|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 14, 2012 23:09:34 GMT -5
I have been eagerly awaiting these new arrivals. This is the upgrade to the UPA-2 and 1! But comparing the two have been a mixed bag. The main thing that stands out to me is their SNR ratings @ 1 watt. As most listening is done at only a few watts. This rating is important to me. Taking the best 4ohm SNR figures @ 1 watt on the AP charts: (XPA-200)@82dbsnr<(UPA-2) 92 db SNR < (UPA-200)@ 95 db SNRI see a big difference between the UPA-200 and XPA-200 here. Looking at the XPA-100 @ 4 ohms @ 1 watt SNR Figures: XPA-100 (80db! SNR) < UPA-1 (87db SNR) < UPA-200 (95db SNR)So in SNR @ 1 watt the new upa series appears to outperform the XPA-100 and 200 by a significant margin. With the monoblock XPA-100 actually performing worse than the XPA-200 even. However the XPA-200 is $500 while the UPA-200 is $350. Also the capacitance on the XPA-200 may be in error. It is rated @ 90,000 uF while the much beefier XPA-2 is rated @ 45,000 uf and the xpa-5 is rated @ 60,000 uf so I have to assume the xpa-200 isn't really running @ 90,000 uF. EDIT: I looked at the UPA-700 SNR figures. The website states >97db @ 1 watt and >116db full power. BUT according to the AP statistics at 4 ohms. SNR @ 1 watt is between 50db!!!  to 84 dbSNR
SNR @ full power is 70 db to 104 db with only 1 channel acheiving 104 db and 5 of the channels managing between 70 and low 80 db SNR. The 8 ohm results are similar. One thing to note here is that the other channels SNR's are all over the place which leads me to wonder if this test was setup correctly. Hopefully these are errors in measurements or typos as everything else looks pretty good. Some non-issues: 1. The rated max power on the XPA-200 chassis is 450 watts max but the rated power of the amplifier from AP tests is 490 watts output. Maybe the back plate is in error. 2. They've advertised THD+N @ <1% THD which is worse than what the amps actually do (0.03% THD+N). Changing it to more accurately reflect the amps good performance would be good advertising for emo. Anyway, the positives are... the upa-2 with its two amp modules is back! It has XLR's! It appears to have the upgraded RCA inputs! 29 db Gain! And performs a little better in wattage! [/b] |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Ranger on Sept 15, 2012 0:00:11 GMT -5
I've finally had a chance to check out these two new amps. I, too, was very excited to see their early release. I was also dead-set on buying the XPA-200 before I heard about the XPA-1L. However, I was still curious about the specs on these two new arrivals and how they'd compared to the original UPA series. At this time, I've got the same question marks as garbulky. I remember when the UPA-200 was released we had a similar discussion about the SNR specs. The amp was retested and the page was updated. However, the AP results have been released for these new amps and appear to confirm the specifications on the product page. SNR figures are not the only elements for amplifier performance, but I think we all agree that they give some baseline for a direct and objective comparison. Capacitance: I'm pretty sure the XPA-200 should be 60,000 uF and not 90,000. I count 6 caps, same as the XPA-100. Emotiva seems to use 10,000 uF caps for these kinds of amps. It's also unlikely to be 90,000 since the XPA-2 is only 45,000 (mentioned already). If it is indeed 90,000 uF, I suppose it could be 6 x 15,000 uF caps. The UPA-2 had 40,000 uF according to the manual. SNR: Well, garbulky covered this pretty well already so I won't repeat it. It's just of great curiosity to me why the numbers are lower than expected. Perhaps we're just used to higher numbers. I also agree on the other two "non-issue" points raised in the first post. I am not bashing Emotiva here, it's just surprising. We do get a wattage/capacitance boost, plus XLR inputs and upgraded RCAs... EDIT: I remember Emo saying that the old UPA series was actually under-priced. Perhaps these new prices more accurately reflect the raw materials and manufacturing process required to build these amps. Then I guess the only question mark remaining is the SNR figures compared to their other amps. EDIT #2: Oh, I noticed upgraded binding posts. Sweet. I pulled up images of the old UPA-1/2 and compared it with the XPA-100/200 posts. The new amps use the higher-quality binding posts. Also, the bal/unbal switch is a metal toggle instead of a plastic slide switch. Thanks Emotiva.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2012 0:18:33 GMT -5
As your posts and my experience indicates, Emotiva is very sloppy on their written published specifications. I have let them know several times in the past including my posts regarding the amp power and THD specs for the UPA-500 amp. Now, the specs on the UPA-700 show 80 and 100 watts versus the 80 and the inflated 120 watts for the UPA-500. Also look at the high 0.35% average THD on the UPA-500 at 4 ohms, 16 times higher than that of the 8 ohms rating. (The THD on the UPA-700 at 4 ohms is much more reasonable). How they post their power specs is not consistent from one model to another in the same series, etc.
I think the main problem is that Emo doesn't seem to either understand clearly or care how major brands have specified high quality separate amp power and THD ratings for many decades. Many high end folks pay close attention to amp specs, and alarm bells go off if 4 ohm THD is very high or there is no 4 ohm amps rating at all. Marantz and others have started to play games and fudge on their lower priced amps. That doesn't mean Emotiva should do the same. Their many errors in proof reading and lack of attention to detail in their specifications is embarrassing to some of us nuts.
|
|
ikarit
Seeker Of Truth
Posts: 8
|
Post by ikarit on Sept 15, 2012 0:30:05 GMT -5
And what about the transformer size? I miss that information about XPA-100.
So far I think that the UPA-1 is better...
Capacitance:
- UPA-1 - 80.000
- XPA-100 - 60.000
Double the power in 4 ohms:
- UPA-1 - 200 x 8 / 350 x 4 = 75%
- XPA-100 - 225 x 8 / 360 x 4 = 60%
I didn't save the tests with UPA-1. If somebody have, post it here please so we can compare.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Ranger on Sept 15, 2012 1:09:29 GMT -5
@ Chuckie, Great post. I fully agree, but as they say, nobody is perfect.  And what about the transformer size? I miss that information about XPA-100. Good point, I was wondering that myself. So far I think that the UPA-1 is better... I disagree...there are improvements with these two models. Right now, I think the only issues center on inconsistencies and typos. I will be highly surprised if the posted SNR numbers are accurate and final. I didn't save the tests with UPA-1. If somebody have, post it here please so we can compare. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 15, 2012 1:34:42 GMT -5
Ikarit: yes I noticed that there was no mention of transformer rating either. Hopefully emotiva will provide us with some later.
Chuckie: +1. It's not like this kind of thing is a first with emo. They have to step it up in proof checking and attention to detail on their spec page when they release their products. It's a launch of a new product and I think that needs some attention to detail. The company is internet direct so there's people like you and me that pour over this stuff to figure out what's the best product to purchase. Only thing I can think of is that this is a very busy time for emotiva so there's bound to be oversights etc.
Dark Ranger: I agree the caps is probably a mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 15, 2012 1:52:15 GMT -5
I updated the original post but here it is: Okay I looked at the UPA-700 SNR figures. The website states SNR >97db @ 1 watt and >116db full power. BUT according to the AP statistics at 4 ohms. SNR @ 1 watt is between 50db! to 84 dbSNR
SNR @ full power is 70 db to 104 db with only 1 channel acheiving 104 db and 5 of the channels managing between 70 and low 80 db SNR.
The 8 ohm results are similar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2012 2:34:14 GMT -5
@ Chuckie, Great post. I fully agree, but as they say, nobody is perfect. Yes, Dark Ranger, nobody is perfect except for Salma Hayek. However, Emotiva is by far the best HT/Audio firm I have dealt with since 1969, when I bought my first set of gear. I have spread the good word by mouth and posts about their excellent products, customer service, 5 yr guarantee and amazing factory direct prices. I only wish they would be more careful with the printed material. |
|
|
|
Post by enginerd87 on Sept 15, 2012 8:28:36 GMT -5
I also was taken back by how low the SNR numbers were. Maybe the measurements were not taken correctly? I do remember when the UPA-200 came out, it too had a pretty poor SNR. Dan ended up throwing it back on the test bench after a thread similar to this one and came back with much more respectable numbers. I hope the situation is similar here. I would not expect Emotiva to put out a poor quality product, but the SNR of these new amps does not give me warm fuzzies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Laufman on Sept 15, 2012 14:12:30 GMT -5
Hi guys,
Sorry to say that I've read your posts and noticed a couple of typo's on the spec's. My bad.
I was pushing the team to get the units on the site on Friday afternoon, and frankly we should have taken an extra minute or two to make sure the detailed spec's we're 110% correct when transcribed.
We'll get everything up to snuff on Monday morning.
As you all know, these models are excellent performers. The big difference in the X and the Ultra series is that the X Series use the classic X Series gain block with balanced and unbalanced inputs, premium hardware, and of course, beefed up power supplies!!
Cheers,
Big Dan
|
|
|
|
Post by danny01 on Sept 15, 2012 17:05:49 GMT -5
+1. Those two specs were exactly what led me to choosing UPA-1's over the XPA-2. As it is now, it looks like I may not be jumping on the XPA-100's as I originally thought I would. I love my UPA-1's, and feel very lucky to have them.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Ranger on Sept 15, 2012 17:15:57 GMT -5
I'd recommend letting the Emotiva crew update the product specs before making your final decision.  Nevertheless, these are nice amps for someone looking to jump onto the mono-block bandwagon without forking over both kidneys. I look forward to the reviews on these two products. |
|
ikarit
Seeker Of Truth
Posts: 8
|
Post by ikarit on Sept 15, 2012 18:56:30 GMT -5
Thanks for the sites, Dark Ranger! Come on Dan, you posted here and didn't say the transformer size?! |
|
|
|
Post by rocky500 on Sept 15, 2012 21:44:40 GMT -5
Thanks Dan for posting on the weekend.
One thing while you are modifying the specs could it be possible that the page is made to show all the amps on 1 page instead of having a page 2?
|
|
|
|
Post by wrinklemash on Sept 16, 2012 0:00:56 GMT -5
Sorry, I can't let the Emotiva Team off the hook just yet. With the acknowledged typos (it takes a BIG person to admit a mistake - thanks Big Dan) and accepted price increases in mind, other than the "x" on the front and the nicer connectors, I am having trouble trying to figure out how the XPA-100 & XPA-200 are actually better than the UPA-1 and UPA-2? I need both objective and some subjective input. All we have is the objective as this product is so new, there is no way to have subjective input. Unfortunately, the objective argument is not looking too good.  Along with the SNR, lack of transformer spec, etc., my eye was drawn to the secondary capacitance difference between the XPA-100 (60,000uF) and the UPA-1 (80,000uF). My impression has always been that more storage capacitance the better. Some liberties are often taken in listing what it is the true operating capacitance per the way the capacitors are wired. But when I examine the "guts" photographs of the XPA-100 vs the UPA-1, the XPA-100 has four caps (presumably 15,000uF each) and the UPA-1 has eight (presumably 10,000uF each). Does the XPA-100 have a true, operating 60,000uF which makes it better than the UPA-1? Or did the UPA-1 have a true 80,000uF? Again, how is the XPA-100 better? Am I off base, confused or ill informed? Okay, so Big Dan appreciably writes in the post above, "X Series gain block with balanced and unbalanced inputs, premium hardware, and of course, beefed up power supplies." He also stated at Emofest that the XPA 100 & 200 are the UPA 1 & 2 " on steroids". "On steroids" does imply better, doesn't it?  With regards to the UPA-1, I thought that is exactly what it was anyway.  The old online ad copy posted above states "The UPA-1 features a 300VA toroidal and one of our 'X' series power modules, supplying 200 continuous watts into 8ohms, and 350 watts into 4ohms. Extremely low output impedance, 80,000 uF of power supply capacitance, and uncompressed dynamic reserve make this amplifier truly exceptional." (spelling errors corrected - sound familiar???) So my initial impression is still this, the XPA-100 looks like the UPA-1, it costs more, it is not spec'd as completely as the UPA-1, it may not test as well as the UPA-1 (likely to be retested), and the one thing we do for sure is it has nicer jewelry. ;D ;D SORRY, I AM NOT SOLD.Again, HOW ARE THE XPA-100 & 200 BETTER THAN THE UPA-1 & 2???!!! There is a second hand market ya know. The " they are new and Emotiva is awesome so they will sound better" argument does not cut it with me at this point. The " I have used and compared them and "the new ones do sound better" argument might as the units are purchased, used and feedback and buzz are generated. Having been a Emotiva owner and willing word of mouth promoter of their products, I hope I am wrong. Emotiva is a good company - one I'd like to do more business with! I also think it is a company that I guess I have a tacit "good faith" contract with - I'd like them to be as honest with me, a customer, as I am in my praise about their products that I own. Please Team Emotiva, keep me looking honest. However, I am not going apologize for them, and like any other company that wants my hard earned clams for a new product, Emotiva better expect me to research and compare it their competitors, and to the the Emotiva product it replaces, especially when they claim the new product is better. Other than the pretty connections, HOW ARE THE XPA-100 AND XPA-200 BETTER THAN THE UPA-1 & 2?
one word synopsis for the product introduction - Zuckerberged |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 16, 2012 0:43:58 GMT -5
Wrinklemash: it looks like the specs were incorrect on the amps you mentioned. They've said they would work on it on monday. If you have a UPA-1, then I think the XPA-1 L would be what you would want to look for for a significant upgrade which is fully balanced with 30 watts of class A. Now that's impressive!
|
|
|
|
Post by wrinklemash on Sept 16, 2012 1:25:20 GMT -5
Wrinklemash: it looks like the specs were incorrect on the amps you mentioned. They've said they would work on it on monday. If you have a UPA-1, then I think the XPA-1 L would be what you would want to look for for a significant upgrade which is fully balanced with 30 watts of class A. Now that's impressive! I hope the "real" specs are a lot better than posted! I don't have any UPA-1s. And yes, I'd prefer the XPA-1L's - but they are a bit more $$$ than I want to commit. $449 per mono-block is much more palatable than $699. I was just waiting for the "new and improved" UPA-1s, realizing and fully accepting the the extra cost. My post above is intended to hold the salesman, BIG DAN, to his claims. Sorry, but I live close to Missouri not to think "show me".
HOW ARE THEY BETTER? At this point, we really don't have a lot of evidence suggesting that they are better, do we? By not getting the introduction right, the company has moved me from an "early adopter" to a guarded "wait and see" consumer. I know Big Dan knows about the time value of money. Its usually better to have money now than later. What's worse for the Emotiva Team, is this has probably happened for no good, tangible reason - just pure sloppiness. The XPA-100 is probably better than the UPA-1. But as of yet, I cannot see how and I am not the only one. I mean, I attended Emofest, talked to Big Dan, Lonnie, Nick, Vincent and others, discussing the XPA-1L and XPA-100 virtues, etc. The " on steroids" comment stuck. Had decided on the XPA-100s, was going to order three this weekend, and then started reading the (presumably incorrect) specifications. then dug further, then found this thread. Kinda disappointing.  Now venting. Also, about the Class A stuff, has anyone asked to what point are the XPA-100 and XPA-200Class A? They do (there is a badly bruised dead horse somewhere) share parts from the other "x" series amps and all are class A/B. Therefore they should run in class A up to some wattage. With high efficiency speakers, that Class A to 30w in the XPA-1L is not that critical to me. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 16, 2012 2:16:00 GMT -5
Wrinklemash: it looks like the specs were incorrect on the amps you mentioned. They've said they would work on it on monday. If you have a UPA-1, then I think the XPA-1 L would be what you would want to look for for a significant upgrade which is fully balanced with 30 watts of class A. Now that's impressive! I hope the "real" specs are a lot better than posted! I don't have any UPA-1s. And yes, I'd prefer the XPA-1L's - but they are a bit more $$$ than I want to commit. $449 per mono-block is much more palatable than $699. I was just waiting for the "new and improved" UPA-1s, realizing and fully accepting the the extra cost. My post above is intended to hold the salesman, BIG DAN, to his claims. Sorry, but I live close to Missouri not to think "show me".
HOW ARE THEY BETTER? At this point, we really don't have a lot of evidence suggesting that they are better, do we? By not getting the introduction right, the company has moved me from an "early adopter" to a guarded "wait and see" consumer. I know Big Dan knows about the time value of money. Its usually better to have money now than later. What's worse for the Emotiva Team, is this has probably happened for no good, tangible reason - just pure sloppiness. The XPA-100 is probably better than the UPA-1. But as of yet, I cannot see how and I am not the only one. I mean, I attended Emofest, talked to Big Dan, Lonnie, Nick, Vincent and others, discussing the XPA-1L and XPA-100 virtues, etc. The " on steroids" comment stuck. Had decided on the XPA-100s, was going to order three this weekend, and then started reading the (presumably incorrect) specifications. then dug further, then found this thread. Kinda disappointing. Now venting. Also, about the Class A stuff, has anyone asked to what point are the XPA-100 and XPA-200Class A? They do (there is a badly bruised dead horse somewhere) share parts from the other "x" series amps and all are class A/B. Therefore they should run in class A up to some wattage. With high efficiency speakers, that Class A to 30w in the XPA-1L is not that critical to me. Sorry about your frustration. It sucks that you are getting ready to drop cash and then you are hit with a surprise. I would wait till monday, it's not like they will ship it before that anyway because they are closed. The XPA-2 if I recall correctly was 5 watts class A (maybe?), the xpa-1 is 10 watts class A. XPA-1L is 30 watts class A. I assume the xpa-100 is maybe a watt or less. But that is pure speculation on my part and I have no proof to back that up. As to class A, I guess it depends on how efficient the speakers are. Even though most listening is done at a watt or few, dynamics can demand substantially more. Two XPA-1 L's give you 60 watts of class A which on decently efficient speakers will keep you in class A more of the time. I have the UPA-2 and I really like it. I ran into an issue (and I'm picky) with sound quality at moderate to loud dynamics which have been tamed since I added an attenuator. I still don't know if it was the high gain of the amp or the line output of my xda-1. Either way, the new xpa series are 29 db gain which is less than what it used to be. |
|
|
|
Post by wrinklemash on Sept 16, 2012 3:06:11 GMT -5
Sorry about your frustration. It sucks that you are getting ready to drop cash and then you are hit with a surprise. I would wait till monday, it's not like they will ship it before that anyway because they are closed. The XPA-2 if I recall correctly was 5 watts class A (maybe?), the xpa-1 is 10 watts class A. XPA-1L is 30 watts class A. I assume the xpa-100 is maybe a watt or less. But that is pure speculation on my part and I have no proof to back that up. As to class A, I guess it depends on how efficient the speakers are. Even though most listening is done at a watt or few, dynamics can demand substantially more. Two XPA-1 L's give you 60 watts of class A which on decently efficient speakers will keep you in class A more of the time. I have the UPA-2 and I really like it. I ran into an issue (and I'm picky) with sound quality at moderate to loud dynamics which have been tamed since I added an attenuator. I still don't know if it was the high gain of the amp or the line output of my xda-1. Either way, the new xpa series are 29 db gain which is less than what it used to be. I have three UPA-2s, used in a 5.1 setup with and UMC-1. This is my "first system". One channel is idle. Bought a second UMC-1 and UPA-500 at Emofest, replacing an old Yamaha receiver. Was going to 7.1 in both systems by adding the three XPA-100s to the first and moving a UPA-2 from the "first system" to the "second system" for its mains. We use the "second system" a lot for 2 channel music. The UPA-2 would be nice for it. The high efficiency speakers in the first system - well my surrounds do 96dB w/ 2.83v @ 1m, the three front channels are all 97 dB. All present a nominal 8 ohm load to the amplifiers. The "first system" is a dedicated home theater so the XPA-1L Class A would be nice, but we really don't do any so called "critical listening" in it. As far as we are concerned, it is critical that the system shakes the room. This said, the UPA-2s don't push the LCR speakers as much as I think they should. I think there are more dynamics in the system than what we are presently experiencing. Also, the high efficiency speakers do accentuate any noise produced by the equipment so the SNR comments on this thread really grabbed my attention. I want a very low noise floor with any amplifier I buy for the "first system". Was going to do three XPA-100s now and add others as funds permit. Goal is to have an all mono-block 7.1 system. ;D I'd eventually upgrade it to an XMC-1, but I want to give Emotiva time to get everything in it - I'd rather buy one that has TACT, than have to load it later. Also, after seeing the demonstration of TACT at Emofest, the interface was not user friendly. I know they are working on making it much, much more so, but I think it will take an iteration or two make it plum with my desires. I have two UMC-1s after all, and the upgrade card is in the fire safe.  Still, I hope the specs they post on Monday RE: XPA-100 answers my question as to how is it better than a UPA-1. If not, expect, a HOW ARE XPA-100s BETTER THAN UPA-1s - CONNECTION JEWELRY ASIDE thread to appear on the proboards and followed by a UPA-1s WANTED post. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 16, 2012 3:15:23 GMT -5
Gotcha. To answer your question with the info we have now, the XPA-100's are better than the UPA-1 because they have a higher power output.
|
|
to 84 dbSNR 
Now venting.
