umc1 vs Integra DHC 9.9

[jahays32]

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 browse the menu features. He liked the sound of the UMC-1. But can't compare the sound 2 different rooms with 2 different sources and speakers. But he agreed the UMC-1 was a keeper and is not as impressed with his 886 as he used to be.
He also liked the fact that you could run Emo-Q and then tweak its result.
With the 886 you either like it or start over from scratch. Also if you want DEQ or DV with the 886 you have to have Audyssey turned on. So if you did a manual EQ setup now you can't use it with DEQ or DV.

The UMC-1 does not appear to have this problem using Dolby Volume.

[billmac]

Feb 1, 2010 15:56:21 GMT -5 jahays32 said:

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

I have the 886 and do not find your nephews impression of Audyssey the same as what I find in my system. If the sub is not set correctly from the start bass response will be off. I do not find that Audyssey boosts the high frequencies at all. There are some who do not care for Audyssey or any form of room correction. Everytime I run Audyssey with the 886 I take 8 measurements (the max). Did he try doing more than one calibration? Easier to.....? I see your post is finished . You are correct that Dynamic EQ/Volume can not be used with Audyssey disabled. I guess it is all in what you want the UMC-1 has some advantages over the 886 and the 886 has some advantages over the UMC-1

I have read posts over at AVS from people that thought Audyssey made the SQ worse when they used it. But many when asked if they followed the guidelines in the Audyssey thread they had not. Many times people calibrate their systems with Audyssey and do not do it properly to get the best results.

After I read through the suggested setup guidelines in the Audyssey thread I realized I was not doing it correctly either . I was taking measurements from a large area in my room from each seating position, 6 in total. What is suggested that you take 8 measurements the first being in the center seating position. Then take 7 more within 2'-3' from the intial measurement. Below is a link from the thread over at AVS that is very informative for doing a proper Audyssey calibration.

www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=795421

Here is a link to the Audyssey setup guide.

www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14456895#post14456895

Bill

[jahays32]

Feb 1, 2010 19:12:16 GMT -5 billmac said:

Feb 1, 2010 15:56:21 GMT -5 jahays32 said:

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

I have the 886 and do not find your nephews impression of Audyssey the same as what I find in my system. If the sub is not set correctly from the start bass response will be off. I do not find that Audyssey boosts the high frequencies at all. There are some who do not care for Audyssey or any form of room correction. Everytime I run Audyssey with the 886 I take 8 measurements (the max). Did he try doing more than one calibration? Easier to.....? I see your post is finished . You are correct that Dynamic EQ/Volume can not be used with Audyssey disabled. I guess it is all in what you want the UMC-1 has some advantages over the 886 and the 886 has some advantages over the UMC-1

I have read posts over at AVS from people that thought Audyssey made the SQ worse when they used it. But many when asked if they followed the guidelines in the Audyssey thread they had not. Many times people calibrate their systems with Audyssey and do not do it properly to get the best results.

After I read through the suggested setup guidelines in the Audyssey thread I realized I was not doing it correctly either . I was taking measurements from a large area in my room from each seating position, 6 in total. What is suggested that you take 8 measurements the first being in the center seating position. Then take 7 more within 2'-3' from the intial measurement. Below is a link from the thread over at AVS that is very informative for doing a proper Audyssey calibration.

www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=795421

Here is a link to the Audyssey setup guide.

www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14456895#post14456895

Bill

Thanks for the links I will pass them on. All I can say is he has ran it many times and with many seating positions. After looking at the list I would say he has at least done 80 to 90 percent of what is on their. He was impressed with it at first but the more he listened to his music and movies the more he felt the sound was brighter than he liked it and less bass than he liked it. He doesn't like boomy bass, he prefers a flatter response across the board. And we know their are many opinions out there on Auto setups with different equipment in different rooms. But he can go down the list again and see if he missed anything that could have thrown it off.
As for me I like graphing my room out to the 75db perceived hearing graph. Of course you have to account for the meter reading errors and the C weighting roll off to get it within + or - 2 db's. I have only tried MCACC and I will stick to my way it takes a lot longer to do but I like the results in the end. I just wish Emo would have gave me a 32 band EQ. Oh well ;D

[brax]

It’s funny to read Dan Laufman’s comments on the sound of the UMC-1 compared to other units.

“I did not expect to see "huge" differences between them... but I was wrong! Wow, was I wrong!

There are very audible differences in the sonic signatures between the UMC-1 and several other highly regarded units we have tested. They are not subtle, and it is not just me that has heard the difference. Of course, I'm partial to the UMC-1, but what I am telling you is real.”

This really must shred the blind faith many have had in Emo’s products. For years many poster’s would put down the higher end Pre/pro’s stating that there wasn’t much of a sound difference between Pre/pro’s and it wasn’t worth the money for the higher end units. Well the man himself just put that notion to rest. If it is true that there was a HUGE difference in sound between the UMC-1 and other highly rated units, it only stands to reason that there could be a huge difference in favor of the high end units compared to the UMC-1.

I run a Meridian 565 pre/pro in my system and can tell you that it made my former Pioneer Elite sound like a transistor radio. And I paid less for this unit used than an UMC-1. The unit does so well that I’m not sure how much improvement I’ll see going to a lossless unit.

I’ll wait until the XMC comes out bug free, order one and do a head to head comparison. All I can say is I think it will be a pretty tall order for the XMC to best the Meridian, but I will give it an honest chance.

[bootman]

Feb 2, 2010 7:43:13 GMT -5 brax said:

I run a Meridian 565 pre/pro in my system and can tell you that it made my former Pioneer Elite sound like a transistor radio. And I paid less for this unit used than an UMC-1. The unit does so well that I’m not sure how much improvement I’ll see going to a lossless unit.

I’ll wait until the XMC comes out bug free, order one and do a head to head comparison. All I can say is I think it will be a pretty tall order for the XMC to best the Meridian, but I will give it an honest chance.

I have a lot of respect for Meridian products.
Always priced out of my reach new but I admire the company for its great engineering work.
(unlike other so called high end companies that only slap their name on other products)

I will enjoy reading your comparisons.
(hopefully by the end of this year)

[NorthStar]

I don't think the Integra DHC-9.9 sounds as good as the Emotiva UMC-1 in two-channel analog Stereo. And the UMC-1 is still cheaper.
The UMC-1 has that look that scream high-end, and all these blue lights look very cool.
It definitively looks better in any system.

And with Audyssey, you're at the mercy of someone else program.
With Emotiva, you already have a good sound program.

That's just my opinion, for what's worth.

* Still not an easy choice, it ain't like Black & White.

[beekermartin]

I understand the UMC-1 may sound better with analog sources. In fact, I expect it to. The 886/9.9 is not known for having the best analog sound.

I am using all digital sources via HDMI. The only analog source I am using is a Wii. I feel the 886 sounds incredible in my setup with everything I have thrown at it. I understand the UMC-1 may sound even better but there is always something better. I am more than happy with the 886.

The UMC-1 has a few less features that I feel are important.
1. No headphone jack.
2. Doesn't output over component and HDMI at the same time.
3. Only has global video outuput conversion. The 886 is idependent for each source and with both HDMI/component outputs.
4. No XLR outputs. Not that big of a deal but I do prefer XLR just because of the secure connectors.

There are more but those are the ones that are most important to me. Add in the fact that the UMC-1 has had it share of problems and hence my decision to wait. I am sure Emotiva will get the UMC-1 problems ironed out and it will be the best processor bargain around. If I didn't already own the 886 I wouldn't hesitate buying the UMC-1. At this point I will wait until the UMC-1 is 100% and the final specs on the XMC-1 are released. If I decided to upgrade I would wait for the XMC to be released and it also be 100% stable.

[billmac]

Feb 2, 2010 13:44:51 GMT -5 NorthStar said:

I don't think the Integra DHC-9.9 sounds as good as the Emotiva UMC-1 in two-channel analog Stereo. And the UMC-1 is still cheaper.

Not surprising but the 9.9 does not have the Pure audio mode which the 886 does have. I felt the Pure mode was better SQ wise than the Stereo and Direct modes with the 886. I compared the USP-1 and Parasound 2100 to the 886 using the Pure audio mode. The SQ was close with the USP-1 and the 2100 having the edge in overall SQ. But I do not think the difference was as big as some might think. But as with everything related to SQ my thoughts are totally subjective .

The UMC-1 has that look that scream high-end, and all these blue lights look very cool. It definitively looks better in any system.

This is totally a matter of opinion . I could do without the bright blue lights which you can dim accept for the power button.

And with Audyssey, you're at the mercy of someone else program. With Emotiva, you already have a good sound program.

Not sure I get your point. Every room correction system including Emo-Q is someone else's program. Of course some are more tweakable than others but Audyssey is a well implemented program. If it was not Denon, Marantz, Integra and Onkyo would not have it in most if not all of their AVRs. Emo-Q is still unproven and in its initial stages with problems as has been reported by UMC-1 owners here.

That's just my opinion, for what's worth.

Very true but worth something as it gives your perspective . Also true that it is just my opinion regarding Audyssey and the 886s SQ.

* Still not an easy choice, it ain't like Black & White.

But two very good choices that once the bugs are worked out of the UMC-1 will even be a harder choice when considering cost and SQ preferences .

Bill

[NorthStar]

Thanks Bill for taking your time and comment on some of my specific comments.
I can tell you are smart and well advised.
Your post just seems simply impeccable to my personal understanding.

Bob