UMC-1 Vs USP-1

[DC]

Have the UMC-1 at the moment for both 2 channel & HT and wondering whether would adding a USP-1 for 2 channel makes a different? Anyone that has made the changes please advice
David

[thomasd92]

I do not have a UMC but when I added the USP-1 to my processor the sound quality in 2 channel analog greatly improved. I am using an Onkyo 885 pro as my processor.

[dsnyder0cnn]

Hello,

I was considering that route too; however, after some consideration, I realized that I don't actually have any analog-only sources (ignoring the SACD player since I have only a half-dozen discs and don't plan to purchase more). Therefore, an analog preamp would not be very useful to me.

The analog "Direct" mode on the UMC-1 is actually amazingly transparent. I believe that "Stereo" is the default setting for analog sources, so I encourage you to have a look under "Setup/Advanced Playback" to verify that you are using "Direct" vs. "Stereo" if you are running full-range front loudspeakers. You should hear a substantial improvement after switching to "Direct" mode with high quality analgo sources and full-range fronts.

I too would like to hear from someone who has compared the USP-1 to the UMC-1 in analog "Direct" mode. I was skeptical at first, but now I'd be surprised if there was $400 + another set of interconnects worth of difference in sound between the two...unless you need bass management for your fronts and/or you have a turntable as your primary source.

Although it's nearly five times as expensive as the USP-1, my plan is to purchase the Benchmark DAC1 HDR instead. The DAC1 is basically a stereo "digital" preamp. The analog input (there's just one) can be used as a passthrough for routing FL/FR signals from the UMC-1 to the front channel amps (for watching movies, etc.), optionally using fully balanced outputs. The other five inputs are all digital, including three COAX S/PDIF, one TOSLINK S/PDIF, and one USB (limited to 96 kHz sampling frequency). Like the USP-1, volume control is implemented using a motorized potentiometer. It also sports a headphone amp with two front jacks.

Of course, I would love to see Emotiva build a device that offers similar capabilities and performance at 1/3rd of Benchmark's asking price, but until that happens, I believe that the DAC1 offers the best performance and value for money in this relatively new category. I've not been looking for very long though. If you know of others that I should consider, pelase let me know! I hope to pull the trigger on the Benchmark before the end of this month.

In summary, if you're like me and you find that you don't have (m)any true analog-only sources, a high end "digital" preamp may also be worthy of your consideration as a companion to the UMC-1. Besides the UMC-1 itself, Emotiva does not currently offer a device that fits this category; hopefully they will someday (perhaps with integrated file based playback?). Cheers until then.

-- David

[roadrunner]

Many people who buy the USP-1 do so because they also own the ERC-1 CD Player, which as excellent DACs built-in, to feed to the USP-1. The ERC/USP combo is a tremendous sounding was to listen to your CD collection. Just feed the RCA analog connection from the ERC to the USP and lay back to enjoy the best sounding musical reproduction you have heard in ages. Others also buy the USP to add a superlative Headphone stage to their system; a world-class phono stage; a analog bass management system to give you great 2.1 sound; and, last but not least, the HT bypass switch to allow you to take advantage of your existing speakers and power amps for your 2-channel setup.

The sound quality of the USP far exceeds that of any HT processor I have heard. If you love music, you really should take a close look at using the USP to supply the analog bliss you have been dreaming about. ;D

[thomasd92]

I forgot to mention that I have the ERC-1 for cd and I use my OPPO 83 for playing sacd in two channel.Since I have the USP-1 I do not bother to listen to any sacd's in multichannel.

[oppman99]

I have the USP and UMC in different setups. I haven't done a head to head comparison, but I can tell you one of my first thoughts after hooking up the umc is that it makes a very good preamp. In my opinion, it doesn't come off badly at all when compared to the USP especially considering my music gear is higer quality than my HT. If I was running a multifunction setup, I think I would stick with just the UMC.

[billmac]

I had the UMC-1 and the USP-1 although not at the same time. I felt the 2 CH SQ of the UMC-1 was excellent and IMO believe adding the USP-1 is not needed. But you could order a USP-1 and compare them directly so that way you would know first hand .

Bill

[Deleted]

I have had my USP-1, ERC-1 and a UPA-2 for a month now for my upstairs 2-channel setup and I'm running a Marantz SR7002 and a XPA-5 and Pan BD for theater down stairs.
I was curious to see the difference in quality the ERC-1 and USP-1 would make over the Marz which I considered the best sounding receiver when I got it. Running the ERC-1 source direct was nicer then my Pan BD player by a bit, but running the cd-pre through the XPA-5 was a huge difference, sound stage, base extension way better and the best I heard out of my towers. I thought Dave Mathews on BD was vary nice but not even close for 2-channel compared to the cd-pre. So does the UMC-1 sound that much better then the SR7002? if not and you want to play 2 channel through your theater set up then why not run ERC-1 & USP-1.

[dsnyder0cnn]

Hello,

Jun 9, 2010 16:03:52 GMT -5 @dar49 said:

...So does the UMC-1 sound that much better then the SR7002? if not and you want to play 2 channel through your theater set up then why not run ERC-1 & USP-1.

Right. I suppose that is the question we're hoping to have answered in this thread, or at least some variation of it. Does inserting a USP-1 between a UMC-1 and the amps and then running all analog sources (including an ERC-1 if you have it) directly into the USP-1 make a noticeable difference or enough of a difference to justify the spend, interconnects, and additional complexity? (Although the thoughtful HT pass-through mode on the USP-1 does make this easy.)

I don't have a USP-1 or spare $400 lying around to give this a try just now, but if someone does, please report.

-- David

[DC]

That's exactly my question, whether inserting the USP-1 makes any differences if it does, will it justify the $399? Besides that the trouble of switching on & off the various equipments(noting that whenever u switch UMC-1 for playing analogue u have to manually turn it to direct), unless the trigger can do the job.

[Deleted]

I hear you David, I have never heard a CD through a processor/receiver then amp or even a cd through descent integrated amp sound near a nice as a cd then pre-amp.
I think your gaining an advantage of going through the cd dac and then a vary short signal path built just for analog delivery (pre) so it's that much better.
Don't you just connect the cd to the pre and turn on the cd and pre for music and then put the pre in bypass for theater?
If you go cd pass through the UMC-1 then pre it would not be worth it, but i to would like someone to try this with the UMC-1 and comment, maybe it's pass through is much better but i doubt it. So far it's not worth it for me to ad a CD to the theater set just for 2 channel as I love the cd pre in the living room.

[dsnyder0cnn]

Howdy,

Jun 9, 2010 19:54:06 GMT -5 @dar49 said:

If you go cd pass through the UMC-1 then pre it would not be worth it, but i to would like someone to try this with the UMC-1 and comment, maybe it's pass through is much better but i doubt it. So far it's not worth it for me to ad a CD to the theater set just for 2 channel as I love the cd pre in the living room.

Again, the "Direct" mode path through the UMC-1, which is not the default setting for analog inputs, sounds really good, so it must be a fairly short signal path. There's just a lot going on in the UMC-1 with all of the video processing circuitry, HDMI, A-to-D and DAC circuits, etc., so in theory, it is tough for it to complete with a strictly analog 2-channel pre. The UMC-1 also seems to use a digital attenuator circuit rather than a real analog volume control, and, again, in theory, that should put it at a disadvantage vs. the USP-1.

Too much theory, not enough listening! I'd love to hear from someone who has actually put the UMC-1 and USP-1 together in the same system and done some careful listening. I'll eventually need to form my own opinion, but hearing someone else characterize the differences that they heard will whet my appetite until then.

-- David

[Dan Laufman]

The UMC-1 does not use a lossy digital attenuator.

It uses a very high quality, high voltage, digitally controlled multichannel analog attenuator. Essentially an electronically controlled resistor ladder attenuator. Nice.

Happy listening!

[mauriceminor]

Dan,

Will the XDA-1 DAC also feature this ' resistor ladder attenuator " ?

Maurice

[roadrunner]

Jun 9, 2010 19:50:01 GMT -5 DC said:

That's exactly my question, whether inserting the USP-1 makes any differences if it does, will it justify the $399? Besides that the trouble of switching on & off the various equipments(noting that whenever u switch UMC-1 for playing analogue u have to manually turn it to direct), unless the trigger can do the job.

When properly using the USP-1 in conjunction with your processor there is no need to worry about manually switching anything on the processor. You would have your analog gear running through the USP-1 and when you felt like watching something via your HT system you would only need to press the "bypass" switch on the USP. Remember the design of the USP-1 allows you to leverage your existing speakers and power amp (from HT system). Your analog gear never has a path through the processor. The USP is just "borrowing" your existing system"s FR, FL and Sub to listen to your CDs, LPs and other analog source components. When you press the bypass switch on the USP it becomes a "straight wire" for the signal coming from the processor, for the speakers and amplifier channels that it was borrowing.

Does this sound better than playing the analog components through your processor, a UMC-1 or something else? Most definitely! This is not a subtle improvement in your listening experience. This is a major improvement in the sound quality. If you are a music lover, this is well worth the cost of the USP-1. You could never build a separate 2-channel system that could ever approach this SQ for the price of the USP-1.

Think about it. A separate system would require that you buy new speakers, a new sub woofer, and a new power amp in addition to a pre-amp and maybe additional analog source components. How much would all these new purchases run you? ...$2000? $3000 or more? Now compare that to getting just the USP-1 (for $399) that will give you the same level of performance.

Picture this. You have a HT system with Emotiva ERT-8.3 front speakers, two Emotiva XPA-1 power amps, and a big powerful, musical sub woofer that the USP-1 will fully take advantage of, without having to buy new speakers or power amps for your 2-channel listening. You can spend $399 for the USP and let is borrow those amazing pieces; or, you can buy all of those pieces again (for about $4000) to build a separate analog system. In essence you get the great sound performance of the $4000 system for 10% of the cost. This is the biggest bargain you will ever find!

This is not conjecture. This is the actual system configured in my basement Great Room. The sound from routing the analog signal through the USP-1 versus through the UMC-1 is much better. The music will be far more "life-like". The imaging, the sound-stage, the clarity and the distortion levels are dramatically improved when routed through the USP-1. The USP-1 is truly the cheapest way to dramatically improve an already good sound system. ;D ;D ;D

[kingnordi]

I agree 100% with roadrunner. I have the UMC-1, ERC-1 and the UPA-7 and was thinking about the USP-1. So, i pulled the Trigger again and ordered the USP-1.
The SQ is much better right out of the Box. I noticed after 3 seconds.
Soundstage is deeper, more clarity, more Details. It sounds very analoge. For only $399 it is absolutly worth !
If you have the ERC-1 or a similar High End Player or a Turntable then the USP-1 is a must have.

The USP-1 unlocks the full Potential of the ERC-1 !

One bad Thing: The USP-1 remote interacts with the UMC-1 and reverse.

[roadrunner]

Jun 12, 2010 1:25:24 GMT -5 kingnordi said:

I agree 100% with roadrunner. I have the UMC-1, ERC-1 and the UPA-7 and was thinking about the USP-1. So, i pulled the Trigger again and ordered the USP-1.
The SQ is much better right out of the Box. I noticed after 3 seconds.
Soundstage is deeper, more clarity, more Details. It sounds very analoge. For only $399 it is absolutly worth !
If you have the ERC-1 or a similar High End Player or a Turntable then the USP-1 is a must have.

The USP-1 unlocks the full Potential of the ERC-1 !

One bad Thing: The USP-1 remote interacts with the UMC-1 and reverse.

Just a quick note for some of the new members. Emotiva will be shipping a "fix package" to cure the code overlap issue between the USP-1 and the UMC-1. The package will contain a new aluminum remote control that has been modified so that there is no overlap of the IR codes; and it will contain software to update the "front panel" of the UMC-1 to work with the modified code changes in the include new remote control. Once the package is received and the software flashed the overlap will no longer be an issue.

Emotiva will automatically ship the "fix package" to all customers who bought both the UMC and the USP. The are a goodly number of us waiting for the "fix package" so that we can once again FULLY take advantage of all that the USP/UMC combo has to offer. For more detailed information PM me or call Lonnie. ;D

[wizardofoz]

I have both UMC and USP and my main reason for getting the USP was the Phono stage, but its pretty sweet with my other analogue sources, like my old CD5050 vintage Yamaha CD player and for some analogue vrs digital input compares on the USP/UMC from sources that have both types of output.

I bluetacked a coin over the USP remote window so it doesnt play up. I can live with this for now but waiting for the remote updates to solve this.

[eddieg07410]

I've had my USP-1 UMC-1 combination about a week and I frankly can't understand all the glowing reports of the the USPO-1. To my ears I think my records and cd's actually sounded better with my MMC-1. I find the overall sound not forward enough. With my MMC-1 it was much easier to pick out individual instruments. Also the highs sound a little shrill. I was listening to an old Ramsey Lewis record (sun Goddess), and the electric piano sounded distorted. Is it possible that my USP-1 has a problem or needs to be broken in further. Playing a SACD through my UMC-1 sounded so much better than my CD's through the USP-1.

[RPA-1 man]

Could be synergy with the rest of your system. I'm a pretty picky listener. I always listen analytically even when I try not to. It drives me nuts sometimes but I can't help it. I have been very happy with the USP-1. I have not heard the UMC-1 but imo the USP-1 is not shrill. I can only compare to the Emotiva RSP-1 that I owned previously and Carver C-1 that I still own and rotate in and out of my system.

Compared to the two pieces I mentioned, the USP-1 is slightly laid back but still produces all the detail I could ask for and more. I have never found it shrill even on vinyl.