|
|
Post by strindl on Apr 21, 2010 19:15:43 GMT -5
I don't see any balanced outputs on the pic of the back of that unit in the link. It looks like a clone of the umc-1 |
|
|
|
Post by fistofsouth on Apr 21, 2010 19:42:59 GMT -5
I don't see any balanced outputs on the pic of the back of that unit in the link. It looks like a clone of the umc-1 It does look similar, but there are some differences. In addition to the lack of a balanced LF output (as you mentioned) the triggers are located in a different spot and the UMC-1 does not have an RS-232 port like the Parasound. Still there are many similarities. |
|
|
|
Post by BillBauman on Apr 21, 2010 20:08:43 GMT -5
It's not just the chipset that determines overall sound quality. IMHO, the analog circuitry and power supply implementation has much more to do with SQ than say vendor "A"'s chipset over vendor "B"'s. It is the attention to the analog side (including power) that would give the UMC it's excellent SQ. In that regard, I have no doubt in Emotiva's engineering expertise. Bootman, I totally agree w/ you and although I don't have one yet, the overall feeling I get about the UMC's SQ from posts is that it's excellent. However, and I may be wrong, but I thought the Cirrus chips are for sound processing of different audio streams and the CS chip is the DAC. If the Cirrus chip has some sort of flaw causing the issues UMC owners are experiencing, and mfgr's bailing, many may walk away regardless of how good the UMC sounds. That's why I'm curious what other machines are using the Cirrus chips and how they are performing. The fact that the UMC sounds so good to most is why I am still very interested in it. I'm also optimistic that issues can be dealt w/ FW updates. I would also be more optimistic if there were some other successful implementations of the Cirrus DSP. powerwindow, forgive me if I misinterpret what you're saying here, but I think you might not be clear on the difference in DACs and DSPs. The UMC-1 uses a DAC from Cirrus Logic (Crystal Semiconductor) and uses DSPs from Cirrus Logic. That might cause some confusion. DSPs process audio streams like DTS-HD and Dolby True-HD and handle surround modes, etc. DACs turn the PCM into analog audio that we listen to. In the purest sense, if you just plug in an RCA analog input into the UMC-1 and run in direct mode, it shouldn't go through either of those and just come right back out, functioning as a very nice analog preamp. At the same time, I could use a digital input and utilize the UMC-1's DAC to decode the PCM audio stream and deliver a good sound, as well (better than I've heard with most Cirrus DAC implementations). Or, I can come in via HDMI with Dolby-blah-blah-DTS-HD-PLxyz into the DSP which would figure out all the surround parameters, apply EQ, lose the audio altogether, then blow my speakers (just kidding), then send it on the the DAC to be turned into analog audio. What people are generally saying is that the analog section of the UMC-1 is extremely clean and is far superior to any AVR and many other Pre/Pros and even some 2-channel dedicated analog preamps. At the same time, the digital side of it, when functioning properly, is no slouch. |
|
|
|
Post by moodyman on Apr 21, 2010 20:31:35 GMT -5
I don't see any balanced outputs on the pic of the back of that unit in the link. It looks like a clone of the umc-1 It does look similar, but there are some differences. In addition to the lack of a balanced LF output (as you mentioned) the triggers are located in a different spot and the UMC-1 does not have an RS-232 port like the Parasound. Still there are many similarities. I don't think it would take much to move some output/input jacks around. The Parasound announcement said that they were working with an oem for "2 years" and that Parasound then customized the unit to their liking...but they couldn't nail down some issues. It really wouldn't surprise me in the least in the Parasound HDP70 was based on the UMC-1. |
|
|
|
Post by moe on Apr 21, 2010 20:39:59 GMT -5
It does look similar, but there are some differences. In addition to the lack of a balanced LF output (as you mentioned) the triggers are located in a different spot and the UMC-1 does not have an RS-232 port like the Parasound. Still there are many similarities. I don't think it would take much to move some output/input jacks around. The Parasound announcement said that they were working with an oem for "2 years" and that Parasound then customized the unit to their liking...but they couldn't nail down some issues. It really wouldn't surprise me in the least in the Parasound HDP70 was based on the UMC-1. What did surprise me is the UMC has audio quailty easily comparable to a great company like Parasound. |
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Apr 21, 2010 20:54:27 GMT -5
What did surprise me is the UMC has audio quailty easily comparable to a great company like Parasound. I did a direct comparison between the UMC-1 and the Parasound 2100. Using the Stereo mode of the UMC-1 with the sub it compared very well to the 2100 using the sub as well. Quite impressive for a prepro such as the UMC-1 to compare so closely to an analog preamp. I preferred the 2100 but it was very close. Bill |
|
|
|
Post by fistofsouth on Apr 21, 2010 21:06:14 GMT -5
I don't think it would take much to move some output/input jacks around. The Parasound announcement said that they were working with an oem for "2 years" and that Parasound then customized the unit to their liking...but they couldn't nail down some issues. It really wouldn't surprise me in the least in the Parasound HDP70 was based on the UMC-1. Oh no, don't get me wrong I think the Parasound is based on the same platform as the UMC-1, I was just pointing out that there are a few differences. Not enough to merit what Parasound would have charged, but there are a few. This is a fascinating topic and one I have thought about quite a bit with the UMC-1 teething problems and the canceled platforms from other CEs. Kudos to the OP for starting this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by jr1414 on Apr 21, 2010 22:39:58 GMT -5
This has kind of confirmed what I thought about Parasound's new OEM manufacturer. Interesting at the least.
|
|
|
|
Post by powerwindow on Apr 21, 2010 23:19:16 GMT -5
powerwindow, forgive me if I misinterpret what you're saying here, but I think you might not be clear on the difference in DACs and DSPs. The UMC-1 uses a DAC from Cirrus Logic (Crystal Semiconductor) and uses DSPs from Cirrus Logic. That might cause some confusion. DSPs process audio streams like DTS-HD and Dolby True-HD and handle surround modes, etc. DACs turn the PCM into analog audio that we listen to. In the purest sense, if you just plug in an RCA analog input into the UMC-1 and run in direct mode, it shouldn't go through either of those and just come right back out, functioning as a very nice analog preamp. At the same time, I could use a digital input and utilize the UMC-1's DAC to decode the PCM audio stream and deliver a good sound, as well (better than I've heard with most Cirrus DAC implementations). Or, I can come in via HDMI with Dolby-blah-blah-DTS-HD-PLxyz into the DSP which would figure out all the surround parameters, apply EQ, lose the audio altogether, then blow my speakers (just kidding), then send it on the the DAC to be turned into analog audio. What people are generally saying is that the analog section of the UMC-1 is extremely clean and is far superior to any AVR and many other Pre/Pros and even some 2-channel dedicated analog preamps. At the same time, the digital side of it, when functioning properly, is no slouch. Bill, I have a pretty good understanding. I use an external DAC for Redbook CD's w/ my Oppo BDP as a transport. In that regard I think the UMC will be great as a pre for 2-channel stuff. What I'm getting at, is if there is a fatal flaw, it lies w/in the Cirrus DSP chip. That is the one that would be trying to lock on to changing streams and cause known audio drop outs. The question is whether or not it is salvageable w/ FW updates or is it beyond that and that is why mfgr's are walking away? I don't doubt the quality of the UMC's analog section (major reason I want it) and I imagine using its DAC for SACD would be fine. However, I want to be able to use it in a home theater setup and that means the DSP has to perform and as is it is questionable by the feedback I am seeing in posts. But then again I don't have one and speak w/out personal experience. |
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Apr 22, 2010 4:29:00 GMT -5
You are quite right, Debra. The Sherbourn unit is a clone of the UMC-1. When I downloaded their user manual a couple of months ago, it was word for word the same as the UMC-1 user manual, with references to Emtotiva UMC-1 being replaced with the appropriate Sherbourn PT-7020A. The abandonded Outlaw product did not use the Cirrus chips. I have no idea what the Parasound's chp was. As of late last year, the Cary, Krell and Emotiva pre/pros were the only A/V processors using the dual Cirrus chip solution. There may be others now, but I have not seen anything other than the new Denon A/V processor. Denon's flag-ship pre-pro is using the same Cirrus chip. Ronnie, a couple things. Wasn't the pre-abandoned Outlaw processor based on the Cirrus chips, and then they switched to something else, then they announced the recently "we give up" strategy? Also, which Denon Pre/Pro is using the Cirrus DSP's? The AVP-A1HDCI claims: Processor(s) – Bit Depth and Type 3 - 21366 x 1 and 21367 x 2 32-bit Floating Point. Is there a different one, or am I missing something on this one? Bill Sorry for the delay in responding to your questions. I have been off line for the past several hours attending to other chores. To address your Q's: The Outlaw may have used different chips during their development cycle; but I did not follow it closely enough to be able to say whether it ever used the dual Cirrus chips that Emotiva selected for the UMC-1. However, when I did take a close look at its architecture, the Cirrus was not what it was using. The Denon processor that I referred to was based on a post made by Lonnie last week in a different thread. A link to Lonnie's comment is listed below. emotivalounge.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=preamps&thread=10904&page=1#168434The key sentence that stuck in my mind was, "Every solution out there using a Cirrus decoder whether it be a single or dual chip solution will work the same way. For example, the 7K Denon works exactly the same way as ours." The thread was discussing the possibility that the way the Cirrus handled changes in codec was leading to the audio drop out issues; and I felt the op of the current thread would be focusing on this particular behavior in the Cirrus chip. |
|
|
|
Post by BillBauman on Apr 22, 2010 5:34:47 GMT -5
Ronny, I think Lonnie was mistaken in that post. I saw that same post and just let it slide. As far as DACs and DSPs go, I don't think Denon has used anything from Cirrus in years (ever?), at least not in their mainstream line-up. I think the Outlaw processor was originally looking at the same Cirrus 49700 DSPs. After that, I think rumor had it they were looking at something from Texas Instruments, but I can't say for sure. What is for sure, is that their product is an 'Abandoned Platform' for now.
What might be even more interesting to ponder is just how many companies out there worked on something for a year or two that we never even heard about that ultimately had to abandon their platforms, as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Apr 22, 2010 6:02:16 GMT -5
I am sure that far more projects are abandonded than we will ever know. Emotiva, Krell and Cary were just the first companies to utilize the Cirrus solution. Their chip was so much more poweful than anything else in the market. Big Dan and Lonnie said that its overwhelming advantage in Post Processing was key to Emotiva choosing the dual Cirrus solution.
I expect that as time passes, more and more performance oriented processors will be moving to using Cirrus for similar purposes. Riding the "bleeding edge" like Emotiva, Krell and Cary did is always challenging, but it looks like it will pay off. ;D
PS read your PM
|
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Apr 22, 2010 6:20:18 GMT -5
The Denon processor that I referred to was based on a post made by Lonnie last week in a different thread. A link to Lonnie's comment is listed below. emotivalounge.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=preamps&thread=10904&page=1#168434The key sentence that stuck in my mind was, "Every solution out there using a Cirrus decoder whether it be a single or dual chip solution will work the same way. For example, the 7K Denon works exactly the same way as ours." The thread was discussing the possibility that the way the Cirrus handled changes in codec was leading to the audio drop out issues; and I felt the op of the current thread would be focusing on this particular behavior in the Cirrus chip. RR, I recall that post and I asked Lonnie about and he did not reply. I'm not sure how Lonnie can say the DSP chips in the AVP1-HD work the same as those in the UMC-1. Unless he has actual experience with the AVP-1HD then how can he make a comment like that? I do not understand it when you post that the AVP-1HD uses the Cirrus chip then when it is pointed out it does not you refer to a post by Lonnie. I mean we all make mistakes I know I do but at least admit it when you do. Below is a response I received from a AVP-1HD owner inregard to the DSP chips used for the AVP-1HD over at AVS. I'm not sure how the UMC-1 with dual Cirrus DSPs will perform the same as the AVP-1HD with 3 32 bit DSPs. I went back a number of pages in the AVP-1HD thread over at AVS and I did not see any posts referencing audio drop outs or issues the same as the UMC-1 has. To make a comparison between the UMC-1 and the AVP-1HD is absurd IMO. The MSRP of the AVP-1HD is 10 times the amount of the UMC-1 and is not a fair comparison. But Lonnie and yourself brought up the AVP-1HD so I think the facts should be pointed out when they are not correct. I would not have a problem if I was corrected on something like this and would appreciate it so I'm not dispensing incorrect information. Bill |
|
|
|
Post by BillBauman on Apr 22, 2010 10:11:25 GMT -5
I'm not sure how the UMC-1 with dual Cirrus DSPs will perform the same as the AVP-1HD with 3 32 bit DSPs. I went back a number of pages in the AVP-1HD thread over at AVS and I did not see any posts referencing audio drop outs or issues the same as the UMC-1 has. To make a comparison between the UMC-1 and the AVP-1HD is absurd IMO. The MSRP of the AVP-1HD is 10 times the amount of the UMC-1 and is not a fair comparison. But Lonnie and yourself brought up the AVP-1HD so I think the facts should be pointed out when they are not correct. I would not have a problem if I was corrected on something like this and would appreciate it so I'm not dispensing incorrect information. Bill Bill, don't sweat it, it was a simple mistake on Lonnie's part that a few people didn't realize he'd goofed a little on. I agree, comparing the UMC-1 to the AVP-1HD IS absurd! It's absurd that the UMC-1's analog section sounds pretty much just as good at such a low price. I'll give the DAC to the Denon, and the DSP's are a wash. As far as "performing the same", from a DSP perspective, assuming the bugs are worked out, the Cirrus DSP's are dual-core, meaning each processor has two processing cores. The AD DSP's are single-core. The Denon has 3 processing cores, the UMC-1 has 4. That also means nothing, really, but since we're just counting cores, I figured I'd throw it out there. The reality is that the DSP just needs to do its respective job and process the data. The code behind it will determine how well the surround effects, etc., are implemented. There shouldn't be nearly as much difference between 2 DSPs as 2 DACs. Of course, poorly written algorithms can certainly affect this comparison. I wish Denon would lower the price on their flagship Pre/Pro. It doesn't sport enough differentiation from its brethren receivers to support the cost differential, considering all of the amortization of cost over the entire product line. Of course, they do want it to be a premium offering, so maybe it's just kept artificially inflated. It certainly leaves a wide open market for companies like Emotiva. |
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Apr 22, 2010 13:44:08 GMT -5
Bill, You are definitely right, good advice  . The analog section of the UMC-1 most certainly sounds better than $699.00 would indicate. The DSP's could be close in comparison but as you said sometime the implemation is important as well. Thanks for the DSP explanation . I did not realize the core differences which in fact could be benefical for the UMC-1. I agree 100% that the cost of the AVP-1HD is very high  . Much more than I would ever pay but it is a well built feature laden prepro for those with deep pockets, but unfortunately mine are not very deep  . Bill |
|
|
|
Post by Woodpecker on Apr 22, 2010 15:40:21 GMT -5
Maybe it's a Cirrus conspiracy... ;D
|
|
.
. Much more than I would ever pay but it is a well built feature laden prepro for those with deep pockets, but unfortunately mine are not very deep 
.
