I had the UMC-1 and it wasn't a pleasant experience. I've owned three Onkyos (805, 885 and 886) and never has a single issue with either one. Whether one is possesed with Audyssey or not there are better choices than the UMC-1 IMO.
Quite right too Bill. I jumped in too quick with a reply and then went back and read the Emo page again - promised for sometime this month IIRC. (We seem to have heard that before - let's see). Emo-Q Gen2 is, presumably, a development of Emo-Q. I am very surprised they found anything in Emo-Q that was worth continuing with and would have thought they'd have started again with a clean sheet, maybe using some form of implementation of TacT. Assuming, of course, that they will actually be offering TacT down the line - they are still, AFAIK, going to release the XMC-1 without it. I don't know why they cause themselves all this pain with processors - it must really be taking their off the ball.
:) You can huff and puff all you like. It won’t change the Omnishambles that is the UMC-1 one bit. And you are being economical with the truth too - you cannot have escaped all of the problems with the UMC-1 (problems even Emotiva and Laufman admit!). You cannot, for example, have a UMC-1 with properly working bass management. It is impossible. Unless of course you 'don't use that feature".
Of course if you also don't use PLIIx, don't use Emo-Q, don't use HDCP, don't use firmware updates etc, then well, yeah, the UMC-1 will be "great" for you. ;)
Here you go again, presenting opinions as fact. Who are the 'most' who don't care to read Theresa's comments? How do you 'know' this? You don't of course - you are making it up and then passing it off as fact. What you mean to say is you don't care to read the contributions. Which is not surprising as Theresa's comments are based on personal experience, a lifetime of audio knowledge and an understanding of science and they make the contributions of some others look as foolish as they really are.
Yes, I hope they get it right this time too. I am a fan of Emotive (and have owned 11 of their products, all of which I have been delighted with). It's only their abysmal track record with processors that is the the fly in their ointment. When the UMC-200 is released (this month if Emo are good to their word) we will soon know if they have solved all their former problems. As I say, let's hope so.
LOL. Here you go yet again... presenting your opinion as fact. "Most fail at warranty end or just after". They do? Got the figures to prove that statement? No, I didn't think so - admit it - you made it up didn’t you?
Do you not realise that to constantly present your own opinions as though they are facts lays you open to ridicule?
I'd like to see where I told you that ;) Maybe you could link me to it?
What I would have told you is that the room is the most important component in any system and the one that has the most impact on sound quality.
I'd have probably told you that all rooms have modes and that there are some accepted ways of dealing with the distortion these modes cause: room treatments are by far and away the best, then some form of advanced electronic EQ which pays particular attention to the bass frequencies and also, possibly, the deployment of multiple subs. If the room is untreated, then the modes and reflections will totally control the sound in the room.
As you are not using electronic EQ, then I guess you have fairly extensive treatments in place. Care to share with us what you did and where you bought the treatments? Personally, I use GIK Acoustic stuff - it's reasonable value for money and does a good job. I did consider DIY too as traps and absorbers are fairly easy to make, but I couldn’t find a supplier of the right absorption material in the UK.
Well, all credit to you for admitting it.
DIY for treatments, not speakers. I have nowhere near the necessary knowledge to design and/or build my own speakers or subs. I've never heard any DIY speakers or subs either.
If it were possible in your room (considering aesthetics, WAF etc) to add some treatments, I am sure you would be amazed, as I was, at the difference they can make. And for not all that much money either, compared with new speakers, amps and so on. I’d go so far as to say that the treatments I added have made, by far, the biggest difference to overall SQ, for the money spent. You read of people with SQ issues such as muddy sound or boomy bass etc and they are asking if they should change their amp or their speakers or their sub, when probably a few treatments would solve the problem entirely and let the equipment they already have really deliver its best. Of course, treatments are always going to be best suited to a dedicated room, which I am fortunate enough to have - I can easily see how WAF just totally prohibits them in a multi-purpose living space. Bu for those who can, treatments are honestly the biggest bang for the buck you can get.
Agreed about the speakers - they are the next thing that makes a really big difference to SQ. Room first, then speakers, then speaker placement, then electronics...
Not laughing. I used to have massive respect for Sony, way back 20 or 30 years ago. I had a pair of fabulous monobloc Esprit amps (in the days when the Esprit name really meant something) and I still, to this day, regret letting them go. More recently Sony seem to have lost their way a lot wrt to audio, but I am reading that this may be changing and their latest gear, especially at the higher end of their range, is pretty good.
:) Now that would be cool :) You cannot beat a nice herbal mixture in the old pipe of peace. :)
Great stuff. Isn't it just way better to discuss audio and acoustics and stuff and exchange experiences and so on, without getting into pi$$ing contests (especially difficult for Theresa, being a girl - LOL)? Let's agree to move on...