Interesting. I'm actually thinking of going the same route myself, though downgrading from 3 x UPA-1 + UPA-2. My motivation is really the reduction in physical space requirements. I doubt there's any real world difference with any of these amps sound wise. I rarely go above 30 on the UMC-1 volume and never above 55. So there should still be enough headroom at least in my current apartment. What's worse is, even a single UPA-500 should be enough since it does 160 W with 2 channels
Joined: Aug 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 10 Location: Worcester MA.
Re: UPA-500 « Reply #321 on Aug 7, 2012, 11:26pm »
I couldn't agree more. I feel I missed out on their best offerings by coming around late. Though the price point is nice for this 500 model, who uses 80 watts? 125 was a lot more suitable to a large array of consumers with separates in mind. I suppose a satellite system would benefit from the 500.
Joined: Jul 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 5,072 Location: 10-OC
Re: UPA-500 « Reply #322 on Aug 7, 2012, 11:34pm »
Not many people are using 80 watts RMS for music (or HT). Those that are, are not going to look at this amp. I'm listening to Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here as I type this. It's not blaring, but at a comfortable level of 76db average at my listening position. With my speakers I doubt I'm using even 1 watt of power RMS. If I had a set of Klipsch at 100 db efficiency I'd be using even less than that. Emotiva amps have a lot of headroom above their published specs to allow for the peaks in audio. And, I'm running full signal (none sent to the sub).
I couldn't agree more. I feel I missed out on their best offerings by coming around late. Though the price point is nice for this 500 model, who uses 80 watts? 125 was a lot more suitable to a large array of consumers with separates in mind. I suppose a satellite system would benefit from the 500.
It does rate to the figure you were looking for @ 4 ohms which are what a lot of speakers are at.
Not many people are using 80 watts RMS for music (or HT). Those that are, are not going to look at this amp. I'm listening to Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here as I type this. It's not blaring, but at a comfortable level of 76db average at my listening position. With my speakers I doubt I'm using even 1 watt of power RMS. If I had a set of Klipsch at 100 db efficiency I'd be using even less than that. Emotiva amps have a lot of headroom above their published specs to allow for the peaks in audio. And, I'm running full signal (none sent to the sub).
Sorry, but I beg to differ with you on this. I would imagine there are quite a few people who are using 80w RMS or less power for various reasons (e.g., small HT rooms, apartments, condos, cost, etc.). And, like you said, a good set of efficient speakers (88+dB sensitivity) will always stretch the wattage of a smaller amp and make it sound louder than inefficient speakers. I happen to own the UPA-500, and I can tell you from experience that this amp has a lot more under its hood than a similar 80w/channel amp crammed inside a receiver. I know, because I've owned both kinds. I have the UPA-500 paired with an Anthem AVM 20 pre/pro and it sounds sweet. It has very good dynamics, a good soundstage, and even brings out low-level detail in music that I did not hear with receivers of similar power. Yes, there are a lot of reasons why people would take look at this amp for their home theater.
Interesting. I'm actually thinking of going the same route myself, though downgrading from 3 x UPA-1 + UPA-2. My motivation is really the reduction in physical space requirements. I doubt there's any real world difference with any of these amps sound wise. I rarely go above 30 on the UMC-1 volume and never above 55. So there should still be enough headroom at least in my current apartment. What's worse is, even a single UPA-500 should be enough since it does 160 W with 2 channels
For an apartment, I would say that the UPA-2/UPA-500 combo should be more than sufficient unless you have some harder to drive speakers.
You can always give the UPA-500 a try for comparison purposes and return it to Emotiva within 30 days if it doesn't work out for you.
BPA-1, 2 x ERC-2, LPA-1, MPS-1, MPS-2, RPA-1, 2 x UMC-1, 4 x UPA-1, UPA-2, UPA-5, 2 x USP-1, 2 x mini-X a-100, XDA-1, XDA-2, 2 x XPA-1, XPA-2, XPA-3, 2 x XPA-5, XRM-6.1, XRC-5.2, 2 x XRM-4.1, XSP-1, AirMotiv 5 and a XMC-1 eventually.
Not many people are using 80 watts RMS for music (or HT). Those that are, are not going to look at this amp. I'm listening to Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here as I type this. It's not blaring, but at a comfortable level of 76db average at my listening position. With my speakers I doubt I'm using even 1 watt of power RMS. If I had a set of Klipsch at 100 db efficiency I'd be using even less than that. Emotiva amps have a lot of headroom above their published specs to allow for the peaks in audio. And, I'm running full signal (none sent to the sub).
Sorry, but I beg to differ with you on this. I would imagine there are quite a few people who are using 80w RMS or less power for various reasons (e.g., small HT rooms, apartments, condos, cost, etc.). And, like you said, a good set of efficient speakers (88+dB sensitivity) will always stretch the wattage of a smaller amp and make it sound louder than inefficient speakers. I happen to own the UPA-500, and I can tell you from experience that this amp has a lot more under its hood than a similar 80w/channel amp crammed inside a receiver. I know, because I've owned both kinds. I have the UPA-500 paired with an Anthem AVM 20 pre/pro and it sounds sweet. It has very good dynamics, a good soundstage, and even brings out low-level detail in music that I did not hear with receivers of similar power. Yes, there are a lot of reasons why people would take look at this amp for their home theater.
I think you and I are saying the same thing. There are not a lot of people who use 80 and more in their system. At the time of writing my post I was likely using less than 1 watt of amplifier power per channel. Maybe I should say there are a lot of people using less than 80 watts?
Re: UPA-500 « Reply #327 on Aug 17, 2012, 12:50pm »
I currently have the upa-500 running my speakers (studio 100) and the detail in the music is excellent at moderate levels. I have the amp for sale on the emporium but is because I don't watch movies as I used to and want to get a 2 channel amp.
Interesting. I'm actually thinking of going the same route myself, though downgrading from 3 x UPA-1 + UPA-2. My motivation is really the reduction in physical space requirements. I doubt there's any real world difference with any of these amps sound wise. I rarely go above 30 on the UMC-1 volume and never above 55. So there should still be enough headroom at least in my current apartment. What's worse is, even a single UPA-500 should be enough since it does 160 W with 2 channels
If it was me, I would certainly keep what you have. I feel this will allow you a lot more ease and headroom even at soft volumes. I would really like to have two monoblocks.
I think you and I are saying the same thing. There are not a lot of people who use 80 and more in their system. At the time of writing my post I was likely using less than 1 watt of amplifier power per channel. Maybe I should say there are a lot of people using less than 80 watts?
One of the world's greatest audio designers - Nelson Pass - has a small "project company" called First Watt. The premise is that most of our listening is done in the one watt range and therefor the quality of that first watt is quite important. Although he has designed and built some massive high power amps for Threshold, Forte, and now Pass Labs - First Watt focuses on high quality low power amps to be used with more efficient speakers. While I'm not comparing the UPA-500 to Nelson's designs, I am agreeing that a lot can be done with a good 80 watt amp in the right room with the right speakers.
I couldn't agree more. I feel I missed out on their best offerings by coming around late. Though the price point is nice for this 500 model, who uses 80 watts? 125 was a lot more suitable to a large array of consumers with separates in mind. I suppose a satellite system would benefit from the 500.
You'd be surprised at the wallop packed by 80 watts into 5 channels. This is no AVR wattage rating. My UPA-500 blows away my old Denon (rated at 75 watts into 7 channels...yeah right). The 500 has much more authority and control.
The important thing to remember is that wattage is not a linear value. 160 watts is not twice as loud as 80 watts. Actually, the 125 watt figure you suggested is only about 1.7 dB louder than 80 watts. When selecting an amplifier, it's not about loudness, it's about dynamic range and headroom.
Here's an example of a reasonable efficient 8-ohm speaker rated at 90 dB/2.83v/meter (rough numbers with all other things being equal):
- at 1 watt of amplifier power, the speaker produces 90 dB at 1 meter. 90 dB is loud! - at 2 watts, the speaker produces 93 dB at 1 meter. - at 4 watts, the speaker produces 96 dB at 1 meter. - at 8 watts, the speaker produces 99 dB at 1 meter. - at 16 watts, the speaker produces 102 dB at 1 meter. - at 32 watts, the speaker produces 105 dB at 1 meter. - at 64 watts, the speaker produces 108 dB at 1 meter. - at 80 watts, the speaker produces ~108.75 dB at 1 meter. - at 125 watts, the speaker produces just under 111 dB at 1 meter.
The loudness between 80 watts and 125 watts is not much at all.
@ garbulky,
I considered monoblocks too, but decided the benefits were not worth the cost or space requirements. If I was building a no-holds barred system, then yeah, monoblocks all the way. For my system and situation, the XPA-200 will be just fine.
Re: UPA-500 « Reply #331 on Aug 17, 2012, 4:17pm »
How do mono blocks sound compare to (let say) 2 channels amp? let assume that each mono block produce 125w and 2 channels amp produce 125w per channel. could i tell any different in sq for music or movies?
How do mono blocks sound compare to (let say) 2 channels amp? let assume that each mono block produce 125w and 2 channels amp produce 125w per channel. could i tell any different in sq for music or movies?
If you are implying well made power amps, the answer is that there should be no discernable difference. It would be a matter of channel separation only. Which would be better with the mono blocks but only at extreme volumes that would affect your hearing. (A well made stereo power amp would have excellent channel separation anyways. This would be tantamount to the difference between 0.01% ThD and 0.015% ThD. Essentially, bragging rights).
You cannot truly evaluate the quality of a power amp with movies expecially if you are using a subwoofer(s). The most used channel of a multi-channel PA is the center channel. And this is mainly used for dialog. Human voice (baritone) maxes out at approx 125Hz. This would not cause any concern even for a Receiver amp. Also, movie sound tract & dialogue is just too ramdom to properly evaluate.
For real evaluation, you need to use musical (audio) without the benefit of a subwoofer (full range speakers). For small to medium rooms, the Ultra Series Emo PA excel. There should be no disappointment
How do mono blocks sound compare to (let say) 2 channels amp? let assume that each mono block produce 125w and 2 channels amp produce 125w per channel. could i tell any different in sq for music or movies?
There is a small watt output difference. One channel will have a max output slightly more than the other one. Also a monoblock will have slightly better channel separation. And a monoblock has its own power supply for each channel while a two channel amp typically shares its power supply. But in reality you would probably not hear a whole lot of difference between the two. I would still want a monoblock though.
How do mono blocks sound compare to (let say) 2 channels amp? let assume that each mono block produce 125w and 2 channels amp produce 125w per channel. could i tell any different in sq for music or movies?
Probably not.
OK, if it hadn't been for a work-related phone call, I would have posted this earlier. Since I wrote it, I'll go ahead and add it to the discussion even though it will be redundant to what Jamrock and garbulky said.
Since Jam already mentioned one of the benefits with monoblocks (greater channel separation and minimized crosstalk), I'll mention another one: dedicated power supplies. Unless your stereo amp is a dual mono design, it shares one power supply for both channels. With mono blocks, each channel has its own power supply. This can provide a few benefits including reduced power waste and more dynamic range.
The downsides to monoblocks is that they usually require a greater financial investment, plus you have more physical amplifiers to manage. I would love monoblocks for LCR, but I'm not convinced I would gain enough performance to justify the cost (not just the initial investment, but the additional electricity required over time to power two monoblocks vs a single stereo amp).
Re: UPA-500 « Reply #335 on Aug 17, 2012, 6:36pm »
This discussion fits right into my decision process on equipment for a new HT. I have already purchased a UMC-1 and planned to upgrade to the XMC-1 when available. I'm planning a 7.2 channel system (assuming the XMC-1 with separate sub outputs) using Klipsch Heritage speakers. 104 dB sensitivity for the LCR La Scalas and 96 dB for the four Heresy speakers that will be used for the side and rear surrounds. So with very efficient speakers, will I be able to hear an appreciable difference between a UPA-700 and an XPA-7? I know the XPA-7 isn't out yet, but I believe Dan has at least hinted about it. Or, put another way, if the XPA-7 does not materialize, am I likely to be happy with a UPA-700 in a 3200 cubic foot theater with these speakers? Does anyone have firsthand experience with the Klipsch Heritage speakers and the Emo UPA amps?
Theater in Progress: UMC-1, CMX-2, CMX-6, pair of Ashley FTX-2001 amps, pair of QSC DCA-1824 amps, Panasonic BR player, three Klipsch La Scala LCR with Crites tweeters & AA crossovers, four Klipsch Heresy surrounds with Crites crossover upgrades, pair of BFM THT subwoofers.
Coming soon: XMC-1, Oppo BDP-103, front projector, screen
Joined: Jun 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 1,588 Location: Space Coast, FL
Re: UPA-500 « Reply #336 on Aug 18, 2012, 1:22am »
Hi Chuck,
You've asked the $64,000 question, "am I likely to be happy with..."
Let me say up front that you have very efficient speakers, so just about any amp you hook 'em up to will drive them to ear-bleeding volume. Your room isn't too big, either, which is a good thing if you're trying to fill the room with effortless sound.
Let me ask you this:
1) How far away do you sit from the LCR speakers?
2) What is your preferred average SPL at the listening position (e.g. 90 dB, 100 dB)?
The preliminary specs for the XPA-7 are 200 watts per channel (think XPA-5, but with two more blades and a larger power supply). The UPA-700 power handling is unknown at this time. However, the XPA-7 will most likely have greater storage reserves and current handling. My suggestion would be to wait until we have more details about both amplifiers before making any decision.
With that said, here's my highly subjective opinion: if I had the money for La Scala and Heresy speakers, I think the XPA-7 would be my choice. Nevertheless, if you're not expecting rock concert levels (>120 dB), the UPA-700 should give you a very satisfactory experience and put some cash back in your pocket.
Re: UPA-500 « Reply #337 on Aug 18, 2012, 7:16am »
Thanks for the comments Dark Ranger. You have precisely described the system I am seeking, one that provides "effortless sound" in all applications. To answer your questions, first, I've never measured the SPL that I normally listen at. But I'm guessing it would be in the 90-100 dB range that you speculated. I like both music and movies at high volumes, but not up to "rock concert levels". Second, the primary listening position in the theater will probably be about 13-15 feet from the LCRs. I should also add that I will be using a pair of Bill Fitzmaurice THT subwoofers in this system that will be driven by a separate amp, so the low frequency sound that consumes more power to drive cleanly will not be required for the 7-channel amps. Perhaps I will choose to listen to some 2-channel music without the subs, but I doubt it based on what I've read about the musicality of these folded horn subs and how they seamlessly blend with the horns in the Heritage speakers.
I smiled when reading your last comment. You are right that I should be able to afford an XPA-7. I have already purchased all seven of the Heritage speakers and I have budgeted for an XPA-5 and and XPA-3 to drive them. I expect an XPA-7 should come in a bit below the cost of that combination when released. But after reading this thread, it got me to wondering if I would be simply wasting money on the XPA line. I've also heard and appreciated the famous quote from Paul W. Klipsch "What this country needs is a good 5 watt amplifier" and I know that many of the audiophile 2-channel guys drive the Heritage speakers with tube amps having much fewer watts than even the UPA-700 is likely to produce and are totally satisfied with the sound they produce.
I'll continue to ponder this and I have some time to decide. Neither the XPA-7 nor the UPA-700 are available yet and I haven't started my theater build yet, so time is on my side. My usual tendency is to "go for the gold", so I'll continue to budget for the XPA amps and make my decision after the new products are available and the reviews are in.
Theater in Progress: UMC-1, CMX-2, CMX-6, pair of Ashley FTX-2001 amps, pair of QSC DCA-1824 amps, Panasonic BR player, three Klipsch La Scala LCR with Crites tweeters & AA crossovers, four Klipsch Heresy surrounds with Crites crossover upgrades, pair of BFM THT subwoofers.
Coming soon: XMC-1, Oppo BDP-103, front projector, screen
This discussion fits right into my decision process on equipment for a new HT. I have already purchased a UMC-1 and planned to upgrade to the XMC-1 when available. I'm planning a 7.2 channel system (assuming the XMC-1 with separate sub outputs) using Klipsch Heritage speakers. 104 dB sensitivity for the LCR La Scalas and 96 dB for the four Heresy speakers that will be used for the side and rear surrounds. So with very efficient speakers, will I be able to hear an appreciable difference between a UPA-700 and an XPA-7? I know the XPA-7 isn't out yet, but I believe Dan has at least hinted about it. Or, put another way, if the XPA-7 does not materialize, am I likely to be happy with a UPA-700 in a 3200 cubic foot theater with these speakers? Does anyone have firsthand experience with the Klipsch Heritage speakers and the Emo UPA amps?
Thanks,
Chuck
I run Heresy all around in my HT. The only exception is the rears which are some JBLs. I find the the UPA-5 and UPA-2 combination is more than sufficient to reach ear bleeding levels if I wish.
Hell in the old days I use to do parties with my Cornwalls with a 50 WPC SAE amp in large rooms!
If I were you I'd look at a UPA-200 for L/R and a UPA-500 for the rest. That or the 700.
Re: UPA-500 « Reply #339 on Aug 18, 2012, 11:52am »
Thanks for your answers.
Your situation is like mine, I already have xpa 2 to drive my left and right (energy v6.3s). Im debating between xpa 5, xpa 500(if they make them), and upa 500 to complete my system (energy veritas matching speakers). I think upa. 500 would be OK to drive my speakers, but would i be happy with my decision. I don't know?
Between xpa 7 and upa 700- the question is which one would make you happy and stay happy?
![[Home]](http://emotiva.com/images/lounge/homeBtn.jpg "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://emotiva.com/images/lounge/newBtn.jpg "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://emotiva.com/images/lounge/helpBtn.jpg "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://emotiva.com/images/lounge/searchBtn.jpg "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://emotiva.com/images/lounge/loginBtn.jpg "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://emotiva.com/images/lounge/registerBtn.jpg "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://inclouddesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/100x100-Avatar.png "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[image]](http://inclouddesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Carbon-Facebook-Style-Banner-640x148.png "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i368/stiehl11/IMGP6912.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nsTzWBSDRas/0.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://images.proboards.com/avatars/iceskatekid.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://images.proboards.com/avatars/boyandmower.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://images.proboards.com/avatars/boyandpc.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i1250.photobucket.com/albums/hh540/darkranger762/Avatars/08atlantisliftoff.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://s273856667.onlinehome.us/avatarredsox.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}