Which U-series amp should i choose, and how should i wire it

[xifer]

Hi!

Im new on theese forums, but have been lurking for a while.

Im going to buy my first Emotiva product this week, but I can't really decide which one, so this is where you come in.

I have a 5.1 setup running from an Anthem MRX 300 reciever, but I want some more power, especially for the front and center speakers, but which amplifier should i choose, and why?

With the UPA-700 I was think of bi-amping 2 channels for the front left, and 2 channels for the front right, 1 channel for the center and then leaving the remaining 2 outputs clear. - I could simply choose to do this with the UPA-500, but the UPA-700 has a bigger power supply, from what i can read, which must be a big plus. (?)

With the UPA-200 I would simply power the front right and left, but this leaves the reciever to power the center channel.

The surround speakers will be powered from the reciever.

I cant fit the X-series amp's, so I have to choose one of the above.

The Speakers I have, are theese:

XTZ 99.36 and 99.25


www.xtzsound.com/en/products/speakers/99-36-mkii-piano#



www.xtzsound.com/en/products/speakers/99-25-MKII-Center

I have had trouble in choosing between the UPA-200 and UPA-700 for the last six months, but cant make a final decision. The price difference between these 3 doesn't matter, i just want the best possible amp, for my situation, and im affraid that i dont get the same power to my fronts, with the UPA-700 (bi-amped), as i would with the UPA-200.

Looking forward to your opinions.

Flemming (from Denmark, Europe)

[GreenKiwi]

3 XPA-100s? Would that fit?

Or XPA-200? Or some XPA-1Ls?

[GreenKiwi]

Your decision is tough because there really is no wrong answer.

[xifer]

Thanks for your reply, but no. Cant fit any of the X-series. They are to deep, unfortunately. 

[paintedklown]

The answer to that question is a bit difficult.

What is your highest priority, HT or 2 channel?

Do you plan to buy a processor in the future, and will therefore need external amplification for all channels?

Do you like to play loud?

Without knowing the answers to these questions, my answer would be XPA-200. The biggest amount of power you can get with the same form factor as the U series.

Doing this would take a good chunk of the workload off your Anthem. That means it will only be working to power your center and surrounds. Since the surround channels do not require much power, this should be easy lifting for your receiver. Especially if you are already happy with the volume levels it can achieve.

This also allows your 2 channel (music) to shine, and for me, that is #1 priority. Good luck with whatever you choose.

[mshump]

Welcome to the lounge Flemming ! IMO I would go with the upa-5. You could run all 5 channels with the 5. If you want to experiment on the bi amping you could run all 3 fronts off the 5 (most people here in the lounge have heard no to a little sound quality difference bi amping )

Like GeenKiwi said. there really is no wrong answer

[xifer]

Thanks for your reply,

Main priority is HT, about 80 / 20.

I like to play loud, yes :-)

A processor, maybe far in the future, but not something to worry about yet.

According to the spec sheet, the xp-200 is as deep as the rest of the X-series, and that is 19 inches, which is to much. I have 17 at most.

[repeetavx]

Wow, those are some seriously nice speakers!

I see your dilemma. As far as control and refinement in sound you need the XPA-200. But that neglects your wonderful center channel. If you look inside the UPA amps I think you'll see that it won't be much of an upgrade hardware wise. And I have no idea what gain the amps inside the Anthem has. Since you've decided that space is the overriding consideration, your choice will have to be a compromise.

I'd go with the UPA-700. Bi-amp with the Tweeter and Mid on one channel, and the Bass on the other. Bi-amp the center as well. That will leave one channel unused. For space and money, that I feel will give you the best "bang for your buck".

One the other hand you could tri-amp your left and right mains, and use the remaining one channel for your center. This would optimize two channel performance. Since your speakers are 88db efficient and four ohms, I feel the higher number of output devices per speaker driver will give you the most refinement.

Oh, and Welcome to the forum. Enjoy the ride.

[xifer]

Mshump, would the UPA-700 not be better, with the bigger power supply? Or does that not matter?

[dally]

If you can afford it ,and fit them both in your rack, I would go with a pair of UPA-200's. Either bi-amp both mains, or bi-amp your center and run your mains off one channel of each UPA. This will yield more power and better control than the multichannel amps. By the way, nice speakers!

[mshump]

Unless you are listening at extremely loud levels, I don't think so. I have the UPA-200. I had it in a 2 channel system and didn't run out of juice at pretty high levels

[paintedklown]

Dec 16, 2013 11:58:14 GMT -5 repeetavx said:

I'd go with the UPA-700. Bi-amp with the Tweeter and Mid on one channel, and the Bass on the other. Bi-amp the center as well. That will leave one channel unused. For space and money, that I feel will give you the best "bang for your buck".

A BIG +1 to this idea.

After reading your response, this is what I would recommend OP, and for the exact same reasons.

Good luck with whatever you choose.

[xifer]

This was also my idea, but I cant really figure out if passive bi-amping really works. 

Do any of you have any experience with bi-amping UPA amps? Or just bi-amping in general? 

Thanks for All the replys. :-) 

[paintedklown]

Dec 16, 2013 13:28:24 GMT -5 xifer said:

This was also my idea, but I cant really figure out if passive bi-amping really works. 

Do any of you have any experience with bi-amping UPA amps? Or just bi-amping in general? 

Thanks for All the replys. :-) 

Bi-amping (and bi-wiring) are hotly debated.

Some say there is a benefit, some say there is no benefit.

With your particular situation, you will have the extra channels available, and it certainly doesn't hurt to try, so IMO, it becomes an easy recommendation.

Just remember to remove the jumpers on the back of the speakers before bi-amping them.

Good luck with whatever you choose.

[danny01]

My opinion is that there is only one way to truly biamp and that is actively. The Anthems have robust amp sections which probably put out the same amount of power as the UPA-5/700 so I don't think there is much to be gained going that route. IMO, just keep the Anthem or make room for an XPA-2/3/5/100.

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using proboards

[repeetavx]

There isn't much if any difference in power output between the UPAs and the Anthem internal amps. The two reasons to bi-amp are splitting the signals, like when you actively bi-amp. Or splitting the load when you passively bi-amp.

Whether or not it will make a difference in the sound depends on your speakers.

[dally]

The anthems ARE pretty stout. ^ ^ ^ That's why I recommended the UPA-200 amps. These should be an upgrade in power, and still fit in the O.P.'s rack. I think the multichannel UPA's are more of a lateral move.

[xifer]

Hi again, thanks for all the replys.

You really have me second-guessing myself. - would it really just be a waste of money??

I know the Anthem's have nice internal amps, but the MRX 300 is the smallest of the recievers, and is listed as follows:
2 channels driven (20 Hz to 20 kHz, 0.1% THD) . . . . . . . . . . 80 W continuous RMS into 8 Ω
5 channels driven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 W continuous RMS into 8 Ω

Do you stil think it would be a lateral move? I thought it would make a big difference, alone to get it seperated from the reciever.

Thanks again.

[repeetavx]

For two channel the power is the same. Though I believe that the UPA would have a little firmer grip on the bass frequencies than the Anthem. (Maybe not). Not like an XPA amp would.

For movies, a firm 80 watts across the front would be a noticeable step up, though not a big one. Bi-amping your speakers I believe would result in more of a quality result than a dynamic result. I think you would be pleased with a UPA-5 but not overwhelmed. With you being in Europe and your space limitations, I think you are doing the right thing being conservative. Most of us wish that you had the space for an XPA-5. That would wow you.

[creimes]

How much RU space do you have, for example how many UPA-500's could you fit, do you have more than one shelf or can you stack multiple 2RU amps, if so look for 3 UPA-1's, they are 18" deep and that is from the front of the amp to the tip of the binding posts, or even one UPA-200 or a used UPA-2 for your mains, if you can fit 2 or 3 UPA-1's though that's the route I would go, see if you can find any used ones out there, they are great monoblocks.

Chad