|
|
Post by BillBauman on Apr 24, 2010 20:50:54 GMT -5
I can honestly say, I have not missed my DAC-1 at all since I installed the UMC-1. -CB Emotiva needs to put quotes like this on the UMC-1 page. There are some pretty hard-core 2-channel audiophile folks here that seem to be raving about the UMC-1. If nothing else, for 2-channel listening, I think we have a winner. |
|
|
|
Post by BillBauman on Apr 24, 2010 20:52:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by markus on Apr 24, 2010 21:21:52 GMT -5
... 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. ... These kind of tests are absolutely meaningless. The only serious and objective approach is to do (double) blind tests - everything else is self-deception. Read how easily we get tricked: seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.htmlBest, Markus |
|
|
|
Post by niceguyedy on Apr 24, 2010 21:32:09 GMT -5
I am secretly hoping for Audyssey on the XMC-1. I know it won't happen, but I too have an untreated room and enjoy what it has done. I do not care much for my MCACC however.
|
|
|
|
Post by BillBauman on Apr 24, 2010 22:07:15 GMT -5
... 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. ... These kind of tests are absolutely meaningless. The only serious and objective approach is to do (double) blind tests - everything else is self-deception. Read how easily we get tricked: seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.htmlBest, Markus Thanks for that. I have stated several times across this forum that I much prefer a blind test and I am well aware of a bias, whether intentional or not, even an anti-bias. Hence my invite for someone to please come on over and do the switching. Of course, I am quite confident in my statements, or I would not have made them, and I wouldn't be actively pursuing someone to come ensure the accuracy in my perceptions. I'm sorry you found my observations "absolutely meaningless". Hopefully I will have the opportunity at some point to provide you absolutely meaningful observations. Until then, we'll all have to just ignore this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by moodyman on Apr 24, 2010 22:15:46 GMT -5
Wait a second, Emotiva's not the only one with a website. ;D We know...you've pointed it out 20 times a day for the last 2 weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by BillBauman on Apr 24, 2010 22:21:03 GMT -5
Wait a second, Emotiva's not the only one with a website. ;D We know...you've pointed it out 20 times a day for the last 2 weeks. I know, isn't it awesome? Instead of retyping half info, or telling people to use a nonfunctional search, or getting the same question over and over and having various people try to answer it, there's a single place whereby just giving a link answers so many of the common questions. I'm glad you've noticed, that means you'll be able to use the resource and share it with others, as well. |
|
|
|
Post by BillBauman on Apr 24, 2010 22:24:56 GMT -5
I am secretly hoping for Audyssey on the XMC-1. I know it won't happen, but I too have an untreated room and enjoy what it has done. I do not care much for my MCACC however. It would be a nice bonus to have Audyssey, but I think if I were designing it, the price/performance ratio wouldn't be worth it. I'm sure they'd add a few customers, but who knows what the cost would be of licensing it and implementing it. We can all dream, though, right? ;D I thought that Outlaw's Trinnov stuff looked interesting/promising as well. I feel like room correction is in its infancy. I imagine it will be something much more common-place and much better refined in 5 years or so. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Apr 24, 2010 23:50:05 GMT -5
We know...you've pointed it out 20 times a day for the last 2 weeks. I know, isn't it awesome? Instead of retyping half info, or telling people to use a nonfunctional search, or getting the same question over and over and having various people try to answer it, there's a single place whereby just giving a link answers so many of the common questions. I'm glad you've noticed, that means you'll be able to use the resource and share it with others, as well. Well now you should be a diplomat with that answer! ;D Actually, I find your site to be quite useful because it does distill the main information about the products onto one page, making it very convenient for those of us who don't want to wade through pages and pages of posts on the lounge. The XDA-1 is a good example. Rather than read through 30+ pages of posts, I found the basic info on your site. If I wanted to know more, I could just look at the lounge thread but at least the main info is summarized over on the Emonatics site. I like it! |
|
|
|
Post by jdskycaster on Apr 25, 2010 0:00:00 GMT -5
Bill,
I appreciate your comments regarding the sound quality of the UMC-1. Double blind tests are great but very hard to execute. I have done my own testing of current AVR's since I have had the UMC-1 and I have also formed my own opinions of what I like in my room. For now I am sticking with the UMC-1 and hoping that the remaining issues get ironed out.
Best Regards,
JD
|
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on Apr 25, 2010 0:26:53 GMT -5
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. "Pace". British mags like to use that term a lot. For me pace, is the rhythm of the music with all its nuances (macro & micro dynamics), and its clarity as in "Right There". Nothing is left behind, nothing is missing from the entire audio range, the black background is dead quiet to let the music flow smoothly in all its glory. The musicians are allowed to perform freely and without missing a beat. The music is inviting to dance if it's called for, or foot tapping because it is much more involving, the pacing is right, ripe with the moment. 'Blues' music does that a lot to me. ...So as Jazz. And a piano is much more accurate in its pacing. ...So is a drum kit. This is a great review by Bill, and I'm very tempted (95%) to get the UMC-1.  I can certainly use it in one of my several systems. Me too, I'm a firm believer that this Emo pre/pro is it, for the hardcore people in search of audio quality without Auto Room EQ. And for Video, I don't give a dam. Sooo, the UMC-1 is making the news again as the ultimate value in pre/pros, without mentioning the gorgeous looks an excellent customer service. * This is a sweet pace of a ride in the tumultuous roller coaster history of the UMC-1. Now we're getting our wheels better aligned in our tracks. |
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on Apr 25, 2010 0:43:11 GMT -5
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 CB, I read a lot about the Benchmark DAC-1, and your comment here is a nice feedback for us all. Thanks! |
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on Apr 25, 2010 0:46:06 GMT -5
I am secretly hoping for Audyssey on the XMC-1. I know it won't happen, but I too have an untreated room and enjoy what it has done. I do not care much for my MCACC however. It would be a nice bonus to have Audyssey, but I think if I were designing it, the price/performance ratio wouldn't be worth it. I'm sure they'd add a few customers, but who knows what the cost would be of licensing it and implementing it. We can all dream, though, right? ;D I thought that Outlaw's Trinnov stuff looked interesting/promising as well. I feel like room correction is in its infancy. I imagine it will be something much more common-place and much better refined in 5 years or so. You got that one right Bill! ...TRINNOV, I'll go for that! |
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on Apr 25, 2010 0:57:17 GMT -5
We know...you've pointed it out 20 times a day for the last 2 weeks. I know, isn't it awesome? Instead of retyping half info, or telling people to use a nonfunctional search, or getting the same question over and over and having various people try to answer it, there's a single place whereby just giving a link answers so many of the common questions. I'm glad you've noticed, that means you'll be able to use the resource and share it with others, as well. Hey Bill, I tried to just do that from another audio site, I get over 250 posts in a very short time with all the references on anything you wanted to know plus several links (many of them actually). That was mainly to help people to get info much faster. But the audio site where I did start that has some people objecting to it, in fear of loosing their clientele!!! Now, they deleted all my posts, over 4,000 of them; with some great advices and informations to all people audio passionates. That was total bogus, and because of that and other matters, I decided to quit that audio site for good. It is very sad to live in a world of such restricted minds. That site likes to pride themselves as an authority in the truth about audio; but it is going exactly in the opposite direction of their own set of values! Not everyone though, but the main leaders from the Forums. No need to say which one or which ones; any intelligent person can distinguish that. I simply should have done like you did and start my own web site. I'm glad you did, you're part of a real family, and not a fake one. |
|
|
|
Post by radridd on Apr 25, 2010 7:54:45 GMT -5
These are the post I have been waiting to read! Congrats Lonnie, looks like your star is beginning to shine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodpecker on Apr 25, 2010 17:27:22 GMT -5
We know...you've pointed it out 20 times a day for the last 2 weeks. I know, isn't it awesome? Instead of retyping half info, or telling people to use a nonfunctional search, or getting the same question over and over and having various people try to answer it, there's a single place whereby just giving a link answers so many of the common questions. I'm glad you've noticed, that means you'll be able to use the resource and share it with others, as well. Touche' Bill!  It is great to have an avid audio person to be this involved and enthusiastic. I too feel the UMC is spot on with its sound being very involving and complete. |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs 
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Apr 26, 2010 7:30:39 GMT -5
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 have stated this before, but IMHO the DAC chosen for a particular design has less to do with the actual sound as the implementation of the analog output stage. If you really want to hear how a DAC "sounds" you would need to go all digital right up to the speaker. (and even then I'd argue the speaker's analog implementation has more to do with the sound.  ) Did I mention the pace of this DAC? This is more likely due again to the analog stage/power supply implementation and how quickly the circuit can recover from power drains during demanding musical peaks. Power amps do the same thing. Poorly designed power supplies ruin "pace". (and dynamics, and PRAT, etc) |
|
|
|
Post by BillBauman on Apr 26, 2010 9:10:12 GMT -5
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 have stated this before, but IMHO the DAC chosen for a particular design has less to do with the actual sound as the implementation of the analog output stage. If you really want to hear how a DAC "sounds" you would need to go all digital right up to the speaker. (and even then I'd argue the speaker's analog implementation has more to do with the sound. ) Did I mention the pace of this DAC? This is more likely due again to the analog stage/power supply implementation and how quickly the circuit can recover from power drains during demanding musical peaks. Power amps do the same thing. Poorly designed power supplies ruin "pace". (and dynamics, and PRAT, etc) When you say "analog stage" are you referring to the analog outputs of the DAC itself? In that case, you're still dealing with the DAC. DACs all have a sonic signature, and it can be (easily) heard if you've been paying attention. As far as pace, I stand by my statement and explanation of pace. Why the pace is so good on this system has to do with the overall implementation, including the power supply and the flow of the digital data inbound and analog waveform outbound. If all DACs were equal, and the only dependent factors were analog output stage and power supply, we wouldn't have so many different DACs. Heck, Emotiva wouldn't be paying the premium for the Analog Devices DAC that they do in the ERC-1 or the XDA-1, they'd just buy a pile of CS DACs, dump them in everything, and implement a good power supply. |
|
|
|
Post by 0pter0n on Apr 26, 2010 10:20:37 GMT -5
PM sent re: testing
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Apr 26, 2010 13:02:15 GMT -5
I have stated this before, but IMHO the DAC chosen for a particular design has less to do with the actual sound as the implementation of the analog output stage. If you really want to hear how a DAC "sounds" you would need to go all digital right up to the speaker. (and even then I'd argue the speaker's analog implementation has more to do with the sound. ) This is more likely due again to the analog stage/power supply implementation and how quickly the circuit can recover from power drains during demanding musical peaks. Power amps do the same thing. Poorly designed power supplies ruin "pace". (and dynamics, and PRAT, etc) When you say "analog stage" are you referring to the analog outputs of the DAC itself? In that case, you're still dealing with the DAC. DACs all have a sonic signature, and it can be (easily) heard if you've been paying attention. As far as pace, I stand by my statement and explanation of pace. Why the pace is so good on this system has to do with the overall implementation, including the power supply and the flow of the digital data inbound and analog waveform outbound. If all DACs were equal, and the only dependent factors were analog output stage and power supply, we wouldn't have so many different DACs. Heck, Emotiva wouldn't be paying the premium for the Analog Devices DAC that they do in the ERC-1 or the XDA-1, they'd just buy a pile of CS DACs, dump them in everything, and implement a good power supply. I meant analog output stage. I didn't say all DACs sound the same, just that the output stage has more bearing on the overall sound. Again, this is just my opinion. |
|
I can certainly use it in one of my several systems. 
)