|
UPA-200
Jun 30, 2012 11:55:45 GMT -5
Post by Entity on Jun 30, 2012 11:55:45 GMT -5
185 vs 200 is pretty meaningless at those levels. Having spent many years around fans for electronics, I worry more about the life expectancy of the fans than the noise. Unlike a giant heatsink, fans don't last forever. Hopefully fan failures won't be anything to worry about if they run as little as believed.
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,920
|
UPA-200
Jun 30, 2012 11:56:18 GMT -5
Post by hemster on Jun 30, 2012 11:56:18 GMT -5
Is the UPA-200 better than the UPA-2? My assertion is... (UPA-2) that was then.. (UPA-200) this is now... Both are superb 2-channel amps. Obviously on the lab bench there are differences. However, as I said before, if one was to A/B both in a blind test, I bet it'd be impossible to tell them apart in a normal, typical listening environment. So whichever amp you have, enjoy!
|
|
Brainsick
Sensei
Emotiva BABY!!!!!
Posts: 462
|
UPA-200
Jun 30, 2012 12:01:10 GMT -5
Post by Brainsick on Jun 30, 2012 12:01:10 GMT -5
All i know is, i need one for my rear channels.
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,920
|
UPA-200
Jun 30, 2012 12:06:50 GMT -5
Post by hemster on Jun 30, 2012 12:06:50 GMT -5
All i know is, i need one for my rear channels. It'll work great for that application. I'm using my UPA-2 for the rear channels.
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
UPA-200
Jun 30, 2012 12:12:59 GMT -5
Post by jamrock on Jun 30, 2012 12:12:59 GMT -5
^^^ I agree 100% with Hemster that both the UPA-2 & UPA-200 are excellent performing amplifiers. And in a DBL test, they would be indistinguishable. Nevertheless, the UPA-200 does have the marginally better performance specs. It is for this reason especially, that I usually say that there is a performance difference, for better or for worse, that only the measuring tools can appreciate ;D
|
|
|
UPA-200
Jun 30, 2012 12:20:55 GMT -5
Post by garbulky on Jun 30, 2012 12:20:55 GMT -5
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 I was trying to reply and then 5 posts got posted. ;D Anyway, these are the only other differences I could gather - there's the two amp modules vs one. And that the current amp module on the upa-200 may be different due to the different manufacturer. The measurements are a-weighted now compared to before. And the ability to reduce the volume from the back. But I'm not too concerned about these. The specs look respectable on the upa-200 and the price is good.
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,920
|
UPA-200
Jun 30, 2012 12:23:18 GMT -5
Post by hemster on Jun 30, 2012 12:23:18 GMT -5
^^^ I agree 100% with Hemster that both the UPA-2 & UPA-200 are excellent performing amplifiers. And in a DBL test, they would be indistinguishable. Nevertheless, the UPA-200 does have the marginally better performance specs. It is for this reason especially, that I usually say that there is a performance difference, for better or for worse, that only the measuring tools can appreciate ;D I've heard the audience referred to as "listener", "user" and "audiophile". I even coined a term: "audio fool". But I've never seen them called "measuring tools"! ;D ;D
|
|
|
UPA-200
Jun 30, 2012 12:26:11 GMT -5
Post by garbulky on Jun 30, 2012 12:26:11 GMT -5
Hemster. I have a feeling there are going to be some pleased reviewers posting soon. I'm very glad they've reinvigorated the u-series. Dan! Can we have some teaser info on the XPA-200?
|
|
|
UPA-200
Jun 30, 2012 12:30:54 GMT -5
Post by RightinLA on Jun 30, 2012 12:30:54 GMT -5
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 I believe that wpc quoted above is into 4 ohms not 8 ohms. The performance specs. appear to be pretty similar between the two. The rear level output control is a convenient feature on the UPA-2 and other two channel amps. I'll take heat sinks over fans for cooling. Fans do fail and can develop noise issues over time. For the same class A/B design, the heavier the amp the better, right? I lamented the disappearance of the UPA-2. I'm very glad at least the leaner UPA-200 replacement is here.
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
UPA-200
Jun 30, 2012 12:41:59 GMT -5
Post by jamrock on Jun 30, 2012 12:41:59 GMT -5
Thanks for the correction. The 200 wpc spec for the UPA-200 is at 4 ohms, ACD and not at 8 ohms. The UPA-2 is rated at 185 wpc, ACD @ 4 ohms.
However, a good feature is one that is widely used. The daisy chain and matching volume features on the UPA-2, if they were ever used, no one has ever reported it. I don't see the need for Emo to have carried over those features at whatever the added cost would have been ;D
|
|
|
UPA-200
Jun 30, 2012 13:31:50 GMT -5
Post by RightinLA on Jun 30, 2012 13:31:50 GMT -5
Thanks for the correction. The 200 wpc spec for the UPA-200 is at 4 ohms, ACD and not at 8 ohms. The UPA-2 is rated at 185 wpc, ACD @ 4 ohms. However, a good feature is one that is widely used. The daisy chain and matching volume features on the UPA-2, if they were ever used, no one has ever reported it. I don't see the need for Emo to have carried over those features at whatever the added cost would have been ;D The the level control and RCA outputs feature are commonly used to connect other amps as part of a multi-speaker whole house system. This has been around in other two channel amps for years. Also for a two channel system a subwoofer is commonly connected to the RCA outputs because in many cases, a subwoofer output is not available from the stereo preamp. The old BPA-1 even had a low pass filter as well as the RCA outputs.
|
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,343
|
UPA-200
Jun 30, 2012 17:57:07 GMT -5
Post by Lsc on Jun 30, 2012 17:57:07 GMT -5
Isnt the single amp board design similar to receivers' amp design?
Darn! I should have gotten the upa-2 when I had the chance. Anyone selling theirs for $314 shipped?
|
|
|
UPA-200
Jun 30, 2012 19:45:13 GMT -5
Post by Dan Laufman on Jun 30, 2012 19:45:13 GMT -5
I would not get hung up on the fact that the new model has a common board design. Technically speaking, I can make some very good arguments in favor of the new design. The audio path length is about 30% as long as the length of the original design. The new ultra short signal path and close coupled components actually improves overall performance. Power rails, grounds, and signal path lengths are much shorter and have lower inductance, resistance, and stray coupling. Less is not necessarily less. Cheers, Big Dan
|
|
|
UPA-200
Jun 30, 2012 20:01:45 GMT -5
Post by RightinLA on Jun 30, 2012 20:01:45 GMT -5
I would not get hung up on the fact that the new model has a common board design. Technically speaking, I can make some very good arguments in favor of the new design. The audio path length is about 30% as long as the length of the original design. The new ultra short signal path and close coupled components actually improves overall performance. Power rails, grounds, and signal path lengths are much shorter and have lower inductance, resistance, and stray coupling. Less is not necessarily less. Cheers, Big Dan Sounds like a nice bit of engineering to improve the design efficiency that translates to a win/win for both the manufacturer and consumer. I stand corrected.
|
|
|
Post by ossif on Jul 2, 2012 9:09:20 GMT -5
Not sure if this was asked before but will there be a UPA-100 or will the ex UPA-1 be reborn unter the XPA- line only?
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 2, 2012 9:11:44 GMT -5
It will be upgraded and called the XPA-100. The UPA-2 will be called the XPA-200
|
|
|
Post by aquarius on Jul 2, 2012 9:14:38 GMT -5
Dan! Can we have some teaser info on the XPA-200? +1 And more than that, are we confident enough now to guess that the XPA-200 will be a replacement for the XPA-2 ? (about same price, about same performance) Thanks !
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 2, 2012 9:15:57 GMT -5
Dan! Can we have some teaser info on the XPA-200? +1 And more than that, are we confident enough now to guess that the XPA-200 will be a replacement for the XPA-2 ? (about same price, about same performance) Thanks ! No, the xpa-200 is the old UPA-2 upgraded. The XPA-2 is a different amp completely.
|
|
|
Post by aquarius on Jul 2, 2012 9:32:10 GMT -5
No, the xpa-200 is the old UPA-2 upgraded. The XPA-2 is a different amp completely. Ok, thanks for this clarification ! What's our best guess for availability (launch date ?) and/or price point ? (yeah, sorry, price matters )
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 2, 2012 9:46:48 GMT -5
No, the xpa-200 is the old UPA-2 upgraded. The XPA-2 is a different amp completely. Ok, thanks for this clarification ! What's our best guess for availability (launch date ?) and/or price point ? (yeah, sorry, price matters ) No real info forthcoming here. All we can safely assume is that it will cost more than the UPA-200. But emo threw me a surprise here. The UPA-200 was meant to be the budget pseudo-replacement for the UPA-2 while the UPA-2 was being bumped up to the XPA-200 which was to be the REAL replacement However, the specs show the UPA-200 having more power than the old UPA-2. Which I assume to show that their XPA-200 is not going to be a slouch and should perform better than both the UPA-200 and the UPA-2. How cool is that? So what do you say Dan? Throw us fans some info this way?
|
|