|
Post by strindl on Mar 10, 2010 14:46:28 GMT -5
Don't sell the XPA-2 short...that is one powerful amp.
|
|
|
Post by multichstereo on Mar 25, 2010 16:43:33 GMT -5
|
|
twilkins
Emo VIPs
Sometimes it's to your advantage for people to think you're crazy -
Posts: 252
|
Post by twilkins on Mar 25, 2010 16:56:26 GMT -5
It actually looks like 220 wpc is the maximum power recommended, although more power will not hurt these. Better to have more power than not enough. Having said that both the UPA-1 and XPA-2 should drive these fairly efficient speakers with ease.
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,922
|
Post by hemster on Mar 25, 2010 18:05:08 GMT -5
multichstereo,
Welcome to the forum!
Your 91.5 dB speakers will work great with the UPA-1. Certainly they will positively sing with the XPA-2. As twilkins has said, 220W is the maximum so you will be fine with the UPA-1.
I like the look of these speakers very much and now want to hear them!
|
|
|
Post by ossif on Mar 26, 2010 2:27:46 GMT -5
With your speakers the UPA-1 is the better choice. Your speakers are so sensitive that there is no way you could ever make use of the power of neither the XPA-2 or the UPA-1 anyway. But the UPA-1 is more musical and holographic and is a real mono construction. I have made this choice while having both in my home and never looked back since.
|
|
|
Post by ufokillerz on Mar 26, 2010 11:59:33 GMT -5
just wondering for the UPA-1, is there a lower noise floor then other amps? i get some tweeter hiss with my speakers on my MPS-1 and XPA-5. i run 98db sensitive speakers.
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,922
|
Post by hemster on Mar 26, 2010 14:20:47 GMT -5
I'm willing to bet you'll still get the hiss with the UPA-1.
|
|
|
Post by BillBauman on Mar 26, 2010 14:27:57 GMT -5
I guess it depends on the source of the noise. I noticed that I *think* I had an increase in hiss when I switched to the Onkyo Pre/Pro, but that is not scientific and was not A/B compared. I would bet against hemster on this one. If the amp is the source, I think switching to UPA-1 monos would reduce it. I also don't think any of this matters since I don't think it's going to affect the sound of musical (and certainly not HT) reproduction with your setup. If this were with some super-clean stereo preamp, I might think differently.
|
|
kse
Emo VIPs
Hello me, meet the real me.
Posts: 1,947
|
Post by kse on Mar 26, 2010 15:38:03 GMT -5
Hi, I 've got Focal JM Lab Chorus 826W speakers. Those speakers are absolutely gorgeous!!!
|
|
|
Post by multichstereo on Mar 26, 2010 15:53:46 GMT -5
twilkins, hemster, ossif
thank you all. I'll order UPA1's.
|
|
|
Post by moodyman on Mar 26, 2010 15:57:43 GMT -5
I'm sticking with my XPA-2. 33% more power, transformer 4x the size, 12 output devices per channel vs 6, and weights more than 3 UPA-1's. If you wanna blast Kung Fu Panda then listen to some AC/DC at concert level and have it all sound awesome think XPA...If you don't watch anything more dynamic than Bambi or like to listen to a little jazz before your bedtime get some some UPA's...
|
|
|
Post by multichstereo on Mar 26, 2010 16:10:30 GMT -5
Those speakers are absolutely gorgeous!!! Onkyo 5007 runs them pretty good... bass and trebles are both enough for me, I wish it had midrange control like emotiva speakers, since I feel middle is over exposed. I expect to get (extremely) more musical taste and soundstage from UPA1's after listening to an AVR amplifier.
|
|
|
Post by multichstereo on Mar 26, 2010 16:13:27 GMT -5
I'm sticking with my XPA-2. 33% more power, transformer 4 x the size, 12 output devices per channel vs 6, and weights more than 3 UPA-1's. If you wanna blast Kung Fu Panda then listen to some AC/DC at concert level and have it all sound awesome think XPA...If you don't watch anything more dynamic than Bambi or like to listen to a little jazz before your bedtime get some some UPA's... Sounds good.... should I buy XPA2 for movies and UPA1's for music
|
|
|
Post by movietunes on Mar 26, 2010 16:18:25 GMT -5
Plus one Moodyman! The dynamics on the XPA-2 are breathtaking!
"The only way that I would ever let go of my XPA-2 would be if you came over here now... and tried to pry it from my dead, lifeless fingers. Okay? If you can get it from my kung fu grip, then you can have it."
|
|
|
Post by moodyman on Mar 26, 2010 16:32:32 GMT -5
I'm sticking with my XPA-2. 33% more power, transformer 4 x the size, 12 output devices per channel vs 6, and weights more than 3 UPA-1's. If you wanna blast Kung Fu Panda then listen to some AC/DC at concert level and have it all sound awesome think XPA...If you don't watch anything more dynamic than Bambi or like to listen to a little jazz before your bedtime get some some UPA's... Sounds good.... should I buy XPA2 for movies and UPA1's for music LOL...don't you hate these decisions. I'm sure the UPA-1 is a great amp. Honestly I have never heard it though. Yeah..the XPA will probaly take more punishment...I love large, crisp, dynamic movie passages and, IMO, they seem more suited for that. I really think you'll be happy with either amp though.
|
|
|
Post by ossif on Mar 26, 2010 17:02:07 GMT -5
Plus one Moodyman! The dynamics on the XPA-2 are breathtaking! "The only way that I would ever let go of my XPA-2 would be if you came over here now... and tried to pry it from my dead, lifeless fingers. Okay? If you can get it from my kung fu grip, then you can have it." The interesting thing is that the UPA-1 is more dynamic than the XPA-2. This is just by a little but this is the way it is. And I repeat: I listened to both in my home, I do not make this up and I still have both. However unlike others here, I also have no problem to recognize that something smaller, but possibly composed a little smarter can be better while being cheaper. Wait... wasn't this about bang for the bucks... Emotiva perhaps? Someone? The reasoning of some people here would promote an amp having 10 times the power of an XPA-2 to be naturally better which of course is absolutely nonsense as perfect music reproduction has only partly to do with the power available. This is not only about quantity, this is also and much more about quality! In this regards the secondary capacity of the UPA-1 that is in part responsible to deliver the electric power instantaneously to the transistors is with 80.000 uF twice the capacity of the XPA-2 while having to feed only 6 transistors! Which explains the brilliant and explosive dynamics and supports my findings that the UPA-1 is the more dynamic amp. Probably this is also the reason the amp is more musical? By the way, a real audiophile has never primarily been interested in raw power. Other attributes are of much more interest.
|
|
|
Post by moodyman on Mar 26, 2010 17:41:39 GMT -5
Plus one Moodyman! The dynamics on the XPA-2 are breathtaking! "The only way that I would ever let go of my XPA-2 would be if you came over here now... and tried to pry it from my dead, lifeless fingers. Okay? If you can get it from my kung fu grip, then you can have it." The interesting thing is that the UPA-1 is more dynamic than the XPA-2. This is just by a little but this is the way it is. And I repeat: I listened to both in my home, I do not make this up and I still have both. However unlike others here, I also have no problem to recognize that something smaller, but possibly composed a little smarter can be better while being cheaper. Wait... wasn't this about bang for the bucks... Emotiva perhaps? Someone? The reasoning of some people here would promote an amp having 10 times the power of an XPA-2 to be naturally better which of course is absolutely nonsense as perfect music reproduction has only partly to do with the power available. This is not only about quantity, this is also and much more about quality! In this regards the secondary capacity of the UPA-1 that is in part responsible to deliver the electric power instantaneously to the transistors is with 80.000 uF twice the capacity of the XPA-2 while having to feed only 6 transistors! Which explains the brilliant and explosive dynamics and supports my findings that the UPA-1 is the more dynamic amp. Probably this is also the reason the amp is more musical? By the way, a real audiophile has never primarily been interested in raw power. Other attributes are of much more interest. The XPA can supply more current which translates into more headroom. You can push the XPA harder. The net affect of this the UPA will clip before the XPA does. And I'm not sure how one amp can be more "dynamic" then another amp as long they are operating within design limits. I'm not saying that the UPA or XPA is necessarily better than the other but rather somebody might be better served by an XPA if they have less efficient speakers that they like to listen too at loud levels. My Emo 8.3 speakers are not the most efficient. When I play some loud rock or turn up a movie I can get the XPA LED meter to shoot almost to the end...on occasion (I've never maxed it out). With that said I wouldn't even think of replacing them with UPA-1's... Just my opinion...
|
|
|
Post by ossif on Mar 26, 2010 18:09:04 GMT -5
I'm not saying that the UPA or XPA is necessarily better than the other but rather somebody might be better served by an XPA if they have less efficient speakers that they like to listen too at loud levels. My Emo 8.3 speakers are not the most efficient. When I play some loud rock or play movies I can get the XPA LED meter to shoot almost to the end...on occasion. I wouldn't even think of replaing them with UPA-1's... Just my opinion... I fully respect that argument. However the ongoing generalization of the argument more power is better, its bigger, and heavier (so relates to better) is not constructive on advising someone. Otherwise you could argue why a Mark Levinson does sound so much better since some of their amp even have less power than a XPA-2. So again, power is only half of the story. Since the question was related to speakers that are quiet sensitive with 91,5 db/Wm I am persuaded that the UPA-1 is the choice to make. Would the speakers be much less sensitive I would surely have proposed the XPA-2 or even better 2 x XPA-1 but I see absolutely no need for this.
|
|
|
Post by moodyman on Mar 26, 2010 18:37:30 GMT -5
I'm not saying that the UPA or XPA is necessarily better than the other but rather somebody might be better served by an XPA if they have less efficient speakers that they like to listen too at loud levels. My Emo 8.3 speakers are not the most efficient. When I play some loud rock or play movies I can get the XPA LED meter to shoot almost to the end...on occasion. I wouldn't even think of replaing them with UPA-1's... Just my opinion... I fully respect that argument. However the ongoing generalization of the argument more power is better, its bigger, and heavier (so relates to better) is not constructive on advising someone. Otherwise you could argue why a Mark Levinson does sound so much better since some of their amp even have less power than a XPA-2. So again, power is only half of the story. Since the question was related to speakers that are quiet sensitive with 91,5 db/Wm I am persuaded that the UPA-1 is the choice to make. Would the speakers be much less sensitive I would surely have proposed the XPA-2 or even better 2 x XPA-1 but I see absolutely no need for this. I agree 100%.
|
|
|
Post by movietunes on Mar 26, 2010 23:41:38 GMT -5
Harmony at last! What I've learned about this thread is that Ossif in Germany is really passionate about his UPA-1's and they seem to work better for his application and liking. Prost! BTW.. the quote was a joke manipulated from the movie, Meet the Parents, in case someone missed that Common ground here: Everyone loves Emo!
|
|