|
|
Post by billmac on Jan 21, 2010 16:36:14 GMT -5
Hi Dan, Thanks for your response and I understand why you do not want mention the units the UMC-1 was compared to. I have an idea which ones those are of course it would include the Onkyo/Integras (just a wild guess ;D). I have seen pictures of the inside of the USP-1 and the Parasound 2100. The USP-1 appears to be a much better layout and also beefier components. I demoed both and found both to sound excellent. I went with the 2100 due to a few functions that the USP-1 does not have. I also preferred the SQ of the 2100 but of course that is totally subjective  . I never thought you came across that way at all. I just think I will have to hear the UMC-1 for myself in my system to determine if the SQ is significantly better than the 886 . This does not surprise me as most prepros if not all available now are priced much higher than the UMC-1 . I think it is good to express your opinion and the design process for the UMC-1. The opinions of SQ from UMC-1 owners have been extremely positive and I hope Emotiva can get the bugs worked out with the next FW update. Your team must be very busy knitting UMC-1 sweaters ;D. Take care, Bill |
|
|
|
Post by suffolk112000 on Jan 21, 2010 17:07:50 GMT -5
...Still no link as to where one can get a 9.9 for under $1K.  I actually had the chance to get a 9.9 for $999 last fall. I didn't pull the trigger, but have no doubt if they can get one, they would offer it for that price again. Start calling dealers... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 23:47:06 GMT -5
By the way, some of products we have auditioned are excellent. They also cost 4-5 times the price of a UMC-1......Best regards, Big Dan Big Dan, that is the primary factor why I came here in the first place and bought my first product, the XPA-5 (after many hours of research about Emo amps and the company). I remain here due to the great staff at Emotiva, the nice members at the lounge, your new products all with the same price/performance value and the number one reason I remain a loyal customer is (drum roll please): THE SEXY BLUE LIGHTS!!! ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by 2infinity on Jan 21, 2010 23:55:14 GMT -5
[/quote]
THE SEXY BLUE LIGHTS!!!
;D ;D ;D[/quote]
+1 Those sexy blue lights get me every time!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2010 0:06:04 GMT -5
I have done direct A-B comparisons between my Onkyo 886, the USP-1 and the Parasound 2100 (no subwoofer used). ..........I am sure there will be some negative comments about my above questions  . But I have found the Emotiva staff is very patient when tough straight forward questions are asked here on the Lounge much more so than some members here.Bill Were these comparisons done blind or were you aware of which units were playing? How about giving us a complete review here at the Lounge including photos with all the details of this test. How did you switch back and forth between these three units, etc., etc. Maybe someone will come forward to dissect your post into small minute parcels and analyze it word for word and then ask some "tough straight forward questions, much more so than some members here might ask." Hope you will be very patient when they start asking tough straight forward questions. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Jan 22, 2010 0:54:05 GMT -5
Were these comparisons done blind or were you aware of which units were playing? How about giving us a complete review here at the Lounge including photos with all the details of this test. How did you switch back and forth between these three units, etc., etc. Maybe someone will come forward to dissect your post into small minute parcels and analyze it word for word and then ask some "tough straight forward questions, much more so than some members here might ask." Hope you will be very patient when they start asking tough straight forward questions. ;D Hey Chuckie, C'mon give a product of the '70s (oh that smell) with a bad memory and failing hearing/eyesight a break ;D. I knew that little ditty I planted in my post would bring you out of your powerlift chair . Its late but I will be glad to go into detail on my comparisons later . Its funny how you are not asking Big Dan the same questions about his comparisons . Bill |
|
|
|
Post by sergeantynot on Jan 22, 2010 11:38:35 GMT -5
Maybe someone will come forward to dissect your post into small minute parcels and analyze it word for word and then ask some "tough straight forward questions, much more so than some members here might ask." Gotta love those microscopic dissection of posts! |
|
|
|
Post by 2infinity on Jan 22, 2010 11:39:49 GMT -5
Maybe someone will come forward to dissect your post into small minute parcels and analyze it word for word and then ask some "tough straight forward questions, much more so than some members here might ask." Gotta love those microscopic dissection of posts! +1 |
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Jan 22, 2010 12:02:42 GMT -5
Gotta love those microscopic dissection of posts! Why thank you Sarge, I'm flattered ;D. Bill |
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Jan 22, 2010 17:28:28 GMT -5
Hey Chuckie, Not blind but I did close my eyes a few times ;D. So yes I was aware of what was playing. Well I will do a complete of a review as possible, sorry no photos . I had my Consonance CD-120 connected to the CD input of the USP-1. For the connection to the 886 I used the balanced outputs of the CD-120. I level matched by ear by going back in forth between the CD input and the HT input till I thought the levels were as close as possible. I played a number of CDs from artists I am very familiar with for the comparison. My speakers are Ascend Sierra-1s and my amp is a Boston Acoustics A7200 (S/N A965 clone). I set the 886 to Pure Audio mode to get the closest possible analog direct signal as possible. What I found after several hours of listening was that the 886 was closer in overall SQ than I expected with the USP-1 having the edge in detail and a slightly deeper/wider sound stage. The difference in SQ was subtle not a huge one but others might disagree . But how many others here have done the same comparison between the 886 and the USP-1? The big difference came when I changed the USP-1 HT input from Full Range to High Pass to utilize my sub. This is where the USP-1 has a big advantage over the 886 in Pure Audio mode as the sub can not be used. I found the USP-1 to be an excellent preamp especially when you factor in the cost. But I was not happy with some of the features of the USP-1. The biggest for me was that the USP-1 has to be powered up to use the HT Bypass feature. Along with that was the fact that the front panel lights can not be dimmed which in a dark room for movie watching is distracting. Not being able to have your speakers set for full range with the HT Bypass is another feature I would have liked. I also found the HP/LP setting pots very difficult to set as there is no reference point on the knobs. For overall bass management the advantage goes to the USP-1 as the 2100 does not have a HP level adjustment (it is fixed at 80Hz). The remote is not the best but that has been talked about quite a bit . I should add that the warranty with the USP-1 is 5 years and transferable, much better than the 2100 . I then switched preamps and took the USP-1 out of my system and added the Parasound 2100. I ran through the same CDs as earlier and found the 2100 was a touch less bright than the USP-1 but without having the USP-1 in my system for direct comparison it was hard to pin down. I noticed on a Steely Dan track off of Countdown To Ecstasy that there was a siblance with cymbal strikes that was not as pronounced with the 2100. But again without a direct comparison this could be a non issue . The 2100 has many features that I like the biggest being it does not need to be powered up to use the HT Bypass and does not have any bright lights on the front panel. You can have your speakers set to Full Range when connected to the HT Bypass. There is a subwoofer level on the front panel which comes in handy if I am listening to bass heavy music. Also an iPod input which is nice but I don't have an iPod but might in the future. The remote is of better quality than the USP-1s but I have a Harmony 688 so a non factor IMO. So in the end I kept the 2100 but I feel the USP-1 is an excellent preamp as well. For me it came down to features where I feel the 2100 has the advantage. Of course the 2100 costs more but I was lucky to get a "open box" unit with full warranty from Audio Advisor that was never opened for the same price as the USP-1 . Would that someone be you? Dissect away ;D. My above thoughts are just a subjective totally uncontrolled honest comparison from a true audiophile in training with a long way to go . The funny thing is if I was posting here saying the USP-1 smoked the 886 and the 2100 giving me total audio bliss no one would be asking "how did you do the comparison, was it blind, did you know what was playing etc. It would be high fives and back slaps all around saying thats awesome . But if the outcome is on the slightly negative side well... thats a different story IMO ;D. Hey fire away, I have plenty of patience and do not mind the tough questions. One can always learn so much in this hobby/obsession everyday . Bill |
|
|
|
Post by briank on Jan 22, 2010 21:26:33 GMT -5
We all know how subjective the SQ of speakers can be, and well, preference in the SQ of pre-pros and amps can be very subjective as well. It boils down to listening to the gear and choosing what you like. I just got back from Emo HQ and Dan invited me into the theater room to play with the new "toy". This is the second time I've listened to the UMC-1 since Emo-fest and I swear it sounds better now. It's a very impressive unit both SQ and VQ wise (as the lucky people that own one know). Regarding it's SQ compared to other pre's and pre-pro's, I have the USP-1 and have listened to the Parasound 2100 (almost bought one), I've also listened to the Integra 9.8 and most of Onkyo's current line up, and I prefer the sound of the UMC-1. I use my system whenever watching regular TV and listening to the music channels and the SQ of the signal coming from my cable box is obviously not the best, so I think the smoother and more forgiving UMC-1 will make the best match for watching TV and listening to the music channels. The UMC-1 is a bit smoother and more liquid sounding than the USP-1, Onkyo's & Integras, and more detailed than the 2100. I still prefer the USP-1 for average to well-recorded cd's as it comes across more detailed but I think lesser recordings that would sound like crap through the USP-1 would still sound good through the UMC-1. So, I've finally decided to do the UMC-1 and USP-1 combo which I think will give me the best of both worlds. Just IMO, of course, but I wanted to share my opinions as I've listened to the above gear that Bill was discussing. Happy listening.
|
|
|
|
Post by 2infinity on Jan 22, 2010 21:30:12 GMT -5
+1 for Chuckie ;D ;D ;D
+1 for Billmac ;D ;D ;D
Both make excellent points/posts
|
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Jan 22, 2010 21:33:07 GMT -5
We all know how subjective the SQ of speakers can be, and well, preference in the SQ of pre-pros and amps can be very subjective as well. It boils down to listening to the gear and choosing what you like. I just got back from Emo HQ and Dan invited me into the theater room to play with the new "toy". This is the second time I've listened to the UMC-1 since Emo-fest and I swear it sounds better now. It's a very impressive unit both SQ and VQ wise (as the lucky people that own one know). Regarding it's SQ compared to other pre's and pre-pro's, I have the USP-1 and have listened to the Parasound 2100 (almost bought one), I've also listened to the Integra 9.8 and most of Onkyo's current line up, and I prefer the sound of the UMC-1. I use my system whenever watching regular TV and listening to the music channels and the SQ of the signal coming from my cable box is obviously not the best, so I think the smoother and more forgiving UMC-1 will make the best match for watching TV and listening to the music channels. The UMC-1 is a bit smoother and more liquid sounding than the USP-1, Onkyo's & Integras, and more detailed than the 2100. I still prefer the USP-1 for average to well-recorded cd's as it comes across more detailed but I think lesser recordings that would sound like crap through the USP-1 would still sound good through the UMC-1. So, I've finally decided to do the UMC-1 and USP-1 combo which I think will give me the best of both worlds. Just IMO, of course, but I wanted to share my opinions as I've listened to the above gear that Bill was discussing. Happy listening. Brian, The UMC-1 and the USP-1 will be a great combo for sure . When you get the UMC-1 I would be interested in your thoughts comparing the two for analog SQ. Bill |
|
|
|
Post by briank on Jan 22, 2010 22:08:02 GMT -5
Will do Bill. It will be easier to compare them once I have them side by side. Well, it's Friday night, off to sing Karaoke. |
|
|
|
Post by 2infinity on Jan 22, 2010 22:29:09 GMT -5
Will do Bill. It will be easier to compare them once I have them side by side. Well, it's Friday night, off to sing Karaoke. Can I put in a request for "You never even call me by my name" by David Allan Coe?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2010 23:40:44 GMT -5
+1 for Chuckie ;D ;D ;D +1 for Billmac ;D ;D Both make excellent points/posts Notice he listed me first! Plus you only got two smiley faces. ;D ;D ;D BTW Bill, this quote from your post: ".........I level matched by ear by going back in forth between the CD input and the HT input till I thought the levels were as close as possible..........." I thought at your advanced age that you would know by now that making volume comparisons by ear was a big no-no. That is why they make meters like the RS one. The human ear can be as far off as 2dB's. This variance is way more than enough margin of error to make your subjective listening evaluation completely invalid. Besides we don't accept shoot outs here without photos. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Jan 22, 2010 23:59:00 GMT -5
+1 for Chuckie ;D ;D ;D +1 for Billmac ;D ;D Both make excellent points/posts Notice he listed me first! Plus you only got two smiley faces. ;D ;D ;D BTW Bill, this quote from your post: ".........I level matched by ear by going back in forth between the CD input and the HT input till I thought the levels were as close as possible..........." I thought at your advanced age that you would know by now that making volume comparisons by ear was a big no-no. That is why they make meters like the RS one. The human ear can be as far off as 2dB's. This variance is way more than enough margin of error to make your subjective listening evaluation completely invalid. Besides we don't accept shoot outs here without photos. ;D Hey Chuckie, I got three smiley faces you deleted one . You are right I should have used my trusty Rat Shak SPL meter but then I would have to break out the calibration disc and....... Well the bottom line is I was just too lazy to do all that ;D. Either way all three (886, USP-1 and 2100) sounded great in my system so you can't go wrong . I could take photos but I haven't a clue on how to post them online  . Someday I will take the time to figure it all out. Bill |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jan 23, 2010 0:24:59 GMT -5
Notice he listed me first! Plus you only got two smiley faces. ;D ;D ;D BTW Bill, this quote from your post: ".........I level matched by ear by going back in forth between the CD input and the HT input till I thought the levels were as close as possible..........." I thought at your advanced age that you would know by now that making volume comparisons by ear was a big no-no. That is why they make meters like the RS one. The human ear can be as far off as 2dB's. This variance is way more than enough margin of error to make your subjective listening evaluation completely invalid. Besides we don't accept shoot outs here without photos. ;D Hey Chuckie, I got three smiley faces you deleted one . You are right I should have used my trusty Rat Shak SPL meter but then I would have to break out the calibration disc and....... Well the bottom line is I was just too lazy to do all that ;D. Either way all three (886, USP-1 and 2100) sounded great in my system so you can't go wrong . I could take photos but I haven't a clue on how to post them online . Someday I will take the time to figure it all out. Bill I agree, +1 for both you and Chuckie (or Chuckie and you). BUT I do have to agree, you shoulda used an SPL meter. When I've judged by ear and compared it to the meter, I've been off (not that my ears are any good) so I think it would have been a more valid comparison with an SPL meter. Still, both of you get thumbs up! |
|
|
|
Post by beekermartin on Feb 1, 2010 15:30:11 GMT -5
I wanted to post that I've decided to pass on the UMC-1 for now. I was going to order it and compare it to the 886 but I've decided to hold off. There are a few features that the 886 has that I am not willing to give up. Also, the 886 has worked perfectly and it sounds great in my setup.
I apologize to everyone that was waiting for me to do a full comparison. If I had more free time in my life I would. As of right now I barely have enough time to enjoy the 886.
|
|
|
|
Post by jahays32 on Feb 1, 2010 15:56:21 GMT -5
I wanted to post that I've decided to pass on the UMC-1 for now. I was going to order it and compare it to the 886 but I've decided to hold off. There are a few features that the 886 has that I am not willing to give up. Also, the 886 has worked perfectly and it sounds great in my setup. I apologize to everyone that was waiting for me to do a full comparison. If I had more free time in my life I would. As of right now I barely have enough time to enjoy the 886. My nephew has the 886 and he auditioned my UMC-1. His thoughts: Audyssey just turned down the bass and turned up the highs. So the UMC-1 was better because of all the EQ points to manually adjust the sound. He liked the menu over live video. More xover points. Easier to |
|
.
. But I have found the Emotiva staff is very patient when tough straight forward questions are asked here on the Lounge much more so than some members here.Bill
. Someday I will take the time to figure it all out.
