EMOTIVA Thread Q&A [TECHNICAL TALK ONLY] - Page 515

LOL, I don't know if It's possible.... but I agree with both Keith and Al. But than again, I am the "confused one".

So no more Onkyos for you, ever?

I agree with Keith on many of his views also.
No worries.

Okay, all true.

Very good then that the new Marantz AV8801, at MSRP $3,600 has no bugs at all.

And there has never been an Onkyo AVR with issues to date also...

I tend to agree with this. I'll start with saying I do have a UMC-200, so far without issues, but reading of the issues on the Emo forums makes me think the beta-testing just wasnt really thorough. The Para EQ thread where trims were set to +30dB (give or take), causing that one guy to blow a speaker. Sheesh. Did no one check these? Oh, and the current front page advertising splash saying the the UMC-200 is $4500 worth of processor is very cheeky IMO.

Personally I haven't been following the problems with the UMC-200. I'm sad to hear there are issues. Perhaps they will be ironed out as you say but Emotiva doesn't have a good track record with pre-pros and eliminating bugs. As for that advertising, it's typical of Emotiva's hyperbole.

Add Denon to that list.

Certainly the one with the ps3 and colour space should have been picked up, especially being such a common product.

I'll be curious to see what they value the umc-500 and xmc-1 at if they're saying the 200 is $4500 worth of processor, where's the comparisons between this and, say a marantz 8801 (which is still less than that, but I know which one I'd take at $600)

The UMC200 actually has very good room EQ if you roll up your sleeves and use the built-in parametric EQs and do it manually.

It has the big advantage that you are not forced to do full range EQ as you are with Audyssey.

If you have basic REW skills, you can set the EQs with as much or more precision as Audyssey or ARC. I'm certainly able to get the response comparable to the ARC in my Anthem prepro.

The automatic EQ is a bit less precise, but does improve things. It also has the advantage of being able to tweak the response later so you can remove any correction above a certain frequency if you desire.

Did your unit have this also?
I thought it was more of a fluke than the norm.
No excuse for it, but I don't think every unit has this.

As far as advertising, meh. I don't pay too much attention to audio ads.
Most fall into this category anyway.

Now you peaked my interest.
I'm a gear head at heart.

Any chance you can do a write up on the EQ process?
Emotiva isn't known for their manuals on these things.
( I'm being extremely kind here. Lol)

???
Theresa, don't you have a 4520CI?
It is on my short list for my next unit.

This convention is in conflict with peer-reviewed AES papers such as this one, as well as the standard books on audio amplifier design by both Douglas Self and Robert Cordell, and industry convention as used by e.g. QSC audio. QSC provides the schematics for their amps they call class H, and it's straightforward for those familiar with amp design to verify that the supplies of those amps vary only in discrete steps in response to the input signal. Self's book has an entire chapter on class G. Here's an illustration from his book.

So this means what with reference to sound quality?

Probably not much . The difference is related mostly to efficiency (class H is better than class G) and cost (class H wins here for very high-power designs).

No, mine doesnt have any of these issues, or not that i've come across yet. The only one I have found is that with my WDTV Live, I have to turn the UMC to that input, then turn the WDTV on, otherwise the screen goes has a green hue, everything still legible, but its like the red & blue colours arent added :S. And my HD DVD XE-1 takes a while to sync, but gets there in the end.

No issues with my UMC-200 except two brief audio drops (on the same dvd) and the surround mode eq preference reverting to direct (no eq) on Sat and TV inputs after power down. The latter takes only a few seconds to change on a new start and, oddly, doesn't happen as much with lossless codecs. Otherwise all is well.

I did have the unit emit a loud popping sound on the very first startup but I eliminated it by changing sat channels and it has not recurred.

The manual

Yeah, the manual pretty much ignores what to me was the main selling point of the UMC200. No receiver and no prepro close to its price has the ability to give you full manual paramatric EQ control.

The UMC has 11 bands for each channel and three for the sub. More for the sub would have been better. But you can choose frequency, gain and bandwidth in Q for each band.

The easiest way to use them properly is to use REW. One at a time, do a series of measurements of each speaker in an area around your listening position and get REW to average those results. Then go into the EQ section of REW and select Generic EQ, the range you want EQ to cover, how tight you want the tolerances, maximum boost etc and press a button.

You will get a bunch of suggested filters which you simply program into the UMC. You can even get a house curve suggestion.

Of course you can still do it the old fashioned way, which is run the measurements and then adjust the EQs and remeasure, or you can use the RTA and pink noise to do things on the fly.

It's like having a Behringer DCX built-in for each channel, without the extra box and without the extra A/D step.

If you are a real tweaker you can even use it as a poor man's DEQX and do nearfield measurements to adjust the speakers native response, then listening position ones for room eq.

I'd love it if it had shelving filters and if you could also tweak phase, but it is pretty cool as is.

I have a DCX I could use to EQ my fronts, but having it on all channels is very nice.

Thanks for those references. It serves to underscore the point made in the recent Prosoundweb article I cited, that there are disagreements over the definitions and distinctions between G and H, yet he deduced a general consensus so that is I what I reported. Perhaps things have shifted since the time those papers were written?

There certainly seems to be a general lack of rigor in the use of the terms class G and H. Where's the ITU when you need them?
Edited by Roger Dressler - 1/23/13 at 12:46am

I do the same thing, not with the UMC-200 though, but with miniDSPs and Omnimic. I'm certain the parametric EQs are a step up from the graphic ones in my old UMC-1 (long ago retired).

It seems that Emotiva has made great strides with the UMC-200 over the UMC-1. But it seems that Emotiva just can't or will not put together a decent manual. I looked at the UMC-200's manual and in all honesty it is a joke. For those not as experienced as you Steve they would not know the capabilities of the UMC-200 or how to take advantage of those capabilities. I had the UMC-1 and that manual was a joke as well.

Bill

 

 

I take your point, but I did make sure it was clear that this was just a personal decision on my part. If the UMC-200 has cleared up the many problems the UMC-1 had, then that has to be a good thing, for the owners of the UMC-200 and for Emotiva too. I hope that the UMC-200 is a great unit, comparable with the great Emo amps.

 

You know I never had a UMC-1 - you are being cheeky there! :)  After reading thousands of posts giving details of their numerous failings (and many of those failings being admitted by Emo themselves), I would have considered myself nuts to have bought one ;) So, personally, I was spared the numerous problems - sadly many weren't. Let's hope the UMC-200 is a totally different beast.

 

 

 

 

The UMC-1 is dead and buried now thankfully so there isn't much point in continuing to discuss it, but the main issue I have with it is that there is nobody who used it in a HT system that didn’t have some potential problems with it simply because of its various design faults. Failure to perform due to component malfunction is one thing - failure to perform due to incapable design is another thing entirely. The former can be fixed, the latter can't.

 

 

No problem at all. I think the points you make are worth making.

This is my single biggest gripe against Emotiva.
Their documentation stinks.
(and it is a shame since it does take away a slight layer of overall quality as unfair as that may seem)
They should learn from Outlaw whose manuals are leagues better.

I wonder if it is possible to just get rid of emo-Q and use that programming space for more PEQ filters?
That would make this one unique unit if Emotiva added say a high quality mic with REW curves, or better yet a kit similar to what parts express offers.

That would set this unit apart from the competition IMHO.

I get something similar with my roku and a pioneer AVR.
It is a hdmi/hdcp timing issue.
God I hate HDMI. Work of the devil I tell you!

I agree that Emotiva's manuals do take away from the overall quality of their processors. But I would disagree that it is unfair. My reasoning is that it is solely Emotiva's choice to cheap out on the manuals. All the money they spend developing and producing processors. But they will not spend a fraction of that cost on well written and informative manuals. I can't wait to see the manual for the XMC-1 when that is released .

Bill

HDMI as a physical interface is pretty damn good with what it can do compared to any other alternative. HDCP is the devils work and what gives HDMI itself a black eye. I always like making that distinction or put another way HDMI was designed by engineers while HDCP was designed by lawyers.

Should be interesting, Bill, esp. if/when TacT RC is incorporated. TacT's own manuals are very far from being models of clarity.

IF it ever get's TacT.

RUR,

Yes it should be very interesting . From the limited reading I have done on TacT it seems to be a very complex RC system to use.


That is a thought as I firmly believe the latest delay of the XMC-1 is due to issues integrating TacT into a $1499 prepro.

Bill