|
|
Post by rvallejos on Apr 29, 2010 18:06:26 GMT -5
I currently have an Integra 9.9 and love it so far although I am fairly new to this whole home theater stuff so im not sure what im missing if anything. I know the Integra has Audessey which makes set up easy but just received the email saying my name has come up for the UMC 1 and was wondering if it has something similar or not. Im currently running JTR Triple 12's for speakers along with a XPA 2 and XPA 5 for power, and a Seaton Submersive sub. Im sure I could sell the 9.9 fairly easy but would I be making an improvement by getting the UMC or would it be more of a lateral move?
|
|
|
|
Post by nickwin on Apr 29, 2010 18:17:08 GMT -5
the quick answer, no the UMC doesn't have anything similar to Auddessey at the moment. The UMC has EmoQ which is Emotiva proprietary auto room set up. In theory it does speaker set up and EQ, but with the current firmware its not functioning 100% consistently IMO. My understanding it that Auddessey, although not perfect, is a more advanced and powerful auto EQ system.
In my opinion if your referring to the DHC-9.9, a UMC would not be a huge upgrade. The stereo section of the UMC might sound a little better, but I haven't ever compared it directly to the 9.9. Your system looks awesome BTW! I've always wanted a Seaton Submersive. If you do end up selling your 9.9, let me know, I might be interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mischief on Apr 29, 2010 18:23:53 GMT -5
I wouldn't say EmoQ is less advanced, It is not as user friendly, in part because it is more customizable. You have to know your system well to get the most out of EmoQ, it is not dumbed down. To get the most from audyssey you need to bring in a professional with the right tools. Emo offers this without the need for a pro... in theory.
In reality, EmoQ is not ready for prime time yet but has tremendous potential.
If you are happy with the 9.9, I would stick with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Apr 29, 2010 19:37:04 GMT -5
I have the 886 which I compared with the UMC-1. I found both have their weak and strong points. If I were you I would order the UMC-1 and do a comparison to the 9.9 to see for yourself. I ended up staying with the 886 but with the latest FW updates I think the UMC-1 will give the 886/9.9 a run for its money. I think it comes down to what your listening habits are (more HT or more towards music) and the features you desire. I am very happy I demoed the UMC-1 and look forward to the XMC-1 in the future  . Bill |
|
|
|
Post by rvallejos on Apr 29, 2010 19:49:06 GMT -5
Its about 95% HT
|
|
|
|
Post by htlover on Apr 29, 2010 20:30:52 GMT -5
I think there's a big difference between Audyssey and EmoQ. EmoQ sets up with a single location. It measures distances and delays based on that single location. Audyssey (not the Pro) version uses at least six or eight locations depending on the unit you have. The Pro version is able to do its calculations based on up to 32 locations.
Notice, I said, I think. When I get my UMC-1 on Monday, I can verify that.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickwin on Apr 29, 2010 20:52:28 GMT -5
I think there's a big difference between Audyssey and EmoQ. EmoQ sets up with a single location. It measures distances and delays based on that single location. Audyssey (not the Pro) version uses at least six or eight locations depending on the unit you have. The Pro version is able to do its calculations based on up to 32 locations. Notice, I said, I think. When I get my UMC-1 on Monday, I can verify that. Yeah, my understanding is that Auddessey takes in a lot more data, and crunches a lot more numbers with its EQ setup than EmoQ. I'm not an expert on either (although I do have a lot of first hand experience with Auddessey), and I don't know whether more data necessarily equates to a better EQ, but I still think that Auddessey is more advanced in a sense that it takes into account more things than EmoQ does when calculating EQ. I also think that Auddessey has smaller freq. increments for its EQ, but I'm not 100% sure on that. |
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on Apr 29, 2010 21:32:18 GMT -5
I have the 886 which I compared with the UMC-1. I found both have their weak and strong points. If I were you I would order the UMC-1 and do a comparison to the 9.9 to see for yourself. I ended up staying with the 886 but with the latest FW updates I think the UMC-1 will give the 886/9.9 a run for its money. I think it comes down to what your listening habits are (more HT or more towards music) and the features you desire. I am very happy I demoed the UMC-1 and look forward to the XMC-1 in the future . Bill Agreed with this quote above; best thing is to compare both in your own system. But the DHC-9.9 is Audyssey MultEQ Pro Installer-Ready, a very nice feature if you ask me. So for movies, the Integra is very nice with all the great features, including the HQV Reon-VX, XLR balanced outputs (all channels) and inputs (2 channel). But for 2-channel audio listening the UMC-1 would probably be more your cup of tea. Just my two cents. P.S. By the way most everyone; "Audyssey", that's the way it spelled.  |
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Apr 30, 2010 4:46:22 GMT -5
It is possible to rename the thread too. |
|
|
|
Post by markus on Apr 30, 2010 7:36:46 GMT -5
I know the Integra has Audessey which makes set up easy but just received the email saying my name has come up for the UMC 1 and was wondering if it has something similar or not. You'll probably never know if you don't measure your system. The EQ part in EmoQ is a pretty useless feature. You would want to use a (parametric) EQ at lower frequencies but not at higher ones. For low frequencies EmoQ offers the wrong kind of EQ. Is Audyssey better? Nobody knows because Audyssey never published what they are really doing. I talked to people in the industry that work on room correction systems and nobody could tell me how Audyssey works. As to the setup part (level calibration, speaker distance), Audyssey does a good job and Emotiva should get there some day with software updates. As to automatic speaker size detection and subwoofer optimization, nobody does it right. There is no working automatic optimization I know of. Best, Markus |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Apr 30, 2010 8:20:07 GMT -5
The EQ part in EmoQ is a pretty useless feature. You would want to use a (parametric) EQ at lower frequencies but not at higher ones. For low frequencies EmoQ offers the wrong kind of EQ. In your opinion. I disagree. There is nothing wrong with using a graphic EQ for "lower" frequencies, especially when as in the case with Emo-Q the bands are covered with sufficient EQ bands. The only advantage to a PEQ is they offer adjustable frequency bands which allows the user to pinpoint a problem frequency. A GEQ functions at fixed frequencies, but if there are "enough" of them, the effect is the same. Also, why would a GEQ be OK in one frequency band but not in others? That makes no logical sense since sound is, well, sound. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a GEQ for room correction. It's done all the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Stevens on Apr 30, 2010 10:22:38 GMT -5
Is Audyssey better? Nobody knows because Audyssey never published what they are really doing. I talked to people in the industry that work on room correction systems and nobody could tell me how Audyssey works. As to the setup part (level calibration, speaker distance), Audyssey does a good job and Emotiva should get there some day with software updates. As to automatic speaker size detection and subwoofer optimization, nobody does it right. There is no working automatic optimization I know of. I have to disagree with this. There is a pretty good explanation of how Audyssey works right here: link1 and link2. Also, if you want to dive into the more technical aspects of it, there's plenty of reading to be found: link3, link4a, link4b and link5. However, the inner workings of the Audyssey algorithms and fuzzy logic seem to remain a deliberate corporate secret, for obvious reasons. However, the academical & theoretical foundations of Audyssey are also quite accessible on the net ( link6). While I don't want to slam the EmoQ, which I haven't even heard, there are some inherent limitations in the way it works: it operates at a very finite number of correction bands, at a preset set of correction frequencies and at a fixed Q-factor for each frequency. A PEQ model (like YPAO, MCACC, etc.) will at least have some flexibility in determining the right frequencies to correct and the width of each correction. However, with Audyssey applying correction at virtually hundreds of points across the frequency spectrum, based on readings from multiple positions, there should be a much greater accuracy in getting the corrections right. However, it is not infallible, as noted here: link7. I have only experienced YPAO and Audyssey MultEQ XT first hand, and the latter seems to do a better job in my room, producing a very clear and detailed sound inside the entire listening area (or "bubble" as the Audyssey folks call it). For me, it also nailed the speaker distances, speaker sizes and crossover points exactly. I actually now prefer the corrected sound over the Pure/Direct sound modes, which is a first for me. The downside to Audyssey (at least in the non-professional versions) is that it doesn't show what it is doing, nor is it possible to tweak the results manually afterwards. Finally, the non-pro versions will works towards a preset Audyssey curve, whereas other systems may let you choose between several (such as Flat, Natural, Front, etc.) and also let you store several correction profiles. However, the web is overflowing with testimonials and reviews that the Audyssey system in fact works well. As for subwoofer optimization systems beyond the standard Audyssey versions, the Audyssey-based SVS-system ( link8) is lauded by many, as are the Antimode system ( link9) and the Behringer system ( link10). Again, the web is rich with info on these. Now, EmoQ may well end up working really well for many users, but to tout it as superior to Audyssey and the other established PEQ models would be overly enthusiastic, I think. |
|
|
|
Post by moodyman on Apr 30, 2010 10:23:19 GMT -5
The EQ part in EmoQ is a pretty useless feature. You would want to use a (parametric) EQ at lower frequencies but not at higher ones. For low frequencies EmoQ offers the wrong kind of EQ. In your opinion. I disagree. There is nothing wrong with using a graphic EQ for "lower" frequencies, especially when as in the case with Emo-Q the bands are covered with sufficient EQ bands. The only advantage to a PEQ is they offer adjustable frequency bands which allows the user to pinpoint a problem frequency. A GEQ functions at fixed frequencies, but if there are "enough" of them, the effect is the same. Also, why would a GEQ be OK in one frequency band but not in others? That makes no logical sense since sound is, well, sound. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a GEQ for room correction. It's done all the time. I would have to disagree with you. If you have a room node at say 50Hz and your GEQ covers 45Hz and 55hz the GEQ is worthless. You can't fix that node without affecting the other freqs. With a PEQ you can zero right in on 50hz. With that said I don't know of any AVR's or pre/pro's that have PEQ's. Some subwoofers have them..allowing you to fix one problem frequency... |
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Apr 30, 2010 10:27:09 GMT -5
Yamaha's have PEQs that can be customised manually, but certainly on my RX-V2500 the problem is that it doesn't have one for the sub. (or was it "sub PEQ" you meant to say?). |
|
|
|
Post by moodyman on Apr 30, 2010 10:28:54 GMT -5
Yamaha's have PEQs that can be customised manually, but certainly on my RX-V2500 the problem is that it doesn't have one for the sub. (or was it "sub PEQ" you meant to say?). I meant AVR's..I didn't know Yamaha had PEQ's...neat. Someone also mentioned Pioneers MCACC..I'll have to double check my AVR''its from 2006 and may not have PEQ's. |
|
goodwinaj
Emo VIPs
Radical Extremist
Posts: 66
|
Post by goodwinaj on Apr 30, 2010 10:41:43 GMT -5
The 9.9 works. Keep it.
|
|
|
|
Post by markus on Apr 30, 2010 10:59:30 GMT -5
The EQ part in EmoQ is a pretty useless feature. You would want to use a (parametric) EQ at lower frequencies but not at higher ones. For low frequencies EmoQ offers the wrong kind of EQ. In your opinion. I disagree. There is nothing wrong with using a graphic EQ for "lower" frequencies, especially when as in the case with Emo-Q the bands are covered with sufficient EQ bands. The only advantage to a PEQ is they offer adjustable frequency bands which allows the user to pinpoint a problem frequency. A GEQ functions at fixed frequencies, but if there are "enough" of them, the effect is the same. Also, why would a GEQ be OK in one frequency band but not in others? That makes no logical sense since sound is, well, sound. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a GEQ for room correction. It's done all the time. I have to disagree. Just because it's done all the time doesn't make it right. To tame modal peaks at low frequencies the Q, frequency and level have to be freely adjustable. This is not just an "opinion" but a scientific fact. A graphic EQ is just too coarse. Good read: www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Technologyleadership/Documents/Scientific%20Publications/13686.pdfwww.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Technologyleadership/Documents/Scientific%20Publications/13680.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Apr 30, 2010 11:02:02 GMT -5
Yamaha's have PEQs that can be customised manually, but certainly on my RX-V2500 the problem is that it doesn't have one for the sub. (or was it "sub PEQ" you meant to say?). I meant AVR's..I didn't know Yamaha had PEQ's...neat. Someone also mentioned Pioneers MCACC..I'll have to double check my AVR''its from 2006 and may not have PEQ's. That said, even with all it's PEQs the UMC-1 still sounds WAY better. |
|
|
|
Post by Stevens on Apr 30, 2010 11:08:10 GMT -5
That said, even with all it's PEQs the UMC-1 still sounds WAY better. You may be absolutely right about that. In the right room and in the right hands, you don't necessarily need anything more advanced than the basic EQ provided by EmoQ. There are so many other factors determining the final quality of the sound beyond just the room correction system used. |
|
|
|
Post by markus on Apr 30, 2010 11:20:20 GMT -5
Stevens I have to disagree with this. There is a pretty good explanation of how Audyssey works right here: ... All those links are just marketing blah (couldn't find the Kyriakakis paper). If you find a paper that really explains how Audyssey works I'd like to read it. As for subwoofer optimization systems beyond the standard Audyssey versions, the Audyssey-based SVS-system ( link8) is lauded by many, as are the Antimode system ( link9) and the Behringer system ( link10). All those boxes have one fundamental problem that the UMC-1 could solve: they don't optimize the crossover region (subwoofer to mains and surround). This is crucial because optimizing several low frequency sources separately doesn't optimize the summed response. I'd like to see such a feature in the UMC-1 but I'm not sure if the platform is capable of that. Best, Markus P.S. The Anti-Mode 8033 works very well and is very easy to use. |
|
.
