|
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 17:13:23 GMT -5
Post by larryfdx on May 4, 2012 17:13:23 GMT -5
They retired the UPA-1 without any warning? Wow. I have 2 AVRs and the lesser of the two, the Onkyo TX SR504, can equal the performance of the UPA-500, so I wouldn't be interested in it. Perhaps they'll have a 2 channel that can do better. It's been on clearance for several months.... this indicates it is coming to end of life. So, no surprises. We're sold out of the old model. As I mentioned, there are replacements in the works, so no one is being left out in the cold. As to the UPA-500's power capabilities being equal to your Onkyo, SR504, let's give them a run shall we?? I know that amp quite well and the UPA-500 will easily outperform it. Not knocking Onkyo at all, just stating a fact... and you'll be able to touch it all the while without burning your hand.  Just messing with you a little! Just ignore the haters Dan and keep up the good work! |
|
|
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 17:46:03 GMT -5
Post by monkumonku on May 4, 2012 17:46:03 GMT -5
They retired the UPA-1 without any warning? Wow. I have 2 AVRs and the lesser of the two, the Onkyo TX SR504, can equal the performance of the UPA-500, so I wouldn't be interested in it. Perhaps they'll have a 2 channel that can do better. It's been on clearance for several months.... this indicates it is coming to end of life. So, no surprises. We're sold out of the old model. As I mentioned, there are replacements in the works, so no one is being left out in the cold. As to the UPA-500's power capabilities being equal to your Onkyo, SR504, let's give them a run shall we?? I know that amp quite well and the UPA-500 will easily outperform it. Not knocking Onkyo at all, just stating a fact... and you'll be able to touch it all the while without burning your hand. Just messing with you a little! Yeah but just try and fry eggs on a UPA-500. Sorry, but Onkyo is still better. |
|
|
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 17:48:48 GMT -5
Post by sharkman on May 4, 2012 17:48:48 GMT -5
As to the UPA-500's power capabilities being equal to your Onkyo, SR504, let's give them a run shall we?? I know that amp quite well and the UPA-500 will easily outperform it. Not knocking Onkyo at all, just stating a fact... and you'll be able to touch it all the while without burning your hand. Just messing with you a little! The Onkyo TX SR504 is a receiver that is from 6 years ago. Are you sure that's what you're referring too? How is it that you "know that amp quite well"? At any rate I was referring to watts output only, I suspect the UPA-500 might have better dynamics, but then I paid about 180 for the Onkyo, it has 7 channels and doesn't need a pre-pro, so apples and oranges perhaps. |
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs 
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 17:50:43 GMT -5
Post by jamrock on May 4, 2012 17:50:43 GMT -5
You know it's a coming.... XPA-7.... 7x200 RMS, all channels driven. Soon. 4RU tall. Sweet. Goodnite! Big Dan I love you man ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D. Much thanks, and enjoy the show in Germany  |
|
|
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 17:54:38 GMT -5
Post by garbulky on May 4, 2012 17:54:38 GMT -5
Oh wait, I realized I didn't read something that made me change my mind almost completely. He mentioned the XPA-200 which I assume is the new UPA-2. Please disregard what I said. My main concern was that the U-series was being downgraded and we won't have the amazing performance we used to have. But now I see that it is simply being rebadged as the little sibling of the X-series. The naming scheme now makes sense to me. The XPA-100 and XPA-200 being the smaller XPA-1's and XPA-2. The U-series are now having basically a total rebranding and it's reflected in the naming scheme. They won't be as good but they'll be cheaper. And even if the prices go up a little (I'm assuming), at least we are going to have what we were used to having in the XPA-100 and XPA-200. No problems here. |
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 17:57:27 GMT -5
Post by jamrock on May 4, 2012 17:57:27 GMT -5
You are so slow. But even the turtle did cross the finish line. Welcome and well done ;D
|
|
|
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 17:57:56 GMT -5
Post by sharkman on May 4, 2012 17:57:56 GMT -5
Sorry, I see what Dan is trying to say but I'm not buying it. I'm just seeing compromise on an older better spec'd model at this point. FWIW I thought the mini-x was well advertised with almost zero spin. Advertised for what it was and it did a good job at what it was too. As for the UPA-1, I'm glad it's coming back, but not so glad that it's probably going to cost more now. Hopefully the upgrade is worth it. Big dan, I don't know if you are a sensitive person, and I can imagine your feelings may get hurt at my naysaying. I just want to say, you were able to bring some serious quality to the table before, and I'm thoroughly enjoying your UPA-2 and XDA-1, and so I have to give you a whole lot of respect for bringing affordability to the table. I'm also keeping in mind your, no doubt, stunning XPR amps and the fact that it's hard to provide 5 powerful channels of amplification for $400 and a decent profit. And I suppose this is probably close to the best that can be done in today's market. I think it was the hype vs reality that let me down. Thanks for posting. I'm kind of with you on this one. A multi channel amp that puts out 80 watts per channel with all channels driven is in receiver territory, not amp territory. What's the point of replacing a receiver with an amp that doesn't have more power? |
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 18:04:26 GMT -5
Post by jamrock on May 4, 2012 18:04:26 GMT -5
But excuse me Mr Sharkman; Weren't you one of those who argued that we did not need a powerful 7 channel amp (more than 140 wpc) in that thread that I begged and argued for a 7 channel amp that is of at least 200 wpc. If I'm wrong (and I'll do my research), I sincerely beg your gracious apology.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,487
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 18:06:37 GMT -5
Post by DYohn on May 4, 2012 18:06:37 GMT -5
What's the point of replacing a receiver with an amp that doesn't have more power? Oh I don't know... better overall sound quality perhaps? It's not all about power... and I'd be willing to bet that a separate amp's ratings would be truthful and repeatable, while most receiver's ratings are true if it happens to be struck by lightning during the test... |
|
|
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 18:07:10 GMT -5
Post by garbulky on May 4, 2012 18:07:10 GMT -5
jamrock But this isn't 140 wpc all driven.
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 18:10:25 GMT -5
Post by jamrock on May 4, 2012 18:10:25 GMT -5
jamrock But this isn't 140 wpc all driven. How much real power can you buy for $399.00  If the UPA-500 is not righjt for you. Then get an XPA-5  |
|
Pauly
Emo VIPs
Posts: 5,237
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 18:16:09 GMT -5
Post by Pauly on May 4, 2012 18:16:09 GMT -5
No, it really isn't all about power. Some of the best sounding SS amps that I've ever heard are in the 20-75 watt range, and that will easily power most speakers to uncomfortable levels. Sure, sometimes you might need more but most people will be just fine.
|
|
|
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 18:18:03 GMT -5
Post by garbulky on May 4, 2012 18:18:03 GMT -5
Sorry, I see what Dan is trying to say but I'm not buying it. I'm just seeing compromise on an older better spec'd model at this point. FWIW I thought the mini-x was well advertised with almost zero spin. Advertised for what it was and it did a good job at what it was too. As for the UPA-1, I'm glad it's coming back, but not so glad that it's probably going to cost more now. Hopefully the upgrade is worth it. Big dan, I don't know if you are a sensitive person, and I can imagine your feelings may get hurt at my naysaying. I just want to say, you were able to bring some serious quality to the table before, and I'm thoroughly enjoying your UPA-2 and XDA-1, and so I have to give you a whole lot of respect for bringing affordability to the table. I'm also keeping in mind your, no doubt, stunning XPR amps and the fact that it's hard to provide 5 powerful channels of amplification for $400 and a decent profit. And I suppose this is probably close to the best that can be done in today's market. I think it was the hype vs reality that let me down. Thanks for posting. I'm kind of with you on this one. A multi channel amp that puts out 80 watts per channel with all channels driven is in receiver territory, not amp territory. What's the point of replacing a receiver with an amp that doesn't have more power? I can see that too. I still think labelling it the mini-500 or something makes more sense. But I think nobody will pay $400 for something called "mini". This is aimed at the newbie market. Those who are simply looking for a receiver, and that's pretty much it. They don't have one, and they want their speakers to work. The price isn't VERY dear, the specs are not amazing, but it is 5 channels and should sound decent within its limits. What I don't understand is, if it's aimed at the newbie budget market, then why would they buy this one, when they then have to buy a reciever to do the volume control anyway. It makes sense to include a volume control on the new u-series units. That would make these units a really good deal. |
|
|
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 18:20:46 GMT -5
Post by sharkman on May 4, 2012 18:20:46 GMT -5
What's the point of replacing a receiver with an amp that doesn't have more power? Oh I don't know... better overall sound quality perhaps? It's not all about power... and I'd be willing to bet that a separate amp's ratings would be truthful and repeatable, while most receiver's ratings are true if it happens to be struck by lightning during the test... Right here, www.hometheater.com/content/canton-movie-cd-201-speaker-system-and-onkyo-tx-sr504-av-receiver-ht-labs-measures-onkyo, a bench test of that onkyo showed it to achieve 71 watts per channel(with THD of .1%) when all 7 channels were driven. More with 5 channels driven. Meanwhile, the specs listed of the UPA-500 include measurements at 1 watt, not full power, or a range of real world usage. An audio enthusiast who is looking to move up to separates in his home theater will look at the wpc and say to himself, "My current receiver does 80 watts, I'll try the XPA-5 instead." |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,487
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 18:24:02 GMT -5
Post by DYohn on May 4, 2012 18:24:02 GMT -5
Let's wait for the complete specs of the UPA-500 before we cast aspersions, shall we?
|
|
|
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 18:30:05 GMT -5
Post by sharkman on May 4, 2012 18:30:05 GMT -5
No comment on the outstanding performance of the budget level Onkyo 504, eh? Didn't think so.
|
|
Pauly
Emo VIPs
Posts: 5,237
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 18:32:08 GMT -5
Post by Pauly on May 4, 2012 18:32:08 GMT -5
There's still plenty of people buying the Outlaw 7075 at 75 watts per channel. Now there's an even cheaper option from Emo in the UPA-500 with 5 more watts per channel into 8 ohms (equal at 4 ohms) and 300 bucks less. Pretty smart on Emo's part if you ask me.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,487
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 18:33:30 GMT -5
Post by DYohn on May 4, 2012 18:33:30 GMT -5
No, it really isn't all about power. Some of the best sounding SS amps that I've ever heard are in the 20-75 watt range, and that will easily power most speakers to uncomfortable levels. Sure, sometimes you might need more but most people will be just fine. Exactly. BTW the best sounding amplifier I own is rated at 8 watts per channel. |
|
|
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 18:34:07 GMT -5
Post by sharkman on May 4, 2012 18:34:07 GMT -5
But excuse me Mr Sharkman; Weren't you one of those who argued that we did not need a powerful 7 channel amp (more than 140 wpc) in that thread that I begged and argued for a 7 channel amp that is of at least 200 wpc. If I'm wrong (and I'll do my research), I sincerely beg your gracious apology. Uh, no, your recollection is wrong. I said that an Emo model of 140 x 7 would not sell due to the Emotiva business model and current amp line up, as well as customer expectations. I forgive you. I don't think this new UPA line will last any longer than the previous one, but talk is cheap, and I'm not putting my money on the line as Emotiva is. And then on the other hand, it looks like Emotiva agrees with the idea of 140 x 7 not working, since their next 7 channel amp will be 200 wpc by the sound of it. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,487
|
UPA-500
May 4, 2012 18:34:21 GMT -5
Post by DYohn on May 4, 2012 18:34:21 GMT -5
No comment on the outstanding performance of the budget level Onkyo 504, eh? Didn't think so. You want a comment about Onkyo from me? No, you really don't since it would be nothing good. |
|
