XPA-100/200 UPA-700 SNR ratings mixed feelings

As your posts and my experience indicates, Emotiva is very sloppy on their written published specifications. I have let them know several times in the past including my posts regarding the amp power and THD specs for the UPA-500 amp. Now, the specs on the UPA-700 show 80 and 100 watts versus the 80 and the inflated 120 watts for the UPA-500. Also look at the high 0.35% average THD on the UPA-500 at 4 ohms, 16 times higher than that of the 8 ohms rating. (The THD on the UPA-700 at 4 ohms is much more reasonable). How they post their power specs is not consistent from one model to another in the same series, etc.

I think the main problem is that Emo doesn't seem to either understand clearly or care how major brands have specified high quality separate amp power and THD ratings for many decades. Many high end folks pay close attention to amp specs, and alarm bells go off if 4 ohm THD is very high or there is no 4 ohm amps rating at all. Marantz and others have started to play games and fudge on their lower priced amps. That doesn't mean Emotiva should do the same. Their many errors in proof reading and lack of attention to detail in their specifications is embarrassing to some of us nuts.

@ Chuckie,

Great post. I fully agree, but as they say, nobody is perfect.



Good point, I was wondering that myself.



I disagree...there are improvements with these two models. Right now, I think the only issues center on inconsistencies and typos. I will be highly surprised if the posted SNR numbers are accurate and final.



UPA-1 product page @ Archive.org


UPA-1 8-ohm AP @ Archive.org
UPA-1 4-ohm AP @ Archive.org

I updated the original post but here it is:

Okay I looked at the UPA-700 SNR figures. The website states SNR >97db @ 1 watt and >116db full power.
BUT according to the AP statistics at 4 ohms.
SNR @ 1 watt is between 50db! to 84 dbSNR
SNR @ full power is 70 db to 104 db with only 1 channel acheiving 104 db and 5 of the channels managing between 70 and low 80 db SNR.

The 8 ohm results are similar.

I also was taken back by how low the SNR numbers were. Maybe the measurements were not taken correctly? I do remember when the UPA-200 came out, it too had a pretty poor SNR. Dan ended up throwing it back on the test bench after a thread similar to this one and came back with much more respectable numbers. I hope the situation is similar here. I would not expect Emotiva to put out a poor quality product, but the SNR of these new amps does not give me warm fuzzies.

+1. Those two specs were exactly what led me to choosing UPA-1's over the XPA-2. As it is now, it looks like I may not be jumping on the XPA-100's as I originally thought I would. I love my UPA-1's, and feel very lucky to have them.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using proboards

Thanks for the sites, Dark Ranger!

Come on Dan, you posted here and didn't say the transformer size?!

Sorry, I can't let the Emotiva Team off the hook just yet.

With the acknowledged typos (it takes a BIG person to admit a mistake - thanks Big Dan) and accepted price increases in mind, other than the "x" on the front and the nicer connectors, I am having trouble trying to figure out how the XPA-100 & XPA-200 are actually better than the UPA-1 and UPA-2?

I need both objective and some subjective input. All we have is the objective as this product is so new, there is no way to have subjective input.

Unfortunately, the objective argument is not looking too good.

Along with the SNR, lack of transformer spec, etc., my eye was drawn to the secondary capacitance difference between the XPA-100 (60,000uF) and the UPA-1 (80,000uF). My impression has always been that more storage capacitance the better.

Some liberties are often taken in listing what it is the true operating capacitance per the way the capacitors are wired. But when I examine the "guts" photographs of the XPA-100 vs the UPA-1, the XPA-100 has four caps (presumably 15,000uF each) and the UPA-1 has eight (presumably 10,000uF each).

Does the XPA-100 have a true, operating 60,000uF which makes it better than the UPA-1? Or did the UPA-1 have a true 80,000uF? Again, how is the XPA-100 better? Am I off base, confused or ill informed?

Okay, so Big Dan appreciably writes in the post above, "X Series gain block with balanced and unbalanced inputs, premium hardware, and of course, beefed up power supplies." He also stated at Emofest that the XPA 100 & 200 are the UPA 1 & 2 "on steroids".

"On steroids" does imply better, doesn't it?

With regards to the UPA-1, I thought that is exactly what it was anyway.

The old online ad copy posted above states "The UPA-1 features a 300VA toroidal and one of our 'X' series power modules, supplying 200 continuous watts into 8ohms, and 350 watts into 4ohms. Extremely low output impedance, 80,000 uF of power supply capacitance, and uncompressed dynamic reserve make this amplifier truly exceptional." (spelling errors corrected - sound familiar???)

So my initial impression is still this, the XPA-100 looks like the UPA-1, it costs more, it is not spec'd as completely as the UPA-1, it may not test as well as the UPA-1 (likely to be retested), and the one thing we do for sure is it has nicer jewelry. ;D ;D

SORRY, I AM NOT SOLD.

Again, HOW ARE THE XPA-100 & 200 BETTER THAN THE UPA-1 & 2???!!!

There is a second hand market ya know.

The "they are new and Emotiva is awesome so they will sound better" argument does not cut it with me at this point. The "I have used and compared them and "the new ones do sound better" argument might as the units are purchased, used and feedback and buzz are generated.

Having been a Emotiva owner and willing word of mouth promoter of their products, I hope I am wrong. Emotiva is a good company - one I'd like to do more business with! I also think it is a company that I guess I have a tacit "good faith" contract with - I'd like them to be as honest with me, a customer, as I am in my praise about their products that I own. Please Team Emotiva, keep me looking honest.

However, I am not going apologize for them, and like any other company that wants my hard earned clams for a new product, Emotiva better expect me to research and compare it their competitors, and to the the Emotiva product it replaces, especially when they claim the new product is better.

Other than the pretty connections, HOW ARE THE XPA-100 AND XPA-200 BETTER THAN THE UPA-1 & 2?



one word synopsis for the product introduction - Zuckerberged

I hope the "real" specs are a lot better than posted!

I don't have any UPA-1s.

And yes, I'd prefer the XPA-1L's - but they are a bit more $$$ than I want to commit. $449 per mono-block is much more palatable than $699. I was just waiting for the "new and improved" UPA-1s, realizing and fully accepting the the extra cost.

My post above is intended to hold the salesman, BIG DAN, to his claims. Sorry, but I live close to Missouri not to think "show me".


HOW ARE THEY BETTER? At this point, we really don't have a lot of evidence suggesting that they are better, do we?

By not getting the introduction right, the company has moved me from an "early adopter" to a guarded "wait and see" consumer. I know Big Dan knows about the time value of money. Its usually better to have money now than later.

What's worse for the Emotiva Team, is this has probably happened for no good, tangible reason - just pure sloppiness. The XPA-100 is probably better than the UPA-1. But as of yet, I cannot see how and I am not the only one.

I mean, I attended Emofest, talked to Big Dan, Lonnie, Nick, Vincent and others, discussing the XPA-1L and XPA-100 virtues, etc. The "on steroids" comment stuck. Had decided on the XPA-100s, was going to order three this weekend, and then started reading the (presumably incorrect) specifications. then dug further, then found this thread. Kinda disappointing. Now venting.


Also, about the Class A stuff, has anyone asked to what point are the XPA-100 and XPA-200Class A? They do (there is a badly bruised dead horse somewhere) share parts from the other "x" series amps and all are class A/B. Therefore they should run in class A up to some wattage. With high efficiency speakers, that Class A to 30w in the XPA-1L is not that critical to me.

I have three UPA-2s, used in a 5.1 setup with and UMC-1. This is my "first system". One channel is idle.

Bought a second UMC-1 and UPA-500 at Emofest, replacing an old Yamaha receiver.

Was going to 7.1 in both systems by adding the three XPA-100s to the first and moving a UPA-2 from the "first system" to the "second system" for its mains. We use the "second system" a lot for 2 channel music. The UPA-2 would be nice for it.

The high efficiency speakers in the first system - well my surrounds do 96dB w/ 2.83v @ 1m, the three front channels are all 97 dB. All present a nominal 8 ohm load to the amplifiers. The "first system" is a dedicated home theater so the XPA-1L Class A would be nice, but we really don't do any so called "critical listening" in it. As far as we are concerned, it is critical that the system shakes the room. This said, the UPA-2s don't push the LCR speakers as much as I think they should. I think there are more dynamics in the system than what we are presently experiencing.

Also, the high efficiency speakers do accentuate any noise produced by the equipment so the SNR comments on this thread really grabbed my attention. I want a very low noise floor with any amplifier I buy for the "first system".

Was going to do three XPA-100s now and add others as funds permit. Goal is to have an all mono-block 7.1 system. ;D

I'd eventually upgrade it to an XMC-1, but I want to give Emotiva time to get everything in it - I'd rather buy one that has TACT, than have to load it later. Also, after seeing the demonstration of TACT at Emofest, the interface was not user friendly. I know they are working on making it much, much more so, but I think it will take an iteration or two make it plum with my desires. I have two UMC-1s after all, and the upgrade card is in the fire safe.

Still, I hope the specs they post on Monday RE: XPA-100 answers my question as to how is it better than a UPA-1. If not, expect, a HOW ARE XPA-100s BETTER THAN UPA-1s - CONNECTION JEWELRY ASIDE thread to appear on the proboards and followed by a UPA-1s WANTED post.