# Emotiva UMC-1 and alternatives



## f0zz (Dec 1, 2011)

It was suggested that I start a new thread on this topic.

I have a new dedicated theatre that is nearly complete and I would like new electronics to go with it. I have been seriously looking at the Emotiva UMC-1. On an older thread here, some problems about the auto correction for this unit were brought to light regarding the subwoofer equalization and TA. 

Have these problems been fixed?

If not, what are alternate units that are worth looking into. $1500.00 is about the most I would like to spend on the processor. I was considering the Emotiva 5 channel amp to with the UMC-1 and would prefer that the amp and processor match, but I could probably be persuade otherwise.

Thanks,

John


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

John, 
If your budget allows it, I do think SSP's like the Marantz AV7005 and Integra 80.2 (now discontinued so should be close to your price range) would be a better call. I say this due to both offering Audyssey MultEQ XT (XT32 on the 80.2), THX Post Processing, and less glitches.

While the Emotiva is a fantastic value, building a modern SSP is a daunting prospect that has caused companies like Outlaw to abandon SSP's that made it as far as Beta Testing. Outlaw does have a new one in the works that is so well outfitted that I am seriously considering it provided it is stable. Back on topic, the larger Brands have a huge advantage in respect to R&D and economies of scale in respect to the myriad license's required for a full featured SSP.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## f0zz (Dec 1, 2011)

The room correction isn't a big selling point for me. I've never found one that really worked well. My experience is limited, but I'm doubtful that I would use any setting other than my own in the end (guess I'm an audio snob!!!!).

Marantz and Rotel were two companies I was looking at before the monetary saving hooked me regarding the Emotiva.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

f0zz said:


> The room correction isn't a big selling point for me. I've never found one that really worked well. My experience is limited, but I'm doubtful that I would use any setting other than my own in the end (guess I'm an audio snob!!!!).
> 
> Marantz and Rotel were two companies I was looking at before the monetary saving hooked me regarding the Emotiva.


Hello,
I felt the same way as you until I tried Audyssey. It really is something special. I would highly recommend reading this Article from a few years back:http://www.hometheater.com/content/audio-audyssey
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## f0zz (Dec 1, 2011)

It does sound very interesting. Can you alter the results if they aren't exactly to your liking?

Have you heard the difference between the pro and standard version?


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

f0zz said:


> It does sound very interesting. Can you alter the results if they aren't exactly to your liking?
> 
> Have you heard the difference between the pro and standard version?


Hello,
I have. The Pro Version is utterly amazing. As well it should be considering the added cost. However, XT32 with SubEQ HT is so good that I do not feel the need for Pro.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## f0zz (Dec 1, 2011)

As mentioned, the Marantz is on my list. It has the MultiEQ XT. I believe this is one step down from the pro version? Marantz also show THX certification for the unit, but I'm not sure if it is actually certified (website is inconsistent). My local dealer sells the 7005 for $1499.00, which seemed reasonable enough for Canada.

Cosmetically it also blends reasonably well with the Emotiva amplifier. My speakers are 4 ohm, and this will not work with the Marantz 5 channel amplifier.


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

f0zz said:


> It does sound very interesting. Can you alter the results if they aren't exactly to your liking?


Only with the Pro version and only by altering the target curve.



> Have you heard the difference between the pro and standard version?


Yes. The Pro has a superior (more accurate) microphone and has more computation intensity as it is done on the PC. The results are often superior but much depends on the version of MultEQ that you are using it with since the latter determines what can be accomplished.



f0zz said:


> As mentioned, the Marantz is on my list. It has the MultiEQ XT. I believe this is one step down from the pro version? Marantz also show THX certification for the unit, but I'm not sure if it is actually certified (website is inconsistent). My local dealer sells the 7005 for $1499.00, which seemed reasonable enough for Canada.


MultEQ XT is not "one step down from the pro version." Pro is an external program which can obtain superior results when used with the in-built Audyssey, whatever it is.

I have reviewed various prepros with (and without) Audyssey including the AV7005.


----------



## rab-byte (Feb 1, 2011)

f0zz said:


> My speakers are 4 ohm, and this will not work with the Marantz 5 channel amplifier.


even if your amp isn't rated for 4ohm that doesn't mean it can drive that load. Your speaker impedance is an average. Your amp/receiver's rating is what it can push continually. 

What speakers do you have and how loud do you like to play them?


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Have you considered this Onkyo 809 from Electronics for less in Canada? It is in my opinion superior to the Marantz and would have no issues driving a 4 Ohm load all channels. Its also THX select2 Plus certified giving many very useful processing modes. Has the HQV Vida video processor and Marvell Qdeo Video Chip for 4K Upscaling and Processing.


----------



## rab-byte (Feb 1, 2011)

tonyvdb said:


> Have you considered this Onkyo 809 from Electronics for less in Canada? It is in my opinion superior to the Marantz and would have no issues driving a 4 Ohm load all channels. Its also THX select2 Plus certified giving many very useful processing modes. Has the HQV Vida video processor and Marvell Qdeo Video Chip for 4K Upscaling and Processing.


I didn't know any AVR would actually output 4K!!! Wow
Do you know how much the onkyo alters CMS info from source to display. 

And I guess this is just me being jaded but is this going to be another XBR-1(SXRD) 1080p thing where the onkyo will up-convert 4K but not pass-through???


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

I am not really sure about CMS or the 4K passthrough but the 809 gets stellar reviews and I know several Shack members who have it and say its a very good receiver. With ISF adjustments available for video its a hard deal to pass up for that price in Canada. Still cheaper from Accssories4less but they wont ship up here


----------



## f0zz (Dec 1, 2011)

rab-byte said:


> even if your amp isn't rated for 4ohm that doesn't mean it can drive that load. Your speaker impedance is an average. Your amp/receiver's rating is what it can push continually.
> 
> What speakers do you have and how loud do you like to play them?


I'm building the speakers myself. The final impedance is actually not set, but will most likely be between 4ohm and 6ohm. I know the Matantz would probably be ok, but better safe than sorry. I would also like more power than the Marantz is rated for.

Like most with a family, I will probably not watch my movies at Referance levels most of the time, but with that said, I may want to push it from time to time.


----------



## rab-byte (Feb 1, 2011)

tonyvdb said:



> I am not really sure about CMS or the 4K passthrough but the 809 gets stellar reviews and I know several Shack members who have it and say its a very good receiver. With ISF adjustments available for video its a hard deal to pass up for that price in Canada. Still cheaper from Accssories4less but they wont ship up here


LOL you could just drive across the border rent a mailbox and have it shipped... Assuming you're close. 

I'm aware of ISFccc being built into the Onkyo receiver lineup but that doesn't always tell the whole story about PQ. That being said, yes the Onkyo is a very well reviewed unit.


----------



## CdnTiger (Feb 16, 2007)

F0zz, like you I'm building myself a theatre. Unlike you I'm not ready to buy my new electronics yet... :hissyfit: Regardless, here's my 2 cents:

If you're interested in room correction, you might look into the Anthem MRX series. From what I've read, Anthem's ARC is very well regarded and more consistently beneficial in all listening environments than some of the other options.
If room correction isn't your thing, a used Nuforce AVP-17 may be intriguing. Note that it doesn't have HDMI, so you'll have to use analog connections. This would be a deal breaker for a lot of people and is probably why this unit is dirt cheap despite being raved about a few years ago. If you're more concerned with audio than video, though, you're good to go (with a player with analog multi-channel outs). :T


----------



## f0zz (Dec 1, 2011)

My room will be for theatre and 2 channel audio. But I have a different set up for 2 channel. Room correction wasn't really even on my radar. But it has been recommended that I reconsider. And since this is a lot of money being put out, I am willing to do my research.

How will the ARC stack up against others. Not sure if I like using a reciever as a pre amp?

John


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

f0zz said:


> My room will be for theatre and 2 channel audio. But I have a different set up for 2 channel. Room correction wasn't really even on my radar. But it has been recommended that I reconsider. And since this is a lot of money being put out, I am willing to do my research.
> 
> John


1. You need to reconsider it in the context that many of the criticisms are based on either misuse or on preference and, therefore, not without bias. Everyone is entitled to his preference but you should judge for yourself.

2. ARC is not the only game in town. In my experience, Audyssey MultEQ XT (or, better, XT32) is equally good, if different.

3. I would not be without it, especially in the lower frequencies.


----------



## CdnTiger (Feb 16, 2007)

Unfortunately I can't provide any input from personal experience on how the various room correction algorithms compare. There's been plenty of discussions on various forums on the topic. 

I haven't yet reached the point in my theatre construction where I'm ready to start auditioning various receivers. As Kal said, the only way to know for sure is to try it yourself. Room correction will be a must for me, though. If my room doesn't benefit from it, I can easily turn it off, but there's little can be done if you don't have it to begin with! Yes, yes, I know there's speaker and listener position adjustments, room treatments, and such... which I hope to benefit from but these have two potential deal breakers: :spend: and WAF.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
I agree completely with Kal. Also, ARC is quite good and I am a huge fan. That being said, it is not nearly as user friendly as Audyssey. A main thing being that a PC is required to run ARC whereas MultEQ is done completely though the AVR. Audyssey Pro is a different beast and does require a PC, but this is often performed by Dealers.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> I agree completely with Kal. Also, ARC is quite good and I am a huge fan. That being said, it is not nearly as user friendly as Audyssey. A main thing being that a PC is required to run ARC whereas MultEQ is done completely though the AVR. Audyssey Pro is a different beast and does require a PC, but this is often performed by Dealers.
> Cheers,
> JJ


Cannot say if the need for a PC is a big deal these days but AudysseyPro is not so much a different beast so much as the professional athlete of the Audyssey family.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
Perhaps different beast is taking it too far, but it does require the use of a PC whereas 2EQ/MultEQ/XT/XT32 do not. In addition to needing the Licence Key. While these are certainly not beyond the abilities of most everyone here, it is more involved. And certainly more comprehensive with more sampling points and a far superior Microphone.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## f0zz (Dec 1, 2011)

Would anyone take sides as to which is a better calibration tool. audyssey MultiEQ XT or Arc ( found on the anthem receivers)?

I've read up on this and most people seem to think they are more or less the same. Using a PC is not an issue.


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

f0zz said:


> Would anyone take sides as to which is a better calibration tool. audyssey MultiEQ XT or Arc ( found on the anthem receivers)?


There are forums on AVS where you will find partisans.


----------



## f0zz (Dec 1, 2011)

Well I decided to purchase an Onkyo 5009. Not exactly what I was looking for in the beginning, but I'm happy with the decision.

Thanks for all your input.

John


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

f0zz said:


> Well I decided to purchase an Onkyo 5009. Not exactly what I was looking for in the beginning, but I'm happy with the decision.
> 
> Thanks for all your input.
> 
> John


John,
I really think you are going to love the 5009. It truly is in another league than the UMC-1. As well it should be considering the disparity of price. XT32/SubEQ HT are amazing and I really think you will find it to be the case as well.
Cheers,
JJ


----------

