RPA 2 vs UPA 1

[dt]

I am considering buying two UPA 1's and selling my RPA 2. Has anyone done a sound comparison between the two? If so, please give me some recommendations on whether or not this is a good decision. I am even on HT/music use. My surrounds/center are driven by the UPA 5.

Thanks for the help...

[cgolf]

I went through the same thing so here's my experience. First of all, the UPA is an entry level amp (A fantastic amp but still considered entry level). The RPA was their reference & best amp specifically designed for music. Start with that....

I had 2 UPAs driving my front speakers and switched over to an RPA-2. The difference in separation, clarity and crispness wasn't great but to me it was noticable. I kept the RPA-2 and sold my UPAs. The RPA is a monoblock design so it has fantastic separation.

The only amp I'd consider changing out to would be a XPA-2. I have one in the game room and I do flip flop back and forth sometimes. Again, very subtle differences. A little more bass and headroom with the XPA-2 but just a slight better separation on music.

As with all Emo's amps, any way you go, you can't go wrong. ;D

[jackfish]

Although I've only heard the RPA-1 and UPA-1s, I think you have to give the UPA-1 more credit than being an entry level amplifier. First, it is based on the XPA (XPA-3 and XPA-5) power module, which are generally not considered entry level multi-channel amplifiers. Second, the UPA-1 uses a 300VA toroidal transformer, which is probably what the RPA-2 used for each channel. Third, the RPA-2 had 72,000uF of secondary capacitance per channel, whereas the UPA-1 has 80,000uF. Lastly, the UPA-1 is a true monoblock design so there is absolutely nothing shared between channels, whereas the RPA-2 is a dual mono design and has various shared components onboard. However, unless one thinks the RPA-2 is getting long in the tooth and want to forestall potential problems, there is probably little difference between the performance of the two.

[razel]

Jackfish... yes the toroidal transformer and capacitance is similar, but the RPA is class H and is more efficient and has unmeasurable distortion especially IIRC at lower levels. As it reaches at 200watts @ 8 ohms it'll have be similar efficiency to the UPA.

dt. Keep the RPA. I recently got XPA-1s less than a week ago and am still comparing it against my RPA. The XPA1 improves in every respect, except moneywise. It's not worth the money for the difference I hearing at the usual volume levels I listen to. There is someone else far more experienced and owned these amps on this forum (strindle or ntrain42) who have also listened to the XPA/RPA/and UPA and suggest that the UPA1 is the best bang for your the buck. If the RPA were still available, I would vote for it to be the best bang for the buck.

[phew]

Blue VU meters on the RPA-2. 'nuf said. It's nice to know exactly how much power you are delivering to your speakers (it's less than you would ever think!).

Also, class H is cool, literally. The difference in power consumption at normal listening levels between Class H and A/B amps is dramatic.