Emotiva Ultra 12, 1st impressions

[Mr Peabody]

Ajani, did you ever get any other speakers?

[kexodusc]

Yep, what Mr. P. said.

My experience - I bought their new processor with Beta firmware and have had it since March. First month I owned it the firmware had some annoying bugs that didn't play nice with all my gear, and a few other things weren't working. It was pretty rocky and I wasn't sure if I'd keep it (to Emotiva's credit they extended the 30-day trial guarantee indefinitely). So no, they're not perfect at all.

I picked up a late model Integra DTC-9.8 processor and brought it home for 4 days. In Canada that thing sold for $2,200cdn retail (vs $1600 US) and you could probably knock $200- $300 off each for street price I'm guessing. I got a demo for $1350 cdn.

The short and skinny, I liked the UMC-1 a lot better for analog sources - SACD and CD primarily, but the Integra's OSD/user interface and sound quality on BluRays seemed a bit better to me...which carried weight since I use this for movies probably twice as much as SACD/CD listening. But both sound good though, and I didn't feel these were exactly big differences...Integra has Audyssey which some people really like (me not so much), and I found both to be more or less equal in the video processing dept on my 102" screen (but I'm not a videophile and hence not that anal here). The Integra had a few bugs too, but overall worked a bit better at that point.

But the UMC-1 is just over 50% the price of what I could get the discounted 9.8 for (and newer firmware has it working great for me, finally). If the UMC sold for $1600 USD, I would have an Integra right now and wouldn't recommend the Emotiva at all. At $1200 it might be a tougher decision for some...the scale moves with price, see...
But for me, I think I'd get better results putting that $600 difference towards an Oppo 83 and UMC-1 instead of just the 9.8. Much better. For some people's needs I suspect the UMC-1's value won't be enough.

YMMV.

[Mr Peabody]

That's interesting the UMC was better in analog but not digital. The Integra maybe used a better DAC. One thing I love about the higher end processors I've used was the superior steering. Ergonomics are important but with both units having no bugs and if they were the same price, you think the Integra performance was stand out enough to always edge Emo out?

[kexodusc]

That's interesting the UMC was better in analog but not digital. The Integra maybe used a better DAC. One thing I love about the higher end processors I've used was the superior steering. Ergonomics are important but with both units having no bugs and if they were the same price, you think the Integra performance was stand out enough to always edge Emo out?

Well, I only had it a few days, and doing a/b comparisons wasn't possible for 7.1 speakers because of the time it took, just 2.0, so my comparison won't pass the DBT crowd standard, just my gut feeling and observations.

That said, no, I don't think the differences were that big that the Integra would win a dominant majority. These both sounded pretty good. Sound was noticeably better than the $1000 midrange Yamaha I was using as a pre-pro in both, and the differences between 9.8 and UMC-1 were not as noticeable in either analog or digital. But they were there and that's the impression I got.

Price equal, this would probably come down to a personal preference for sound presentation, or more importantly, what you were going to use it for. I think maybe 80% movies or more, I would lean towards Integra, but if there was a lot of 2-channel listening especially with analog sources (or multi-channel analog) I would probably still take the Emotiva.

But that's kind of a useless answer because I think one would have to base the decision more so on the interface menus, and the degree the bugs in both annoyed them. Because sound to me was really that close and I had to nitpick to arrive at my conclusions. For me, price equal, the Integra was a better pure HT processor that didn't sound as good when dealing with analog sources and maybe didn't image as well even in the digital realm. FWIW, I didn't find any advantage for crappy Dolby Digital cable tv broadcasts. I think it took the higher resolution BluRay for me to really hear the Integra grow my room a bit.

The UMC really did a better job of SACD with the analog outputs from my Oppo SACD player. The imaging and detail was better and I got that feeling of being transplanted straight into the live performance. I thought I had the LFE settings wrong at one point with the Integra, didn't seem to have the same punch.

I think my point was more that if the UMC-1 was $1600, it would just be another processor in that price categorie with its following, any glowing reviews would just be generic reviews and I think would honestly have chosen the integra for reasons other than sound quality.

Also, I have to confess, I have not liked Integras much in the past and this was a leap of faith on my part. I liked this one a lot.

[Ajani]

Ajani, did you ever get any other speakers?

Not yet. I'm still undecided on speakers and worse now that I'm planning to move (again) in 2 - 3 years, I'm reconsidering whether a big pair of speakers like the Revel F12s would be a good choice now, as I can't imagine shipping them overseas when I travel.

I suspect whatever I get will be a 'semi-impulse' purchase...

[Ajani]

I think my point was more that if the UMC-1 was $1600, it would just be another processor in that price categorie with its following, any glowing reviews would just be generic reviews and I think would honestly have chosen the integra for reasons other than sound quality.

That sounds like the standard Emotiva experience. It's hard to hate on a product that offers so much for relatively little money. At double (or sometimes triple) the price, Emotiva products would just be one of very many good options, but at current prices they are a steal. (daummm, I'm starting to sound like another Emotiva fanboy - and I don't even have an Emo T-Shirt )

[Tarheel_]

Not yet. I'm still undecided on speakers and worse now that I'm planning to move (again) in 2 - 3 years, I'm reconsidering whether a big pair of speakers like the Revel F12s would be a good choice now, as I can't imagine shipping them overseas when I travel.

I suspect whatever I get will be a 'semi-impulse' purchase...

Think about a pair of Revel M20s used from audiogon....i use one as a center and its fantastic from movies to music channels (Neo:6, etc.).

They are heavy, but nothing like the floor standers.

[Tarheel_]

Yep, what Mr. P. said.

But the UMC-1 is just over 50% the price of what I could get the discounted 9.8 for (and newer firmware has it working great for me, finally). If the UMC sold for $1600 USD, I would have an Integra right now and wouldn't recommend the Emotiva at all. At $1200 it might be a tougher decision for some...the scale moves with price, see...
But for me, I think I'd get better results putting that $600 difference towards an Oppo 83 and UMC-1 instead of just the 9.8. Much better. For some people's needs I suspect the UMC-1's value won't be enough.

YMMV.

Good honest stuff there...for the most part everyone who reviews emo gear always states..."for the money" or "bang for the buck"..etc. It seems Emo gear is always judged by price point, not overall sound. I guess all gear is to some point compared by price range. While i get that, i can't help but think...what is best for my rig?
It may be risky, but if you can get more on the used market then do so.

I'm really tempted to get the XPA3 and compare a side by side to the amp i just purchased. Hey, it does have a great return policy.

Really not trying to hijack the thread....

[Mr Peabody]

Tarheel, that would be great if you did the comparison. I'd find that interesting. Emo is out of a lot of amp stock but if you place your order before 7/18 they will honor the sale price when the amps are back in stock. Not sure if XPA-3 is one that's out.

Ajani, 2 to 3 years?! You have patience my friend.

Good feed back Kex.

[Ajani]

Good honest stuff there...for the most part everyone who reviews emo gear always states..."for the money" or "bang for the buck"..etc. It seems Emo gear is always judged by price point, not overall sound. I guess all gear is to some point compared by price range. While i get that, i can't help but think...what is best for my rig?
It may be risky, but if you can get more on the used market then do so.

I recently read a similar point being made on an online review site (can't remember which one at the moment): whether you should buy the best bang for the buck products or the best product you can afford...

Bang for the buck is great if you have a tight budget or are someone who just hates the thought of having spent a cent more than you needed to... but it can lead to a lot of disappointment in the long run: upgraditis being the most common symptom. You might save a few bucks today by buying the bang for the buck product, but end up replacing it sooner than expected and spending much more money than if you had just bought the more expensive gear in the first place, simply because you are not satisfied with its absolute performance (rather than just its performance relative to the price)...

Emotiva reviews are just about always as you described, because in absolute sonic terms there are many better products out there... So if you can afford them (or find great deals on them used) then why wouldn't you buy the more expensive gear?

I'm really tempted to get the XPA3 and compare a side by side to the amp i just purchased. Hey, it does have a great return policy.

Really not trying to hijack the thread....

Why not? We're always happy to see person's thoughts on Emo gear...

[Ajani]

Ajani, 2 to 3 years?! You have patience my friend.

Ha... my patience is likely to run out long before I move... so I'll either opt for a 'disposable' (as in relatively cheap) floorstander or get a pair of Monitors like the M22 (or the M20 as Tarheel suggested) that I can carry with me....

[blackraven]

Ajani, get some really nice bookshelfs and a disposable sub. Some Monitor Audio Rx 1, B & W 685's or Dynaudio's and the 10" Emo sub.

[kexodusc]

I recently read a similar point being made on an online review site (can't remember which one at the moment): whether you should buy the best bang for the buck products or the best product you can afford...

Bang for the buck is great if you have a tight budget or are someone who just hates the thought of having spent a cent more than you needed to... but it can lead to a lot of disappointment in the long run: upgraditis being the most common symptom. You might save a few bucks today by buying the bang for the buck product, but end up replacing it sooner than expected and spending much more money than if you had just bought the more expensive gear in the first place, simply because you are not satisfied with its absolute performance (rather than just its performance relative to the price)...

Emotiva reviews are just about always as you described, because in absolute sonic terms there are many better products out there... So if you can afford them (or find great deals on them used) then why wouldn't you buy the more expensive gear?

Interesting.

I don't see how bang-for-the-buck isn't the best way to build a system even if your budget was $50,000 or $1,000,000. I guess it comes down to how you define bang for the buck...I suppose on some level a $5 used receiver is the best bang for the buck possible because it does so much for so little...but that's not really how I apply it.

I'd always want most bang for the buck in any budget. I would never buy a product if it had a competitor that sounded equal or better for materially less money. That would just be wasteful. The savings would give you a head start towards your next purchase and ultimately you'd be get better absolute sound for the same amount of money in the end.

When I buy gear, I demo a wide range of prices, then assign value to the performance each range offers. I usually battle with myself, I could spend this, but is it really that much better? If I decide yes it is, gotta have it, then so be it. Maybe I'm just not as impressed by the yield of sonic improvements as you go up the scale as other people. I don't always buy the single best piece of gear I can afford because sometimes I think of total audio chain - that $1000 extra here probably goes further allocated there...you get the idea.

[Ajani]

Interesting.

I don't see how bang-for-the-buck isn't the best way to build a system even if your budget was $50,000 or $1,000,000. I guess it comes down to how you define bang for the buck...I suppose on some level a $5 used receiver is the best bang for the buck possible because it does so much for so little...but that's not really how I apply it.

I'd always want most bang for the buck in any budget. I would never buy a product if it had a competitor that sounded equal or better for materially less money. That would just be wasteful. The savings would give you a head start towards your next purchase and ultimately you'd be get better absolute sound for the same amount of money in the end.

When I buy gear, I demo a wide range of prices, then assign value to the performance each range offers. I usually battle with myself, I could spend this, but is it really that much better? If I decide yes it is, gotta have it, then so be it. Maybe I'm just not as impressed by the yield of sonic improvements as you go up the scale as other people. I don't always buy the single best piece of gear I can afford because sometimes I think of total audio chain - that $1000 extra here probably goes further allocated there...you get the idea.

It really depends on how you define best bang for your buck. An example I'd use is:

The Monitor Audio Silver RS6 (now RX6) is a much better bang for the buck than the Monitor Audio Gold GS20 (same thing with Revel Concerta F12 versus Performa F32), so if you based your buying decision solely on best bang for the buck you'd buy the cheaper models... However, the cheaper models might not satisfy your needs in the long run...

Note: the situation would be different if the cheaper speaker performed as well as or better than the more expensive one...

[Ajani]

Ajani, get some really nice bookshelfs and a disposable sub. Some Monitor Audio Rx 1, B & W 685's or Dynaudio's and the 10" Emo sub.

I have not been a fan of Monitor/Sub combos, but I think your suggestion is probably the best way to go and see if I like a M/S combo in my own home (might change my views on it)...

[Mr Peabody]

Ajani, that is the view I try to avoid when writing a review of Emo gear but you almost get trapped into mentioning price. When I auditioned the ERC-1 I put it head to head against the NAD 545 a more expensive player and in my opinion the ERC was significantly better. I also put it up against an older Conrad Johnson DAC, in this case it could have come down to a preference but when push came to shove I kept the Emo and ended up selling the CJ. So the ERC is a worthy competitor regardless the price. Same with the sub. Better for less = bang for buck. But I don't want to give the impression Emo is good just because of the price, it's a thin line to walk when trying to express an opinion of Emo. I also like to try and get across it has limits, for instance, the ERC was out matched by my T+A and Frenchmon's Musical Fidelity. The ERC edged out Frenchmon's Rotel changer. That's some butt kicking going on for a $399.00 CDP.

Another example, Kex thought his Emo amp was better than his Rotel or Adcom, could come down to preference but the less expensive amp is holding it's own with more expensive amps. It may not hold up against Krell or Bryston, we shall see some day. So you end up saying this Emo is great for the price, misleading or injustice, maybe, but how else do you say it, Emo beats most mid-fi for less money but may fall some short of higher end.... I think people really aren't going to understand until they hear a piece for themselves.

[Ajani]

Emo beats most mid-fi for less money but may fall some short of higher end....

That sounds like the general consensus I've seen (and experienced) of Emo products....

Like Kex (assuming I interpreted his point correctly), I have yet to be blown away by the differences between mid and high end products (that I've auditioned), but I do find that differences exist (and whether the difference is worth it is solely up to the purchaser).

With that in mind, I believe many persons would be satisfied by the level of performance offered by Emo products (which is why they are selling so well and have a load of repeat customers)... IMO, they are great value for money, but probably more significant is that they are also good hifi products in absolute terms

Note: Good is not the same thing as 'best' or 'state of the art', etc, etc

Also Note: I believe that a musically satisfying (aka 'good') hifi setup can be obtained with 'mid-fi' gear...

Hopefully my Emo views are a bit clearer now...

[Mr Peabody]

Well said Ajani, and I was speaking more in general than just at you. It's a challenge to express what Emo offers but you did it as well as I've read it.

I agree a good sounding system can be done with mid-fi gear.

[Tarheel_]

I have yet to be blown away by the differences between mid and high end products (that I've auditioned), but I do find that differences exist (and whether the difference is worth it is solely up to the purchaser).

Not sure about that statement I believe a proper pair of speakers will reveal much difference in gear. I consider my pair very revealing...i have owned them for some time and have alot of mileage so i always notice a big difference when changing upstream.

Even AVRs have their own signature. Most folks will argue this point, but if you have detailed-enough speakers it becomes clear.

The difference (to me) between mid and high end gear is huge. I don't own any high end components, but just visiting my dealer and listening to Theta and Lexicon and then moving to a nice Marantz AVR...well, there is no comparison at all.

The common link in the entire system is speakers. If they don't reveal much when changing gear, you may need to think about a new pair.

...just rambling...great thread

[woofersus]

Well the speakers are the part of the system that make the most difference anyway. I usually don't recommend high end sources or amplification to people unless their speakers will reveal the improvement. That said, the difference from one piece of gear to another may differ in value from one person to another. There is obviously a bit of a curve of diminishing returns. Going from a $89 receiver to a $500 receiver will probably make a bigger difference in sound quality than going from the $500 receiver to a $2k receiver. (probably separates at that price, but you get my drift) That doesn't mean the upgrade isn't worth it. It just means you have to decide if that improvement is worth $1500 to you.

That's sort of how I feel about the mid-fi to hi-fi thing. There are people who are perfectly happy with $500 speakers, a $250 amp, and a $100 cd player. For me, it's just not good enough and I'm willing to spend for the improvement. However, price point ALWAYS matters, even at the high end. (with a few rare exceptions where higher prices sell better than lower ones) I think it's totally logical to mention price point and value quotient in a review. Almost everybody is on a budget of some sort, so if product A is 90% of product B for 50% of the price, that's a compelling reason to chose product A. There are some bargains like that out there, and it's good to point them out.

I like Emotiva amps. I think they offer great value - especially for multichannel HT applications, where you need lots of watts and channels, and you probably don't want to spend $6k on it when the whole rest of the system only costs that much. I have a much more expensive amplifier in my 2-channel rig, where it matters more, but that would be a bit wasted in my HT. I'd hesitate to buy their processor though, just due to hassle factor. Maybe a little further into the product lifecycle it will fit the requirement of "just works."

Oh, and the writeup of the new sub. I'd been curious about those...

[frenchmon]

Like Kex (assuming I interpreted his point correctly), I have yet to be blown away by the differences between mid and high end products (that I've auditioned), but I do find that differences exist (and whether the difference is worth it is solely up to the purchaser).

I have a Rotel preamp RC 1090 which is considered mid-fi and is a very good preamp at its price point. I love it and will never part with it. But a few weeks back I listened to a Audio Research Tube preamp that made me say wow!! I was blown away at what it did to the same music I play on the Rotel out-fit. It was a big difference.

[Mr Peabody]

Not sure about that statement I believe a proper pair of speakers will reveal much difference in gear. I consider my pair very revealing...i have owned them for some time and have alot of mileage so i always notice a big difference when changing upstream.

Even AVRs have their own signature. Most folks will argue this point, but if you have detailed-enough speakers it becomes clear.

The difference (to me) between mid and high end gear is huge. I don't own any high end components, but just visiting my dealer and listening to Theta and Lexicon and then moving to a nice Marantz AVR...well, there is no comparison at all.

The common link in the entire system is speakers. If they don't reveal much when changing gear, you may need to think about a new pair.

...just rambling...great thread

I agree with you whole heartedly.

[Ajani]

Not sure about that statement I believe a proper pair of speakers will reveal much difference in gear. I consider my pair very revealing...i have owned them for some time and have alot of mileage so i always notice a big difference when changing upstream.

Even AVRs have their own signature. Most folks will argue this point, but if you have detailed-enough speakers it becomes clear.

The difference (to me) between mid and high end gear is huge. I don't own any high end components, but just visiting my dealer and listening to Theta and Lexicon and then moving to a nice Marantz AVR...well, there is no comparison at all.

The common link in the entire system is speakers. If they don't reveal much when changing gear, you may need to think about a new pair.

...just rambling...great thread

&

I have a Rotel preamp RC 1090 which is considered mid-fi and is a very good preamp at its price point. I love it and will never part with it. But a few weeks back I listened to a Audio Research Tube preamp that made me say wow!! I was blown away at what it did to the same music I play on the Rotel out-fit. It was a big difference.

I think this line from woofersus best sums ups my opinion:

Going from a $89 receiver to a $500 receiver will probably make a bigger difference in sound quality than going from the $500 receiver to a $2k receiver. (probably separates at that price, but you get my drift) That doesn't mean the upgrade isn't worth it. It just means you have to decide if that improvement is worth $1500 to you.

While I agree that more revealing speakers will make differences more obvious, that still doesn't mean the person will be blown away by the differences. Some audiophiles describe differences as night and day, while others tend to find them more subtle.

My headphone setup (AKG K701 cans and Benchmark DAC1 source/headphone amp) is comprised of revealing and generally well regarded HiFi components. I've frequently compared the performance of my K701's plugged into the DAC1 against the headphone output of my HP laptop (no upgraded soundcard just standard cheapo output) and while the differences are noticeable, I don't regard them as being in the "blown away" / "night and day" category. Buying the DAC1 instead of just using the laptop output is worth it to me, but I could easily see someone else thinking that $1K is too much money for the difference...

Interestingly, the closest I've come to a real blown away experience was switching from an old Technics CD player & 5.1 receiver with my Technics speakers to a Benchmark DAC1 & Emotiva XPA-2... So moving from crappy speakers and electronics to crappy speakers and good electronics... Though of course whether the improvement provided by approx $2K of electronics is worth it over approx $200 of electronics is up to the purchaser... For me it was worth it, but again I could see someone else disagreeing...

[kexodusc]

Just to be clear - I said I haven't been impressed enough to make a purchase of some gear, doesn't mean I don't hear big differences sometimes.

I certainly do with speakers up until the $10k mark, then many, many speaker models start splitting hairs in sound quality for me and we get into personal preference of the speaker's sonic presentation. My favorite commercial speakers remain Focus Audio, I love their linup including the $25k Master 3, but I'm not shilling out $25k for speakers anytime soon. I love their $9k FP90s too, but their FS8's are pretty damn close in performance for 1/3 the price to my ears, enough that I can only think about the music and don't even notice any perceived shortcomings.

This hobby is a bit funny - some people feel they need that bit extra to be happy and that's the difference between a $3k speaker and $28k speaker I guess. I got into it in a hi-fi store last fall with some guy who I felt rudely dismissed my opinion of a Bryston rig because I only owned some cheap NAD and Rotel gear and didn't know what good sound was. He went on further saying I was only making my case to console the fact I couldn't afford the "real" gear. When I found out what the old guy's stereo was I realized I spend more on my annual snowmobile trips. He'd probably see that as a waste of money.

[Ajani]

Just to be clear - I said I haven't been impressed enough to make a purchase of some gear, doesn't mean I don't hear big differences sometimes.

I certainly do with speakers up until the $10k mark, then many, many speaker models start splitting hairs in sound quality for me and we get into personal preference of the speaker's sonic presentation. My favorite commercial speakers remain Focus Audio, I love their linup including the $25k Master 3, but I'm not shilling out $25k for speakers anytime soon. I love their $9k FP90s too, but their FS8's are pretty damn close in performance for 1/3 the price to my ears, enough that I can only think about the music and don't even notice any perceived shortcomings.

This hobby is a bit funny - some people feel they need that bit extra to be happy and that's the difference between a $3k speaker and $28k speaker I guess. I got into it in a hi-fi store last fall with some guy who I felt rudely dismissed my opinion of a Bryston rig because I only owned some cheap NAD and Rotel gear and didn't know what good sound was. He went on further saying I was only making my case to console the fact I couldn't afford the "real" gear. When I found out what the old guy's stereo was I realized I spend more on my annual snowmobile trips. He'd probably see that as a waste of money.

The point in bold is pretty much what I'm talking about: for you that difference just doesn't seem worth the money, but another audiophile would claim that "you need to get your hearing checked for not hearing the dramatic difference between the two"... I've seen and experienced countless examples of that. I always think back to Kalman Rubinson's Stereophile review of the Revel Concerta F12s, in which he compared the F12s to the 10x the price Revel Ultima Studios (that he owned) and concluded:

Compared directly with speakers costing in excess of $10,000/pair, the difference was striking only until I put on some music and closed my eyes.

On the other hand I've read opinions of Revel fans/owners on the AVScience forum who claim that that you can't even compare the Concerta series to the Performa, much less the Ultima line...

It's all way too subjective, so it's only up to the purchaser to decide whether the difference is worth the extra money...