XPR-7 first look...

[bootman]

Aug 1, 2011 14:00:59 GMT -5 stiehl11 said:

Considering that, other than the XPA-1, none of the Emo amps are balanced and most (not all) have their pre/pro and source within say 10 feet of their amps; why, ausman, would Emo want to add cost to their "budget" (UPA) amps??? That would be like putting a stop watch feature (found on a number of "super-cars") on a Prius.

Makes much more sense to spend any additional $$$ on better quality RCA jacks and/or speaker posts IMO.

[stiehl11]

Aug 1, 2011 15:41:09 GMT -5 bootman said:

Aug 1, 2011 14:00:59 GMT -5 stiehl11 said:

Considering that, other than the XPA-1, none of the Emo amps are balanced and most (not all) have their pre/pro and source within say 10 feet of their amps; why, ausman, would Emo want to add cost to their "budget" (UPA) amps??? That would be like putting a stop watch feature (found on a number of "super-cars") on a Prius.

Makes much more sense to spend any additional $$$ on better quality RCA jacks and/or speaker posts IMO.

Putting XLR inputs on the UPA series makes as much sense as putting a "fart" pipe and a set of rims on a Honda Civic. It's as if having separate amplification isn't impressive enough to the majority of the people who would look at their system. Anyone who knows jack about home audio would look at the amps and know that you didn't spend a lot of money on them and that they were not balanced (therefore not benefiting from XLR connections). Home audio should be about the sound and not about looks.

Of course... if you're running your unbalanced source to your unbalanced pre/pro and/or your unbalanced pre/pro to your unbalanced amp several feet away or have enough electro-magnetic interference that would likely make you hallucinate. Then I can see the need for XLR on budget amps. But, I guess you have to have bling to have street cred these days.

[jamrock]

I don't think that adding balanced input to the UPA series is a bad decision. For takers, you don't know the length of cables used between the pre/amp and the power amp for those who use a UPA power amp. The impression that only high powered amps are used in audiophile set ups is grossly mistaken. Many audiophiles are educated to know that the power rating of an amp is not a guarantee of quality. To assume that they are too close to the pre/pro and does not benefit from XLR connection is a giant leap of faith. I would use XLR connection not because I believe that there is any sonic impact, but to minimize the risk of ground loop hums. That is peace of mind that cannot be quantified.

The fact is that the UPA-7 was designed and marketed to receiver owners, to offer a better alternative to the enemic power sections of Receivers. However, it did not offer much value other than sustained power which, when using efficient bookshelf speakers and a powered subwoofer, was not really much of an advantage.

An XPA-1 can drive complex loads far better and cleaner than a UPA-7. However, when the XPA-1 is operating in the range of the UPA-7 (up to 185 wpc into 4 Ohms), it offers no sonic advantage. 'Features sell' That is the motto for audio components today.

[Erwin.BE]

This is an attempt to try to convince Mr Dan Laufman NOT to axe the XPR-7. Bill Bauman wrote: "Per Dan Laufman, the market for 7 channel amplifiers does not appear to be strong enough to move forward with the XPR-7 at this time. So, it is being back-burnered."

I beg to differ! I know the UPA-7 did not sell well. That makes perfect sense. For those with the cash to buy a midrange AVR (say $500-999), it was pointless to enhance it with the addition of a UPA-7. The power difference was not big enough. Much better choice to buy a XPA-3, because that doubled or tripled the power of that AVR for the main 3 (LCR) speakers. May I remind that the UPA-5 was added later and did not sell either! The XPA-series (and the UPA-1) are simply superior and are unique products for the price. So a XPA-3 does more for your AVR-based system than a similarly priced UPA-7!

I know a XPA-7 based on the XPA-5 parts is/was a technical impossibility. Wasn't this one of the reasons to start the XPR-7 development in the first place? The XPR-5/2/1 were added much later.

And last but not least: the XPR-7 and XPR-5 share a lot (most) of the parts. Same power supply. Same chassis. Same all, really, except the number of channels. So what are the savings, production wise? I just don't get it.

I know Mr Laufman said somewhere earlier that he did not believe in Audyssey 11.1 DSX. Fair enough. But now, there's also DTS Neo:X (also 11.1) that will be a lot more widespread than Audyssey DSX ever will be. The tendence is for more channels, not less. I want that to be quality channels. Even if you don't have the room to accomodate rear channels, maybe you have the space to set up heights in a 7.1 configuration. And maybe you want those 7 channels amplified from one box. Just saying, Emotiva is going to loos some business and will not save a lot by not producing the XPR-7!

I beg you! I am on my knees while I type this! Give us our XPR-7!

[ausman]

I came from the standpoint upa-7 would of sold better with xlr included, for the option to migrate the amp into the pre/pro realms of use for balanced use, yes i know there isn't much within wattage, though it would of been a nice inclusion for people who wanted to keep the amp in service...

as for the xpr-7 there is a market for it at the right price, canning it then releasing under another brand name minus faceplate and double charging for is kind of a silly sales model to use...

[bootman]

Aug 11, 2011 7:19:35 GMT -5 Erwin.BE said:

T
And last but not least: the XPR-7 and XPR-5 share a lot (most) of the parts. Same power supply. Same chassis. Same all, really, except the number of channels. So what are the savings, production wise? I just don't get it.

Easy, Emotiva makes more profit out of selling someone a XPR-5 and a XPR-2 instead of a one chassis XPR-7.

Same thing happened with the XPA-5 and XPA-2.
Why cut your own profit?

Anyway, you can get the full Dan update here:

emotivalounge.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=updates&thread=18699&page=1

[stiehl11]

Aug 11, 2011 7:49:30 GMT -5 ausman said:

I came from the standpoint upa-7 would of sold better with xlr included, for the option to migrate the amp into the pre/pro realms of use for balanced use, yes i know there isn't much within wattage, though it would of been a nice inclusion for people who wanted to keep the amp in service...

as for the xpr-7 there is a market for it at the right price, canning it then releasing under another brand name minus faceplate and double charging for is kind of a silly sales model to use...

XLR inputs wouldn't make a squat bit of difference, ausman. The UPA-7 wasn't a ballanced amp. So, the only benifit would be someone who would have all their equipment 40 feet from their amp. Their weren't enough buyers for it as it was. How many buys did they loose from the home user who keeps his amp 4 stories away from his pre/pro? Unless you're referring to those countless many who have horrendous power/electrical interference? I think the only real loss of sales caused by the lack of XLR inputs was to the pretender class who don't have money for gear wants to impress those that know less than them that their gear is more than what it truely is.

[Erwin.BE]

Aug 11, 2011 8:51:47 GMT -5 bootman said:

Aug 11, 2011 7:19:35 GMT -5 Erwin.BE said:

T
And last but not least: the XPR-7 and XPR-5 share a lot (most) of the parts. Same power supply. Same chassis. Same all, really, except the number of channels. So what are the savings, production wise? I just don't get it.

Easy, Emotiva makes more profit out of selling someone a XPR-5 and a XPR-2 instead of a one chassis XPR-7.

Same thing happened with the XPA-5 and XPA-2.
Why cut your own profit?

Anyway, you can get the full Dan update here:

emotivalounge.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=updates&thread=18699&page=1

Well, I am not sure I will get more than one XPR for my HT. One 3,300 Watt power supply should be more than plenty to power 7 speakers. Two is just getting silly. I will probably tune back to the XPA-series, since the DIY speakers will be very sensitive. Since I am building a 11.2 surround system, I need 11 amps (+ 1 Behringer NU6000 stereo for the subs). All XPR would be silly.

Here's the link to someone building the big towers (L+R fronts):
www.audionervosa.com/index.php?topic=3070.0

[bootman]

11.2

Not too many materials recorded in 11.2.

But if you like artificially derived sounds from the existing 5.1 materials you will have quite an expansive system there when done.

Good luck!

[jamrock]

To pretend that adding XLR connections to the UPA-7 is not beneficial lacks serious forethought. Some benefits are:

01. Noise rejection
02. Immunity to hum
03. Improved line output
04. Higher output (SPL) at lower volume setting
05. The cool factor (more audiophile oriented & businesslike)
06. Value added (offers more than similar sized & powered amps)
07. More secure connections
08. The inclusion of XLR connections would have minimal cost impact.
09. Exclusivity
10. INCREASED SALES

;D ;D

[stiehl11]

Aug 11, 2011 18:06:40 GMT -5 jamrock said:

To pretend that adding XLR connections to the UPA-7 is not beneficial lacks serious forethought. Some benefits are:

01. Noise rejection What noise? I don't have any noise and I don't use XLR.
02. Immunity to hum Don't have that either no mater how much volume I give my 2 amps. Considering I can hear a mouse fart 2 rooms away I think I would notice this and noise.
03. Improved line output Isn't this the same as 04?
04. Higher output (SPL) at lower volume setting Max +3, which we said in another thread about watts/dbls/spl isn't a whole lot.
05. The cool factor (more audiophile oriented & businesslike) I never was a poser so this does nothing for me. In fact, I tend to make fun of posers.
06. Value added (offers more than similar sized & powered amps) This reminds me of a time someone brought in a tricked out truck that was lowered and had aftermarket rims and paint. The dealer offered him $2k for the truck. The seller said he had more than that in the rims. The dealer said take the rims off and put the old rims back on, I'll still give you $2k. Moral of the story is that is "tricked out" only sells to those who want "tricked out" equipment. In other words, only value added for someone who wants it.
07. More secure connections Agreed!
08. The inclusion of XLR connections would have minimal cost impact. Partially agree: yes, by way of comparison we're not talking hundreds or even tens of dollars. But it's a lot more than just the actual cost of the connector to look at.
09. Exclusivity See: poser.
10. INCREASED SALESObviously not or they would have done it. Considering Lonnie or Dan aren't hurting for cash I'm going to bet they've got their finger on the pulse of the audiophile community a lot better than you or I do at the moment.

;D ;D

;D ;D

[jamrock]

Surely, I don't agree with your explanations. However, As long as people buy the Honda and the carbon fiber hood, those companies make money whether or not the buyer gains any benefit from putting that hood on the Civic. Most subjectivist buys on perception rather than scientific facts and very happy with their purchases. Not much better than the guy with the Civic. The discussion is what would make the UPA-7 sell more.

The XPA-2 & 5 have XLR inputs. The UMC-1 has XLR sub/outs. The Oppo 93 & 95 has XLR outs. The AVP7005 has XLR outs as do the DHC 9.9. None of the above are balanced designs. So what is the benefit XLR connects? Are they just jewelry?

I don't see any performance value for using 10 coats of lacquer on speaker finish when it don't add 1 iota to the performance of the speaker. People buy expensive, distortion laden tube amplifiers because they like them. I wouldn't do it. But I let them be as long as they are happy.

[stiehl11]

The UMC-1 has sub XLR outputs because subs are generally self-amplified and several yards/meters from the pre/pro. And I thought that the 95 was balanced? I know that the 93 is not.

There's carbon fiber and then there's carbon fiber. For bicycles you can get a true carbon fiber water bottle holder for between $80 and $160. Or, you can go to Target/Wal-Mart/K-mart and get a Bell "carbon fiber" water bottle holder for $20. The difference is a few grams of weight (and a lot of money). Oh, and that "carbon fiber" is really not carbon fiber. ;D

I agree that 10 coats of lacquer does nothing for the sound. Would 11 coats be 1 coat better looking? Would only 9 look like crap? Did they really put all 10 coats on? Would you know the difference? Would you know the difference if you saw a Bell and (name of manufacturer) carbon fiber water bottle holder? My favorite line in the movie Wall Street was when the character Gordon Gecko said, "fools and their money are lucky enough to come together in the first place." If you're buying a UPA-7 you're either being very frugal/wise with your money or you don't have money for much more. The frugal/wise won't bother with unnecessary bling.

[NorthStar]

Eleven (11) high-end loudspeakers for an 11.3-channel setup =
Two (2) XPR-5s and one (1) XPA-1 (Center channel speaker).

[jamrock]

Aug 11, 2011 21:33:02 GMT -5 stiehl11 said:

.... If you're buying a UPA-7 you're either being very frugal/wise with your money or you don't have money for much more. The frugal/wise won't bother with unnecessary bling.

I think that you are completely misunderstanding what is being discussed here. It is: "Why the UPA-7 did not have better sales despite the favorable reviews. And, how sales could have been improved" Your proffer above missed the mark entirely. I bought the UPA-7 because it is a great value, and it is capable of driving my speakers to desired levels with no audible noise and without clipping. That has nothing to do with frugality or lack of funds. By the way, your statement could be easily interpreted as audio snobbery. Because you have the XPA-5 for $200.00 more, that means that you have money! Really?

The XPA-5 can play 1.9dB louder than the UPA-7 and cost $200.00 more. Neither design is fully differential. The XPA-5 has XLR connections. Why shouldn't the UPA-7 have XLR connections. Which audio principle or law deemed that a 125wpc amplifier cannot or should not have XLR connects?

From the manufacturer's standpoint, the UPA-7 was intended to be an entry level, multi-channel, high value piece. Hence, it was stripped down to hold cost down. From an audiophile standpoint, I wanted the good value, but also XLR connects (hum/noise). Why is that a wrong or bad thing?

[stiehl11]

Aug 12, 2011 17:01:30 GMT -5 jamrock said:

Aug 11, 2011 21:33:02 GMT -5 stiehl11 said:

.... If you're buying a UPA-7 you're either being very frugal/wise with your money or you don't have money for much more. The frugal/wise won't bother with unnecessary bling.

I think that you are completely misunderstanding what is being discussed here. It is: "Why the UPA-7 did not have better sales despite the favorable reviews. And, how sales could have been improved" Your proffer above missed the mark entirely. I bought the UPA-7 because it is a great value, and it is capable of driving my speakers to desired levels with no audible noise and without clipping. That has nothing to do with frugality or lack of funds. By the way, your statement could be easily interpreted as audio snobbery. Because you have the XPA-5 for $200.00 more, that means that you have money! Really?

The XPA-5 can play 1.9dB louder than the UPA-7 and cost $200.00 more. Neither design is fully differential. The XPA-5 has XLR connections. Why shouldn't the UPA-7 have XLR connections. Which audio principle or law deemed that a 125wpc amplifier cannot or should not have XLR connects?

From the manufacturer's standpoint, the UPA-7 was intended to be an entry level, multi-channel, high value piece. Hence, it was stripped down to hold cost down. From an audiophile standpoint, I wanted the good value, but also XLR connects (hum/noise). Why is that a wrong or bad thing?

Who said it was wrong or bad? I certainly didn't! You got what you wanted and what you wanted suited what you needed it for. You were very cash conscience. You did not piss your money away unnecessarily by getting something you didn't need or want. You didn't need 1.9 dB more power so you didn't get the XPA-5 nor did you need the 3 dB more the XLR might give you. You were both frugal and wise with your money. Hence, see the post above. There is no snobbery because I have the XPA-5 (or 2) and you don't. You got what you wanted and I got what I wanted; we're both happy.

No audio law decreed that the cut off for XLR connections start below 200 wpc. The price point that Emotiva decreed that the UPA-7 didn't get them. Plain and simple. I didn't get my XPA-5 (or 2) because of the XLR connections. If they didn't have XLR connections I still would have got them. Just because more people purchased the XPA-5 rather than the UPA-5 (or 7) doesn't mean that I/we are smarter, better, or more astute than you or anyone else that got the UPA-5/7.

As for as how it could have been improved; well, I'll share with you a little known story. Everybody thinks The Beatles were a smash with their first album released by Capital Records. The truth was that Capital Records was partnered with EMI; The Beatles record company. The played their first album Please Please Me (with Love Me Do and 12 other songs) to the executives at Capital and Capital said, "no thanks." So, EMI allowed a small record company to purchase the rights to the album and singles that were burning up the charts in England called Vee-Jay (VJ) Records. The singles and the album both tanked. In fact, if you can find these albums/45s in good condition I've heard they're worth a couple of dollars or more. As The Beatles popularity grew Capital changed their minds and wanted their next album. Capital's first Beatles release, With The Beatles, was actually The Beatles second album. After they toured America in 64 and Beatlemania was in full swing in the States Capital wanted the rights to their first album. They later released it under a different name and out of sequence.

The moral of this story is that in 1962 America wasn't ready for The Beatles. The Beatles didn't get better or have more bling or anything else between the time of their first album and their second. In 1964 the time was right in America for The Beatles and the rest is history. The time just wasn't right for the UPA-7. There wasn't anything wrong with it and it didn't need XLR connections. Like The Beatles in 62, not many people bought it. If the market changes it's not like they threw away the design; they'll put it back in production with the flip of switch or an email to China.

Cheer up, jamrock; it's Friday... enjoy the weekend, and the sound! ;D

[jamrock]

Don't sweat it. Peace!

[Erwin.BE]

Aug 11, 2011 22:37:53 GMT -5 NorthStar said:

Eleven (11) high-end loudspeakers for an 11.3-channel setup =
Two (2) XPR-5s and one (1) XPA-1 (Center channel speaker).

It's also $5,000
Real good LCR channel separation, though...

[Erwin.BE]

Aug 12, 2011 18:46:50 GMT -5 stiehl11 said:

Aug 12, 2011 17:01:30 GMT -5 jamrock said:

I think that you are completely misunderstanding what is being discussed here. It is: "Why the UPA-7 did not have better sales despite the favorable reviews. And, how sales could have been improved" Your proffer above missed the mark entirely. I bought the UPA-7 because it is a great value, and it is capable of driving my speakers to desired levels with no audible noise and without clipping. That has nothing to do with frugality or lack of funds. By the way, your statement could be easily interpreted as audio snobbery. Because you have the XPA-5 for $200.00 more, that means that you have money! Really?

The XPA-5 can play 1.9dB louder than the UPA-7 and cost $200.00 more. Neither design is fully differential. The XPA-5 has XLR connections. Why shouldn't the UPA-7 have XLR connections. Which audio principle or law deemed that a 125wpc amplifier cannot or should not have XLR connects?

From the manufacturer's standpoint, the UPA-7 was intended to be an entry level, multi-channel, high value piece. Hence, it was stripped down to hold cost down. From an audiophile standpoint, I wanted the good value, but also XLR connects (hum/noise). Why is that a wrong or bad thing?

Who said it was wrong or bad? I certainly didn't! You got what you wanted and what you wanted suited what you needed it for. You were very cash conscience. You did not piss your money away unnecessarily by getting something you didn't need or want. You didn't need 1.9 dB more power so you didn't get the XPA-5 nor did you need the 3 dB more the XLR might give you. You were both frugal and wise with your money. Hence, see the post above. There is no snobbery because I have the XPA-5 (or 2) and you don't. You got what you wanted and I got what I wanted; we're both happy.

No audio law decreed that the cut off for XLR connections start below 200 wpc. The price point that Emotiva decreed that the UPA-7 didn't get them. Plain and simple. I didn't get my XPA-5 (or 2) because of the XLR connections. If they didn't have XLR connections I still would have got them. Just because more people purchased the XPA-5 rather than the UPA-5 (or 7) doesn't mean that I/we are smarter, better, or more astute than you or anyone else that got the UPA-5/7.

As for as how it could have been improved; well, I'll share with you a little known story. Everybody thinks The Beatles were a smash with their first album released by Capital Records. The truth was that Capital Records was partnered with EMI; The Beatles record company. The played their first album Please Please Me (with Love Me Do and 12 other songs) to the executives at Capital and Capital said, "no thanks." So, EMI allowed a small record company to purchase the rights to the album and singles that were burning up the charts in England called Vee-Jay (VJ) Records. The singles and the album both tanked. In fact, if you can find these albums/45s in good condition I've heard they're worth a couple of dollars or more. As The Beatles popularity grew Capital changed their minds and wanted their next album. Capital's first Beatles release, With The Beatles, was actually The Beatles second album. After they toured America in 64 and Beatlemania was in full swing in the States Capital wanted the rights to their first album. They later released it under a different name and out of sequence.

The moral of this story is that in 1962 America wasn't ready for The Beatles. The Beatles didn't get better or have more bling or anything else between the time of their first album and their second. In 1964 the time was right in America for The Beatles and the rest is history. The time just wasn't right for the UPA-7. There wasn't anything wrong with it and it didn't need XLR connections. Like The Beatles in 62, not many people bought it. If the market changes it's not like they threw away the design; they'll put it back in production with the flip of switch or an email to China.

Cheer up, jamrock; it's Friday... enjoy the weekend, and the sound! ;D

Me, I prefer The White Album...

[glock3540]

Aug 11, 2011 22:37:53 GMT -5 NorthStar said:

Eleven (11) high-end loudspeakers for an 11.3-channel setup =
Two (2) XPR-5s and one (1) XPA-1 (Center channel speaker).

ALMOST This with my system (I use 4 of the internal amp channels of my 4810 for the height and wide speakers. I only use 4 of the channels on my XPA-5 leaving the center channel idle to help with the heat issues I had). I love how the system performs!