UMC-1 is a giant killer (885P A/B info, too)

[BillBauman]

There are those that may disagree with me. I know, that'll be a shocking first on this forum. ;D But, I'm going to say it, the UMC-1 is a giant killer. I have never heard an HT pre/pro with the sonic definition and quality of sound of the UMC-1. I'm going to be eating Cirrus DAC dinner on this one, too. I have absolutely no clue how Emotiva made this DAC sound this good. If I didn't know what it was, I could have never identified it as a Crystal Semi(baked)conductors DAC. It sounds like a high-end AKM or Analog Devices to me.

I may take the time to go into more detail at some point, but the short version is that I feel as though the UMC-1 has crushed the Onkyo PR-SC885P in sound quality. I will add one caveat to this up front. I believe that Onkyo has intentionally rolled off some of the highs on their pre/pro lineup - it's the only (logical) explanation I can come up with. I assume it was done to avoid listening fatigue and harshness when using these pre/pro's for home theater experience. But, for any number of channels music, this just makes a muffled sound, well, in comparison to the UMC-1.

The most astonishing difference? Pace. For those that aren't audiophile-friendly or audiophile-fluent, pace is generally defined as, well, pace. The pace of the music is just so much more "on". The precision of the pace adds tremendously to the detail that can be distinguished in vocal recognition while listening. This thing is sucking me in - big time. Lyrics that I used to strain to hear are so easy to make out now that I feel as though I hardly have to pay attention to the song and I can make out what's being said.

The UMC-1 is not as warm as my Arcam CD-33T, but it certainly seems as though it has the pace, clarity and dynamic resolution. This is a comparison of a $700 pre/pro to a $2500 CD Player. That's a bold comparison to even start making. I have not A/B'd it, I'm going off memory on this. I did do A/B comparison (briefly, less than 2 hours of back-and-forth) between the UMC-1 and the 885, though. Consistently, I felt like it wasn't even a fair competition.

My rough notes on the A/B comparison of the UMC-1 to the PR-SC885P:

In comparison, the 885P:
Feels overemphasized in mid-lows and bass
The sound is a bit more full, maybe too much
Significant loss of detail / definition
Recessed vocals

The UMC-1:
Much better pace, astonishingly better
Increased detail
macrodynamic slam (this is a joke, I could not help myself, see my post in the Green Room)
Vocals more forward, separated from instruments that shouldn't be close in physical proximity of the soundstage (this is good)
Detailed separation - vocals, instruments, everything
Incredible pace, I probably wanted to write about the pace 47 different ways. The words just come out 'right', not blurred or smeared together, I can make out the word, even when the singer draws it out and into another word, it doesn't sound like one big 'sound' anymore, I can hear what each word is.

Did I mention the pace of this DAC?

To clarify, I am using only digital sources. My CD digital source is the LG BD-390 connected via HDMI with a ton of little noisy bugs during pause, stop, FF, etc., but when it's playing it's fine, there are no drop-outs, and the lock-on is pretty fast (<2 seconds). The primary source is a computer with 44.1 kHz FLAC files played through a USB-attached Sound Blaster Live connected via coax digital to the UMC-1 Coax 3 input @ 96 kHz sample rate (tested 44 kHz, as well).

[BillBauman]

Oh, the amplifier for this is an XPA-5. The speakers are Totem Forests. They are single-wired each to one channel of the XPA-5 (this has changed in several different ways so I wanted to clarify what was used for this setup). The Onkyo was connected via balanced outputs to the balanced ins of the XPA-5. The UMC-1 is connected via unbalanced. All balanced cables are built by me with Canare cables and Neutrik connectors. My unbalanced are some mid-range something-somethings that I don't care about brand. I have a pair of the same Canare cable with 24K gold unbalanced converted to Neutrik balanced on the other end that I could, if someone wants me to, use to connect the UMC-1 to the balanced ins of the XPA-5. I could also connect the 885 via unbalanced, if someone feels they'd like to hear my thoughts on any of those variations of this comparison.

Also, if there's anyone near Philadelphia that wants to help me "blind" this test (play cable swapper) or do the listening and I'll swap cables, hit me up!

[monkumonku]

Apr 24, 2010 14:16:39 GMT -5 BillBauman said:

There are those that may disagree with me. I know, that'll be a shocking first on this forum. ;D But, I'm going to say it, the UMC-1 is a giant killer. I have never heard an HT pre/pro with the sonic definition and quality of sound of the UMC-1. I'm going to be eating Cirrus DAC dinner on this one, too. I have absolutely no clue how Emotiva made this DAC sound this good. If I didn't know what it was, I could have never identified it as a Crystal Semi(baked)conductors DAC. It sounds like a high-end AKM or Analog Devices to me.

I may take the time to go into more detail at some point, but the short version is that I feel as though the UMC-1 has crushed the Onkyo PR-SC885P in sound quality. I will add one caveat to this up front. I believe that Onkyo has intentionally rolled off some of the highs on their pre/pro lineup - it's the only (logical) explanation I can come up with. I assume it was done to avoid listening fatigue and harshness when using these pre/pro's for home theater experience. But, for any number of channels music, this just makes a muffled sound, well, in comparison to the UMC-1.

The most astonishing difference? Pace. For those that aren't audiophile-friendly or audiophile-fluent, pace is generally defined as, well, pace. The pace of the music is just so much more "on". The precision of the pace adds tremendously to the detail that can be distinguished in vocal recognition while listening. This thing is sucking me in - big time. Lyrics that I used to strain to hear are so easy to make out now that I feel as though I hardly have to pay attention to the song and I can make out what's being said.

The UMC-1 is not as warm as my Arcam CD-33T, but it certainly seems as though it has the pace, clarity and dynamic resolution. This is a comparison of a $700 pre/pro to a $2500 CD Player. That's a bold comparison to even start making. I have not A/B'd it, I'm going off memory on this. I did do A/B comparison (briefly, less than 2 hours of back-and-forth) between the UMC-1 and the 885, though. Consistently, I felt like it wasn't even a fair competition.

My rough notes on the A/B comparison of the UMC-1 to the PR-SC885P:

In comparison, the 885P:
Feels overemphasized in mid-lows and bass
The sound is a bit more full, maybe too much
Significant loss of detail / definition
Recessed vocals

The UMC-1:
Much better pace, astonishingly better
Increased detail
macrodynamic slam (this is a joke, I could not help myself, see my post in the Green Room)
Vocals more forward, separated from instruments that shouldn't be close in physical proximity of the soundstage (this is good)
Detailed separation - vocals, instruments, everything
Incredible pace, I probably wanted to write about the pace 47 different ways. The words just come out 'right', not blurred or smeared together, I can make out the word, even when the singer draws it out and into another word, it doesn't sound like one big 'sound' anymore, I can hear what each word is.

Did I mention the pace of this DAC?

To clarify, I am using only digital sources. My CD digital source is the LG BD-390 connected via HDMI with a ton of little noisy bugs during pause, stop, FF, etc., but when it's playing it's fine, there are no drop-outs, and the lock-on is pretty fast (<2 seconds). The primary source is a computer with 44.1 kHz FLAC files played through a USB-attached Sound Blaster Live connected via coax digital to the UMC-1 Coax 3 input @ 96 kHz sample rate (tested 44 kHz, as well).

Thanks for the detailed and excellent review, Bill! Now that it seems Emo is getting the bugs removed, the UMC-1 is an astonishingly good value - I mean, what can come close to performance like that at anywhere near the price?

[mnwild]

dang. I was just about to give up on a UMC-1 altogether and then you have to post something like that. Most of us would love to get that kind of SQ at such a bargain price. I'll still going to wait until they work out most of the bugs though, at least until I know it won't be an adventure for my wife to use the DVR.

[husker43]

Thanks for the review Bill!! Definitely helped my decision... going forward with the UMC-1!

[coolhands]

Indeed it a giant killer for $700. I see there are getting fewer negative posts about the UMC-1 lately. As more bugs get fixed with firmware instead of hardware, the UMC-1 becomes the giant in this race.

[DYohn]

Apr 24, 2010 15:48:06 GMT -5 coolhands said:

Indeed it a giant killer for $700. I see there are getting fewer negative posts about the UMC-1 lately. As more bugs get fixed with firmware instead of hardware, the UMC-1 becomes the giant in this race.

Yep I agree.

[BillBauman]

Apr 24, 2010 14:30:49 GMT -5 mnwild said:

dang. I was just about to give up on a UMC-1 altogether and then you have to post something like that. Most of us would love to get that kind of SQ at such a bargain price. I'll still going to wait until they work out most of the bugs though, at least until I know it won't be an adventure for my wife to use the DVR.

With all the uncertainty around HDMI, it's tough to say if it's even possible for Emotiva to ever make the UMC-1 flawless, but depending on your needs, it is an absolute wonder of audio reproduction engineering. If anyone read my review of the sonic bliss I experienced with my Sonus Faber Toy Towers, well, I'm in that same moment here. The UMC-1 reinvented my Totem Forests for me. I could almost cancel the order on the Sonus Faber Liutos (but I won't). ;D

The last time I heard this level of pace and timing accuracy with this much clarity was when I had my 2 channel setup with BV Audio digital pre, BV Audio 2-channel dual-mono amp, fully balanced, with my Arcam CD-33T as the digital source. The list price on that setup is about $7000, not counting speakers. Now I have a $100 USB sound card, $700 Pre/Pro (UMC-1) and $800 amp (XPA-5) - I guess I should add $500+/- for the cost of the computer. I could get used to this.

[roadrunner]

Bill

Your description of the sound quality of the UMC-1 vs the Onkyo 885 comes amazingly close to my observation when I compared the Emotiva MMC-1 with the Intergra 9.8. The way you used the word "pace" was what I called "imaging" and "clarity". Particularly with analog inputs, the MMC-1 walked all over the Integra. I described that the MMC-1 had far better, more realistic sounding "attack, decay and timbre" that closely parallels what you said about being able to precisely identify the locations of sounds and vocals and being able to hear exactly what the vocalist was saying without having to strain.

I fully expected that the UMC-1 would possess these same vocal and musical properties (as the MMC-1 had) but with even greater clarity and imaging. Hearing you detail these wonderful audio advantages of the UMC-1 serves to reinforce what Lonnie told us about the sonic performance of the UMC-1. I particularly was impressed by how much better the UMC-1 was versus the Onkyo 885 when listening to "digital" input.

When I did my comparison between the MMC-1 and the Integra 9.8, the MMC-1 was far better with analog material, but had less of an advantage with digital inputs. I have to admit that the Integra had the edge in Video performance. Did you happen to compare the UMC-1's video performance to that of the 885?

[moe]

Bill I agree on almost every point,I actually mentioned pace in my discussion of the UMC but it was not well recieved and I didn't care to try and explain.I also have not enjoyed music this much since the days of analog 2 channel.The musicality of this little unit will be legendary for it's price, someday.

[Mischief]

I feel much better now, I am very SQ focused and there haven't been many posts beyond, it sounds good, nothing that really nailed it down.

Now all I have to do is wait until they get through the pre-orders

[BillBauman]

Apr 24, 2010 16:11:44 GMT -5 roadrunner said:

Bill

Your description of the sound quality of the UMC-1 vs the Onkyo 885 comes amazingly close to my observation when I compared the Emotiva MMC-1 with the Intergra 9.8. The way you used the word "pace" was what I called "imaging" and "clarity". Particularly with analog inputs, the MMC-1 walked all over the Integra. I described that the MMC-1 had far better, more realistic sounding "attack, decay and timbre" that closely parallels what you said about being able to precisely identify the locations of sounds and vocals and being able to hear exactly what the vocalist was saying without having to strain.

Actually, imaging and clarity are both excellent with the UMC-1, but I really didn't use pace in place of those terms. I've been thinking about how to describe pace. With digital audio, when it goes through the DAC, it is timed, both input, and output. When you hear a very high quality DAC with a very high quality clock implemented in a very high quality way, you get better pace. It is the subtle nuance that you'll sometimes pick up unconsciously, or perhaps be very aware of. I wasn't even listening for it and hit me like a ton of bricks. All of these factors work in synergy. If you have great pace, but poor clarity, you just have well-timed mud. Great imaging with poor pace means you have a perfect soundstage and everything is playing out of turn, or not quite on time - sort of like that dude on the keyboard that just cannot keep a beat (for whom my friend always plays a tick every few measures on his guitar and keeps him on pace, even though the guy on keys doesn't know he's doing it). Pace is basically the ability of a digital component to keep a beat and represent that beat. When I hear poorly implemented DACs that don't have good pace and I'm trying to enjoy the music, I'll sometimes get anxiety from it. If your heart settles in and feels just right when you're listening, the system probably has good pace. If you feel like pacing, or your heart races, or you're just completely uninterested in your favorite songs, you could likely have bad pace (the last one could be from any of the above mentioned being sub-par).

I fully expected that the UMC-1 would possess these same vocal and musical properties (as the MMC-1 had) but with even greater clarity and imaging. Hearing you detail these wonderful audio advantages of the UMC-1 serves to reinforce what Lonnie told us about the sonic performance of the UMC-1. I particularly was impressed by how much better the UMC-1 was versus the Onkyo 885 when listening to "digital" input.

When I did my comparison between the MMC-1 and the Integra 9.8, the MMC-1 was far better with analog material, but had less of an advantage with digital inputs. I have to admit that the Integra had the edge in Video performance. Did you happen to compare the UMC-1's video performance to that of the 885?

I know that Onkyo has traditionally been beaten up for its analog stage. I don't think this is necessarily fair. I think most people aren't paying attention to the fact that they're using a digital input and are actually hearing the artifacts of the digital stage of the Onkyo gear. For those that do know the difference, it sounds like they (as you did) find that the analog is lacking, but the digital, albeit better, may not be the king of the hill either. I, personally, did not find a major difference between the analog and digital inputs, leading me to believe that they've designed the entire piece to be a bit relaxed and rolled off.

Hopefully, that made some sense.

[BillBauman]

Apr 24, 2010 16:11:44 GMT -5 roadrunner said:

I have to admit that the Integra had the edge in Video performance. Did you happen to compare the UMC-1's video performance to that of the 885?

I have only briefly watched any video through the UMC-1 so far. I'm not a real big video person. I use my pre/pro usually to clean up bad avi's or the like that I've downloaded of some esoteric thing or another. I don't have cable, have never owned a DVR, and just don't really care. I go to the movies like 3 or 4 times a year. I usually deck out the video/HT section of my gear for fun, just to do it, learn about it. My friends usually love it. I'm like, well, let me know when the movie's over.

It will be tough for me to judge any hi-def video here, the BD-390 does not have a bitstream video output. I could force it to 480p and do a comparison, but I'm not sure if it would be a valid test. I will be watching some videos off of USB this evening, though, and that's what I was running through the 885. I'll see if there's any noticeable difference in the UMC-1's ability to make these poor quality sources look tolerable on a 50" Samsung plasma.

[billmac]

Bill,

Is your comparison for 2 CH music only? I found your assessment to be true as well when compared to my 886. Using the Pure mode with the 886 was the closest in SQ but still the clarity of the UMC-1 was clearly better .

My comparison was done using the analog outputs of my CD player to the analog inputs of the UMC-1 and the 886. Not comparing the DACs as you were but it showed that the analog section of the UMC-1 is clearly better than that of the 886. I wish I had done the comparison using the digital output of my CD player but did not think of it at the time. I did find as you mentioned that the using the digital input (coaxial) of the 886 yielded slightly better SQ than using the analog inputs. The comparison was not a direct A-B but was close time wise following a quick swap.

I found for HT material (DD 5.1, DTS-MA and TrueHD) that the 886 had a slight advantage over the UMC-1 in my room. But that is using Audyssey which for me is a plus in my untreated room. I know many do not like Audyssey but it works for me .

It is very encouraging to see the update that was just released getting very positive reviews .

Bill

[BillBauman]

Apr 24, 2010 17:36:22 GMT -5 billmac said:

Bill,

Is your comparison for 2 CH music only? I found your assessment to be true as well when compared to my 886. Using the Pure mode with the 886 was the closest in SQ but still the clarity of the UMC-1 was clearly better .

Yes, it was. I forgot to mention I was comparing Pure Audio mode (885) vs. Direct Mode (UMC).

My comparison was done using the analog outputs of my CD player to the analog inputs of the UMC-1 and the 886. Not comparing the DACs as you were but it showed that the analog section of the UMC-1 is clearly better than that of the 886. I wish I had done the comparison using the digital output of my CD player but did not think of it at the time. I did find as you mentioned that the using the digital input (coaxial) of the 886 yielded slightly better SQ than using the analog inputs. The comparison was not a direct A-B but was close time wise following a quick swap.

This makes perfect sense. You had the same experience with clarity, which would be heavily related to the overall design of each unit, especially the analog output stage. Since you were using the same DAC for both units, you wouldn't have experienced the pace or accuracy differences. Did you notice any difference in imaging, though?

I found for HT material (DD 5.1, DTS-MA and TrueHD) that the 886 had a slight advantage over the UMC-1 in my room. But that is using Audyssey which for me is a plus in my untreated room. I know many do not like Audyssey but it works for me .

I think Audyssey is awesome. I like the dynamic room EQ, as well. I think that from the autocorrection and dynamic EQ perspective, Audyssey has legs and arms and feet up over pretty much everything else out there. Emo-Q doesn't even compete in this sense, it is only pre-run EQ, nothing dynamic. I think if I were a heavy HT buff, I'd be thrilled with the 885.

It is very encouraging to see the update that was just released getting very positive reviews .

Bill

I figured that with the new Beta firmware clearly showing that we're well back on track, it would be a good time to share some of my impressions of the UMC-1. I'm enjoying it so much right now. I love that my computer-based listening is finally approaching the quality of where I was when I was swapping CD's in expensive CD players and all that.

[RadTech]

Actual Billmac, the Audyssey on the 886 is much better then my 805 so, I use it. The Dynamic EQ is awesome. I still won't use it for 2 channel. It is good to hear things are going better for the UMC 1 and, I look forward to the XMC 1.

[BillBauman]

Apr 24, 2010 16:36:50 GMT -5 moe said:

Bill I agree on almost every point,I actually mentioned pace in my discussion of the UMC but it was not well recieved and I didn't care to try and explain.I also have not enjoyed music this much since the days of analog 2 channel.The musicality of this little unit will be legendary for it's price, someday.

Yeah, sometimes the excessive use of terms like "macrodynamic slam" take away from the validity of terms used to describe a very real, noticeable factor in listening enjoyment.

I agree totally, moe, it's so nice to have a pre/pro this musical. It's exactly what I want, a preamp with a DAC. The rest is just extra for me. Especially at this price, I'm just so happy. It won't be $699 forever, but at $999 I feel like the UMC-1 would be one of the best bargains in HT/hifi.

[roadrunner]

Bill,

Yes, you did a good job of describing "pace". I think I now understand your usage. What I was calling "realistic sounding" is a result of pace. I just didn't know how to adequately define the nuances I was hearing. Thanks for expounding on something so difficult to describe.

I think many of us "feel" the pace, or lack of pace, when we listen to music without being aware of what is going on. They just feel that it sounds right or that it doesn't sound quite right. It can be very difficult to communicate what one hears or feels when listening to music.

[Topend]

Audyssey, I have been thinking that this would be a good feature on the XMC. Probably unlikely thought as it may push the price up too much.

[Chris]

I don't have to time right now to prepare an extensive review of the UMC-1. Plus, I'd like to get to a semi-final firmware before I give it the critical once over. I will say that I too believe the audio quality of the UMC-1 is first rate and this comes from a die hard two channel audiophile.

Before the UMC-1, I was using amongst other products a Benchmark DAC-1 for all my two channel digital sources. When I installed the UMC-1, I greatly simplified my setup and removed my DAC-1 to other duties in my house. Those of you not familiar with the Benchmark DAC-1 should do a google search. It is considered by many, to be one of the best DAC implementations irrespective of price.

I can honestly say, I have not missed my DAC-1 at all since I installed the UMC-1. I believe that is quite a statement in itself.

-CB