1. As a matter of fact, it is often easier and faster to use it than to use one of the universal remotes -- particularly if you have used the switch to make the unused inputs "invisible" (as Hemster described above). Unfortunately, by listening to what the customer base so strongly stated they wanted, they have angered those customers who would have preferred the fancy aluminum "tanks" that shipped with the ERC-1.

Emotiva will shortly be offering an optional aluminum remote control that has 8 discrete input buttons, as well as several other useful direct access buttons for frequently used features. No price has yet been mentioned for acquiring this optional remote control, but for those customers who don't already own universal remotes it should satisfy the "quality" complaints about the current remote. ;D

[klinemj]

ditto what RR says, and...my added 2 cents: it seems like the furnished remote has been a known item for a LONG time. I know I personally saw it at Emofest back in 9/09, and others probably saw it long before me.

So (not intending to be rude to anyone...but), if you really don't like the remote that the UMC-1 offers at the price Emo is currently offering the UMC-1, then return the UMC-1. There are plenty of processors out there with swell remotes you can buy. But, the processor costs you a "little bit" more than the UMC-1 + whatever price the new remote will sell for. (Many options are there or will be soon at $2500-$5000...)

Again, I don't mean to be rude, but seriously...your call on which path you choose.

As Ronnie points out, Emo made a choice based on its research. All are free to make their own choices resulting from Emo's choice...

Mark

[coolhands]

Why beat up on the UMC-1's remote? Like Klinemj said you had a choice to buy other products, but you bought the UMC-1 anyway. Now you either return the product or just keep quiet and enjoy it. Remember you only paid $699 and waited 2yrs. Indeed for $2000 I will expect my remote to be crome plated.

[coolhands]

Here is a thought for you. Some people have the UMC-1 but it does not work. Some wants the UMC-1 but are on the waiting list. You have the UMC-1 and it does work. So what is your problem?

[bborzell]

I guess I should have expected that my complaint about the UMC-1 remote would be chum for the, "If you don't like it, send it back" crowd. Life must be pretty simple with that point of view. No need to consider that people who weren't around for the "vote" or didn't travel 2,500 miles to look at the prototype remote might have a point of view.

For what it's' worth, I have turned off unused inputs. That still leaves several to page through. If it weren't an issue, Emotiva wouldn't have included "Input" buttons on the "upgrade" remote.

This forum seems to have been reduced to a place for people who unfairly jump on Emotiva and those who feel compelled to attack people who express dissatisfaction with issues that don't "qualify" in the minds of the attackers. This seems to be becoming a very small and narrow minded world. If you don't believe me, ask the Emo management and staff.

[threxx]

Anyhow... I think the cost cutter remote is reasonable.

Let's assume this remote cost them $10 to produce and a nice remote would have been $30. That extra cost would of course end up passed on (plus possibly markup) to the consumer.

So if 1 in 3 emo customers uses a universal remote and isn't going to use the UMC's factory remote anyway, then we've already reached the break even point for the emo customer base. If more than 1 in 3 emo customers use a universal remote then as a whole it was the right choice.

I just made those numbers up of course... threw them out there just to show an example.

I guess on the flip side you could argue that this somewhat forces people who don't want to buy a universal remote, to buy one.

[hemster]

I've read the above posts but cannot find where anyone is "attacking" the OP. Sure, there are opinions and viewpoints expressed, but that's the whole point of this.. inform and to be informed.

Re: the remote... It's fine to say that it's missing this, lacking that, is not made of Kryptonite etc. But then it's just as valid and fair to mention that Emotiva conducted a poll and manufactured a product that the customers wanted (here I refer specifically to the remote).

It's all opinions.. and mine is that I'd rather keep the price down and get the remote we got. Others may prefer to pay a bit more and get a better remote. At least Emotiva is giving us choices...

BTW, "No direct input buttons".. I have the exact same issue on my 65" Sony TV. And I paid a lot more for that than the UMC-1. I don't expect Sony to "fix" this in any way anytime soon though, or offer me a remote that does what I want. Thanks to universal remotes, I can achieve the functionality I want.

[aboroth00]

Hey hey, we're supposed to be enjoying our audio equipment. bborzell has a VALID complaint, but it's not a necessary one.

Take a look at RoadRunner's post as it clearly defines why Emotiva has chosen what it has done for good reasons. Now that bborzell is informed on the situation we can all move on.

[moodyman]

Apr 19, 2010 0:44:14 GMT -5 hemster said:

I've read the above posts but cannot find where anyone is "attacking" the OP.

I guess you didn't read Coolhands posts. But then again he's defending the the UMC so it must be OK.

And yes the remote is pretty cheap..mucher cheaper then I expected it to be. I get the fact that Emotiva was trying to keep costs down but I'd be shocked if it cost more then $1 to produce. If I repurchase another UMC I'll spring for the updated remote Emotiva will make available.

[coolhands]

Apr 19, 2010 5:20:07 GMT -5 moodyman said:

Apr 19, 2010 0:44:14 GMT -5 hemster said:

I've read the above posts but cannot find where anyone is "attacking" the OP.

I guess you didn't read Coolhands posts. But then again he's defending the the UMC so it must be OK.

And yes the remote is pretty cheap..mucher cheaper then I expected it to be. I get the fact that Emotiva was trying to keep costs down but I'd be shocked if it cost more then $1 to produce. If I repurchase another UMC I'll spring for the updated remote Emotiva will make available.

I was being direct instead of attacking. I expressed my views about price and quality of the remote but also not limited to the fact that his UMC-1 is operational but he does not like the appearance of the remote.

Also, I am defending the argument of not liking the cheap remote that was polled and agreed upon before the UMC-1 was released. It was not a choice for liking. It was a choice of cost.

You are asking for a penalty and you should be compensated for the wrong. I did not see a wrong at this time. Yes the remote looks cheap and not to your standards. We have to move along and stop picking on the things that are not revelant. If there were any defects, then there is a reason for griping.

If your argument was for a none functioning remote then I will have called it a wrong.

[threxx]

Apr 19, 2010 5:20:07 GMT -5 moodyman said:

Apr 19, 2010 0:44:14 GMT -5 hemster said:

I've read the above posts but cannot find where anyone is "attacking" the OP.

I guess you didn't read Coolhands posts. But then again he's defending the the UMC so it must be OK.

Yep.

Apparently, effectively telling somebody 'return it to emo or shut up about it' is an acceptable reply. Then after already saying that, telling them their complaint sounds like they're entering into a complaining contest, has no merit, and again telling them to shut up about it...

No, none of that is an issue.

But then I got my post edited for warning the OP to ignore coolhands because he's a broken record. He just can't be reasoned with and tells everyone with a complaint to return it or be quiet about it. Just go back and look at his post history and see how often he's got people asking where the moderation is in this forum. And it's different people, too... not always the same people. I think this is the first time I've said anything about it.

[nickwin]

There is no way that the piece of junk remote that came with the UMC costs $10 at wholesale. Probably more like $1. I cant believe some of you are happy with it, and your argument that you should just get rid of the whole UMC because you don't like the remote is ridicules. That doesnt change the fact that the remote sucks.

I mean c'mon the remote has a brushed aluminum decal. nuf said.

[hemster]

Folks, do not assume that nothing is being done about rude behavior where it is warranted. Everyone is here to share and learn but we do need to be tolerant of others' opinions. Disagreements are fine but not to the point where they become uncivil.

There are a couple of members that have been warned about their behavior and it is being monitored.

Let's remember that we're here to collaborate on our favorite hobby. Taking potshots at each other will not serve us in any way.

Back on topic... Emotiva would be amiss if there was no choice for those that do not like the standard UMC-1 remote. However, with the new remote offering, we can pick and choose if we want to pay for the extra niceties. Choice is a good thing!

[monkeypimp]

Apr 19, 2010 8:41:43 GMT -5 nickwin said:

There is no way that the piece of junk remote that came with the UMC costs $10 at wholesale. Probably more like $1. I cant believe some of you are happy with it, and your argument that you should just get rid of the whole UMC because you don't like the remote is ridicules. That doesnt change the fact that the remote sucks.

I mean c'mon the remote has a brushed aluminum decal. nuf said.

Would you be happy if they added a $50 at cost remote and adjusted the price of the UMC to $799? Some would but others would say drop the expensive remote as I already have a universal remote. So instead of raising the price to $799 they kept it at $699 and are giving the option to buy an upgraded remote possibly for $100 effectively raising the price to $799 for those who need a remote without charging those who don't need the remote...

I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand. They can add a great remote and raise the price or keep the price down and give the option to buy an upgraded remote.

[stuofsci02]

First off I want to say that I don't own a single piece of Emotiva equipment at this time. I am just trolling the board waiting to hear info on the XSP-1. That said I find this thread a bit rediculous.

In a day and age where you can get excellent universal remotes starting at $60 I can certainly see why a cheap (function only) remote was supplied. Every remote I own is in a drawer with the batteries out except my universal remote. If I did buy a UMC-1 its remote would be in a drawer too. If I had my way then nothing would be supplied with a remote and the price would cheaper.

That said I understand that some people need the remote. But to charge everyone an extra $50 so that the few who want a high end remote can have them is silly. Just go and buy a nice Universal Remote and call it a day...

I would think the best solution would have been to have a nice remote available as a separate parts order and supply the UMC-1 with no remote. Then the UMC-1 costs $695 and if you want a remote it costs $40 for example.

Emo chose not to do this for whatever reason (unknown number of remotes to order, might make tech support more difficult etc.)

[shinsho]

To the OP.... I think what others are trying to say is that there where two routes that Emotiva could have taken in regards to the remote are as follows.
option #1 provide a cheap yet functional remote and keep costs down
option #2 provide a better remote similar to the one provided with the ERC-1 but increase the cost of the UMC-1.

by going with option #1 , yes they are in a way penalizing those that do not use a universal remote. On the other hand had they gone with option #2 they would have penalized everyone in the form of a higher cost UMC-1. The thing to remember is that they are going the optional remote for what should be a minimal extra cost to help satisfy the group that wanted option #2. Knowing this , it kind of makes the argument against the "cheap" remote invalid.

[monkumonku]

Apr 19, 2010 8:41:43 GMT -5 nickwin said:

There is no way that the piece of junk remote that came with the UMC costs $10 at wholesale. Probably more like $1. I cant believe some of you are happy with it, and your argument that you should just get rid of the whole UMC because you don't like the remote is ridicules. That doesnt change the fact that the remote sucks.

I mean c'mon the remote has a brushed aluminum decal. nuf said.

I agree, the remote doesn't look all that great but it works and it is what it is. At least shortly there will be an option to purchase an upgraded remote.

[bborzell]

I will pass on the advice to return the UMC-1. I actually like the processor even though I believe that producing a cheap and barely adequate remote was both a mistake and a good example why democracy is often better in concept than in practice.

What I will return to Emotiva, however is this forum. If it ever returns to respectful and logical discourse, I might find it useful to return. But, at the moment, there is a "Lord of the Flies" atmosphere that seems to permeate the very core of the forum.

For Hempster who was unable to perceive an attack in any of the replies, here's food for perhaps additional thought:

"Your complain about the remote sounds like you are entering it into a contest.

As long as the remote works your complaint has no merit. Now take a seat and quit nagging about a working remote. Complain about current issues at hand."

or perhaps try this on:

"Here is a thought for you. Some people have the UMC-1 but it does not work. Some wants the UMC-1 but are on the waiting list. You have the UMC-1 and it does work. So what is your problem?"

This response uses the word "you" or "your" three times. It say nothing about the issue I raised. It challenges me for making the argument in the first place. My view of human behavior puts this reply in the attack mode.

I realize that moderating a forum is often a thankless job and I have no desire to pile on to that load, but to not see Coolhands' replies for what they are is unfortunate.