EMOTIVA Thread Q&A [TECHNICAL TALK ONLY] - Page 491

Emotiva vs the mass AVR's is simply a different approach. Arcam, Rotel, Classé, NAD or Audiolab also don't do much Room Correction or features. But they sound great if you can believe their owners. I have read more than one review that for example states the Arcam AVR888 produces a nicer sound than a Denon AVP. Emotiva does separates hence it is logical they offer a modest powered 7ch amp. BTW, a "full featured" 9-amp AVR like the new Denon 4520 doesn't weigh a lot more than the UPA-700 despite claiming 150 W/ch. Doesn't that "sound" suspicious?

The biggest advancement for Onkyo seems to be advanced problems each year. Advanced does not always mean better.

Modern AVR's have more features with no real benefits to SQ. Features = selling points. Benefits = performance.

You knew the answer before asking. As I stated. I am following protocol as dictated by those who drink all the kool aid.

I tend to agree but Emotiva doesn't do any better. They produced a single buggy pre/pro within 3 (?) years.

You agree with something I said. Drinks are on me.
Yes they produced a bug infested processor. Onkyo simply changed the model number every year for 3 and continued to sell the kool aid to those who believed they would be problem free. Emo on the other hand worked to correct the problems with what existed. Emo also has superior customer service.
It is difficult if not impossible for many to accept that a bugged unit can sound better than one 4x its cost.

Some (they know who I am referencing) pretend to know what a processor they never heard sounds like.

What problems are you alluding to?

Did they correct those problems? Never seen any proof of that. http://www.avsforum.com/t/781208/emotiva-thread-q-a-technical-talk-only/14550#post_22090917

Yes.

I don't think that there's a lot of correlation between sound quality and cost anymore. But I would deny that the buggy bass management of a UMC does generally sound better than a proper implementation. Do you really think this results in better sound: http://www.avsforum.com/t/781208/emotiva-thread-q-a-technical-talk-only/14670#post_22404454

By the way, where did you get that 4x cost number? The 818 is currently the best bang for the buck.

The UMC-1 can't possibly sound better because it lacks any useful EQ and equal-loudness compensation.

I'm not one of them because I've owned a UMC-1.
Edited by markus767 - 9/15/12 at 10:58am

 

Hmm... 

 

Well I’d say that Audyssey XT32 - arguably the best room EQ system available on consumer-level equipment - was a serious contributor to better SQ. Plus Dolby Prologic IIz and Audyssey DSX, or the brand new DTS Neo:X. And THX Select Plus 2 certification.

 

Not to mention Burr-Brown 192 kHz/24-bit DACs on all channels. Or isolated power amp and pre-amp blocks. Or PLL jitter-cleaning circuits to further improve signal quality.

 

And of course an AVR or processor isn’t just about sound quality. There's the video side to consider too. Let's see... HQV Vida, Marvell Qdeo video processing... 4k upscaling ... Dual Core Video Engine which offers video calibration to ISF standards.

 

Then  there are things that are nice to have such as 12v triggers, Zone 2/3 outputs, full networking capability and so on.

 

Am I discussing a top of the range unit here?  Not at all - all of the above, and much more, is available on the Onkyo 818. You still say it doesn't beat bug-ridden UMC-1 which has *never* worked properly and an underpowered 80 wpc UPA-700?

 

Fair enough if you believe that, but personally I can't see it. And remember I am a huge Emotiva fan and have or have had 11 different items of their gear over the years, all of which I am/was delighted with. But the UMC-1....?  No thanks. Nor an 80 wpc amp thanks.

 

 

There's no doubt XT32 makes a huge improvement to the frequency response in most rooms. The room is by far and away the most important component in any system and all rooms have reflections and modes which have a negative impact on sound quality unless dealt with. If your room is very well treated then of course any form of electronic EQ becomes less necessary.

 

I have M&K S150s across the front, M&K SS150 Tripoles for surrounds. Why do you ask? 

 

 

 

Not sure I understand your comment there. Marvell Qdeo is generally recognised as one of the very best video processing chips.  ISF video calibration is an industry standard.

How much power is 'enough' depends on a lot of factors - efficiency of the speakers, SPL levels required, volume of listening space, seated distance from speakers and so on. A genuine 80 wpc ACD can easily be enough for some people/systems and nowhere near enough for others. There's no 'correct' amount. 

 

The main thing is that you are happy with what you have. If that's a UMC-1 and 80 wpc, then that is fine.

But aren't you the guy that never owned or heard the UMC-1?

I'm back after a lengthy ill health caused absence. I own a UMC-1 and like Keith I say it is bug infested and feature poor to a degree that makes it unacceptable. As for SQ, that's totally subjective and I find my PR-SC5508 to be more transparent than the UMC-1.

Ironically I was just thinking of you. I am sorry to hear of your illness and hope that you are now OK.

Now to business. Unlike you and others I do not need a ton of features. I prefer benefits and to me SQ is the primary benefit of any AVR / Processor. You are sooo right. This is all subjective.

Stay well.

Thank you for your good wishes. The feature that is most important to me is Audyssey (sp?) XT32. As for the rest, I seldom use them but occasionally use network streaming from my PC. Some of the sound fields are also useful when friends are over.

countless numbers of graphs have been posted (objective evidence) of the efficacy of xt32...

Why on earth would I want to own a pre-pro that was bug-ridden from the day it was released, that has a room-EQ/bass management system that has never worked properly and that lacks even the most basic features?

 

Any comment on the rest of my post?

Hi Theresa - I am sorry to hear that you have been ill and happy to hear that you are now feeling better. It's nice to see you on the forums again. You and I share views on Emotiva I think, in that we really like the things they are good at (amps, speakers etc) but realistic about the things that they are plain not good at, the UMC-1 being the prime candidate.

 

Have you double-blind tested the UMC-1 against any other pre-pro then? And if you have, you could reliably pick out the UMC-1 for it's alleged superior SQ?

 

If you haven't, then, with respect, even the subjective opinion is worthless.

 

Quite. Regardless of any other attributes of the UMC-1, the lack of a working room EQ/bass management system gives lie to any claims about 'superior SQ', unless of course it is being used in an ideally treated room - which is almost never the case. To try, somehow, to claim that the room is not relevant to the SQ - far more relevant in fact than *any* other component in a system - is just nonsense. So even if the UMC-1 had been crafted in Heaven and was sonically perfect, putting it into an untreated room is going to render the SQ fairly poor - unless of course it had a decent EQ system. Which, sadly, it doesn't. And no, I don't need to have owned one to know that - I can read the specs, read the graphs and read the first-hand reviews of people who do own it - and the conclusion I come to is that Emo should have stuck to amps. I'm not an Emo-basher: I love their amps, and the 6.3 reference series speakers and their now defunct ERD-1 surround speakers were also beautiful items at amazing prices. I have spent way more money with Emotiva than I have with Onkyo - but any suggestion that the UMC-1 outperforms my 5509 in any way at all is, well, just so far off the mark as to be silly. Sorry, Chris - this rant isn't aimed at you as you know - te post took on a life of its own after the word "Quite" :)

I hope their implementation of TACT is a good one and restores Emo's credibility in this area. Sadly, as it seems they are going to release the XMC-1 without TACT *at all* and offer it in a future FW update, that doesn't bode too well in my book. It's a story we've seen with the UMC-1: "Yeah we know it doesn't work properly right now - but, trust us, it *will*". Except it doesn't and never has.

If you want to talk about someone's opinion being worthless, I would think we need to start with the guy that never even heard the product.

 

So you haven't double-blind tested them then?

 

Have you ever been to the North Pole?  No?  So you don't actually believe it exists then? :)  Ever eaten a dog turd?  No?  So what you saying then - that you can't possibly be sure it tastes like sh*t?  Hmmm....

 

I guess I could ask you if you've ever heard an Onkyo 5509?  No?  Yet you can be sure that the UMC-1 is sonically superior?  Hmmm....

i do not have to jump off a cliff to prove to myself it's not a good idea...

The conversation seems to be getting a bit off track and somewhat personal.

I don't currently own an Emotiva product, but an Emotiva Amp is at the top of my list when I finally move from a 2.0 to a 5.1 set up.

You might say that I am an audiophile of sorts. I moved from Mono to Stereo in 1958 and haven't moved to surround yet.

I was very skeptical about Audyssey room correction and firmly believed in not using tone controls. My idea of "room correction" consisted of careful speaker and furniture placement.

Last year, looking forward to a 5.1 system I purchased an AVR that has Audyssey XT. When I set up the AVR I decided to give Audyssey a try. Boy! was I pleasantly surprised! Same source components, same speakers, same amplifier, same speaker and room arrangement and a tremendous improvement in sound quality. If someone had told me what I was going to hear I wouldn't have believed them.

Back on topic.

It is all to easy to underestimate the level of technical expertise required to design and implement an AVR or PrePro. There are several orders of complexity over and above a preamplifier or integrated amp. I have been using, programming and building computers for more than 50 years and there is no way that I would feel comfortable designing and writing firmware for an AVR.

While the UMC-1 may be a fine piece of Analog equipment with excellent digital to analog converters, I am forced to believe that Emotiva has been unable to make many of the promised digital domain features work as "promised." The release of the XMC-1 without some of the promised digital features should be a potential warning to early adopters.

When all is said and done, sound reproduction is a matter of personal preference and we should all let our own ears be the judge. However, it is always a good idea to listen to other systems from time to time. We should take the opportunity to listen to the systems of our friends and acquanteces whenever possible. A trip to your local dealer to listen can also be a worthwhile experience if we can keep a firm grip on our wallet.

I don't think that anyone on this forum is or has been drinking the koolaid. I woul appreciate it if the forum could be more on topic and less personal!

Albert Einstein quote:

Not everything that counts can be measured. Not everything that can be measured counts.

Audio reproduction is just a bit more fully understood than what Einstein was referring to.

Your defense of the UMC-1 against all evidence needs more support than a random quote from AE, though it is ironic you quote one of the great scientific minds of all time when arguing against science...

True but here's something that can be measured which also counts:
http://mehlau.net/audio/multisub_multeq_xt32/

I've been considering the UMC-1 in connection with plans to modify my two-channel setup to incorporate a Geddes-style multi-sub arrangement using a miniDSP to control four subs, with EQ on the subs only. So Audyssey isn't necessary for my application as the miniDSP would do all EQ duties. Since my mains are vented boxes, I need to use a high-pass filter with them, unlike Earl's approach of running the mains wide open. He can get away with that since his speakers are of the closed-box type with high power handling. My first thought was to get a second miniDSP for the mains, figure out the required mains high-pass filter for best sub integration using the miniDSP, then design an analog high-pass filter with the same characteristics for the final solution of mains high-pass filtering. This would avoid an undesired A/D->D/A conversion, although I'd still have this conversion with the subs.

Since the Geddes approach uses considerable overlap in the frequency coverage of mains and subs, a pre/pro having independently adjustable low- and high-pass filters could make this work without any external high-pass filter. So I looked around for something in a reasonable price range that had that capability. The UMC-1 is the only reasonably priced pre/pro with independently adjustable low- and high-pass crossover filters I could find. As well, the available number of filter cutoff frequencies is matched only by the Onkyo, and even the Onkyo does not have selectable slopes for the high- and low-pass filters, nor independent adjustability of them. But reading about all the problems with the UMC-1 is scaring me away. Some people say the latest firmware is very stable and bug-free, but there are other, less charitable reports. Nobody that I'm aware of has done Markus' test or a similar one to see if the incorrect configuration of the delays in the bass management has been fixed. I've been hemming and hawing about this for a while now, but just today I read this thread in the Emotiva forum in which two people are having a problem where the UMC-1 causes the left and right mains channels to be out of phase with each other. Whaaaat? That is very basic stuff that should never happen, especially with a unit that's gone through so many firmware revisions.

It seems to me that they are either understaffed or in need of better software people working on the pre/pros. Yet despite this, they are introducing not one, but three new pre/pros (UMC-200, XMC-1, RMC-1). The only thing I can figure out is that the profit margin might be higher for the pre/pros than the power amps, so maybe they see this as a more lucrative business area?

I think I'm just going to play it safe and stick with my Denon AVR.
Edited by rock_bottom - 9/16/12 at 2:16pm

not even a good try... c'mon, you can do better than that...