# MiniDSP Nano AVR DL vs 10x10HD vs Emotiva Umc-200



## Frank D

I currently have a Lexicon MC12 B processor/preamp (I have a sunfire 200 watt per channel amp attached to it) and an Anthem MRX 510 (I can also use the Sunfire Amp on this as it has pre outs). 


The Anthem MRX 510 does have an automatic EQ built into it but I want more freedom in dealing with the EQ than it currently gives (Same for the Lex MC 12 B whose EQ is also automatic and only goes to 250 Hz)


I am looking for the best way to add EQ to my system. Looking for the easiest and most versatile system but any comments would be appreciated. 


Considering:
1. Mini DSP nanoAVR DL http://www.minidsp.com/products/ht-series
This would add much but could only be used with my MRX 510 as the Lex has no hdmi. 


2. Mini DSP 10x10 hd unit. This is an analog in and out and can be used with both the Lex and MRX.
http://www.minidsp.com/products/mini...nidsp-10x10-hd


3. Emotiva UMC-200. I have heard that this has an auto EQ but it does not work too good but no matter as it is the manual EQ that I would be interested in. http://emotiva.com/products/pres-and-pros/umc-200


4. Other options?

Also please state what advantages or disadvantages you are aware of regarding above noted options?

Thanks


----------



## Kal Rubinson

nanoAVR HD


----------



## Frank D

Hi Kal, 

I would be using the unit for home theatre. The NanoAVR HD (just like the NanoAVR DL) is put before the preamp/processor. *How much of an issue is that?* 

Would it be better to go to a 10x10HD because of that issue? Or is that issue not a big deal and hence the NanoAVR line is better?


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Frank D said:


> The NanoAVR HD (just like the NanoAVR DL) is put before the preamp/processor. *How much of an issue is that?*


Depends – The Nano has two inputs, so if you have more source components than that, then it’s probably an issue for you. Another downside that seems to escape everyone's attention, it appears that the Nano has no remote control, so input selection will be manual (perhaps Kal can clarify).

The Nano is a great option for people with traditional receivers, but since you already have outboard amplification a more traditional approach with the EQ between the pre-pro and amp might be your best option. MiniDSP makes such products, and there are numerous options from the pro audio field as well. Just keep in mind that any digital parametric option should have at least 1/6-octave resolution, i.e. six frequency “stops” per octave; obviously more is better.

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Depends – The Nano has two inputs, so if you have more source components than that, then it’s probably an issue for you. Another downside that seems to escape everyone's attention, it appears that the Nano has no remote control, so input selection will be manual (perhaps Kal can clarify).


Correct. As for remote control, that is possible. 



> The Nano is a great option for people with traditional receivers, but since you already have outboard amplification a more traditional approach with the EQ between the pre-pro and amp might be your best option. MiniDSP makes such products, and there are numerous options from the pro audio field as well. Just keep in mind that any digital parametric option should have at least 1/6-octave resolution, i.e. six frequency “stops” per octave; obviously more is better.


All the miniDSP boxes can do much better than that.


----------



## Skylinestar

As the nanoavr is placed before the AVR, can matrix like Dolby ProLogic IIx work properly in upmixing 5.1 to 7.1?


----------



## RayJr

Skylinestar said:


> As the nanoavr is placed before the AVR, can matrix like Dolby ProLogic IIx work properly in upmixing 5.1 to 7.1?


The simple answer is "No"

RayJr


----------



## Stoopalini

I have no experience with the MiniDSP units, but keep in mind the limitations of the UMC-200's PEQ features.

Basically the UMC-200 has five 11-band PEQs and one 3-band PEQ. The five 11-bands are for the front left, front right, center, rear left and rear right. The rear surrounds do not have any PEQ. The 3-band is for the subwoofer.

If you're looking for more than 3-bands for your sub, or would like PEQ for more than a 5.1 setup, the UMC just won't do it.

That said, I really like my UMC-200, and I use the rear-surround outputs as front height channels; so not having a PEQ on these isn't such a big deal for me. As for the 3-band PEQ on the sub, I find that is plenty to get a good curve from my setup, but your mileage may vary ...


----------



## Skylinestar

Stoopalini said:


> I have no experience with the MiniDSP units, but keep in mind the limitations of the UMC-200's PEQ features.
> 
> Basically the UMC-200 has five 11-band PEQs and one 3-band PEQ. The five 11-bands are for the front left, front right, center, rear left and rear right. The rear surrounds do not have any PEQ. The 3-band is for the subwoofer.
> 
> If you're looking for more than 3-bands for your sub, or would like PEQ for more than a 5.1 setup, the UMC just won't do it.
> 
> That said, I really like my UMC-200, and I use the rear-surround outputs as front height channels; so not having a PEQ on these isn't such a big deal for me. As for the 3-band PEQ on the sub, I find that is plenty to get a good curve from my setup, but your mileage may vary ...


The minidsp 10x10 has 6input+6output peq filters...using them together resulting in 12 peq filters, isn't it?


----------



## Stoopalini

Skylinestar said:


> The minidsp 10x10 has 6input+6output peq filters...using them together resulting in 12 peq filters, isn't it?


I'm not sure ... as I said, I don't have any experience with the MiniDSP units.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Stoopalini said:


> I'm not sure ... as I said, I don't have any experience with the MiniDSP units.


Sure. http://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-64-page-2


----------



## Cruce

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate thread--or forum, for that matter. But I've just read Kalman Rubinson's update on the MiniDSP Nano AVR in Stereophile and decided to give it a try.
My setup is modest: Oppo 95, Marantz SR5007, Triton II's and their associated center and surrounds. I spend a lot of time happily listening mainly to classical SACDs, but I'm seventy-two and I've been missing some highs. Nothing drastic, but age is doing its job. So I've just got hearing aids--Bernaphon's, the ones most recommended on the web for listening to music.
The highs are back with the Bernaphon's music mode, but they're thin, a bit too bright and edgy. And the mids aren't as rich and full. Everything sounds compressed because, I suppose, it is. Things may get better once my brain becomes reprogrammed, but would it be possible--and, if so, beneficial--to calibrate a MiniDSP Nano AVR using my hearing test chart from the audiologist, so I can take advantage of my audio equipment rather than be dependent on a hearing aid's analogue to digital converter that's designed primarily for conversation? Or would that be a waste of time and money, so I should just suck it up and adjust to a new normal?
I know this is probably outside the parameters of Home Theater Shack discussions, but I decided it was worth a try.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Cruce said:


> I'm not sure if this is the appropriate thread--or forum, for that matter. But I've just read Kalman Rubinson's update on the MiniDSP Nano AVR in Stereophile and decided to give it a try.
> My setup is modest: Oppo 95, Marantz SR5007, Triton II's and their associated center and surrounds. I spend a lot of time happily listening mainly to classical SACDs, but I'm seventy-two and I've been missing some highs. Nothing drastic, but age is doing its job. So I've just got hearing aids--Bernaphon's, the ones most recommended on the web for listening to music.
> The highs are back with the Bernaphon's music mode, but they're thin, a bit too bright and edgy. And the mids aren't as rich and full. Everything sounds compressed because, I suppose, it is. Things may get better once my brain becomes reprogrammed, but would it be possible--and, if so, beneficial--to calibrate a MiniDSP Nano AVR using my hearing test chart from the audiologist, so I can take advantage of my audio equipment rather than be dependent on a hearing aid's analogue to digital converter that's designed primarily for conversation? Or would that be a waste of time and money, so I should just suck it up and adjust to a new normal?
> I know this is probably outside the parameters of Home Theater Shack discussions, but I decided it was worth a try.


I've done this in the past for a friend but it wasn't a complete success. 

First, it is doable but you also should experiment with trying a "tone control" approach that uses broader corrections that (anti-)parallel your FR and compare it with a more faithful correction.

Second, don't go overboard in correcting severe and narrow losses as, sometimes, the cure can be worse than the disease.

What happened with my friend is that he loved the corrections for a while but, eventually, discarded them because, while they sounded objectively more normal/correct, they became unnatural because they contrasted with his new "reference": his uncorrected perception of the world, losses and all.


----------



## Cruce

Thanks much for your immediate and helpful response. I'd like to impose on you a bit more. My situation may be the reverse of your friend's. I'm probably going to be wearing the hearing aids pretty much full time. (Even though retired, I teach an occasional course; and the students near the back increasingly respond in softer and softer tones.) So if I take the hearing aids out to enjoy music, losses and all, I'll be countering what I assume will become my everyday new reference. I've been told my brain will adjust to new aural expectations, but I'm skeptical as to how much. At any rate, my unmediated hearing would be the anomaly; and, I assume, if I make use of the equalizer, I'd be more or less replicating my everyday experience. 
At any rate, and more to the point: I'm almost certainly a bit slower than most members of the forum and your Stereophile readers. (You're dealing with a retired English teacher here.) So I think I understand your suggestion about trying a "tone control approach" and your reference to "(anti-)paralleling your FR," but I'm not sure. Without going into fatiguing(for you) detail, could you help me out here?
Once again, I truly appreciate your response. This change in my relationship to music is significant for me.


----------



## Cruce

No need for the clarification I asked for in my last post. I think I've got it now, and of course it makes sense. And thanks again.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Cruce said:


> No need for the clarification I asked for in my last post. I think I've got it now, and of course it makes sense. And thanks again.


I figured that a "a retired English teacher" could parse it.


----------

