What's the latest word on the Emotiva UMC-1?

Just out of curiosity, Rob when you say that you and your audiophile friends can "tune" better than a well-implemented auto-room EQ ie. Audessey, what exactly are you referring to?

To my knowledge, there aren't many transparent and flexible parametric EQs out there in the high end audio market. You couldn't be talking about using a graphic EQ with hard-coded frequency bands and no adjustable Q. So what type of "tuning" are you describing?

Its only opinion tuning unless you are prepared to show detailed graphs from REQ Wizard or something of that nature. Just "liking" something doesnt mean squat.

I've used the best processors from Denon, Marantz and Onkyo. The Denon and Onkyo units lived in my systems. I've also heard plenty of other units out there. I think they're all pretty good, but generally can't do analogue 2 channel very well. So what? That's what my tube gear is for.

Fast forward to the UMC-1, which not only sounded better on two channel music, but also less harsh and abrasive when watching movies (to my shock). Since I spent money making my dedicated theater room reasonably flat and free of harsh reflections, it's easy not to like Onkyo for example.

Now....as to using the mic and auto calibration on these units: They work "okay" at best and never really get it right. In fact I've NEVER heard an automated EQ system get it right in any room. BTW, my friend owns a shop and does installations. It's his bread & butter to do better than the these automated programs and he's well paid for it. FYI, he's done some work for some pretty heavy music industry clients in custom theaters far beyond mine in scope. Audessey is not part of the job. He's expected to do better.

Using the UMC-1 I can customize the levels, EQ and delay on each speaker; it takes time and careful experimentation to get correct. It also means using many reference sources and day after day of reevaluations. My friends and I are fairly high end users with this gear. It's okay to use the gee-wiz features on these processors, but you're kidding yourself if you think someone can't do better.

Now....using the Denon's gee-wiz system I was able to get closer FASTER to the final level of optimization. That's it's only value, as a STARTING point. If you want to get 40-70% of the system potential then rely entirely on Audessey. There is NO substitute to carefully tuning a system over time, which also includes tedious speaker placement, room treatments system matching. The very nature of the mics typically employed (and their placement) is the first of many problems that make Audessey (and all of it's cousins)a dorm room toy on the same level as sound bars and cheap tube amps for Ipods.

It's only natural to believe that these systems "get it right" since that's so much easier than carefully tweaking your system to an even higher level. If it sounds good to you (as users proclaim) than mission accomplished via Onkyo and all the rest. But it sure didn't sound good enough to me or my friends and quite a few others.

Cheers,

Rob

Of course setting up any audio system starts with the best speaker placement you can get, and well thought out room treatments. Audessey or any other manual or automatic EQ is assumed to take place after all of the physical acoustics work is done.

"Using the UMC-1 I can customize the levels, EQ and delay on each speaker"

Is this the "tuning" that you are talking about doing? You are using an 11 band graphic EQ and calling that room tuning? You think you can beat Audessey's algorithms with an 11 band graphic EQ?

"You think you can beat Audessey's algorithms with an 11 band graphic EQ?"

Well to paraphrase Lonnie (Lenny) you can only get so much for $699. We should appreciate the "brain trust" at emo-porium for their honesty.