UPA-200

[Dark Ranger]

I own both the UPA-500 and mini-X, and (hand-on-heart) the cooling fans have not turned on yet.

Now, I will admit that my room is usually around 75 degrees Fahrenheit, and it doesn't take much to achieve reference levels in a 1,000 cu. ft.* room. With moderately sensitive speakers outputting around 85-90 dB average (100 dB peaks), I still cannot get the fans to turn on yet.

I guess I need to try harder, much harder.



*Reason for edit: Sorry guys, I wrote 1,000 sq. feet instead of cu. feet. There's obviously a big difference between the two sizes.

[Pauly]

No, don't try harder. Save those ears, brother!

[knucklehead]

Jun 28, 2012 18:29:38 GMT -5 Golden Ear said:

Jun 28, 2012 18:23:17 GMT -5 hemster said:

I looked up the specs on my UPA-2 and they are as below:

125 Watts into 8 Ohms (0.04%THD)
225 Watts into 4 Ohms (0.04%THD)

225?? I thought 185wpc on 4 ohms?

Thats what I have in the manual I downloaded a long time ago - 125/185wpc. The UPA-7 has the same specs all channel/2 channel.

The UPA-2 weight is 6 pounds heavier than the UPA-200. I doubt a good listen would pick out a winner between the two. Probably more similar than different inside and out. The back panel is laid out differently which indicates the boards are different.

Sounds like another winner.

[chaosrv]

I looked at an old review on audioholics of the upa-2.

It appears the upa-2 had separate boards for each channel while the upa-200 has a single board.


www.audioholics.com/reviews/amplifiers/emotiva-upa-2-stereo-amplifier

[garbulky]

I had no idea the UPA-2 had two x-series modules. Is this true (the x-series bit)?
Here's the old UPA-2 (link from audioholics).


The new Upa-200.


Some of the circuits appear to be the same while some look different. The transformer appears the same as do the capacitors. Both look very cleanly put together. Hopefully they will update the test data soon.

[DYohn]

Hmm, I wonder if Emotiva would sell me a UPA-200 with the amplifier board removed? Looks like a great platform for a couple Hypex NC400 modules...

[Dark Ranger]

Jun 28, 2012 21:42:29 GMT -5 Pauly said:

No, don't try harder. Save those ears, brother!

No worries, proper safety gear shall be worn at all times.

By the way, I made a boo-boo in my post above. It's now corrected. I'll blame it on the phone call I received, haha.

Anyway, I think I'll spend tonight digging up reviews on the old UPA-2, more for curiosity than direct comparison. I'm still holding out for the XPA-100/200.


Carry on.

[Golden Ear]

Jun 29, 2012 3:12:46 GMT -5 garbulky said:

I had no idea the UPA-2 had two x-series modules. Is this true (the x-series bit)?
Here's the old UPA-2 (link from audioholics).


The new Upa-200.


Some of the circuits appear to be the same while some look different. The transformer appears the same as do the capacitors. Both look very cleanly put together. Hopefully they will update the test data soon.

By the looks of it, it has less circuitry which is good maintaining signal integrity and the price of this thing is similar to UPA-2 so I don't see any saving in there. The price of UPA-2 was 349.00 and when it went to clearance price went down to 299.00.

[adamc]

Hmm I am wondering if I should get one of these, or wait and snag a UPA-2 used. Would really like to know which is better.

[Porscheguy]

It's marketing 101. "New and improved" with some small changes and minor improvements. In business you have to constantly be morphing yourself and your products or they become stale and people loose interest.

I'll bet the rest of the line will get a little "haircut and a shave" as well. Maybe the XPR will soon supersede the XPA series. I don't think the XPA series will last forever.....

[Dark Ranger]

Jun 29, 2012 20:20:46 GMT -5 Porscheguy said:

Maybe the XPR will soon supersede the XPA series. I don't think the XPA series will last forever.....

According to Big Dan, the XPR series will not replace the XPA. They are two separate lines aimed at different market segments. The Ultra, X, and Reference products vary in price brackets and performance capabilities.

emotivalounge.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=amps&thread=24457&page=2#406843

[cwmcobra]

What do you guys think about the UPA-200 as a dual subwoofer amp? As a comparison, the Dayton SA1000 ($400) is rated 950W for 3 channels, so I assume about 310W per channel into 4 ohms at 0.92% THD. And the Crown XLS1000 ($300) is rated 350W per channel into 4 ohms at 0.5% THD. Compare with the UPA-200 rated 200W per channel into 4 ohms at 0.05% THD. I wonder how the UPA-200 power would rate at .05 or 0.92% THD? I know the commercial amps also have high and low-pass filters that are commonly used with subwoofers and the UPA-200 does not. But can't I adequately control that with either a UMC-1 or XMC-1?

I read about some talk of Emotiva releasing a dedicated subwoofer amp. Any more insight on this?

I suspect that the UPA-200 is probably overkill for efficient subs. I'm planning to build two THTs that are very efficient folded horn design and I'm told can be driven with simple plate amps. But I like the idea of Emotiva quality. Kind of feels like a downgrade to add a lesser brand amp to the equipment cabinet, don't you think? :-).

Thanks,

Chuck

[Dan Laufman]

Hi Guy's,
I think the 80dB S/N at 1 watt is a typo. I'm pretty sure it's >90dB. We'll check on Monday and correct as necessary. I can tell you from personal experience that the UPA-200 is very quiet. Remember, our number are always minimum performance, and are typically much better. The UPA-200 easily makes 140+ watts per channel, but we are only rating it at 125 watts/ch.... you get the idea.

Also, it should be noted that we redesigned the Ultra Series to allow us to keep our low, low prices on the entry level line. We would have had to increase the cost too much if we have stayed with the old design, which was not cost effiecient.

IMO, the new amps are better designs in terms of cost vs. performance. They really are wonderful products and I'm very proud of them.

The fans only operate if you really flog the amp, or if there is limited convection space. When they do kick in, they are VERY quiet. We made sure of this. No worries.

Cheers,
Big Dan

[Pauly]

I had a feeling it was a typo. 80db didn't "sound" right to me at all. That's way below the specs of every Emo amp ever produced lol.

Thanks for the info Dan.

[stiehl11]

Jun 29, 2012 22:05:05 GMT -5 Dan Laufman said:

Hi Guy's,
I think the 80dB S/N at 1 watt is a typo. I'm pretty sure it's >90dB. We'll check on Monday and correct as necessary. I can tell you from personal experience that the UPA-200 is very quiet. Remember, our number are always minimum performance, and are typically much better. The UPA-200 easily makes 140+ watts per channel, but we are only rating it at 125 watts/ch.... you get the idea.

Also, it should be noted that we redesigned the Ultra Series to allow us to keep our low, low prices on the entry level line. We would have had to increase the cost too much if we have stayed with the old design, which was not cost effiecient.

IMO, the new amps are better designs in terms of cost vs. performance. They really are wonderful products and I'm very proud of them.

The fans only operate if you really flog the amp, or if there is limited convection space. When they do kick in, they are VERY quiet. We made sure of this. No worries.

Cheers,
Big Dan

Looking forward to seeing (and hearing) all the new gear this year at Emofest, Dan!

[Porscheguy]

I'm sure its a better product than its predecessor. I know you always need to build a better mouse trap. As usual Dan your products are the market leader in quality for dollars invested.

:-) :-)

[Dark Ranger]

Jun 29, 2012 22:05:05 GMT -5 Dan Laufman said:

Hi Guy's,
I think the 80dB S/N at 1 watt is a typo. I'm pretty sure it's >90dB. We'll check on Monday and correct as necessary. I can tell you from personal experience that the UPA-200 is very quiet. Remember, our number are always minimum performance, and are typically much better. The UPA-200 easily makes 140+ watts per channel, but we are only rating it at 125 watts/ch.... you get the idea.

Also, it should be noted that we redesigned the Ultra Series to allow us to keep our low, low prices on the entry level line. We would have had to increase the cost too much if we have stayed with the old design, which was not cost effiecient.

IMO, the new amps are better designs in terms of cost vs. performance. They really are wonderful products and I'm very proud of them.

The fans only operate if you really flog the amp, or if there is limited convection space. When they do kick in, they are VERY quiet. We made sure of this. No worries.

Cheers,
Big Dan

The >90 dB SNR @ 1 watt would definitely make more sense. Thank you for the additional info, it is much appreciated!

I'm sure you guys will sell a lot of these. ;D I love my UPA-500. It's the perfect multichannel amplifier for my current room and personal listening habits.


For anyone else interested, the UPA-200 manual is now online.

emotiva.com/resources/manuals/upa200_manual.pdf

[RightinLA]

Jun 29, 2012 22:16:08 GMT -5 Porscheguy said:

I'm sure its a better product than its predecessor.

It all depends on your point of view about whether it is a better product or not.

From a feature/performance aspect, I'm not so sure at all. The UPA-200 appears lacks some features compared to the UPA-2. Sure it is better to have a reasonable replacement for the UPA-2 compared to none at all.

From a manufacturer's point of view, it is less costly to produce so that the profit per price point is better. Dan mentioned the UPA-2 became too costly to produce. I'm at least glad that Emotiva brought back a 2 channel 125 watt per channel amp and a business has to do what a business has to do to stay in business.

[jamrock]

I didn't get your reason for the UPA-200 not being a better or worse amp than the UPA-2. The only missing feature is the ability to daisy chain the UPA-200. A feature that I have never heard that anyone admit using with the UPA-2.

Here is why I believe that the UPA-200 is better:

ThD+N = <0.03dB
200 wpc @ 8 ohms, ACD
Damping Factor = >500
;D ;D ;D

[calvinhobbe]

Jun 28, 2012 18:34:16 GMT -5 hemster said:

Jun 28, 2012 18:29:38 GMT -5 Golden Ear said:

225?? I thought 185wpc on 4 ohms?

I took the above figures from the manual.

I have no idea where you got your manual, but I have two PDF versions and several hard copies of the Ultra Amp manuals. Something doesn't jive here...

Directly from the Ultra manual:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UPA-2 A two channel amplifier with a small enough footprint for an average bookshelf, but with enough power to shake the room. We might say this amplifier is emodestf compared to our XPA-2, but the truth is that itfs a bit of a show]off. It can easily keep pace with ebigger ampsf and will embarrass receivers with similar power claims.
The UPA-]2 is perfect for office, bedroom, den or outdoor speakers. Of course, itfs also an outstanding choice for powering surround speakers, and can be used in a variety of multi]channel setups.
125 watts into 8 ohms, 185 watts into 4 ohms.

++++++++++++++++++++++

UPA-2
Number of Channels: 2
Topology: Fully Discrete, Dual Differential, High Current, Short Signal Path Class A/B
Power output (all channels driven):
185 watts RMS @ 4 ohm (0.1% THD)
125 watts RMS @ 8 ohm (0.1% THD)
Power Band Response: 20 Hz to 20 kHz with less than .05db deviation at rated power
Broadband Frequency Response: (]3db): 5Hz to 150kHz
Amplifier Gain: 32db
Signal to Noise Ratio 1 watt: >93db Full Power: >107db
Input Impedance: 25kohms
Transformer Size: 300VA
Secondary capacitance: 40,000uF
Output Devices: 4 per channel
Size: 17h W x 3.875h H x 18h D
Weight: 30 lbs (39 lbs boxed)
continued, next page