|
|
Post by suffolk112000 on Feb 13, 2010 11:38:19 GMT -5
How does the calibration mic on the 40.1 compare to the mic on the UMC-1?
In taking with several audio experts, the calibration systems on pre-pro’s and receivers are only as good as the mic taking the readings.
I've been told most are pretty low quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickwin on Feb 13, 2010 11:52:23 GMT -5
Everyone is talking about the "superior analog section" of the UMC, but I have not seen a single comment or review of how it sounds. I should have mine on Monday and I will post my thoughts, but I'm really surprised that I haven't heard anything, good or bad, about it yet.
To people who already have the UMC, what did you use before, and how does the UMC compare?
|
|
|
|
Post by jason1976 on Feb 13, 2010 11:54:53 GMT -5
Sound quality is so personal. The UMC-1 probably will best the 40.1 in analogue but if the end user is going to go all digital it is not so clear cut and in fact the sound quality between the two will probably be equal especially in a double blind test.  All digital is a bit of a misnomer though- you still need to go analog to your pre-outs. . . power supplies and such look better in the UMC1. Although the engineer in me looks at the empty 40.1 chassis and says "hmm, I could put a couple of nice big toroid supplies in there..."  Yep I agree here. The Onkyo's aren't built for sound quality. Based on some initial reports and from what I can discern so far from my experience, I don't think you would have much trouble picking the differences. If the individual is looking for features, I would pick the Onkyo. |
|
|
|
Post by tchaik on Feb 13, 2010 12:40:48 GMT -5
in spite of my emo-q concerns, i definitely agree with dan about the sq and build quality of emo products. my equipment list attests to my trust in their gear. i was just looking for some reassurance as to my choice of the umc-1 for my pre-pro before it arrives on my doorstep. no doubt i will keep the unit after it arrives (although my long term plan is to upgrade when the xmc becomes available. someone will end up getting a real good deal on a used umc-1 when i sell it). i just want to set up once and be done with it, that's all.
hope that clarifies my previous position on the dhc-40.1 vs umc-1 issue.
tchaik...................
|
|
|
|
Post by jim74074 on Feb 13, 2010 13:41:46 GMT -5
To start...I discovered Emotiva in December and was so impressed that I ordered an XPA-3 and put my name on the UMC-1 list (not knowing I would be picking asparagus before I would get one!!!).
So I bought an Integra DHC-40.1 ($1000) so that I could at least enjoy the amp. The combo sounds amazing for music and home theater. No complaints.
I plan to still get the UMC-1, however, so I can do a proper test. My son will get the loser (sorry, kiddo). The multitude of assumptions in this thread is very annoying and it would be nice to actually discuss comparisons that are real rather than imagined. So while I wait for my email, I will continue to enjoy my XPA-3 and my DHC-40.1 and plan for an actual comparison. That is not an assumption.
All the best!!!
|
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on Feb 13, 2010 15:18:02 GMT -5
Ok, my turn now.
Agree with Mr. Laufman about build quality. Sound wise, I can't say, as I did not use it.
Here's the thing though: at the price, the UMC-1 is unbeatable, period.
It is amazing that a company like Emotiva is going to that extent to make products of exquisite quality at unprecedented value. Big time Kuddos to Emotiva!
If I was not impressed, I would'nt be here typing these words from my keyboard.
Now, I love what Audyssey MultEQ XT does for my system, no doubt about that. And I know what I'm talking about here.
I read a lot, all over different audio forums, and I try to make good smart sense from the most intelligent posters.
As of today, my mind is not made up yet, but like so many people, I truly wanna see the UMC-1 succeed. Please guys (the people that work on it), don't ever give up.
You are on a very right path of uniqueness, value, solid build, cool looks, blue lights, and more to come...
For me personally; Video features = I don't need it (obsolete),
Network features = Never use them (obsolete).
So, what's left? Well, sound quality (both from the digital & analog outputs), Automatic Room Calibration with a solid implementation of the latest technology (including impeccable Bass Management). That is mainly it, which implicates great parts (DACs, DSP chips, etc.), and excellent IMPLEMENTATION of all the parts working in tandem with each other.
Ok, I'm surely not the only one in these desirable audio refinements, that are STRICTLY related to the QUALITY of SOUND in my own room, with my own walls and all.
See, I'm not making any judgement, just reaching to whatever it takes to get there.
So, that's it, that was simply what I wanna say.
Just one question though; Is Emo-Q a Parametric (in the automatic setup) or a Graphic (I know already that it is for manual EQ) based Equalizer? For the Auto setup of course.
Luv everyone here,
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by teedub21 on Feb 13, 2010 15:25:28 GMT -5
With all the reported problems still cropping up on the UMC-1, I went ahead and bought an Integra 9.9 off Audiogon this week. I think I'll still buy the Emotiva, when my number comes up, and decide which one I like best. Either way, I wont lose any money.
|
|
|
|
Post by moodyman on Feb 13, 2010 15:57:53 GMT -5
Everyone is talking about the "superior analog section" of the UMC, but I have not seen a single comment or review of how it sounds. I should have mine on Monday and I will post my thoughts, but I'm really surprised that I haven't heard anything, good or bad, about it yet. To people who already have the UMC, what did you use before, and how does the UMC compare? Actually there are quite a view reviews out there considering. Some are here, some are on other sites. All of them commented on how great the UMC sounds... |
|
|
|
Post by pultzar on Feb 13, 2010 17:26:36 GMT -5
I would be curious as to how a 40.1 sounds compared to the UMC-1.
After the FW upgrade, I have not experienced any problems with my UMC-1. It is very solid so far.
People having been harping on EmoQ. I agree that it came up with some weird results for me and pushed my surround speakers past their distortion point while testing. However, I don't think that things like EmoQ are incredibly necessary if you know your system. Setting crossover points is not that hard. Personally I'm not a fan of parametric EQ either, so all in all EmoQ is not useful for me since everything can be set by hand.
Now when Trinnov comes to Outlaw someday, that could be interesting.
My previous processor is one from Madrigal (Proceed) that originally costs $5000 when it came out. It's build quality is superior as the unit weighs a ton and is made out of very thick steel all the way around. The usability is incredible with instant input switching (granted no HDMI), discreet inputs, and lovely volume control. It looks wonderful. I was not expecting the UMC-1 to sound as good. The UMC-1 sounds better. They have done an amazing job for the price point.
|
|
|
|
Post by pultzar on Feb 13, 2010 17:28:27 GMT -5
I would be curious as to how a 40.1 sounds compared to the UMC-1. After the FW upgrade, I have not experienced any problems with my UMC-1. It is very solid so far. People having been harping on EmoQ. I agree that it came up with some weird results for me and pushed my surround speakers past their distortion point while testing. However, I don't think that things like EmoQ are incredibly necessary if you know your system. Setting crossover points is not that hard. Personally I'm not a fan of parametric EQ either, so all in all EmoQ is not useful for me since everything can be set by hand. Now when Trinnov comes to Outlaw someday, that could be interesting. My previous processor is one from Madrigal (Proceed) that originally costs $5000 when it came out. It's build quality is superior as the unit weighs a ton and is made out of very thick steel all the way around. The usability is incredible with instant input switching (granted no HDMI), discreet inputs, and lovely volume control. It looks wonderful. I was not expecting the UMC-1 to sound as good. The UMC-1 sounds better. They have done an amazing job for the price point. Actually they have done an amazing job for any price point based on what I have heard about other expensive processors out there. |
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on Feb 13, 2010 17:35:46 GMT -5
I would be curious as to how a 40.1 sounds compared to the UMC-1. After the FW upgrade, I have not experienced any problems with my UMC-1. It is very solid so far. People having been harping on EmoQ. I agree that it came up with some weird results for me and pushed my surround speakers past their distortion point while testing. However, I don't think that things like EmoQ are incredibly necessary if you know your system. Setting crossover points is not that hard. Personally I'm not a fan of parametric EQ either, so all in all EmoQ is not useful for me since everything can be set by hand. Now when Trinnov comes to Outlaw someday, that could be interesting. My previous processor is one from Madrigal (Proceed) that originally costs $5000 when it came out. It's build quality is superior as the unit weighs a ton and is made out of very thick steel all the way around. The usability is incredible with instant input switching (granted no HDMI), discreet inputs, and lovely volume control. It looks wonderful. I was not expecting the UMC-1 to sound as good. The UMC-1 sounds better. They have done an amazing job for the price point. Actually they have done an amazing job for any price point based on what I have heard about other expensive processors out there. Very cool. Is it really a Parametric EQ that the Emo-Q is based on? |
|
|
|
Post by pultzar on Feb 13, 2010 18:13:39 GMT -5
Actually they have done an amazing job for any price point based on what I have heard about other expensive processors out there. Very cool. Is it really a Parametric EQ that the Emo-Q is based on? Actually parametric EQ might be the wrong words. There are fixed frequency points and you can adjust their values up and down. |
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on Feb 13, 2010 19:36:50 GMT -5
Very cool. Is it really a Parametric EQ that the Emo-Q is based on? Actually parametric EQ might be the wrong words. There are fixed frequency points and you can adjust their values up and down. Yes, but you are talking about the manual EQ, which is a Graphic EQ, as there are no adjustable "Q", but only 11 bands of frequency (one octave), and their levels (+/- db). My very specific question about EMOTIVA Emo-Q in the UMC-1 is:[[[ The AUTOMATIC EQ (not the MANUAL one); IS IT A PARAMETRIC OR GRAPHIC EQ?]]] * Seems a lot of people are having great difficulty to understand this quite simple question. So, because of this, I'll give you a simple example: Audyssey for example (AUTO EQ), is using FIR filters (Finite Impulse Response) in its application. BUT, the receivers using this technology also have their own MANUAL EQ (Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Integra, NAD); but these proprietary EQs are GRAPHIC ones. Yamaha, Pioneer, use an AUTOMATIC PARAMETRIC EQ, and I believe ALSO a MANUAL PARAMETRIC EQ (please someone correct me if I'm wrong). Anthem is using ARC1 (Anthem Room Correction), which uses IIR filters (Infinite Impulse Response) in combination (I believe) with FIR filters (as just described above), and their MANUAL EQ is a PARAMETRIC one (again, I might be wrong here, as Anthem is specifically a professional Auto Room EQ, with manual adjustments, based on program software using a computer). And Sherwood Newcastle as well as Outlaw, are using TRINNOV, which is as if not even more complex than all above mentioned. Their mic is a four-mic one that analyse several parameters (quite complex actually). Anyway, just google Trinnov. And Lexicon is using their own proprietary Room EQ, which you are using FOUR SEPARATE microphones to set up. I'm not sure that it is based on a PARAMETRIC EQ (I doubt it, but I ain't sure); and it is certainly not a GRAPHIC EQ. Classe SSP is also using their own proprietary system, but I give up... as I cannot afford their products, and Lexicon as well. But Anthem, I can rob a bank for it. Anyway, I now hope that my question is much clearer (the one inside those type of brackets [[[...]]], whatever you call them).* * Sorry, I'm French, and I'm not too familiar with this particular type of brackets, hence my ignorance about the proper English term for them. ~~~ If ever I got a straight answer to my very clear question, the person coming with it, would make a substantial jump on my recognition and appreciation of intelligence, knowledge, respect, freedom, peace, love, honor & value... I guess that sums it up. Any taker? P.S. Can't believe that I just posted this, without making a single joke, or sense of humor! ...Perhaps only the reference to "robbing a bank" to get Anthem Statement D2v/ARC1 Audio/Video Surrround Processor. Hey! I'm from Quebec, so, Anthem is in my neighborhood, and these guys (with Bob, Mr. the Man itself Pariseau as their head-speaker-coach) are the best audio programmers in the whole world, using only the best people, the best parts (including the Gennum VXP video processor), and 24/192 upsampling (32-bit perhaps coming if not already implemented). But then, MUCHO MORE DINERO than EMOTIVA. * But, FOR NOW, I'm happy with Audyssey MultEQ XT from my product, or unit, or piece of kit, or electronic component, or ... HOWEVER, the XMC-1 is really getting up & down in my brains... |
|
twilkins
Emo VIPs 
Sometimes it's to your advantage for people to think you're crazy -
Posts: 252
|
Post by twilkins on Feb 13, 2010 20:44:17 GMT -5
I have the 40.1. The closest I've come to comparing the SQ is betwen the USP-1 and the 40.1. Now te USP-1 wins but consider that in using the USP-1 I'm listening to analog with sources of either my TT or ERC-1. For music the 40.1 is only utilized for streaming music and it actually sounds very good. And yes, I can tell the difference, but the wife can't and she loves Rhapsody and Pandora. The 40.1 seems to be virtually bug free and easy to use and is actually a good value for the price. Having said that I love the build quality of everything Emo and someday when the networking is there (XMC-1?) I'll be on the preorder list.
|
|
|
|
Post by uopdrmark on Feb 13, 2010 20:56:57 GMT -5
I really like the above post about bug free usage. I'm also not a real 2ch snob.( aka my ears aren't that good). Mostly I like to watch movies and somtimes just have music on while entertaining guests or just bumming around the house. No critical listening here. That said, is the sound quality that different? I guess I just need to get both and see for myself.
I guess I'm just a bit worried about the UMC-1 after hearing about so many bugs. Just not very encouraging at the moment. I do believe Emo will make an awesome pre/pro at some point I just don't know if it's there yet. Maybe after another FW or two, who knows.
|
|
|
|
Post by pultzar on Feb 13, 2010 22:39:31 GMT -5
thelordoftherings, EmoQ simply determines values that are set for the manual eq. There aren't separate EmoQ filters and manual EQ filters that are applied. So as far as I can tell, it is all graphic EQ.
|
|
|
|
Post by snodog on Feb 13, 2010 23:23:43 GMT -5
All in all I really dont think the UMC has many more bugs than any other pre/pro /AV receiver released, just that it took a good bit longer to get released. Now that it is new alot of others have worked out their bugs. I have heard of Onkyo having a bunch as well. Think ahead and it will all be working smoothly like the rest but if you are that afraid of it being a problem then pay the extra couple hundred for the Dch-40 and have the peace of mind that it works good because your friend owned it.
|
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Feb 14, 2010 0:06:57 GMT -5
All in all I really dont think the UMC has many more bugs than any other pre/pro /AV receiver released, just that it took a good bit longer to get released. Now that it is new alot of others have worked out their bugs. I have heard of Onkyo having a bunch as well. Think ahead and it will all be working smoothly like the rest but if you are that afraid of it being a problem then pay the extra couple hundred for the Dch-40 and have the peace of mind that it works good because your friend owned it. I agree that all AVR/prepros have issues when first released. But no offense to Emotiva but no AVR/prepro (Onkyos included) I can recall recently have had the number of bugs that the UMC-1 had when it was first released. Bill |
|
|
|
Post by snodog on Feb 14, 2010 1:00:20 GMT -5
Well there are plenty of people who have had no problems at all with theirs but I know what you mean, I guess from what the happy owners claim it has excellent SQ and with pretty minimal equipment Im not too concerned with any complicated bugs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Feb 14, 2010 7:39:01 GMT -5
To confirm, my Yamaha has a manually adjustable PEQ, so if you have the ear or gear you can fiddle with the settings the YPAO gives you. With YPAO in natural mode and the mic sitting on the seat back (so it's got free air between it and every speaker) I am now very happy with the sound, it's not overly bright nor muddy. I will buy the UMC-1 as well too as I believe it is great value, with luck will sound as good (I hope it will be even better) and will use less power than having my receiver amps running and doing nothing. |
|
