# Marantz SR7001 vs Emotiva UMC-200 and UPA-700



## shipwreck212 (Apr 30, 2014)

Hello,

I am currently looking into switching out my AVR (Marantz sr7001) for a separates system. I was curious to know if anyone owns this separates combo (UMC-200/UPA-700) and what they thought about it? I would also like to know performance wise, what am I losing? What am I gaining? I would assume that with a separate amp and processor that they would be more effecient at what they do rather than having one piece of equipment do 2 functions, but again I'm not expert so any and all input would be wonderful! Here is my current setup:

2 x Andrew Jones SP-FS52
1 x Andrew Jones SP-C22
4 x Andrew Jones SP-BS22LR
PSA XS30se (JUST BOUGHT!)
Oppo BDP-103
Marantz SR-7001
Xbox 360
Roku 3
Panasonic P65VT50

So obviously with the UPA-700 only giving 80W at 8ohm and 100W at 4ohm, that would be perfectly acceptable given my current speakers. So I'm not really worried about the differences in power between the AVR and separates. What I'm more concerned with is performance. Is the UMC-200 all its cracked up to be? Is there a better Preamp on the market in the same price range? Would love any and all input! Thanks!


----------



## Glen B (Jun 11, 2013)

I suspect you will be making a mostly lateral performance move with that specific combination of gear, going from a decent AVR to entry level separates. If I were moving such a system to separates, I would at least double the power, so that there is more headroom. You also have the option of keeping your SR7001 and using it as a preamp/processor via its preouts, and getting a separate amp of at least 200 watts. I use my HT system as my secondary music source, and run a separate 210W amp from the main preouts of a Marantz SR-19 AVR. By itself, the SR-19 holds its own quite well sonically versus separates.


----------



## shipwreck212 (Apr 30, 2014)

Glen B said:


> I suspect you will be making a mostly lateral performance move with that specific combination of gear, going from a decent AVR to entry level separates. If I were moving such a system to separates, I would at least double the power, so that there is more headroom. You also have the option of keeping your SR7001 and using it as a preamp/processor via its preouts, and getting a separate amp of at least 200 watts. I use my HT system as my secondary music source, and run a separate 210W amp from the main preouts of a Marantz SR-19 AVR. By itself, the SR-19 holds its own quite well sonically versus separates.


Does how much power my speakers can handle come into play at all? They're rated at like 80W for surrounds, and 125W for the towers.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

shipwreck212 said:


> So obviously with the UPA-700 only giving 80W at 8ohm and 100W at 4ohm, that would be perfectly acceptable given my current speakers. So I'm not really worried about the differences in power between the AVR and separates. What I'm more concerned with is performance.


Just saying, your second comment is in conflict with the third comment.



> Would love any and all input!


Aside from your attraction to separates, where do you want to go with this upgrade? What are your final expectations? What's the end game?

Before buying separates, my recommendation would be to not play around and "seriously" upgrade your speaker system.

(you have a killer subwoofer and Blu-ray player)

Maybe when in stock, a set of SHO-10 speakers.


----------



## Glen B (Jun 11, 2013)

shipwreck212 said:


> Does how much power my speakers can handle come into play at all? They're rated at like 80W for surrounds, and 125W for the towers.


Those are just general ratings. As long as you don't overdrive the mains, you should not have a problem. The surrounds don't have much audio information. Musical peaks can be several decibels above the average levels. The extra headroom you get from additional power allows momentary peaks to play without compression and clipping for a more open, accurate sound. Read the following that explains about headroom:

http://www.glasswolf.net/papers/headroom.html


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Your current Marantz is better in my opinion than the UMC-200 mainly because the UMC-200 has been plagued with software issues. The room correction is also not very good (thats changing with the new one coming out). Sonically there would be no difference at all.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

When you go to the separates, you're actually reducing the maximum power to the speakers, and giving up Audyssey MultEQ. That's not a lateral move, that's backwards. There's this sort of high-end-ish comfort feeling of owning separates, but in the greater number of cases, it's all psychological. The real advantage of the Marantz is Audyssey. The Marantz's amp section has the capability of over powering the center speaker, so the extra power not the point, its the precision calibration.

That speaker set will play at just under reference level if you're under 10' away and stay under rated power for the center. That would be true regardless of the choice of amplification as the limit is power handling of the center.

I find it odd that the center speaker is rated for a maximum power 1.6dB less than the L/R. It's odd because in surround soundtracks, 70% or more of the total SPL in the room is provided by the center, so the design doesn't make a lot of sense.


----------



## TheHills44060 (May 15, 2014)

I agree with the majority here. I don't think there is anything to gain by going with separates given the current speakers you have. The Marantz is a nice capable piece and plenty for the Pioneers.

Should you decide to go with a pre/pro/amp combo down the road stay far away from the Emotiva stuff and make it a worthwhile investment.


----------



## shipwreck212 (Apr 30, 2014)

****UPDATE*****

I decided to partially heed the advice given here. I have decided not to go with the UMC-200, because aside from the HDMI 1.4 Inputs, I really don't gain anything. Instead I have decided to go with a separates system, but I grabbed a Marantz AV8003. Now My problem is finding an amp(s). I'm currently looking at emotiva XPA-3 ($500 used) for my fronts, and 2 XPA-200's ($600 used) for the surrounds and rears. This would be more than enough power and would also give me plenty of room to upgrade my speakers down the road without having to switch out all of my gear. I'm curious though, is Parasound a better company? Do they produce better amps? I've heard lots of mixed reviews as to which company is better Emotive vs Parasound. Any Thoughts? Budget is around a 1000 bucks for 7 channels of amplification.


----------



## shipwreck212 (Apr 30, 2014)

Also, I know I may not necessarily gain anything from balanced inputs with the runs only being a meter or less, but I would prefer to still have them. (Hence my reason for going with Emotiva)


----------



## TheHills44060 (May 15, 2014)

The AV8003 is a serious unit congrats on the new pickup! Sounds like you were hell bent on getting separates and I don't blame ya. It's fun to experiment with different gear combos. 

You know my feelings about Emotiva :thumbsdown: so I won't comment haha.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

TheHills44060 said:


> You know my feelings about Emotiva :thumbsdown: so I won't comment haha.


...:yikes:

...

(Disclosure: i'm a fanboy of Emotiva)


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

shipwreck212 said:


> Also, I know I may not necessarily gain anything from balanced inputs with the runs only being a meter or less, but I would prefer to still have them. (Hence my reason for going with Emotiva)


No, you won't gain anything. Something most don't realize is, to achieve a balanced line driver and a balanced line receiver takes more than twice the circuitry as the same interface done unbalanced. Outside of the noise rejection (the ONLY advantage!) fully and properly balanced interconnections have the potential for increased noise, distortion and cost. Yes, XLR connectors seem better, but only from the standpoint of rough handling. Actual contact reliability is the same as an RCA, possibly worse in some cases.

I'm not talking about internal amplifier topology, just interconnects. It's just an artificial and unfounded feel-good. unless you have a real common-mode noise issue that cannot be solved with proper grounding.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Balanced (XLR) interconnects were designed for the large venues that use gear where long distance runs of more then 50 feet is common. For short runs this is mute and makes no audible difference.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

tonyvdb said:


> Balanced (XLR) interconnects were designed for the large venues that use gear where long distance runs of more then 50 feet is common. For short runs this is mute and makes no audible difference.


It's not important really, but balanced lines were first developed for telephone company use to control crosstalk between circuits shortly after the introduction of voice service (as opposed to telegraph which had no crosstalk issues), then applied to microphones. 

There's more to it than just 50', you can have issues in much less than that, or quiet unbalanced lines longer than 50', it's very situational. But there's no need for balanced interconnects between co-located gear. If ground loops result from short interconnects there are other issues to solve.

"Balanced" has a nicer feel to it than "unbalanced". So try "single-ended" instead, it sounds more simplified, basic and pure than "unbalanced". For the "it can't hurt, it can only help" crowd, I've designed far too many balanced circuits to be on board with that. When you need it, there's nothing like a good high CMRR balanced input, but you can have slightly higher performance without the extra circuitry.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

I am a big believer in putting the money in the speakers before splurging on the electronics, but each person values different things.
Hopefully you will think you hear a difference after dropping that much coin on the processor.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

How many tests have there been that show how difficult (or impossible) it is for people to hear a difference between amplifiers? Several would be conservative. Even though they are hotly debated, there's enough evidence to show it's not easy to do, perhaps impossible for the average listener.

How many tests have there been that show people can't tell the difference between speakers? None. And nobody even argues that one.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

Audioholics has done several speaker shoot outs.
http://www.audioholics.com/tower-speaker-reviews/1500-2000-floor-shootout-2009
http://www.audioholics.com/bookshelf-speaker-reviews/budget-bookshelf-shootout-2009


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

chashint said:


> Audioholics has done several speaker shoot outs.
> http://www.audioholics.com/tower-speaker-reviews/1500-2000-floor-shootout-2009
> http://www.audioholics.com/bookshelf-speaker-reviews/budget-bookshelf-shootout-2009


My point exactly. Tons of "shootouts" designed to determine preference. None ever done to try to discern IF there's a difference. Everyone knows speakers are different, and it's easy to hear the difference. 

Very different from amp tests. 

In short, if you want to make an audible difference, change the speakers, not the electronics. The qualifier is, if the electronics provide some sort of equalization system, then they can make an audible difference too. But with EQ bypassed, audible differences are open to debate, whereas audible differences between speakers are not. Everyone agrees different speakers sound different, blind or not.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

Ok


----------



## rawsawhd (Apr 10, 2014)

What do you do???? Time for a change? An upgrade? Do you go with a high quality receiver? Maybe take the jump to some entry level separates? You start weighing pros and cons? Is it worth it? Bla bla bla....... Heres my amateur take on it all. You're gonna get more bells and whistles with the receiver, more inputs, sound field settings, etc. Power is a gray area. 4 out of 5 receivers wont put out rated power with all 7 channels driven. Check out any of the reviews/bench test and you'll see this time and time again, particularly with entry level/mid level receivers. So how much does one need in terms of power? 80watts x 7? 120watts x 7? 300watts x 7? Assuming any amplifier gives full bandwidth power you're looking at a few db's gained, a little more dynamic control and punch, and I wont get into speaker sensitivity.... Then you have separates(and I'm not talking top of the line $20k processors and 1000w amps). You give up a lot, but keep the staple basics. You get the bragging factor and cool look! lol....

I ran into this choice a few weeks ago and there was ONE major deciding factor here. Replaceablility (I'm not sure thats even a word). My receiver went (Onkyo 805 which I loved) and I was Out Everything. It might have been some 10cent circuit but the whole thing was garbage now. I had a 52lb paper weight until I got something new. Maybe the internal amps were still fine? Doesn't matter, had to toss it. I was out a tuner, a switcher, a processor, amplifiers, etc..... It was old and wasn't worth getting fixed but What if it was New? I'd have to go weeks without my precious HT waiting for it to be fixed or dropping another $2k to replace One item. Nooooooo that made my mind up, separates was the way to go. I blow an amp? I have a second to get me through until its replaced? Processor takes a dump? Well its not costing me thousands to replace and I still have my trusty old amps raring to go. The only real compromise is the extras. Do you need all the sound field settings? Do you need 10 HDMI inputs, or can you get by with less? Can you risk dropping all that cash and one day maybe your kid fiddles with something or gets wet stick gum jammed into the vent holes and you're out Everything? Etc, etc, etc......

I know I'm being vague and basic here but I began to realize its not that complicated for me. I wanted solid power, a couple of inputs, a few sound settings, a basic auto mic set up, and the ability to upgrade "pieces" as needed/wanted (not everything). Hey, when you've got it all set up, for the next few years all you're going to do is pop a movie or music in and turn it up, kick back and smile.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

rawsawhd said:


> Hey, when you've got it all set up, for the next few years all you're going to do is pop a movie or music in and turn it up, kick back and smile.


And watch sports. Flat screens/big screens were made for sports.


----------



## rawsawhd (Apr 10, 2014)

BeeMan458 said:


> And watch sports. Flat screens/big screens were made for sports.


True,,, my bad. Also lets not forget the occasional YouTube video on "my new home theater" or "my new sub"!!


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

Doesn't the Marantz have pre outs all channels??


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

rawsawhd said:


> True,,, my bad. Also lets not forget the occasional YouTube video on "my new home theater" or "my new sub"!!


Since we don't have a HTPC, any YouTube videos are watched on our computer's small screen.


----------



## rawsawhd (Apr 10, 2014)

BeeMan458 said:


> Since we don't have a HTPC, any YouTube videos are watched on our computer's small screen.


BeeMan, we seriously need to get you to dip your toes in the water! If not a HTPC, maybe just a simple PS/Xbox or cheap Blu-ray player to watch some YouTube/Netflix etc in the living room.... You can plug/stream that fancy new cell phone of yours into that Denon, get a taste of it.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

rawsawhd said:


> BeeMan, we seriously need to get you to dip your toes in the water! If not a HTPC, maybe just a simple PS/Xbox or cheap Blu-ray player to watch some YouTube/Netflix etc in the living room.... You can plug/stream that fancy new cell phone of yours into that Denon, get a taste of it.


At our age, we don't like water..........too many sharks. 

The Denon 4520CI and the DBT-3313UDCI has to be hardwired into the hot spot router. What's with that? Even a cheapie Blu-ray player has Wi-Fi.

Thanks for the encouragement. I'm tickled with the simplicity of our HT setup. The wife watches her videos on her laptop and I watch YouTube from this desktop computer using a high end headphone rig.


----------

