|
|
Post by laserman35 on Sept 26, 2014 8:11:02 GMT -5
For some people the difference may not be real noticeable, we are all different. The difference for me is significant, bigger sound stage and more detail.
The only other receiver I used as a pre-amp in my room was a Marantz and the UMC-1 just blew it away in SQ.
With my current setup, I'm in doubt that I will find many more WOWS! The XMC-1 put the last of icing on the cake for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Sept 26, 2014 8:30:57 GMT -5
For sound quality, I noticed no difference. Currently the differences mainly are in that the XMC is much more flexible in its instalation and improvements to it's components. If the UMC -200 fits the bill for your installation. I would not expect to gain much. But again, dirac has the potiential to change everything. Time will tell. Tony Tony, Thanks for the review. I would like to be sure I understand. When you say you can hear no difference between well made processors of any kind are you talking about movies or music or both? To clarify - I do not hear differences in digital sources. Between the UMC 200 and the xmc. After manual eq of each, they sounded exactly the same, and that was my expectation when I started. The UMC 200 emoQ vs the xmc manual eq did sound different. But all differences heard were by my design. Not the design of the equipment. I have nothing analog in my chain and I do not do any critical listening to music. The UMC 200 and the xmc both do very well at taking bits of data and adding what the user applied in filters or arc and sending the the new signal to the amps. I am not quite ready to address the subs yet in my review, but I was able to get better sounding subs with the xmc (this was due to the greater flexibility of the xmc). I will post more on my thoughts on the sub portion soon. Tony |
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Sept 26, 2014 8:40:15 GMT -5
For some people the difference may not be real noticeable, we are all different. The difference for me is significant, bigger sound stage and more detail. The only other receiver I used as a pre-amp in my room was a Marantz and the UMC-1 just blew it away in SQ. With my current setup, I'm in doubt that I will find many more WOWS! The XMC-1 put the last of icing on the cake for me. Laserman, between the umc-1 and the xmc. The improvements I was able to make with filters on the xmc were night and day over the umc-1. If I just ran both units (at default values (only adjusting levels and distance) those differences diminished to the point where I don't believe I could tell the difference in a blind test. Also, like your wow moment. Going from denon to the umc was a big jump for me as well. I no longer have my denon to do an a/b. But with what I was able to measure. The denon struggled at higher volumes and I was not satisfied with what audyssey did to the sound, thus I preferred the manual eq of the umc over audyssey. Tony |
|
|
|
Post by bluescale on Sept 26, 2014 9:58:01 GMT -5
Laserman, between the umc-1 and the xmc. The improvements I was able to make with filters on the xmc were night and day over the umc-1. If I just ran both units (at default values (only adjusting levels and distance) those differences diminished to the point where I don't believe I could tell the difference in a blind test. I was surprised to find that the XMC-1 did improve sound quality over the UMC-1 even before I added any filters. For the most part I believe that quality modern digital equipment is generally equivalent in sound quality, with the differences being in things like flexibility and equalization. With the UMC-1, I would sometimes hear what I can only describe as breakup, during high decible, high frequency notes. I thought that problem was with my tweeter. Surprisingly, I hear no such breakup with the XMC-1. Aside from that 1 difference, however, the benefits come down to the filters I'm able to add on the XMC-1. |
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Sept 26, 2014 11:54:42 GMT -5
Do any of you use the asynchronous USB input on the XMC-1? That is a nice feature the UMC-200 does not have and can provide real value for someone using a computer to play music files.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Sept 26, 2014 12:04:15 GMT -5
For some people the difference may not be real noticeable, we are all different. The difference for me is significant, bigger sound stage and more detail. The only other receiver I used as a pre-amp in my room was a Marantz and the UMC-1 just blew it away in SQ. With my current setup, I'm in doubt that I will find many more WOWS! The XMC-1 put the last of icing on the cake for me. Laserman, between the umc-1 and the xmc. The improvements I was able to make with filters on the xmc were night and day over the umc-1. If I just ran both units (at default values (only adjusting levels and distance) those differences diminished to the point where I don't believe I could tell the difference in a blind test. Also, like your wow moment. Going from denon to the umc was a big jump for me as well. I no longer have my denon to do an a/b. But with what I was able to measure. The denon struggled at higher volumes and I was not satisfied with what audyssey did to the sound, thus I preferred the manual eq of the umc over audyssey. Tony Tony, I know you no longer have the Denon receiver and music is not your primary focus, but could you speak to the differences in the quality of music playback of your Denon, with and without Audyssey, compared to the UMC-200 and the XMC-1? Many say the difference in the sound quality between processors with movies is marginal while music can be significant. Also have you every compared your equipment to an Anthem MRX 510 or 710 receiver with ARC? |
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Sept 26, 2014 12:05:52 GMT -5
Added my thoughts on the subwoofer setup and eq.
|
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Sept 26, 2014 12:08:39 GMT -5
Fbczar, your requests require some thought. Give me some time to get back to you on that. (not something that I can tackle right at the moment)
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 26, 2014 13:21:36 GMT -5
Thanks for the nice review. I noticed that you noted no real difference between sound quality. I can appreciate that. It's useful information. Is there a reason you chose to hold onto the significantly more expensive XMC-1 and return the UMC-200 instead of the other way round?
|
|
|
|
Post by bluescale on Sept 26, 2014 13:26:51 GMT -5
For those who have a good understanding and better, Emotiva offers the tools needed to get the job done and I have watched a lot of back and forth on how Emotiva should implement and tweak further the options (such as adding separate distance and levels while having one eq). I am not quite in agreement and think that the tools given are the proper tools to do the job. Where the failure comes in, is due to the lack of a simple option or documentation on properly setting up the XMC in the home user environment. Once Dirac is finished and out, this will be less of a concern, but page 14 and 20 makes a huge assumption that just giving you the data on how the XMC handles the bass management, that the user can take that information and apply it in practice. The more I read about multiple subwoofer environments, the more I come around to the idea that perhaps multiple EQ settings is a good thing, in the right hands. I'd argue for most people (myself included, at least until I get the opportunity to spend a lot of time experimenting and learning) it's more likely to cause problems. I'm not convinced that Dirac will address dual subwoofers correctly. We'll have to wait to see how it's configured, but I think the way Dirac will work will either measure both subs individually or combined. What really needs to happen is a combination of both. Individual responses for distance and level, and combined response for EQ. Whether the subs are EQ'd uniquely, the results have to take into account the combined response. |
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Sept 26, 2014 13:32:03 GMT -5
Thanks for the nice review. I noticed that you noted no real difference between sound quality. I can appreciate that. It's useful information. Is there a reason you chose to hold onto the significantly more expensive XMC-1 and return the UMC-200 instead of the other way round? Yes, 1. Bass Management is more powerful and provided more tools to tweak multiple subwoofer responses. 2. The UMC-200's capabilities were maxed right out of the box for my setup. 3. The advanced PEQ works well for feeding my OCD. 4. My trials with Dirac yielded very positive results. 5. The extended return policy (30 days after Dirac) allow for a lot to happen without much risk. Tony |
|
insightfulman
Minor Hero
Have you seen the 6 fingered man?
Posts: 48 
|
Post by insightfulman on Sept 26, 2014 13:33:56 GMT -5
I have a question for everyone here. EmoEQ failed miserably with my all Magnepan setup. When I called Emotiva support they confirmed that EmoEQ has issues with diapole/planner/electrostatic speakers so I was recommended to leave it in flat and manually adjust levels and speaker distance. I managed to buy UMiK and used REW to do manual config. But now that I got email from Emotiva indicating my reservation for the XMC-1 is ready for purchase I feel hesitant to order it as I don't think even with DIRC implementation the issue with my type of speakers would be resolved. Furthermore, I also have XSP-1 for my analog needs so any thoughts on whether my system would benefit with XMC-1?
|
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Sept 26, 2014 13:40:06 GMT -5
I have a question for everyone here. EmoEQ failed miserably with my all Magnepan setup. When I called Emotiva support they confirmed that EmoEQ has issues with diapole/planner/electrostatic speakers so I was recommended to leave it in flat and manually adjust levels and speaker distance. I managed to buy UMiK and used REW to do manual config. But now that I got email from Emotiva indicating my reservation for the XMC-1 is ready for purchase I feel hesitant to order it as I don't think even with DIRC implementation the issue with my type of speakers would be resolved. Furthermore, I also have XSP-1 for my analog needs so any thoughts on whether my system would benefit with XMC-1? That's a tough question with no simple answer. I attempted to get information out of Dirac on how they address bipole speakers as I was using Definitive Technology 7006's until very recently and I was not able to come up with an answer. I would suggest downloading the Dirac trial and testing how dirac interacts with your speakers. I would also take into consideration your subwoofer situation and look at some other reviews that would address any analog sources. Tony |
|
|
|
Post by djoel on Sept 26, 2014 13:43:24 GMT -5
I have a question for everyone here. EmoEQ failed miserably with my all Magnepan setup. When I called Emotiva support they confirmed that EmoEQ has issues with diapole/planner/electrostatic speakers so I was recommended to leave it in flat and manually adjust levels and speaker distance. I managed to buy UMiK and used REW to do manual config. But now that I got email from Emotiva indicating my reservation for the XMC-1 is ready for purchase I feel hesitant to order it as I don't think even with DIRC implementation the issue with my type of speakers would be resolved. Furthermore, I also have XSP-1 for my analog needs so any thoughts on whether my system would benefit with XMC-1? Do you have a ssp at the moment? I see that you have a whole 5.0 speaker system which could need some processing. Djoel |
|
insightfulman
Minor Hero
Have you seen the 6 fingered man?
Posts: 48
|
Post by insightfulman on Sept 26, 2014 17:07:58 GMT -5
Hi, yes I have UMC-200 and REL Strata III sub. My mains are Magnepan 1.7 and center and rears are also Magnepans.
|
|
|
|
Post by tunatamer on Sept 26, 2014 17:23:38 GMT -5
Hi, yes I have UMC-200 and REL Strata III sub. My mains are Magnepan 1.7 and center and rears are also Magnepans. Love the Avatar!  |
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Sept 26, 2014 17:38:03 GMT -5
Tony, I know you no longer have the Denon receiver and music is not your primary focus, but could you speak to the differences in the quality of music playback of your Denon, with and without Audyssey, compared to the UMC-200 and the XMC-1? Many say the difference in the sound quality between processors with movies is marginal while music can be significant. Also have you every compared your equipment to an Anthem MRX 510 or 710 receiver with ARC? Well it has been many moons since the 3808ci was in my system and I have slept a few times since then. The differences I remember mostly dealt with Audyssey multieq XT vs. manual eq. I personally liked the manual eq over Audyssey's custom and flat curve. I found that Audyssey always either tried to flatten the response over too great of an area or dropped the highs so much that the speakers lost all presence. This was the point where I started doing real research in room acoustics. The other major issue that I noticed was that dynamics improved with the UMC over the Denon at reference volumes. I felt like the Denon was being driven into clipping at or near reference and I had zero headroom. The differences in the UMC1 vs the 200 was control. The addition of parametric EQ allowed me to put the focus where I wanted. The other major difference was the next generation emoQ. While I never used it for the filters, I did use it for setting the distances. I firmly believe that linear distance is not always the same as the distance sound traveled to reach the listening position. (especially when it comes to phase alignment) and the UMC 200 did a better job then the original emoQ. Music. I have never been a fan of just music, although I will watch a concert every once in a while. The only concert I put through the paces on both the UMC-200 and the XMC was red rocks - Mumford and Sons. With the additional filter control I was able to restore some of the highs that were lost previously due to the amount of room treatments needed to control the bottom end of my room . As for the statement quality between processors with movies is marginal. I will agree to an extent for most content out there. However, there are a few out there that work wonderfully for testing new gear. My 3 go to movies to achieve different tests are : 1. Terminator Salvation - Scene where that big bot attacks the gas station. There is a lot that is going on in the scene and the vocals are easy to lose (especially if you are sitting off center) (This is really a test of eq skills and levels) 2. Dredd opening scene- This is a test of the low end - Check to see if the subs are still under control. 3. Master & commander - (the whole movie) This is the demo. There are lots of subtle creeks, rain, wind, waves etc. This has passages while at reference volume will swing from 40db to 110. This is my movie to see if the equipment is running out of steam. Other processors I have never had the chance to listen to Anthem. I have played with the Integra's and lots of receivers. But I always kept going back to the UMC previously (This was mainly due to the room treatments - I do not have to tweak the speakers much any more since I fixed most of everything in the room and did not get much advantage from MCACC and Audyssey). NOTE: I know that this post looks like I am hating on Audyssey. In reality, I recommend processors that have Audyssey 5 to 1 over the UMC-1 and 200. For anyone who is not willing to take the time to at least get a basic level of understanding of room correction, there is nothing that can compare to what Audyssey has been able to do with room correction and the amount of crappy situations it can fix. I am hoping that Dirac changes this. If Dirac can do what it did on the demo, and emotiva makes the XMC a little more user friendly for those who just want to hook it up and go. It will be hard not to recommend over other options. Tony |
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Sept 26, 2014 17:41:05 GMT -5
Do any of you use the asynchronous USB input on the XMC-1? That is a nice feature the UMC-200 does not have and can provide real value for someone using a computer to play music files. I do not. Anyone else want to chime in before this post gets lost? Tony |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Sept 26, 2014 17:55:50 GMT -5
I have a UMC-200 and I am very pleased with it. If you say you didn't notice too big of a difference between UMC-200 and XMC-1, why would I buy a three times pricier thing, incomplete (no-Dirac) and not perfectly polished (as I heard)? Be happy with what you have is, at least sometimes, the best policy. I'm surprised no one mentions the X-Series build quality. Even if the unit sounded the same as the UMC-1, I'd pay more to have the build of the XSP-1. I'd want the balanced connectors too, but I prefer the better parts and connectors, better finish, all around higher quality of the 'X-Gen'. Of course you don't want to put yourself in debt for this stuff, but there are less tangible qualities that go into this hobbie as well. |
|
hemster
Global Moderator 
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,952
|
Post by hemster on Sept 26, 2014 18:02:23 GMT -5
Do any of you use the asynchronous USB input on the XMC-1? That is a nice feature the UMC-200 does not have and can provide real value for someone using a computer to play music files. I do not. Anyone else want to chime in before this post gets lost? Tony Nope sorry, I don't use the USB input on the XMC-1 either. I do on my DC-1 in another rig however. |
|
