sorbe
Sensei
"Don't cross the streams..."
Posts: 673
|
Post by sorbe on Nov 1, 2011 20:07:04 GMT -5
I know it's "nearly" pointless given Big Dan's comments about 7 channel amps not selling well, but I believe it's all about whether there is enough wattage (200@8,300@4) and balanced inputs.
Sell an XPA-7 for <$1100 and I would snap up two. Isnt that better value and more money than trying to force me to buy ONE XPA-2 and ONE XPA-5? Actually, I would probably buy 3 XPA-7s if they existed.
Yeah, I know the XPR-7 is also backburnered, but it's about double this price and more watts than I need all around.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,095
|
Post by klinemj on Nov 1, 2011 20:15:10 GMT -5
I prefer having multiple amps, myself...1 or more dedicated to the fronts, and 1 or more dedicated to the rest. So, I don't mind at all they don't have an XPA-7 or that they don't plan on an XPR-7. I currently only have 1 front amp (the XPA-2), but I'd like dual XPA-1's for the extra "oomph" that they offer - and I don't need/want that much for my surrounds and center. Net, to get what I want in power/response from my fronts - I'd be in overkill mode for the rest.
Mark
|
|
sorbe
Sensei
"Don't cross the streams..."
Posts: 673
|
Post by sorbe on Nov 1, 2011 21:28:36 GMT -5
I prefer having multiple amps, myself...1 or more dedicated to the fronts, and 1 or more dedicated to the rest. That's fine, I don't mind buying two large amps to support 11.2 channels. I have room for 8U (maybe 9U) in my AV rack. How can I get 11 channels (All Emotiva) in that space without an 7 channel Amp?? |
|
|
|
Post by jlafrenz on Nov 1, 2011 21:36:35 GMT -5
There was a UPA-7 for quite some time and the LPA-1 (previous model). The UPA-7 didn't seem to sell as well as the others. It seems that the majority of the market went with a single XPA-5 or with dual amps to achieve 7 channel. I understand that your trying to do 11, but as a whole there isn't the market for the 7 channel so it is going to be quite difficult to do what you are looking to do. If you can settle for the U series and pick up an XPA-5 for the main channels then you should be able to do this quite easily.
|
|
sorbe
Sensei
"Don't cross the streams..."
Posts: 673
|
Post by sorbe on Nov 1, 2011 22:15:43 GMT -5
Just point us to the UPA-7 "Add to Cart" or at least "Reserve" button? I can't seem to find them on the UPA-7 page...  Seems like your UMC-1 or the new unannounced replacement preprocessor are just waiting for XPA/XPR or even UPA 7 channels amps... |
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Nov 1, 2011 22:33:21 GMT -5
Someone was very recently selling a brand new, never used, MPS-2 power amp that can have anywhere from 7 to 14 channels of amplification, depending upon which blades you populate the chassis with. This would be a great amp for those wanting to power 11 channels using the width and heighth surrounds.
Just check out the retired gear section of Emo's web site and read some of the numerous reviews that raved about this amp. Sounds like it was made just for you. ;D
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Nov 2, 2011 7:23:14 GMT -5
I know it's "nearly" pointless given Big Dan's comments about 7 channel amps not selling well, but I believe it's all about whether there is enough wattage (200@8,300@4) and balanced inputs. Sell an XPA-7 for <$1100 and I would snap up two. Isnt that better value and more money than trying to force me to buy ONE XPA-2 and ONE XPA-5? Actually, I would probably buy 3 XPA-7s if they existed. Yeah, I know the XPR-7 is also backburnered, but it's about double this price and more watts than I need all around. The XPA-7 was never an option because of technical issues. I believe that was one of the reasons to develop the XPR-7, which was later axed because the UPA-7 didn't sell well. A reasoning I simply have difficulty with to grasp... If you build XPR-5 & XPR-2 anyway, a XPR-7 production wouldn't be silly IMO. Look at car production: manufactors simply use the same platform for as much versions as they can (even small productions as Aston Martin: they really only make one car). BTW: two XPR-7 would be 10RU, more than the 8-9RU you can do anyway. You getting a XPA-2 and two XPA-5 wouldn't be the economical choice either. Use a UPA-1 for the center and a XPA-5 for each leg (main/height/wide/surround/back). The L+R speakers would have a great deal of the power supply for them selves. That would be 10RU, still one or two more than you can handle. Other option would be to find a used UPA-7, of which you would use 6 channels to power height/surround/back (this will do) and get a XPA-5 for LCR+wides. I would do it this way instead of using the XPA-5 for the surrounds because the XPA series is superior for channel separation, so I would group the surrounds and back surrounds to the UPA-7 (the height content is way more silent anyway). That would be 8RU. Problem solved. Show gratitude and donate to a good cause of your choice, like children with hearing disabilities? ;D |
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
Post by jamrock on Nov 2, 2011 16:50:56 GMT -5
Emo made a very bad marketing decision with the UPA-7. This amp was designed to replace the common 7.1 receiver. But it did not offer much in terms of brute force. It was under powered at 125 wpc. So, neither audiophiles nor receiver owners had much interest in it, despite that it was a well made amp, possibly, one of their best made.
I know that I'm going to draw the ire of many on this forum. But 5.1 is a lost cause. There is no highend or mid-fi pre/pro or receiver of the past 2 years, made for the regular market that are 5.1. Yes, I know that 7.1 discrete materials are not readily available as 5.1 are. But I believe that the trend is towards 7.1 discrete. Anymore channels above that for the near future are matrixed. 7.1 will eventually be the defacto standard, and not too long hence. Wake up Emo! Trying to cater to audiophiles alone will leave you in a nitch market at best.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,095
|
Post by klinemj on Nov 2, 2011 21:29:32 GMT -5
I agree that 5.1 is a lost cause...irrespective of whether there are source materials out there or not, the big box stores stuff is all 7.1 So, the common consumer thinks 7.1 is a must once they get in the market. And, once 9.x, 11.x, 15.x, and hell...39.x is common, the common consumer won't be able to accept less (whether it makes any difference in sound or whether source material is there or not). After all, how can they possibly say their 24.9 system is even remotely as good as their neighbor's 39.15? It simply would not do! (Tongue firmly in cheek here...) But, I still would not want a 39 channel amp unless it had one massive power supply! You know - a flux-capacitor of some sort. And, we all know, the big box stores would sell amps with the smallest flux capacitor made but would off 39 channels.  |
|
|
|
Post by jlafrenz on Nov 2, 2011 21:39:45 GMT -5
Emo made a very bad marketing decision with the UPA-7. This amp was designed to replace the common 7.1 receiver. But it did not offer much in terms of brute force. It was under powered at 125 wpc. So, neither audiophiles nor receiver owners had much interest in it, despite that it was a well made amp, possibly, one of their best made. I know that I'm going to draw the ire of many on this forum. But 5.1 is a lost cause. There is no highend or mid-fi pre/pro or receiver of the past 2 years, made for the regular market that are 5.1. Yes, I know that 7.1 discrete materials are not readily available as 5.1 are. But I believe that the trend is towards 7.1 discrete. Anymore channels above that for the near future are matrixed. 7.1 will eventually be the defacto standard, and not too long hence. Wake up Emo! Trying to cater to audiophiles alone will leave you in a nitch market at best. I think that the U series is quite under rated. I don't think that I would consider them under powered at all. They are more than capable amps and would do the job for the majority of the systems out there. My best guess why it isn't popular is because an increase in power didn't require a huge increase in price for the consumer. We often associate bigger (more power) as better. I can't say I have never fallen victim of this as I own 2 XPA-5's ;D |
|
choirbass
Sensei
Sierra-2 DC-1 UMC-1 UPA-7
Posts: 124
|
Post by choirbass on Nov 2, 2011 22:26:59 GMT -5
A common thought, is that it just wasn't marketed as expensive enough to be taken as serious as it deserved, and was definitely underrated as well. It was expensive enough for me, imo.. but I'm not the target market either it seems. Those who have money will be able to spend it, and they'll try not to sell themselves short if they can.. unless they don't care much about 'real' performance, which case they're likely to overlook something like the upa-7 anyhow, because it's just not worth it compared to the technically inferior and more expensively priced option. Emo could've 'lied' and stretched the truth as most companies do in one way or another. I'm thankful that they don't.
Awhile back someone had mentioned on youtube how he didn't believe it was worth it. I'm paraphrasing since I don't remember exactly what was said, but the above reasons do explain more why he would even think that to begin with.
|
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on Nov 2, 2011 23:00:20 GMT -5
I prefer having multiple amps, myself...1 or more dedicated to the fronts, and 1 or more dedicated to the rest. That's fine, I don't mind buying two large amps to support 11.2 channels. I have room for 8U (maybe 9U) in my AV rack. How can I get 11 channels (All Emotiva) in that space without an 7 channel Amp?? : A) One 5-channel amp, plus three 2-channel amps. B) One 5-channel amp, plus two 3-channel amps.C) All monoblock amps (11 of them). D) Six monoblocks, plus one 5-channel amp. E) Two 5-channel amps, plus one monoblock (Center channel).* F) One 5-channel amp, one 3-channel amp, and three monoblocks. G) One 5-channel amp, two 2-channel amps, and two monoblocks. H) One 5-channel amp, one 2-channel amp, and four monoblocks. I) One 5-channel amp, one 3-channel amp, one 2-channel amp, and one monoblock. J) K) L) ... * E is nice. |
|
sorbe
Sensei
"Don't cross the streams..."
Posts: 673
|
Post by sorbe on Nov 3, 2011 3:07:05 GMT -5
I'm going go for the XPA-5(new) + UPA-7(used) option to get 11+ emotiva AMP channels into my rack.
"New XPA5 Used UPA7"
Emotiva XPA-5 $899.00
Emotiva UPA-7 $550.00
(Thanks jlafrenz && Erwin.BE for the suggestion)
|
|
jordo
Emo VIPs
Posts: 176
|
Post by jordo on Nov 3, 2011 8:30:01 GMT -5
I think Emotiva shot their own foot with the UPA-7. Lets face it, when I can buy an XPA-2 and XPA-5 for $1600 at sale time, why would I settle for a lower powered 7 channel amp?? Look at Outlaw audio, they have a 7x300W balanced amp, I would buy that thing in a heartbeat if Outlaws gear wasn't so ugly. I have no doubt Emo will sell an XPR-7 like crazy.
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Nov 3, 2011 8:30:32 GMT -5
Emo made a very bad marketing decision with the UPA-7. This amp was designed to replace the common 7.1 receiver. But it did not offer much in terms of brute force. It was under powered at 125 wpc. So, neither audiophiles nor receiver owners had much interest in it, despite that it was a well made amp, possibly, one of their best made. Agreed! I'd say it was not underpowered, but percieved as such in comparison to the XPA series. And it didn't seemed such a substantial upgrade vs the AVR's tipical internal amp power. Even though the real power of that avarage AVR was only half what they claimed. |
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Nov 3, 2011 8:35:01 GMT -5
I'm going go for the XPA-5(new) + UPA-7(used) option to get 11+ emotiva AMP channels into my rack. "New XPA5 Used UPA7" Emotiva XPA-5 $899.00 Emotiva UPA-7 $550.00 (Thanks jlafrenz && Erwin.BE for the suggestion)You're welcome and... Good move! Don't worry about the 125 Watt per UPA-7 channel. This will be plenty for the material the surrounds and the heights have to handle. I checked the power supply of the UPA-7: it's 850 VA! For only 6 channels you will use, this means, in theory, almost 150 VA per channel vs 240 VA in the XPA-5 (1,200 VA total). Not bad at all! I bet the Denon 4311 has to do with 750 VA or less for 11 channels... In the top-dog Yamaha AVR (ZX11 or what's it called) there are 11 amps. 7 are 140 Watt, the other (for "presence" purposes) are only 50 watt. The Yamaha presence "front" and "back" are comparible with heights. |
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Nov 3, 2011 9:56:20 GMT -5
I'm going go for the XPA-5(new) + UPA-7(used) option to get 11+ emotiva AMP channels into my rack. "New XPA5 Used UPA7" Emotiva XPA-5 $899.00 Emotiva UPA-7 $550.00 (Thanks jlafrenz && Erwin.BE for the suggestion)As an alternative, you could accomplish the same thing in a single chassis by purchasing an used MPS-2. Each channel is a complete monoblock amp on a "blade" that slides into one of 7 slots in the chassis. The blades come in two configurations... the monoblock per card and a 2-channel amp per card. This allows you to configure the amp having from 1 to 14 channels depending on which amp cards you choose to populate the chassis with. |
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on Nov 3, 2011 15:48:05 GMT -5
Erwin, the Yamaha RX-Z11 (eleven powered channel amps) has a single 1 kVA (1,000VA) EI core transformer. * It sounded excellent for the short time that I had it. |
|
Black Sabbath
Sensei
Still going y'all. It' been a little tough.
Posts: 120
|
Post by Black Sabbath on Nov 3, 2011 15:54:42 GMT -5
So what happend to it?
|
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on Nov 3, 2011 15:58:32 GMT -5
Sold it for a $900 profit. |
|
