|
|
Post by B-613 Command on Nov 13, 2014 0:31:43 GMT -5
I'm considering the UMC-200 - having a hard time making up my mind on which amp(s) to go with it.
For now i'm using 3.1 for HT and 2.1 for music. I just bought new speakers. They are Sonus faber Venere 3.0 / Center with a Klipsch SW-310 sub. Effeciency is around 89 dB on the Venere. I'm a married 48 years-old man living in a condo. I play at fairly low levels. Would I play it louder if I could? Hell yes. Will I ever get that chance? I hope so. But probably not.
I'm looking at the XPA-5 and thinking I can bi-amp my fronts with that. I'm also looking at the UPA-500 and thinking the UPA-700 is only $45 more why not get that one that way i'll have 2 channels available if I ever do decide to get surrounds. The UPA-700 is only 80W. But everytime I think about the XPA-5 with 200W I start feeling like I did when I considered Klipsch RF-7 II speakers. WHY? I'm not in college. What do I need 200W for?
Will the UPA amp deliver enough current to properly drive the Sonus faber? I think if I go with the UPA amp I'll have to bi-amp my fronts to get strong bass.
The XPA is a higher cost amp - in what ways is it better besides more power?
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Nov 13, 2014 1:27:20 GMT -5
I can help with that. The XPA-5 has: Separate amp blades. Much larger power supply. No fans. More capacitance. Also....not everybody subscribes to this mentality but I do. I'm actually not interested in how powerful an amp is. I am more interested in the sound of it. And I feel that the three emotiva series have slightly different sound characteristics. As for bi-amping from a single amp. The amp channels share the same power supply. Most unused power (on the other channels) go towards powering the channels that need it. I don't think there will be a NEGATIVE, but not necessarily a positive. Maybe there is, I don't know. Now if you had separate amps each with their own power supply, there may be a difference. But overall I think if you are really interested in stereo sound, then matching it to a dedicated two channel or monoblock will give more of a difference than bi-amping off a multichannel setup. A multichannel setup (or stereo setup) has slight differences in maximum power output. If you look at the AP tests, you will see that each channel outputs slightly less than the other - just slightly. I doubt this is audible. But if you are OCD about things like cross talk etc. then more channels may not be the answer for you. In the real world, I doubt it's a negative. Emotiva used to make multichannel amps that had a power supply per channel. That may work for your bi-amping purpose. It was called the MPS-1 shown below. The amp module shown below - there are 5 or seven of them in that emotiva amp.   |
|
|
|
Post by B-613 Command on Nov 13, 2014 14:23:05 GMT -5
I appreciate all the help I can get. But every time I ask this question the conversation seems to always revolve around the benefit (or lack thereof) from bi-amping. And then that conversation seems to always turn into power.
Bi-amping - to me - is not about getting more power to my speakers - and it won't. Bi-amping is about getting a cleaner signal to my speakers. Bi-amping is about preventing noise generated by woofer motion from affecting the HF drivers via the crossover.
Bi-amping in today's world is especially beneficial since most dual-woofer towers have an impedance around 4 on the LF connections and around 8 ohm on the HF connections. Instead of presenting your amp with a load that varies rapidly between 8 and 4 ohm you present one amp with a consistent 8 ohm load and the other with a fairly consistent 4 ohm load.
I personally believe there is no universal answer to bi-amping. I think it comes down to the speakers and the amp. The only way to find out if it sounds better is to try it.
Forget about bi-amping. Forget I ever mentioned bi-amping. I only mentioned that to explain why I am looking at a the XPA-5 and not the XPA-3. But that should have zero effect on my decision to buy an XPA amp or a UPA amp. Sound. Quality of. Period.
The XPA amp versus the UPA amp. So far what i'm hearing is power. More power. And more stuff. More parts. Which for things electronic - especially an amp - is a BAD thing. The ideal amp is as simple as possible: a "short signal path." That means the fewer parts that get involved the better. The less stuff the cleaner the sound. Telling me an amp has an entire board filled with stuff for each channel rather than just a few parts sounds like a bad thing to me. But you say it as if it's a huge plus.
Fans. That can be bad if they make audible noise. They tend to get louder as they get older. My TiVo sounds like it's exploding in slow motion when the fans inside it come on nowadays - didn't used to do that. That alone makes me want to replace the thing.
Fans. Can be good if it keeps things cooler. Cool without fans is better. But that also means the XPA amps need more room to breathe.
Is it a bad idea to stack something / anything directly on top of an XPA amp? How much space above it should it have for breathing room? An inch? More? The space considerations are important because I have to figure out what fits and where it fits (or not). Buying a new entertainment center is not a simple detail. That's a good deal of time and money and effort. I'll do it to get the best sound but only if I cannot find reasonable options that do not require me to upgrade it.
More power. Can be good if that means more current. I suspect my Sonus faber Venere 3.0 speakers require more current than the average home theater receiver can muster to sound good.
Has anyone ever compared the XPA to the UPA in terms of sound quality?
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Nov 13, 2014 15:57:54 GMT -5
I appreciate all the help I can get. But every time I ask this question the conversation seems to always revolve around the benefit (or lack thereof) from bi-amping. And then that conversation seems to always turn into power.
Forget about bi-amping. Forget I ever mentioned bi-amping.
I apologize. Bi amp away good man! I myself have bi wire speaker cables going. Others have bi amped the XPA-5 and have mentioned that they realized little improvement. That's why I talked about. Anyway, it's forgotten!  Absolutely. That's what I'm concerned about not so much the power. I didn't say more parts is a huge plus. But in this case, it is an advantage. You have one amp module in the u-series. producing 5 channels of sound. Vs an amp blade per channel. That isn't complicating things. From all reports the fans rarely come on. The XPA amps don't need massive room to breath but they aren't supposed to be in an enclosed space. You can stack XPA amps on top of each other. As long as you leave the feet on and it's not in an enclosed cabinet with no ventillation. As for the cabinet, I completely understand, it depends on your priorities. Nothing wrong with either choice. [/font][/quote] Yes! That's why I've been posting  Not a massive difference but there is a difference. Can't guarantee it will be reproduced in your setup. But it is there - at least for me. |
|
|
|
Post by lhracing on Nov 13, 2014 16:10:17 GMT -5
I have a XPA-5 and my son has the UPA-700. I can tell you that the UPA-700 is a nice amp, it performs very well. In his system he has the fronts bi-amped. Don't let the fans bother you, he has never heard them turn on. I would recommend the UPA-700 over the UPA-500 because of the additional power supply capacity. I can't comment on the SQ differences between the two because they are in two different houses but I can tell you the UPA-700 sounds great as does my XPA-5.
|
|
|
|
Post by djoel on Nov 13, 2014 16:43:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Nov 13, 2014 19:43:40 GMT -5
I currently have a UMC-200 with an XPA-5 (200 WPC with 5 channels driven) and it's easily the best sounding combo I have ever had. I also have a USP-1 which I use for 2.1 music with the XPA-5 supplying the L&R (275 WPC with 2 channels driven). If I were to start again I would probably choose an XPA-7 (200 WPC with 7 channels driven and 315 WPC with 2 channels driven). The added 40 WPC in 2 channel use wouldn't go astray, but the main advantage is the availability of the additional 2 channels.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
Not a massive difference but there is a difference. Can't guarantee it will be reproduced in your setup. But it is there - at least for me. 
