|
UPA-500
Jul 1, 2012 22:38:49 GMT -5
Post by galvatrontyper on Jul 1, 2012 22:38:49 GMT -5
The cliff notes
-thinking about taking advantage of the discounted UPA-500; it's rated at 80Wx5
-already have an Onkyo TX-NR-3008; it's rated at 140Wx2 but I'm running 7.2 (3 front speakers, 2 height speakers, 2 surround speakers, dual subs) which probably knocks down power to 70-80Wx7 full range channels
Seeing how the 3008 already has a ridiculously good amp section, the 7 channels driven closely matches the UPA-500's outboard power, and I'm very satisfied with the sound (especially tuned via XT32), will the UPA-500 deliver a noticeable improvement in sound quality or should I save $400?
Oh, the vast majority of my listening is movies, games, and a bit of music.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 2, 2012 1:04:46 GMT -5
The cliff notes -thinking about taking advantage of the discounted UPA-500; it's rated at 80Wx5 -already have an Onkyo TX-NR-3008; it's rated at 140Wx2 but I'm running 7.2 (3 front speakers, 2 height speakers, 2 surround speakers, dual subs) which probably knocks down power to 70-80Wx7 full range channels Seeing how the 3008 already has a ridiculously good amp section, the 7 channels driven closely matches the UPA-500's outboard power, and I'm very satisfied with the sound (especially tuned via XT32), will the UPA-500 deliver a noticeable improvement in sound quality or should I save $400? Oh, the vast majority of my listening is movies, games, and a bit of music. The figure is probably around 40-45 watts per channel all channels driven for the onkyo. 70X7 is asking a heck of a lot from a reciever. Other people have upgraded from their recievers including onkyos and denons and have reported liking the difference. The UPA-500 is likely more powerful than the onkyo. It's up to you and your setup whether you notice a difference or not. Also the UPA-500 can drive 4 ohms speakers and if yours are 4 ohms you will notice that the power delivered is more. The UPA-500 is also able to use the reserve power of its unused channels and put it to whatever channels need it the most. For instance it can do 160 watts X2 @ 4ohms. Usually it's the fronts that absorb the most power so you may get a benefit from that too. If you've never heard an emo amp, I can tell you that their distortion measurements are rated at full power. So what that means is your amp will NOT clip no matter what. My old gen emo UPA-2 can be driven at maximum and not show signs of distortion.
|
|
|
Post by galvatrontyper on Jul 2, 2012 1:53:14 GMT -5
The cliff notes -thinking about taking advantage of the discounted UPA-500; it's rated at 80Wx5 -already have an Onkyo TX-NR-3008; it's rated at 140Wx2 but I'm running 7.2 (3 front speakers, 2 height speakers, 2 surround speakers, dual subs) which probably knocks down power to 70-80Wx7 full range channels Seeing how the 3008 already has a ridiculously good amp section, the 7 channels driven closely matches the UPA-500's outboard power, and I'm very satisfied with the sound (especially tuned via XT32), will the UPA-500 deliver a noticeable improvement in sound quality or should I save $400? Oh, the vast majority of my listening is movies, games, and a bit of music. The figure is probably around 40-45 watts per channel all channels driven for the onkyo. 70X7 is asking a heck of a lot from a reciever. Other people have upgraded from their recievers including onkyos and denons and have reported liking the difference. The UPA-500 is likely more powerful than the onkyo. It's up to you and your setup whether you notice a difference or not. Also the UPA-500 can drive 4 ohms speakers and if yours are 4 ohms you will notice that the power delivered is more. The UPA-500 is also able to use the reserve power of its unused channels and put it to whatever channels need it the most. For instance it can do 160 watts X2 @ 4ohms. Usually it's the fronts that absorb the most power so you may get a benefit from that too. If you've never heard an emo amp, I can tell you that their distortion measurements are rated at full power. So what that means is your amp will NOT clip no matter what. My old gen emo UPA-2 can be driven at maximum and not show signs of distortion. Thanks for the reply. I didn't realize that 7 channels driven might knock down power all the way to 40W. If true, an 80Wx5 amp would make a difference. But all my speakers are 8 ohm (they're all B&W except for the subs) so I will do some further research on my end. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 2, 2012 6:21:30 GMT -5
The figure is probably around 40-45 watts per channel all channels driven for the onkyo. 70X7 is asking a heck of a lot from a reciever. Other people have upgraded from their recievers including onkyos and denons and have reported liking the difference. The UPA-500 is likely more powerful than the onkyo. It's up to you and your setup whether you notice a difference or not. Also the UPA-500 can drive 4 ohms speakers and if yours are 4 ohms you will notice that the power delivered is more. The UPA-500 is also able to use the reserve power of its unused channels and put it to whatever channels need it the most. For instance it can do 160 watts X2 @ 4ohms. Usually it's the fronts that absorb the most power so you may get a benefit from that too. If you've never heard an emo amp, I can tell you that their distortion measurements are rated at full power. So what that means is your amp will NOT clip no matter what. My old gen emo UPA-2 can be driven at maximum and not show signs of distortion. Thanks for the reply. I didn't realize that 7 channels driven might knock down power all the way to 40W. If true, an 80Wx5 amp would make a difference. But all my speakers are 8 ohm (they're all B&W except for the subs) so I will do some further research on my end. Thanks again. I haven't listened to the upa-500 but I have the UPA-2. and never lacked for power with my 4 ohm 91 db/watt speakers. If your speakers are 8 ohm speakers, then I would save a bit of money and go for the x-series amps especially because you're watching movies. You wouldn't be unhappy with the UPA, but considering they are 8 ohms, and after getting the UPA-500, you'll like the quality so much, you'll probably end up getting the x-series anyway. Might as well save yourself the money. You don't HAVE to get the 5 channel x-series. The 2 channel or the 3 channel really is what you would probably like best in terms of cost. This will free up your onkyo to deliver power to the surrounds. But that's just my opinion. You'll probably still notice a significant difference on your speakers with the UPA-500. So it's a win either way. Enjoy your hobby.
|
|
|
Post by sharkman on Jul 2, 2012 9:34:52 GMT -5
The figure is probably around 40-45 watts per channel all channels driven for the onkyo. 70X7 is asking a heck of a lot from a reciever. Other people have upgraded from their recievers including onkyos and denons and have reported liking the difference. The UPA-500 is likely more powerful than the onkyo. It's up to you and your setup whether you notice a difference or not. Also the UPA-500 can drive 4 ohms speakers and if yours are 4 ohms you will notice that the power delivered is more. The UPA-500 is also able to use the reserve power of its unused channels and put it to whatever channels need it the most. For instance it can do 160 watts X2 @ 4ohms. Usually it's the fronts that absorb the most power so you may get a benefit from that too. If you've never heard an emo amp, I can tell you that their distortion measurements are rated at full power. So what that means is your amp will NOT clip no matter what. My old gen emo UPA-2 can be driven at maximum and not show signs of distortion. 40 watts with 7 channels driven? I beg to differ. The Onkyo 876 was bench tested to 122 watts per 7 channels. Their flagship AVRS are a cut above and will do a lot better than you suppose. Mid range and entry level AVRs from all brands will do around half their rated power with all channels driven. The 3008 is certified for 4 ohm speakers and weighs 55 lbs. I doubt the UPA-500 could keep up with the speakers in question. He'd need an XPA-5 to get a noticeable improvement IMO.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 2, 2012 9:59:23 GMT -5
The figure is probably around 40-45 watts per channel all channels driven for the onkyo. 70X7 is asking a heck of a lot from a reciever. Other people have upgraded from their recievers including onkyos and denons and have reported liking the difference. The UPA-500 is likely more powerful than the onkyo. It's up to you and your setup whether you notice a difference or not. Also the UPA-500 can drive 4 ohms speakers and if yours are 4 ohms you will notice that the power delivered is more. The UPA-500 is also able to use the reserve power of its unused channels and put it to whatever channels need it the most. For instance it can do 160 watts X2 @ 4ohms. Usually it's the fronts that absorb the most power so you may get a benefit from that too. If you've never heard an emo amp, I can tell you that their distortion measurements are rated at full power. So what that means is your amp will NOT clip no matter what. My old gen emo UPA-2 can be driven at maximum and not show signs of distortion. 40 watts with 7 channels driven? I beg to differ. The Onkyo 876 was bench tested to 122 watts per 7 channels. Their flagship AVRS are a cut above and will do a lot better than you suppose. Mid range and entry level AVRs from all brands will do around half their rated power with all channels driven. The 3008 is certified for 4 ohm speakers and weighs 55 lbs. I doubt the UPA-500 could keep up with the speakers in question. He'd need an XPA-5 to get a noticeable improvement IMO. If it does that, wouldn't they advertise that figure? That's really good for an AVR! The best figure I've found is 1 channel driven @ 250 watts @ 4 ohms and 2 channels @ what the OP stated. But it does have a 1000 watt max rating on its power supply so I guess it could. If I was wrong, I apologize. I agree on your x-series reccomendation.
|
|
|
UPA-500
Jul 2, 2012 10:10:57 GMT -5
Post by sharkman on Jul 2, 2012 10:10:57 GMT -5
I think no AVR manufacturers advertise what their flagship models can do with all channels driven because a) It's still under the rated power spec, and b) then they'd have to advertise that their entry level and mid range models dip drastically with all channels driven, though that's just a guess on my part.
No need to apologize, we all give our opinions freely in this hobby we love, sometimes I am even right!
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,333
|
UPA-500
Jul 2, 2012 10:14:04 GMT -5
Post by DYohn on Jul 2, 2012 10:14:04 GMT -5
Don't obsess about power, it's only one of many things that make up what you hear (and really it's not all that important unless you operate near the extremes.)
|
|
|
UPA-500
Jul 2, 2012 10:16:53 GMT -5
Post by garbulky on Jul 2, 2012 10:16:53 GMT -5
I think no AVR manufacturers advertise what their flagship models can do with all channels driven because a) It's still under the rated power spec, and b) then they'd have to advertise that their entry level and mid range models dip drastically with all channels driven, though that's just a guess on my part. No need to apologize, we all give our opinions freely in this hobby we love, sometimes I am even right! I agree. In the end, it's enjoyment that matters. That's an insightful take on their reasons on advertising! I hadn't thought of that.
|
|
|
UPA-500
Jul 2, 2012 20:32:05 GMT -5
Post by galvatrontyper on Jul 2, 2012 20:32:05 GMT -5
Okay, did the research. More cliffs:
-from what I gather, the 3008 outputs around 70W per channel with 7 speakers driven in 8 ohms
-people here recommend an X series amp to make a more noticeable difference from the UPA
-I'm already pretty happy with the sound of the 3008 and I'm not prepared to spend X series prices for most likely a marginal sound improvement; I live in a condo now so maybe when I get a dedicated home theater
|
|
|
UPA-500
Jul 6, 2012 23:38:37 GMT -5
Post by suffolk112000 on Jul 6, 2012 23:38:37 GMT -5
Okay, did the research. More cliffs: -from what I gather, the 3008 outputs around 70W per channel with 7 speakers driven in 8 ohms -people here recommend an X series amp to make a more noticeable difference from the UPA -I'm already pretty happy with the sound of the 3008 and I'm not prepared to spend X series prices for most likely a marginal sound improvement; I live in a condo now so maybe when I get a dedicated home theater In the end, it’s really up to you to decide. Personally… if I were in your shoes, I’d get the XPA-3, (200X3). Then let the Onkyo power the surrounds. Then you can always go with the UPA-500 later on if you want to get a little more power to the surrounds. Or you could always go this route. It is a 7X125 watt amp and might be JUST what you need. www.outlawaudio.com/products/7125.html
|
|
|
Post by eirik84 on Jul 7, 2012 4:30:41 GMT -5
Anyone know the 2 channel rating in 8 and 4 ohms ?
|
|
|
UPA-500
Jul 7, 2012 12:03:57 GMT -5
Post by pedrocols on Jul 7, 2012 12:03:57 GMT -5
Anyone know the 2 channel rating in 8 and 4 ohms ? I read somewhere,maybe here, that at 8ohms is 100w and at 4ohms is 160w two channels driven.
|
|
|
UPA-500
Jul 11, 2012 7:10:00 GMT -5
Post by eirik84 on Jul 11, 2012 7:10:00 GMT -5
Anyone know the 2 channel rating in 8 and 4 ohms ? I read somewhere,maybe here, that at 8ohms is 100w and at 4ohms is 160w two channels driven. Thanks for answering, but can it be that low? 8 ohms: 5 x 80 = 400 watts / 2 = 200 watts per channel? At least 150? 4 ohms: 5 x 120 = 600 watts / 2 = 300 watts per channel? At least 250? Maybe each channel isnt built for that "high wattage" ? The back of the unit says powerdraw of 450 watts..
|
|
|
UPA-500
Jul 11, 2012 7:21:19 GMT -5
Post by garbulky on Jul 11, 2012 7:21:19 GMT -5
Emotiva rates their stuff conservatively. It's 160X2 = 320 watts total. And that's with no clipping or noticeable distortion. But that's also what you can realistically expect out of it in 2 channel only mode. I'm also not sure how they are getting 600 watts out of 450 watts power draw ;D Maybe it's rated incorrectly. The audio precision tests show that it can actually do those numbers so it's either a mistake on the backplate or just something to do with electronics that I don't know about like capacitors or how watts are calculated at different voltages. I would trust their ratings though....they ran them twice for us because people like me thought they weren't conservative enough the first time
|
|
|
UPA-500
Jul 12, 2012 16:07:52 GMT -5
Post by monkumonku on Jul 12, 2012 16:07:52 GMT -5
Just posted on Audioholic's Facebook page:
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
UPA-500
Jul 12, 2012 17:48:26 GMT -5
Post by jamrock on Jul 12, 2012 17:48:26 GMT -5
Monku: I'm guessing that those are 4 ohms loads. What were the ThD specs at those power outputs?
|
|
|
UPA-500
Jul 12, 2012 17:56:10 GMT -5
Post by monkumonku on Jul 12, 2012 17:56:10 GMT -5
Monku: I'm guessing that those are 4 ohms loads. What were the ThD specs at those power outputs? That's all the info there was. The only other thing it said was that a review was currently underway. I doubt that they would publish 4 ohm results, though, without making mention of it because most people would be expecting measurements using an 8 ohm load. [edit] well maybe I am mistaken. I just looked at the comments people left and they are assuming it is 4 ohms because the amp is rated at 120/4 ohms and 80/8 ohms. It would have been nice if they would have said what the load was, eh?
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
UPA-500
Jul 12, 2012 18:04:33 GMT -5
Post by jamrock on Jul 12, 2012 18:04:33 GMT -5
Monku: I'm guessing that those are 4 ohms loads. What were the ThD specs at those power outputs? That's all the info there was. The only other thing it said was that a review was currently underway. I doubt that they would publish 4 ohm results, though, without making mention of it because most people would be expecting measurements using an 8 ohm load. [edit] well maybe I am mistaken. I just looked at the comments people left and they are assuming it is 4 ohms because the amp is rated at 120/4 ohms and 80/8 ohms. It would have been nice if they would have said what the load was, eh? Those numbers, assuming the usual good ThD specs, would be awesome ;D
|
|
|
UPA-500
Jul 17, 2012 15:54:00 GMT -5
Post by Dwayland on Jul 17, 2012 15:54:00 GMT -5
Due to finances and my up-coming surgery, I have sold my XPA-3 and am replacing it with a UPA-500. I used to have the XPA driving my LRC and had my UPA-2 driving my surrounds.
I am now driving my mains with the UPA-2 and am quite happy with the sound. It's because of this that I am very hopeful that the UPA-500 will satisfy powering the surrounds and center. I'll use the spare 2-CH to drive my outdoor speakers.
I'll report my findings. The UPA-500 should be here by thursday I hope.
This isn't the kind of upgrade path I was hoping for, but sometimes, life gets in the way. I'm just glad Emotiva had an option that would work for me.
Cheers,
Derek
|
|