# Emotiva UMC-1 Processor Review: Discussion Thread



## Sonnie

*Emotiva UMC-1 Processor Review: Discussion Thread*

*For the Full Review: Click Here!*










*Summary*: The UMC-1 does almost everything I need it to do and does it well, with the only exception being the poor bass management and bass equalization, which means I was forced to break out my old faithful BFD (parametric EQ) to properly tame the sub-bass. I am in hopes they will eventually fix this issue, but that may be some time down the road. There are some that would never use this feature, so it may be a totally irrelevant issue in those cases. Otherwise, the features are abundant and the setup is relatively easy with possibly a few minor adjustments needed after the initial auto setup. The UMC-1 and XPA-3 combo is actually several hundreds less than the now discontinued Onkyo 906 street prices. For a complete 5 or 7-channel system, the UPA-5 or UPA-7 paired with the UMC-1 would still offer more power and cost less than most higher end receivers.

*For the Full Review: Click Here!*


----------



## GranteedEV

I've got a question...

If I were to crossover my mains outbound (IE with a DCX or MiniDSP) as full range speakers instead of a dedicated LFE channel, would that "solve" the BEQ issue you experienced?

Then can I send LFE channel to the front mains and have this issue solved?


----------



## Jeff Aguilar

Sonnie,

What a thorough review! Thank you so much for taking the time to explain the bass management section so I could understand why people were so upset as to how it worked. I had the UMC-1 when it first came out and read about all the short comings people brought up and still had a hard time understanding what the short comings were. Your review really was able to bring to light and help me understand what it does not do correctly. 

I never did any critical stereo listening since my was set in a theater room. I have since changed out my speakers and now wish I had it just to see how it did in that area.

I found in my system that I did need to make the center channel hot to hear the dialog in movies we watched. Granted, I never had the last two sets of firmware, they may have addressed that since I sent mine back. Another short coming in my system when I had it was how long it took to lock on a signal with BluRays and with my Comcast box. I ended up loosing the center channel at times and I had a few audio bursts when changing from a stereo signal to the 5.1 signals. After a couple of those random bursts, I was always cringing when it would change from a commerical back to the show. 

I really wanted to like the UMC-1 and did for the most part, but after having it for 8 months I decided to go into another direction. I hope that they do get everything fixed. I love the small internet only companies and love to support them. 

After having it in my sytem for 8 months I wonder how much damage I could have done to my subs? Like I said, I have gone in a different direction and since putting in another piece of equipment I have found out that one of my SVS pc+ subs has a damaged woofer. May have had nothing to do with, but it does make me wonder now.

Thank you so much for taking the time to review the UMC-1. I really appreciate it.

Jeff Aguilar


----------



## Sonnie

GranteedEV said:


> I've got a question...
> 
> If I were to crossover my mains outbound (IE with a DCX or MiniDSP) as full range speakers instead of a dedicated LFE channel, would that "solve" the BEQ issue you experienced?
> 
> Then can I send LFE channel to the front mains and have this issue solved?


I am not following what you are trying to do here... it does not make any sense to me... sorry. :huh:




Jeff Aguilar said:


> Sonnie,
> 
> What a thorough review! Thank you so much for taking the time to explain the bass management section so I could understand why people were so upset as to how it worked. I had the UMC-1 when it first came out and read about all the short comings people brought up and still had a hard time understanding what the short comings were. Your review really was able to bring to light and help me understand what it does not do correctly.
> 
> I never did any critical stereo listening since my was set in a theater room. I have since changed out my speakers and now wish I had it just to see how it did in that area.
> 
> I found in my system that I did need to make the center channel hot to hear the dialog in movies we watched. Granted, I never had the last two sets of firmware, they may have addressed that since I sent mine back. Another short coming in my system when I had it was how long it took to lock on a signal with BluRays and with my Comcast box. I ended up loosing the center channel at times and I had a few audio bursts when changing from a stereo signal to the 5.1 signals. After a couple of those random bursts, I was always cringing when it would change from a commerical back to the show.
> 
> I really wanted to like the UMC-1 and did for the most part, but after having it for 8 months I decided to go into another direction. I hope that they do get everything fixed. I love the small internet only companies and love to support them.
> 
> After having it in my sytem for 8 months I wonder how much damage I could have done to my subs? Like I said, I have gone in a different direction and since putting in another piece of equipment I have found out that one of my SVS pc+ subs has a damaged woofer. May have had nothing to do with, but it does make me wonder now.
> 
> Thank you so much for taking the time to review the UMC-1. I really appreciate it.
> 
> Jeff Aguilar


Thanks Jeff... and you are welcome as well... glad it helped.

I did not experience any of the other issues you were having, so I assume they have been addressed, unless they are so intermittent that I never had a chance to notice them.

I don't think there will be too many subs damaged as a result of the bass equalization issue because I think most will realize it before it is too late... if perhaps there was a situation where equalization boosts were stacked enough to cause the sub to be hot in that boosted range. Although it could happen, I would suggest it is the exception.


----------



## vann_d

I don't understand why one would "upgrade" to a separate processor when they are not using it to process any signals. Ok, dolby and DTS HD formats count but I can get that with a $250 receiver and I have little doubt that it will perform just as well.

Nice write up on the Emo-Q btw...


----------



## GranteedEV

Sonnie said:


> I am not following what you are trying to do here... it does not make any sense to me... sorry. :huh:


Let's say I start with Speaker Pair A and Sub X. Normally Sub X would be hooked up to the processor via LFE pre-out. In my scenario I'd have Speaker A pre-outs "L/R" going into an active crossover, for example a MiniDSP unit. The active crossover then, at whatever slope, sends above 80hz to the amp driving my speakers but sends the bass to the amp driving the subwoofer(s). In effect you've got 2.1 but at the same time the Processor only "sees" a full range speaker.

Then the Emotiva does its testing and doesn't find a subwoofer on the LFE out, but finds my Main L/R to be full range. does it

1) Redirect LFE channel in movies to L/R "full range" mains?
2) Have any EQ applied to the LFE channel if the above is occuring
3) Have the same EQ resolution for full range bass as it does for "subwoofer/LFE"?

I would assume this would fix the issue, at least as far as stereo listening is concerned and wouldn't be an issue for most movies anyways. I can see a problem arising for multi channel music... however. 



> I don't understand why one would "upgrade" to a separate processor when they are not using it to process any signals. Ok, dolby and DTS HD formats count but I can get that with a $250 receiver and I have little doubt that it will perform just as well.


The main advantages I can think of are

1) If you've got amps everywhere, you can just upgrade the processor when featuresets change. For example I'm rather happy with my Marantz SR6003 receiver as it is. If I wanted to upgrade it, I'd probably add a 5-or-7-channel hypex amp. But once I had that hypex amp, and I was considering buying a new receiver to get Audessey XT32, I in theory wouldn't really care for paying for the all new amps of a receiver with that feature. I'd rather get just the features. In practice, scale of economy ruins this concept however as Processors are rarely if ever cheaper than the receiver counterparts. It might not be cheaper, but it's definitely lighter. Some of us don't like carrying 60lb receivers around  ...
2) Reduced Noise. Perhaps this is exaggerated but I would assume that if you've got outbound amps for all your channels, then not having internal amps will give you the lowest signal to noise ratio. 
3) Headroom - This is the main one. Processors are usually made with a focus on the pre-outs instead of on the amps. So you can send a hotter signal. This is useful as you can turn the gain down on your amp and have it amplify less low level noise and more high level content. With something like an emotiva amp this might not be a concern (as they have a fixed high gain) but with other amps you might just want to play around and see if you get an improvement. Headroom is always nice to have.


----------



## Sonnie

GranteedEV said:


> Let's say I start with Speaker Pair A and Sub X. Normally Sub X would be hooked up to the processor via LFE pre-out. In my scenario I'd have Speaker A pre-outs "L/R" going into an active crossover, for example a MiniDSP unit. The active crossover then, at whatever slope, sends above 80hz to the amp driving my speakers but sends the bass to the amp driving the subwoofer(s). In effect you've got 2.1 but at the same time the Processor only "sees" a full range speaker.
> 
> Then the Emotiva does its testing and doesn't find a subwoofer on the LFE out, but finds my Main L/R to be full range. does it
> 
> 1) Redirect LFE channel in movies to L/R "full range" mains?
> 2) Have any EQ applied to the LFE channel if the above is occuring
> 3) Have the same EQ resolution for full range bass as it does for "subwoofer/LFE"?
> 
> I would assume this would fix the issue, at least as far as stereo listening is concerned and wouldn't be an issue for most movies anyways. I can see a problem arising for multi channel music... however.


I am not familiar with how LFE is treated if there is no subwoofer connected. My best guess is that the only way you get LFE is via the sub pre-out. The source sends it to the discrete LFE .1 channel which is routed through the sub pre-out.


----------



## vann_d

GranteedEV said:


> The main advantages I can think of are
> 
> 1) If you've got amps everywhere, you can just upgrade the processor when featuresets change. For example I'm rather happy with my Marantz SR6003 receiver as it is. If I wanted to upgrade it, I'd probably add a 5-or-7-channel hypex amp. But once I had that hypex amp, and I was considering buying a new receiver to get Audessey XT32, I in theory wouldn't really care for paying for the all new amps of a receiver with that feature. I'd rather get just the features. In practice, scale of economy ruins this concept however as Processors are rarely if ever cheaper than the receiver counterparts. It might not be cheaper, but it's definitely lighter. Some of us don't like carrying 60lb receivers around  ...
> 2) Reduced Noise. Perhaps this is exaggerated but I would assume that if you've got outbound amps for all your channels, then not having internal amps will give you the lowest signal to noise ratio.
> 3) Headroom - This is the main one. Processors are usually made with a focus on the pre-outs instead of on the amps. So you can send a hotter signal. This is useful as you can turn the gain down on your amp and have it amplify less low level noise and more high level content. With something like an emotiva amp this might not be a concern (as they have a fixed high gain) but with other amps you might just want to play around and see if you get an improvement. Headroom is always nice to have.


Yes, I've heard these arguments but you already talked yourself out of #1 (like you'll constantly be lugging around that receiver, and I don't know any that weigh 60#). As for point #2, this is a foreseeable issue, however, the S/N ratio for a receiver in the $600 price range is not likely to be an issue these days. As for point #3, the gain adjustment on the amp has no effect on the noise floor of the output so sending a hotter signal doesn't do much for you there unless you are unable to properly level match your amp and receiver pre-out, which has been said to be a non-issue by those who know more than me (see http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/home-theater-receivers-processors-amps/35677-gain-structure-home-theater-getting-most-pro-audio-equipment-your-system.html#post317692).

My point, however, was that our dear man Sonny was not using this piece of equipment for anything that it really had the possibility of doing any better than the receiver he replaced. Actually, I take that back. The only thing it had a chance of audibly improving in Sonny's setup was the system eq. and in that regard it got a terrible review. 

I could see the point in it if he were trying to improve his video upscaling capability, add new multi-room audio/video output capability that he needed, add new advanced processing features such as dynamic volume or 11.x channel output, or even just to clean up the appearance of his system as it sits in his av rack. This "upgrade" in fact did none of these things for him. Maybe that is why it is now a giveaway item.


----------



## Sonnie

I was indeed hoping to see better bass management and equalization, but even if it had been perfect, I would probably still be giving it away. I was unable to resist the desire to test Audyssey's new XT 32 and Sub EQ HD processing of dual subs. It appears to be a really good solution to work with my setup, so it was practically a done deal to look for a receiver with these new features and do the giveaway with the UMC-1 after I reviewed it, which was one reason I got it to begin with. The review was fun, although very time consuming for me, being I am not the everyday reviewer. Otherwise, I was not asking it to do a lot... and may consider it again later on down the line, after I am done playing around. :bigsmile:

I like having separate amps for all of the MartinLogans, since they are the older models that are known to present some difficult loads on an amp. I feel more comfortable with them having more power from a dedicated amp. The XPA-3 was exactly what I wanted and at a great price. The 906 could have been used in the same manner as the UMC-1, but I was trying to be efficient and sell the 906 to help cover the cost of the UMC-1 and XPA-3. That was a lame attempt because I have ended up spending even more money. I just keep telling myself it is fun and can't control the spending. However... our members benefit, especially those looking to update their system. They could end up with part of it for free!


----------



## recruit

Its a great review Sonnie and the members here are certainly lucky to get the chance of owning one for free, there is not many forums that do this so this really is a great community to belong too, and with some very knowledgeable people for advice and reviews of equipment :T


----------



## SteveCallas

GranteedEV said:


> Let's say I start with Speaker Pair A and Sub X. Normally Sub X would be hooked up to the processor via LFE pre-out. In my scenario I'd have Speaker A pre-outs "L/R" going into an active crossover, for example a MiniDSP unit. The active crossover then, at whatever slope, sends above 80hz to the amp driving my speakers but sends the bass to the amp driving the subwoofer(s). In effect you've got 2.1 but at the same time the Processor only "sees" a full range speaker.
> 
> Then the Emotiva does its testing and doesn't find a subwoofer on the LFE out, but finds my Main L/R to be full range. does it
> 
> 1) Redirect LFE channel in movies to L/R "full range" mains?
> 2) Have any EQ applied to the LFE channel if the above is occuring
> 3) Have the same EQ resolution for full range bass as it does for "subwoofer/LFE"?
> 
> I would assume this would fix the issue, at least as far as stereo listening is concerned and wouldn't be an issue for most movies anyways. I can see a problem arising for multi channel music... however.


How would this fix the issue? The issue is that each individual speaker is having the full bandwidth range - prior to crossover implementation - being EQ'd. Then, when the crossover is implemented, those EQ settings from each individual speaker are being transferred to the subwoofer. The problem is that the bass response from each individual speaker will never be the same as the bass response from the subwoofer at your listening position, so those EQ settings are not only worthless, they are now heavily distorting the FR playback of your subwoofer with redirected bass. The ONLY bass signal that may actually be flat is the LFE channel, but there is no easy way to validate the claim.

The logic Emotiva is using only makes sense if you are running all 5 or 7 speakers as full range ("Large") with the subwoofer handling only the LFE. This is how a real movie theater operates, but the bass capabilities of a real movie theater aren't exactly in the same league as the bass capability of a system like Sonnie's or other low frequency enthusiasts. Movie theater speakers (typically JBL Pro Cinema) are good to about 35-40hz and subs about 30hz. Additionally, the speakers are spaced much further apart, so the room plays less of a role. In a HT, trying to get smooth bass response while running all speakers full range would be terribly difficult due to room effects and cancellations - not to mention that there are virtually no speakers that can match the bass response of most of today's DIY or commercial subwoofer offerings. 


This is great investigative work by Sonnie. I would echo some of the questions already asked though - why not stick with a receiver? Big name receiver companies have a much larger budget, more engineers, better testing methods, and a library of acoustic work upon which to build. You will *never* match the cutting edge features of a receiver with a pre-amp processor. For the cost of the processor, you get some free amps too, even if you never intend to use them. Onkyo and Yamaha have some excellent receivers out right now - they would make for the best pre-amp processor you can get if you decide to bypass the amp. Frankly though, I'm not sure why you wouldn't continue to let it power your center and surrounds.....the amp sections on some of these receivers are pretty beefy.


----------



## wheatenterrier

Thanks for the great review. This is a shame though, this product seemed to have a lot of potential. Perhaps the most disturbing thing though is that bit about speaking with the owner and him disagreeing and the fact the he still thinks he's doing it right. 
Makes we wonder what else is he totally adamantly wrong about. I'll have to do some real research before buying any of there products to make sure that are no detrimental flaws. Right now I'm considering the XPA 3 but still have a lot to learn before I pull the trigger.


----------



## engtaz

Thanks for the good review.


----------



## lcaillo

Sonnie said:


> I am not familiar with how LFE is treated if there is no subwoofer connected. My best guess is that the only way you get LFE is via the sub pre-out. The source sends it to the discrete LFE .1 channel which is routed through the sub pre-out.


This was my understanding of how the first units with LFE that we saw worked. I have never heard of anyone passing it back to the other channels in the case of no sub. It would certainly be possible, but could be messy, and would likely do more to push amps to clipping and speakers not designed to do really deep powerful base to their limits than any benefits could outweigh.


----------



## Sonnie

Thanks guys... I appreciate the comps.

@Steve... I have actually shut down my 906 on several occasions, with it only running the center and surrounds. Those are pretty decent amps in that unit, but perhaps the MartinLogans were presenting it with more than it could handle. This actually happened with two different 906 receivers too. For most setups though, the receiver power in most receivers is probably sufficient.

The Denon 4311, which I am using at the moment, retails for $2000 and is only being used as a pre-pro. As previously eluded to, I chose this model because it offered the Sub EQ HT and XT 32 technologies from Audyssey. I think most all of the receivers with XT 32 are on up there in price. If I had not been unable to buy it at dealer cost of $1250, I am not sure I would have purchased it... even then it is twice the retail of the UMC-1. With the Emo-Q being very respectable in the mid and upper range, if Emotiva could get the bass management right, the 4311 would then not offer that much more for me than what the UMC-1 would offer. In both cases I have to use a BFD with my bass. I do like the Sub EQ HT in the 4311, but if someone were having to pay retail or close to retail for the 4311, the UMC-1 would be a more reasonable buy for those with outboard amps... again... if the bass management and bass equalization were up to par.

@wheatenterrier... just to clarify... Lonnie is not the owner. I am really not sure if Dan and Cathy Laufman understand what is going on with the Emo-Q, although I did attempt to communicate my findings with Cathy and was referred to Lonnie... then was sent a new unit with the latest firmware that I thought was going to fix the issue, but it did not. I suspect Dan and Cathy have been led to believe there is not an issue with the bass management or equalization, just based on my conversation with Lonnie and how adamant he was about the bass management and bass equalization they use being superior to anything else. I believe he has them convinced in error. I mean no disrespect to Lonnie on this, but I firmly believe he is in denial with this issue.

For their amps... I would not hesitate one minute to recommend them. I think they are perhaps some of the best bang for the buck amps on the market. I would put them up against any of the big name brand expensive amps.


----------



## Sonnie

lcaillo said:


> This was my understanding of how the first units with LFE that we saw worked. I have never heard of anyone passing it back to the other channels in the case of no sub. It would certainly be possible, but could be messy, and would likely do more to push amps to clipping and speakers not designed to do really deep powerful base to their limits than any benefits could outweigh.


And that makes sense... especially since most if not all of LFE will have +10db of signal over the bass sent to the mains. The LFE is sent to the sub for a reason... it can handle that extra bass boost, whereas the mains may not be able to handle it.


----------



## Sonnie

SteveCallas said:


> H
> The logic Emotiva is using only makes sense if you are running all 5 or 7 speakers as full range ("Large") with the subwoofer handling only the LFE. This is how a real movie theater operates, but the bass capabilities of a real movie theater aren't exactly in the same league as the bass capability of a system like Sonnie's or other low frequency enthusiasts. Movie theater speakers (typically JBL Pro Cinema) are good to about 35-40hz and subs about 30hz. Additionally, the speakers are spaced much further apart, so the room plays less of a role. In a HT, trying to get smooth bass response while running all speakers full range would be terribly difficult due to room effects and cancellations - not to mention that there are virtually no speakers that can match the bass response of most of today's DIY or commercial subwoofer offerings.


Good points!

And how many people buying Emotiva gear are likely going to NOT use a crossover on their mains? I know of a few guys who use full range speakers with no crossover, but they are very few. I suspect the highest majority cross over their mains at 80Hz and redirect the bass to the sub(s). Consider also how many are using satellite/bookshelf type speakers as mains... no way they will handle the bass frequencies found in most movies... those people are going to use a sub and redirect the bass.


----------



## SteveCallas

lcaillo said:


> This was my understanding of how the first units with LFE that we saw worked. I have never heard of anyone passing it back to the other channels in the case of no sub. It would certainly be possible, but could be messy, and would likely do more to push amps to clipping and speakers not designed to do really deep powerful base to their limits than any benefits could outweigh.


That is how it works though - if you don't have a subwoofer, the LFE channel is sent to the L & R speakers in almost every processor. Some give you the option to not use the LFE channel at all. However, if you are decoding a Dolby Digital stream, if you do not have five speakers and a subwoofer connected - at a minimum - dynamic compression *automatically* engages. This has been tested and confirmed by myself and Ilkka, and it can result in as much as 13db dynamic reduction. Not sure if this carried over to the new high resolution DD format.

If you are connected via stereo outputs from your processor, then you're really out of luck, as you will get a whole separate mix, devoid of practically all dynamic content. I would imagine this mix is highpassed around 80hz or higher too, but this theory I have not tested.


----------



## Sonnie

Yeah... that rings a bell for me. In many receivers and processors you can select LFE+Mains, where LFE is sent to the sub and mains, so I can see where the LFE can be sent to the mains in case of no sub.


----------



## vann_d

I thought lfe+mains meant the lfe and mains signal below crossover frequency is sent to the subwoofer. This is for when there is no lfe and you want signal to the sub.


----------



## Sonnie

I definitely did not get that part right... it was from memory, which is obviously feeble at best. So I guess maybe a bell did not ring.

On the 4311, the LFE + Mains setting will send the low frequencies of all speakers to the sub, whereas the LFE setting will only send the low frequencies of speakers set to Small to the sub.


----------



## SteveCallas

You definitely don't want to pick that one.


----------



## rocky500

I have the UMC-1. Can I do a workaround like the following. Will it help the bass summing problem?
Run the Emo-Q first.
Then adjust each speakers EQ below 80Hz to flat.
Set the crossover to 80Hz.


----------



## Sonnie

Welcome to Home Theater Shack!

Yes... I would recommend setting all of the equalization below 80Hz to flat on all speakers other than the sub, which is actually only two bands at 31Hz and 63Hz. The only drawback to that is that there is no equalization for the redirected and summed bass being sent to the subwoofer from the mains, unless you use a BFD or something similar to equalize your bass.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

vann_d said:


> I thought lfe+mains meant the lfe and mains signal below crossover frequency is sent to the subwoofer. This is for when there is no lfe and you want signal to the sub.


Nope. That might be called 'normal' mode. 'LFE+mains' means that the mains signals below crossover go both to the sub and the main speaker. But, you are right, the term is incorrect and should be 'sub+mains.'


----------



## vann_d

Thanks for the correction. I think I need to take my system off this setting, but that's a discussion for a different thread.


----------



## TypeA

Interesting read, thanks for taking the time to review it Sonnie. It may sound petty to some but when it comes to AVRs or processors/amps using a universal remote should always be an _option_ and not a requirement. Sounds like a requirement for this unit...

Ive used only my AVR remote (in my primary theater) from _both_ of my last two receivers, a HK AVR7000 and now the Onkyo 3007, both came with very good lighted learning remotes.


----------



## Sonnie

Thanks... and yeah, the remote is nice looking, but not very functional.


----------



## Archnmez

Hi all,

I am glad a professional has finally explained the bass management problems with the UMC-1. This issue had caused considerable trouble at emotiva's forum and caused a wide spread "purification". Myself and others where permanently banned from their forum and posts deleted at will. It is nice to be validated at last.

Another technical note that was brought up by another emotiva forum user, Markus, was the redirected bass delay setting for each speaker distance is also sent to the subwoofer. So even if you set the speaker EQs to flat below the crossover, if there is a large distance difference between all your speakers and your subwoofer there is a potential for distortion do to the summed frequencies being out of sync. Hopefully I explained that correctly, this was explained by another user so I am very loosely paraphrasing.

What is you take on that?

Thank you
Chris -AKA- Archnmez


----------



## Sonnie

Hi Chris and welcome to HTS!

This is something that I did not test... and not sure how I could have tested it. It seems like I read a thread somewhere about REW being able to test the distance setting from the measuring the signal, but I am not familiar with the procedure. It would be helpful if someone could test it to confirm it. Certainly Emotiva will eventually realize that none of the processing below the crossover frequency should be redirected to the subwoofer.


----------



## Archnmez

Thanks for the warm welcome.

Markus767 has demonstrated that the delayed signal is sent to the subwoofer and in extreme circumstances can cause "comb filtering". This is a huge oversight by Emotiva and many feel it should be treated as a defect and fixed. One simple test to see if the delay is sent to the subwoofer is to set everything to flat and just vary the delays and graph the subwoofer only output. If they vary the only cause could be the delay. If you look at AVSforum under UMC-1 review pre-bug fix post# 18656643 you can see some of Markus' graphs. Hope it's ok to mention AVSforum if not let me know and I will delete.

Thanks 
Chris


----------



## vann_d

There is probably a way to measure phase difference between input signal from REW and output signal from emo-q. Maybe this would be a good measurement to indicate the applied delay settings.


----------



## Sonnie

You would think Emotiva would have taken note on this. Do you know if Markus spoke with anyone at Emotiva?


----------



## speedie

Hay sonnie I recently bought the processor, xpa 2-5 and there cd player 
I want to put the units into my old cabinet which is a stacked type
Do you for see any problems with heating coming from this type of stacking arrangement
And did you use any cooling fans in your setup i.e. rear mounted low noise extraction fans
Cheers speedie


----------



## Sonnie

My cabinet is fully open on the back, so there is good air flow. I have not noticed any of the units getting extremely hot, so you shouldn't have any issues as long as you have sufficient ventilation. You could always try it and see if there seems to be an excessive amount of heat around the units.


----------



## robsong

How good is this processor and does it still have a lot of problems.


----------



## lcaillo

I suggest you read Sonnie's review at the top of this thread.


----------



## robsong

I did read the review and was wondering if anymore problems showed up after the review.


----------



## lcaillo

The review was only posted a week ago. There are many comments and experiences with the unit in other threads as well, but Sonnie's very comprehensive review pretty much sums it up. Most of us have found that the unit is pretty good, with a few quirks. A reasonable value compared to other similar units, but certainly not a perfect processor. Working within the limits of adjustability that Sonnie noted, the unit sounds fine, works pretty much as expected, and seems to be built well. I had issues with the video processing not being up to par with what I expected and HDMI pass through not working with some sources properly, but I think the sample was defective, since others did not report the same issues.


----------



## Sonnie

I concur with Leonard... and I did not note any further issues after my review. Emotiva has fixed a lot of the issues that have surfaced with the unit since its first development, so I am in hopes they will continue to improve it.


----------



## nholmes1

I also agree with Leonard's post, we actually were talking about the unit the other day. For the money its hard to beat as it really is in a price category by itself. But I would save my money for a little more expensive pre-amp.


----------



## Sonnie

I am not sure if it is the pricing structure or not, but if they could somehow employ Audyssey into the unit, it would really be an attractive piece at its price.


----------



## Mike_WI

Sonnie said:


> I am not sure if it is the pricing structure or not, but if they could somehow employ Audyssey into the unit, it would really be an attractive piece at its price.


Yes.
Other than potentially saving money, I'm not sure whey they went with a non-Audyssey (or other proven) room EQ program.
If the AVR cost $50 or $100 more and had many fewer problems it would have been much more successful.

Mike


----------



## carbon summit

First real post here. I've got a UMC-1 and just listened to the podcast that Emotiva put out on Friday. 
So I guess my hope that they would cave in light of many people complaining about the bass management system and release the next firmware with the option to do it the right way or Lonnie's way. 

Oh well. My question is what BFD works with the UMC-1?

I found this site:

http://bfdguide.ws/

and was considering the Behringer Feedback Destroyer Pro DSP1124P but when I looked at a picture of the rear it looks like it only has balanced (XLR) line input and outputs. Am I missing something? I'm totally new to this so forgive me!

What would be the BFD that you guys find works the best?


----------



## Sonnie

Check out our BFD forum... it should help you. The BFD uses XLR and ¼" inputs/outputs. I use the 1124p and RCA to XLR cables myself, but there are other options.


----------



## Kevin_Wadsworth

Sonnie said:


> Check out our BFD forum... it should help you. The BFD uses XLR and ¼" inputs/outputs. I use the 1124p and RCA to XLR cables myself, but there are other options.


I owned a UMC-1 for a while and also used it successfully with the 1124p with the RCA to XLR cables. As you are probably aware, this doesn't fix the time delay implmented in the summed subwoofer signal (since the UMC applies the time delay to each speaker _before_ redirecting the bass to the sub), but it does help nicely with the amplitude problems.


----------



## digital desire

Awesome review, and further verified that I will not be buying one of these anytime soon. Too bad really. (Who knows - may win one though! )
What is amazing to me is that I can get a Pioneer 1120 with seemingly very few problems, and use that. I would love to find something in this price bracket that has 5.1 or 7.1 inputs, but will not put up with bugs/ crummy bass management to get it. 

Thanks for the frank review!


----------



## f0zz

Hi there, first post so take it easy on me!

I am considering this unit for my HT and need further input. Have the latest updates fixed the bass management issues you speak of? If not, can you adjust ALL the setting to clear up this problem manually?

If not, what other processors would you suggest? Nothing too expensive please $1500 max give or take for the processor.

FYI, I would also like to purchase the 5-channel amplifier from Emotiva and I'm a bit neurotic about things matching. I would prefer to stick to one company if at all possible.

Thanks,

John


----------



## Sonnie

Hi John and welcome!

I am not sure if they fixed this issue or not. I heard rumors that they were going to address it, but can neither confirm or deny if they actually have done so. Someone else might can chime in, but it may be best to start a new thread and ask, since this is a pretty old thread and some may not see your post.

I would also start a new thread on recommended alternatives... or you could ask for both like you did here in a new thread. :T


----------



## TypeA

f0zz said:


> FYI, I would also like to purchase the 5-channel amplifier from Emotiva and I'm a bit neurotic about things matching. I would prefer to stick to one company if at all possible.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John


I totally dont blame you, aesthetics is very under-rated save for a handful of manufactures that take the time to care. Matching will be kinda tough unless you do stick with the same name. I dont really recommend the Emotiva processor but I will say the Marantz and Oppo look is a very nice match to Emotiva gear. Especially the older Marantz gear that is not curved around the front ends like their newer models are. Either way, I would say Marantz will give you the best in looks and sound quality and keep you closest to the Emotiva. (which is above average in both looks and sound quality)

This gives you a good idea of how great a match Emotiva Marantz and Oppo is.


----------

