|
|
Post by B-613 Command on Nov 10, 2014 18:49:54 GMT -5
I imagine this subject has been replayed many times: i'm considering purchasing the UMC-200 / UPA-700 and saw the Fusion 8100 and cannot stop asking myself: What do the UMC-200 / UPA-700 / BTM-1 give me that the Fusion 8100 does not? I have a tendency to fall into this trap: if it costs more it must be better (sound better) right? That's what's pushing me towards the separates. Separates are ALWAYS better than receivers, right? Looking at the Fusion 8100 - it looks like they took the power stage from the UPA-500, the amplifier board from the UPA-700 and then stuck the UMC-200 board over that. But if you look at the power consumption listed on the backs of the products - the UPA-700 consumes a max of 600 watts and the UMC-200 is 25 Watts. But the Fusion is an 800 Watt appliance. Where does this extra power consumption come from? The specs suggest the UPA-700 has a much cleaner sound. The price tag for the separates is $987.98 - for the Fusion is $449 - so unless there is some functionality in the UMC-200 that i'm not seeing in the Fusion 8100 - unless the sound quality of the separates is far above the receiver - why buy the UMC-200? Even if all you want is the pre/pro buy the Fusion and use the pre-outs. The only reason i'm even asking this out loud is that usually if/when something seems too good to be true - it is. There's some catch. What am I missing? Did Emotiva produce too many - not sell enough of the Fusion 8100 (or the UMC-200) and this is how they off-load them to make room for ... XMC-1 ... to finance making XMC-1 ... or to make room for a receiver based on XMC-1  I guess that's really none of my business. I'm just trying to convince myself that there is a legit reason for the receiver to cost half what the separates cost and still provide the same functionality. What does the UMC-200 do that the Fusion 8100 does not do? They clearly have the same remote. Is there any difference in functionality? There is a User Manual for the UMC-200 online but not for the Fusion 8100. Does anyone know? |
|
|
|
Post by TempTag on Nov 10, 2014 19:11:12 GMT -5
Cannot speak for the UMC-200 plus UPA amp as I don't own that setup but I do own a Fusion and am quite happy with it. Functionally, they are about identical but the Fusion includes some extras. Unlike the UMC-200 the Fusion has volume and selector knobs - not just buttons - which makes for good on-device usability. Also, the fusion has the bluetooth module built-in - I believe that is extra on the UMC-200.
|
|
|
|
Post by unsound on Nov 10, 2014 19:15:20 GMT -5
I recently purchased one of each, so I don't have extended experience with them. They are also in very different setups so I will not compare the SQ. The main difference that I've noticed so far is that the UMC switches HDMI sources much faster than the Fusion. The Fusion runs between 8-11 seconds to complete handshake. The UMC takes about half that time.
A note about SQ, although not directly related to your question. I was using an Oppo 103 as a processor before replacing it with the Fusion. The differences I noticed with the Fusion running "Flat" is I had to adjust my tweeters down 1.5 dB to get a more neutral sound (as reported by my ears). Also, I had to reduce the subwoofer volume quite a bit, but that's because I had to almost run my sub at full volume due to the weak output from the Oppo.
|
|
|
|
Post by TempTag on Nov 10, 2014 19:55:12 GMT -5
My 8100 generally switches quicker than 5 seconds (especially switching to my cable box) but I also run all the CEC stuff off. That said, from off boot up to initial handshake is very slow to my Roku or AppleTV - a little faster to my cable box but still slow.
Interesting feedback on Sub - which connection did you use? Someone at Emotiva said the XLR sub output was set a little hotter than the RCA but I have not tested on mine to confirm.
|
|
|
|
Post by knucklehead on Nov 10, 2014 20:07:43 GMT -5
Where does this extra power consumption come from? Preamp and amp along with the processing (DAC & video processing etc) no amp has are contained in the Fusion and all of them consume power. |
|
|
|
Post by unsound on Nov 10, 2014 20:23:14 GMT -5
My 8100 generally switches quicker than 5 seconds (especially switching to my cable box) but I also run all the CEC stuff off. That said, from off boot up to initial handshake is very slow to my Roku or AppleTV - a little faster to my cable box but still slow. Interesting feedback on Sub - which connection did you use? Someone at Emotiva said the XLR sub output was set a little hotter than the RCA but I have not tested on mine to confirm. I just tried with all CEC settings turned off and it took 11s per my stopwatch. I used the RCA. I think it's the Oppo to "blame" for this. It must have a very low output voltage in comparison. I need to run it at about 70% volume setting via a UPA-2 for a pair of 86db speakers. I needed to have a reasonable volume to even get the sub to turn on. |
|
|
|
Post by B-613 Command on Nov 10, 2014 20:32:34 GMT -5
Here's my breakdown of the cost of separates: UMC-200
| $ 539 | | UPA-700 | $ 359 | | BTM-1 | $ 45 | | MRCA-7 | $ 45 | | ---------- | ----- | | Separates | $ 988 |
OTOH - The Fusion 8100 is only $449 - what were the original prices of these things? Wasn't the Fusion 8100 like $700 when it first came out? I saw a thread on here from earlier this year saying the UPA-700 along with others were being marked down in price to clear them out of inventory to make room for (help finance) new models. That thread says the UPA-700 was $499 back then. |
|
|
|
Post by pdaddy on Nov 10, 2014 21:44:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by unsound on Nov 10, 2014 21:53:26 GMT -5
That one is spoken for  |
|
|
|
Post by memotiva on Nov 11, 2014 4:40:04 GMT -5
I asked about this in another thread a while ago. Running the Fusion as a pre is actually cheaper than the UMC as a pre, but wasteful given that you'd have amplification sitting there doing nothing.
The Fusion has issues with long HDMI cables from what I've read. It is also slightly less powerful than a similar channel amp in the low end Emotiva line though not by much. If you're on a budget, it's a much cheaper way to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by B-613 Command on Nov 11, 2014 9:08:14 GMT -5
I've been thinking about this for a few weeks now. I'm in the middle of upgrading my audio system. I bought a pair of Sonus faber Venere 3.0 towers and the center - already had a Klipsch SW-310 sub. That's my 3.1 home theater setup. I'm 2.1 for music. Now i'm looking to upgrade the gear that drives them.
The actual choice is between a Marantz AV7702 / MM7055 combo versus the UMC-200 / UPA-700 combo. I was looking at the 2 websites and eventually starting thinking to just get a Marantz SR5009 and not spend so much money on the gear. Just because the speakers cost that much doesn't mean the gear has to - assuming a receiver actually can drive these speakers. It's not about watts - it's about current. So the Fusion 8100 also entered my mind.
The more I think about it - if I bought the Fusion 8100 and did not like the sound - maybe it doesn't deliver enough current - I could get a UPA-700 to add to it. If it's too quirky I could send it back and get the UMC-200 and see if that works better. I'd hate to give up on Emotiva over just the Fusion 8100.
I cannot stop thinking the smart thing for me to do is to get the UMC-200 / UPA-700 combo - the best Emotiva has to offer today - and give it a try. The difference in cost is pointless since they're both under $1000 anyway.
Of course I could get them both - the Fusion 8100 and the separates also - and compare them - it's just that I know up front i'll be sending one of them back - or both. That would make for an interesting thread.
Hmm. 
|
|
|
|
Post by deewan on Nov 11, 2014 9:26:36 GMT -5
Just curious. If you have 2.1 for stereo and 3.1 for surround sound and the post you made in another thread are serious... I cannot help but laugh. I'm still at 3.1 for home theater and 2.1 for music. I'm old-school. Until I get video surrounding me having audio surrounding me seems odd.
When speakers expanded - the center channel made sense. The sub makes total sense. Surrounds kind of make sense if you're into that. But some on - surround back, front wide and front height? Those were enough to make me shake my head. Why would you consider the UPA-700 or MM7055? Why do you need 7 channels of amplification for a maximum 3.1 system? Why not buy three monoblocks or the XPA-3? |
|
|
|
Post by unsound on Nov 11, 2014 9:32:37 GMT -5
Just curious. If you are at 2.1 for stereo and 3.1 for surround sound and the posts you've made in another thread are serious... I cannot help but laugh. I'm still at 3.1 for home theater and 2.1 for music. I'm old-school. Until I get video surrounding me having audio surrounding me seems odd.
When speakers expanded - the center channel made sense. The sub makes total sense. Surrounds kind of make sense if you're into that. But some on - surround back, front wide and front height? Those were enough to make me shake my head. Why would you consider the UPA-700 or MM7055? Why do you need 7 channels of amplification for a maximum 3.1 system? Why not buy three monoblocks or the XPA-3? +1 |
|
|
|
Post by B-613 Command on Nov 11, 2014 14:15:07 GMT -5
I was thinking the exact same thing in the beginning. I was thinking XPA-3 in the beginning but then I got to thinking about bi-amping my fronts. So I want at least a 5-channel amp. I started wondering maybe I will get surrounds one day. Maybe not - but it's nice to have amps for more speakers if I ever do change my mind. So I started comparing the XPA-5/7 to the UPA-500/700 and this is where that led me:
The XPA-5 costs $888. XPA-7 is $1439. The UPA-500 is $314. The UPA-700 costs $359. The UPA-700 is only $45 more than the UPA-500. The UPA-700 has a larger transformer so it can deliver more current than the UPA-500 even if i'm only driving 5 channels. It also has the 2 extra amps I could use to drive surrounds if I do break down one day and decide I want them.
None of the XPA-3/5/7 fit into my entertainment center. The UPA-5/700 both do. Easily. I have two 7.5" shelves that are not adjustable.
The XPA-1/2 are just tall enough that 2 will not fit on one shelf. Going that route is not practical from a space nor a cost perspective. I mean it won't save me money even if it would fit - which it won't.
The UPA-700 - from what I can tell - has a cleaner sound than the XPA-5 or XPA-7 does. Am I correct? Am I reading the specs properly? I'm looking at THD and SNR. The specs on the UPA-700 are better in both cases.
So - if I buy the XPA-3/5/7 i'm paying a premuim price tag, giving up sound quality, buying a new entertainment center to hold it - and gaining what? balanced inputs? The UMC-200 does not have balanced outputs. Why do I need balanced inputs?
The maximum power consumption on the XPA-5 is 1800W. That will easily trip the circuit breakers in my condo if anything is on. The max power consumption of the UPA-700 is 600W. No problem there.
The XPA-3/5/7 puts out 200W versus the UPA-5/700 puts out 80W. That's essentially what i'm paying for. That's it. Right? Is there any other benefit to buying the XPA-3/5/7 that i'm not aware of? I get more power. I'm an old man living in a condo, Do I really need 200W? The short answer: because i'm an old man living in a condo.
Am I missing anything?
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Nov 11, 2014 16:43:51 GMT -5
I was thinking the exact same thing in the beginning. I was thinking XPA-3 in the beginning but then I got to thinking about bi-amping my fronts. So I want at least a 5-channel amp. I started wondering maybe I will get surrounds one day. Maybe not - but it's nice to have amps for more speakers if I ever do change my mind. So I started comparing the XPA-5/7 to the UPA-500/700 and this is where that led me:
The XPA-5 costs $888. XPA-7 is $1439. The UPA-500 is $314. The UPA-700 costs $359. The UPA-700 is only $45 more than the UPA-500. The UPA-700 has a larger transformer so it can deliver more current than the UPA-500 even if i'm only driving 5 channels. It also has the 2 extra amps I could use to drive surrounds if I do break down one day and decide I want them.
None of the XPA-3/5/7 fit into my entertainment center. The UPA-5/700 both do. Easily. I have two 7.5" shelves that are not adjustable.
The XPA-1/2 are just tall enough that 2 will not fit on one shelf. Going that route is not practical from a space nor a cost perspective. I mean it won't save me money even if it would fit - which it won't.
The UPA-700 - from what I can tell - has a cleaner sound than the XPA-5 or XPA-7 does. Am I correct? Am I reading the specs properly? I'm looking at THD and SNR. The specs on the UPA-700 are better in both cases.
So - if I buy the XPA-3/5/7 i'm paying a premuim price tag, giving up sound quality, buying a new entertainment center to hold it - and gaining what? balanced inputs? The UMC-200 does not have balanced outputs. Why do I need balanced inputs?
The maximum power consumption on the XPA-5 is 1800W. That will easily trip the circuit breakers in my condo if anything is on. The max power consumption of the UPA-700 is 600W. No problem there.
The XPA-3/5/7 puts out 200W versus the UPA-5/700 puts out 80W. That's essentially what i'm paying for. That's it. Right? Is there any other benefit to buying the XPA-3/5/7 that i'm not aware of? I get more power. I'm an old man living in a condo, Do I really need 200W? The short answer: because i'm an old man living in a condo.
Am I missing anything?
Well....do you care about your shelf or your sound?  Both responses are valid, and I won't belittle either but you have to decide for yourself. The X-series is superior. Not CRAZY superior, but it is. You could also get a pair of XPA-1 L's (remember to give it some breathing room) and then later get a UPA-500. They have the same gain settings so they should blend well. As for considering breakers and all that. Don't worry. You won't be tripping anything - in real life usage. Unless you are like Boomzilla and like to party all night.  There are users here running two XPR-1's, XPR-5, 50 inch tv, blu ray players, two subs, all off one 15 A receptacle. No trips. Remember the capacitors in the amps help. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Nov 11, 2014 17:30:17 GMT -5
For me the argument over separates versus integrated is pretty simple. I always prefer to be able to upgrade the component that needs upgrading while keeping the components that don't need upgrading. For example a good power amp will stay current a whole lot longer than a processor/AVR ever will. If/when more power is required due to a move or speaker change then upgrading the power amp is a lot more efficient than upgrading a processor/AVR. Fundamentally I don't like throwing away good stuff just because one small part of it is out of date.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by B-613 Command on Nov 11, 2014 18:57:59 GMT -5
Well....do you care about your shelf or your sound? Both responses are valid, and I won't belittle either but you have to decide for yourself. The X-series is superior. Not CRAZY superior, but it is. You could also get a pair of XPA-1 L's (remember to give it some breathing room) and then later get a UPA-500. They have the same gain settings so they should blend well. As for considering breakers and all that. Don't worry. You won't be tripping anything - in real life usage. Unless you are like Boomzilla and like to party all night. There are users here running two XPR-1's, XPR-5, 50 inch tv, blu ray players, two subs, all off one 15 A receptacle. No trips. Remember the capacitors in the amps help. Ok - you mean get 3 XPA-1L - 2 fronts + center - and that's forgetting about the bi-amp idea. I assume you're discarding the idea of bi-amping my fronts? I wish I knew up front if there is anything to be gained from bi-amping my fronts. I won't know until I get the amps and try it. I could find some way to squeeze those in. One might sit on top of my TiVo or something. Class A all the way to 35W. Wow. In what ways is the X-series superior? The sound quality is superior? Looking at the specs it looks like i'm paying for balanced inputs (which I won't use anytime soon) and gobs more power. I'm trying to not fall into the trap: if it costs more it must sound better. I'm hoping to find someone who has listened to them both and can attest that one sounds better than the other. I could get an XPA-200 and the UPA-500. The UMC-200 and XPA-200 would fit on one shelf and the UPA-500 on the other. They're both 29dB gain so I could - in theory - drive my fronts' LF with the XPA-200 and the Fronts' HF and center with the UPA-500 and still have 2 amps for surrounds some day if needed. |
|
|
|
Post by stsandhu on Nov 11, 2014 19:25:05 GMT -5
Bi amping will, more than likely, not benefit you in any way. Don't bother with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Nov 11, 2014 20:08:13 GMT -5
Well....do you care about your shelf or your sound? Both responses are valid, and I won't belittle either but you have to decide for yourself. The X-series is superior. Not CRAZY superior, but it is. You could also get a pair of XPA-1 L's (remember to give it some breathing room) and then later get a UPA-500. They have the same gain settings so they should blend well. As for considering breakers and all that. Don't worry. You won't be tripping anything - in real life usage. Unless you are like Boomzilla and like to party all night. There are users here running two XPR-1's, XPR-5, 50 inch tv, blu ray players, two subs, all off one 15 A receptacle. No trips. Remember the capacitors in the amps help. Ok - you mean get 3 XPA-1L - 2 fronts + center - and that's forgetting about the bi-amp idea. I assume you're discarding the idea of bi-amping my fronts? I wish I knew up front if there is anything to be gained from bi-amping my fronts. I won't know until I get the amps and try it. I could find some way to squeeze those in. One might sit on top of my TiVo or something. Class A all the way to 35W. Wow. In what ways is the X-series superior? The sound quality is superior? Looking at the specs it looks like i'm paying for balanced inputs (which I won't use anytime soon) and gobs more power. I'm trying to not fall into the trap: if it costs more it must sound better. I'm hoping to find someone who has listened to them both and can attest that one sounds better than the other. I could get an XPA-200 and the UPA-500. The UMC-200 and XPA-200 would fit on one shelf and the UPA-500 on the other. They're both 29dB gain so I could - in theory - drive my fronts' LF with the XPA-200 and the Fronts' HF and center with the UPA-500 and still have 2 amps for surrounds some day if needed. With bi-amping....I don't think you'll find a massive difference - if you are using the same amp. I'm not going to discount that there is a possibility of a difference, just that for instance a U-series vs an x-series is more likely to produce a difference. I can't guarantee that YOU will notice a difference. I noticed a difference. The U-series is the budget line up. It has a single amp blade. And fans. And that single amp blade feeds 5 channels in the case of the UPA-500. The XPA-200 was what the old U-series - called the UPA-2 (not the UPA-200) used to be. If you look at the old pictures of the UPA-2 you will see that in terms of layout the design is nearly identical. The Xpa-200 has two XPA-5 amp blades but with lower power capability vs say an XPA-3. Then we have the regular X-series models: XPA-1,2,3,5. Those are the original X-series. And they used to Emo's flaghsip stuff until the XPR made a surprise entrance. In these models, the power supplies are beefy, all have XLR outputs and every channel has an x-series amp blade in it. Now the odd-balls/stars: The XPA-1 L is half of an XPA-1. And it has these things that are interesting: Class A output! Fully balanced architecture. Powerful output. monoblock Try getting that out of any other monoblock on the market at the same price - you won't. The XPA-2 is very similar to an XPA-1 but it's repurposed to drive stereo with a 600VA power supply and not fully balanced. It's star quality is speed (when I tried it). It's very fast able to start and stop a signal without noticeable smearing. The XPA-1 used to be the flagship and now it's even better with 60 watts of class A and still retatining fulyl balanced. it's emotiva's most powerful pure class A/B amplifier. (The XPR series is class A/B but the power supply is a class H which requires a change in rail voltage and produces a bump in distortion on the graph - still inaudible - but it does.) Unfortunately I haven't heard this baby. Hope that helps. My suggestion wasn't 3 XPA-1 L's - though that option is open to you. It was 2 XPA-1 L's (left and right) and UPA-500 for the center and surrounds. The gain stage is matched so the volume level "should" match right without any kind of tinkering. This allows you to really concentrate on your stereo setup - which tends to provide the most difference (music) vs home theater where subtle quality doesn't usually come into play. So will you notice a difference? I can't say. Is there a difference. For me, yes. It's not MASSIVE. But if you are somebody after increased sound quality and his other stuff is resolving/well setup and are willing to pay, I find it to be worth it. What isn't worth it to me, is if you already have say...an XPA-2 and want to upgrade to an XPA-1. Or a UPA-500 and want to upgrade to an XPA-200. Then I would hesitate. But if you are jumping into emo, I recommend the original x-series amps as aving serious value. (XPA-1, 1L, 2, 3, 5). Not saying the XPA-200 (old UPA-2) doesn't have value. Actually it's a damn good amp (I happen to use the old UPA-2 myself), just saying that compared the x-series would be my go to. It may also help for you to know that I don't play things loudly usually. I live in a small townhouse with shared walls so I can't do it. I have let it rip rarely, and I did when I tested the XPA-2.  But most of my listening is done at low volume levels. You may be interested in my review of an XPA-2. emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/32383/garbulkys-xpa-upa-biamp-audition |
|
|
|
Post by fusioneer on Nov 11, 2014 20:46:54 GMT -5
Wanted to add my data point on bi-amping -- I run it on my Fusion and it works fine. It does seem to make a bit of difference though I couldn't swear by it, it takes too long to rewire and I lose confidence in comparisons made a few minutes apart. I'm not able to max out the volume of the Fusion with my place & ears (like the poster above), so I don't know if it pushes the limit further, nor do I care.
Moreover, I asked Chad from Emotiva support whether it's a good idea and he said why not, it can only help. I asked because I wasn't sure if there were specifics of the Fusion that would make it counterproductive, for example output power dropping for each amplifier if 5 were in use vs 3, even if the extra two weren't very demanding. That does not seem to be the case.
So given that, it's free (I was already wired from previous trials and I have amp outputs available) so why not. What you get theoretically is the more *demanding* half-speaker going through a separate amp and separate wire from the more *sensitive* half-speaker, which seems like a good idea. What you don't get is a doubling of the power; you get the sum of the demands of the two half-speakers, but one of them is going to be the limitation and you know which one. So unless the loads on each happen to be identical, it's less than a doubling. If you need double the power, you want the larger amp not the bi-amping.
|
|
But most of my listening is done at low volume levels. 