or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Official Emotiva UPA-500 AMP Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Emotiva UPA-500 AMP Discussion Thread - Page 4

post #91 of 156
May this have to do with the higher gain on the Emotiva amp?
post #92 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdperry View Post

I have been running a upa-500 with a Denon 3311ci which on paper has more power but to my ears the Emotiva amp adds a worthwhile increase in sound quality.

um ok...you can stop taking that placebo pill anytime.
post #93 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnett View Post

May this have to do with the higher gain on the Emotiva amp?

Actually, the UPA amps have a gain of 29, which is down significantly from their high gained XPA amps. Each system may have different synergies, but generally speaking 80 wpc will not sound better than an upper tier AVR with 130 wpc, because even though that AVR will dip with all channels driven, it would be good for 80 wpc or so. YMMV.
post #94 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by airgas1998 View Post

um ok...you can stop taking that placebo pill anytime.
Just look at the parts . Better parts often lead to better sound and the amp has better parts. I dont often post because of comments like this but I thought that I had some real world experience with this amp so I would share my subjective opinions. Open up even higher end recievers and you dont find torrodial transformers with matched outputs and 105 degree caps. Sound quality is not always about most watts.
post #95 of 156
I ran audyssey with and with out the amp to try to ensure that things were level matched. This was with 6 inch inwalls xover at 80hz with 2 10 inch subs so the load was not to much.
post #96 of 156
Will the UPA-500 be sufficient for driving 5 speakers with the following specifications at decent volumes, or should I be looking at an XPA-5?

Power Handling:
Maximum power rating 150 watts

Impedance:
Nominal impedance 4 ohms
3.2 ohms min

Sensitivity:
90 dB/1W/1m

The XPA-5 seems like it would be for more-demanding speakers. Is this correct?
post #97 of 156
I have speakers with similar specs and the UPA-500 drives them fine. The question is how hard/loud will be driving them. The UPA-500 handles reference levels just fine for me but I don't usually listen much at louder levels. You can always try it and if isn't to your liking get the XPA-5. On the other hand if you have the budget and the larger XPA-5 doesn't present a problem, I would probably opt for that unit.
post #98 of 156
I am interested in the UPA 500, but I only want to utilize it in a three channel configuration. I essence, what I'm trying to achieve is to dedicate two channels to each tower and let the remaining channel take care of the center channel. I called Emotiva and was told that it is definitely possibly and he commenced to explain the process. However, I really didn't understand how I would go about achieving this. If I recall, he said that as long as my receiver had component outputs I could get it done. My receiver is a Yamaha RX A1010. Does anyone know how to get this done?
post #99 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshhog View Post

I am interested in the UPA 500, but I only want to utilize it in a three channel configuration. I essence, what I'm trying to achieve is to dedicate two channels to each tower and let the remaining channel take care of the center channel. I called Emotiva and was told that it is definitely possibly and he commenced to explain the process. However, I really didn't understand how I would go about achieving this. If I recall, he said that as long as my receiver had component outputs I could get it done. My receiver is a Yamaha RX A1010. Does anyone know how to get this done?

You might call him back and have him re-explain but what I think you are looking to do is bi-amp the fronts. Seems to me your Yamaha has 7.2 pre-outs so this should be possible. One channel would drive the lows on the tower and the other channel would drive the highs assuming your speakers have 4 connection terminals. You would need to remove the jumper plate that is connecting the high and low connection terminals.
post #100 of 156
Not sure if you need to bi-amp them. Doesn't some of the unused wattage get distributed to the channels that are being used automatically?
Edited by Philtho - 4/25/13 at 11:11am
post #101 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdperry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by airgas1998 View Post

um ok...you can stop taking that placebo pill anytime.


Just look at the parts .

OK, lets look at those parts:

Emotiva Power amp:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_2/emotiva-rsp-1-preamplifier-rpa-1-power-amplifier-5-2007-part-2.html



Denon AVR

http://www.laaudiofile.com/denon_avr5308ci.html


Quote:
Better parts often lead to better sound and the amp has better parts.


How can you tell that parts are better just by looking at them?
post #102 of 156
Size and quality of power supply,caps,number of output devices etc!
post #103 of 156
Also you showed a picture of a $5000 receiver not the internals of a mid-level receiver like I was suggesting mating with the upa-500.
post #104 of 156
Was thinking about my previous reply and I for one would not go this route. I'm not even sure that would be a good idea. Others have talked about using a y splitter off the amp rather than setting the amp to bi-amp which also is probably not the best method. Instead I would look at Emotiva's 3 channel amp xpa-3
post #105 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurkey View Post

Unfortunately, you missed the point of the Onkyos getting "hot".
They get "hot" because of the HDMI board.
Thus separates, ie preamps and power amps, won't solve this problem at all, because the prozessor is usually part of the preamp, thus using separates like a PR-SC5509 plus power amp, will still have the same issues if any.
The culprit is usually the video prozessor, which dissipates a lot of heat without a fan and heat sink, thus creating local thermal "hot spots".

I respectfully have to disagree somewhat with your assessment of where the heat comes from. Yes, HDMI boards do generate heat, but it's not the HDMI boards themselves, it's the video processing that's the culprit. Also, torroidal transformers generally run cooler than typical EI-type transformers, which the UPA-500 has over the Onkyo. Generally, torroidal transformers are found in more expensive amp designs, too. The point is, that when you separate the processor from the amp, you're also separating the heat generated from both away from each other and that should prolong the life of the components in the long run.
post #106 of 156
Hi,
Forgive me if it has been posted before. I'm really interested in the UPA500. However, I'm not really sure they claim 80W all channel driven is honest. From the user manual it used a 350VA transformer, so it can't be 80W or 140W all channel driven. If 5 channels deliver 140W that require at least 700W power supply, even on a 100% efficient amp. Did I missing something?
post #107 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotjt133 View Post

Hi,
Forgive me if it has been posted before. I'm really interested in the UPA500. However, I'm not really sure they claim 80W all channel driven is honest. From the user manual it used a 350VA transformer, so it can't be 80W or 140W all channel driven. If 5 channels deliver 140W that require at least 700W power supply, even on a 100% efficient amp. Did I missing something?

I think you are missing something. I own this amp, and based on my experience, the claims by Emotiva are spot-on. Even their website has graphs published that show the output of this amp at 4 and 8-ohms. This amp is certified to run 4 ohm speakers and any amp that can push 4-ohm speakers has got the "you know what" behind it to run 8-ohm speakers with all channels driven. When I run this amp, I swear it sounds more powerful and dynamic than an 80-watt/channel amp. Furthermore, you have no obligation to buy it, Emotive has a 30-day money-back guarantee.
post #108 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by N2AUDIO View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hotjt133 View Post

Hi,
Forgive me if it has been posted before. I'm really interested in the UPA500. However, I'm not really sure they claim 80W all channel driven is honest. From the user manual it used a 350VA transformer, so it can't be 80W or 140W all channel driven. If 5 channels deliver 140W that require at least 700W power supply, even on a 100% efficient amp. Did I missing something?

I think you are missing something. I own this amp, and based on my experience, the claims by Emotiva are spot-on.

Do tell us about your fully-equipped test bench with the power, measuring equipment and loads required to verify the claim that all 5 power amps can deliver the stated amount of power at the same time.

If you're saying that it does a great job on music, that is fine and good and what matters, but it does not prove that the amp can put out continuous power on all of the channels concurrently.
Quote:
Even their website has graphs published that show the output of this amp at 4 and 8-ohms.

As I read the test report on the web site, they tested one channel at a time.

That's what page 2 of http://emotiva.com/resources/media/upa500/upa500_4ohms.pdf seems to say.
Quote:
This amp is certified to run 4 ohm speakers and any amp that can push 4-ohm speakers has got the "you know what" behind it to run 8-ohm speakers with all channels driven. When I run this amp, I swear it sounds more powerful and dynamic than an 80-watt/channel amp. Furthermore, you have no obligation to buy it, Emotive has a 30-day money-back guarantee.

That a listener can hear a difference indicating full power measurements obtained with pure sine waves is no doubt a myth. When an amp is playing music it is handling only a fraction of the power required for bench tests with pure steady sine waves. The fraction can be as little as 10% or less.

I don't doubt that the UPA 500 does a great job with music.

Here is a third party test of the amp:

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/amplifiers/upa-500-amplifier/upa-500-measurements

As I read their test descriptions they do not do continuous power testing of all channels running at max at the same time for some very practical and reasonable reasons. Their 5 channel tests of the UPA 500 tested dynamic and/or swept power.
post #109 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdperry View Post

Size and quality of power supply,caps,number of output devices etc!

But many of those characteristics can't be discerned with the eye.

One great example is power transistors - the same case style can hold devices whose actual power capacity and bandwidth varies over a range of 10 to 1 or more. There is a big business in counterfeiting power transistors and putting small chips in big cases. Without cutting the device apart or testing it to near or beyond destruction, nobody knows.

The size of electrolytic caps for a given level of ESR, ESL and capacitance has dropped dramatically in the past 20 years. How can you tell by looking at the outside what technology is inside?

Modern transformers can use insulation that is reliable at higher temperatures that allows transformers that handle more power to be smaller. How do you know what kind of insulation is on the windings by looking at the outside of the transformer?

Finally, it is easy to overbuild equipment, and create a mass of components that have great reserves that can never have an impact on the quality of the signal at the output terminals.

The ear has limited sensitivity, and even if the performance improves beyond what are now fairly easy goals, there is no audible benefit.
post #110 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdperry View Post

Also you showed a picture of a $5000 receiver not the internals of a mid-level receiver like I was suggesting mating with the upa-500.

That should make the comparison closer. I think I showed that even when the parts quality could be greater, simple eyeballs lack resolution.
post #111 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Do tell us about your fully-equipped test bench with the power, measuring equipment and loads required to verify the claim that all 5 power amps can deliver the stated amount of power at the same time.

If you're saying that it does a great job on music, that is fine and good and what matters, but it does not prove that the amp can put out continuous power on all of the channels concurrently.
As I read the test report on the web site, they tested one channel at a time.

That's what page 2 of http://emotiva.com/resources/media/upa500/upa500_4ohms.pdf seems to say.
That a listener can hear a difference indicating full power measurements obtained with pure sine waves is no doubt a myth. When an amp is playing music it is handling only a fraction of the power required for bench tests with pure steady sine waves. The fraction can be as little as 10% or less.

I don't doubt that the UPA 500 does a great job with music.

Here is a third party test of the amp:

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/amplifiers/upa-500-amplifier/upa-500-measurements

As I read their test descriptions they do not do continuous power testing of all channels running at max at the same time for some very practical and reasonable reasons. Their 5 channel tests of the UPA 500 tested dynamic and/or swept power.

Doubt me? Well, then you should come see my test laboratory sometime.
post #112 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotjt133 View Post

Hi,
Forgive me if it has been posted before. I'm really interested in the UPA500. However, I'm not really sure they claim 80W all channel driven is honest. From the user manual it used a 350VA transformer, so it can't be 80W or 140W all channel driven. If 5 channels deliver 140W that require at least 700W power supply, even on a 100% efficient amp. Did I missing something?

I went ahead and read the Audioholics link that Mr. Pessimistic provided. And to sum up their findings, this is what they had to say:

"The UPA-500 delivers clean, low noise, meaty amplification that will surely bring new life to a whimpering department store A/V receiver. It’s honestly rated and has no issues driving low impedance loads while remaining cool in operation even under the most strenuous test conditions on the bench. If you’re looking for a step up in sound quality and power on the cheap, I can’t think of a better option on the market. Highly recommended!"

I rest my case.
post #113 of 156
I'm sure it's a great amp.. and for the price and return policy, hard to go wrong..

imo it's better than running an equally rated AVR.. plus it looks cool in your system.. a new component biggrin.gif

I might get one later one.. just need to figure out where I would put it in my current setup (in living room, already have 5.2 system, 65" plasma... the wife wouldn't like this additional piece too much I'M SURE OF THAT LOL mad.gif)
post #114 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by N2AUDIO View Post

Doubt me? Well, then you should come see my test laboratory sometime.
Equipment list?
post #115 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by N2AUDIO View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Do tell us about your fully-equipped test bench with the power, measuring equipment and loads required to verify the claim that all 5 power amps can deliver the stated amount of power at the same time.

If you're saying that it does a great job on music, that is fine and good and what matters, but it does not prove that the amp can put out continuous power on all of the channels concurrently.
As I read the test report on the web site, they tested one channel at a time.

That's what page 2 of http://emotiva.com/resources/media/upa500/upa500_4ohms.pdf seems to say.
That a listener can hear a difference indicating full power measurements obtained with pure sine waves is no doubt a myth. When an amp is playing music it is handling only a fraction of the power required for bench tests with pure steady sine waves. The fraction can be as little as 10% or less.

I don't doubt that the UPA 500 does a great job with music.

Here is a third party test of the amp:

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/amplifiers/upa-500-amplifier/upa-500-measurements

As I read their test descriptions they do not do continuous power testing of all channels running at max at the same time for some very practical and reasonable reasons. Their 5 channel tests of the UPA 500 tested dynamic and/or swept power.

Doubt me? Well, then you should come see my test laboratory sometime.

 

If you had the amp on a test rig, why not just post the results of your tests then we can all see?

 

You said "I swear it sounds more powerful" not "it measures more powerful" which tends to make me think you assessed it by ear rather than by instruments. Please correct me if I am wrong though.


Edited by kbarnes701 - 5/11/13 at 4:45am
post #116 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcergon View Post

Hi

Can you help me, please ?

I have a 5.1 speakers and I want to know if it´s OK an EMOTIVA UPA-500 Amp with Emotiva umc-1 ?

Thanks a lot

Mario

 

The UMC-1 has had many, many reports of problems - many of them being design problems that have not been or cannot be rectified by firmware updates (admitted by Emotiva). Before you buy one I would take some time to read though the UMC-1 dedicated thread on AVS and see if the reported issues and problems affect you and would likely spoil your enjoyment of the unit. Also bear in mind that the UMC-1 has been superseded by the UMC-200 which, by all accounts, is a far superior unit. The UMC-200 is currently on sale at $599.

 

Here is the UMC-1 thread:

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1218226/umc-1-review-pre-bug-fix-tech-issues-only-do-not-discuss-other-forums

post #117 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshhog View Post

I am interested in the UPA 500, but I only want to utilize it in a three channel configuration. I essence, what I'm trying to achieve is to dedicate two channels to each tower and let the remaining channel take care of the center channel. I called Emotiva and was told that it is definitely possibly and he commenced to explain the process. However, I really didn't understand how I would go about achieving this. If I recall, he said that as long as my receiver had component outputs I could get it done. My receiver is a Yamaha RX A1010. Does anyone know how to get this done?

 

You need ampllifier preouts on your AVR. Connect the Front Left channel pre-out to input 1 on the UPA-500, connect the Front Right channel pre-out to input 2 on the UPA-500 and connect the Centre channel pre-out to input 3 on the UPA-500. Then connect the speaker wires to the UPA-500 to correspond to the above - eg Front Left speaker outputs on the UPA-500 to Channel 1 on the UPA-500 etc. That's all there is to it. Check your Yamaha user manual to make sure it has the required pre-outs - if it does not then you cannot connect the UPA-500 to it.

 

EDIT: another poster seemed to think you were trying to biamp your speakers. I assumed you wanted to replace the AVR internal amps with the UPA-500 amps. If so, then follow the procedure above. Passive biamping is a waste of time and wire so I wouldn't recommend that. More info here:

 

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bi-wire_bi-amp.htm


Edited by kbarnes701 - 5/11/13 at 4:47am
post #118 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

another poster seemed to think you were trying to biamp your speakers. I assumed you wanted to replace the AVR internal amps with the UPA-500 amps. If so, then follow the procedure above. Passive biamping is a waste of time and wire so I wouldn't recommend that. More info here:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bi-wire_bi-amp.htm

Hahah, right on, bi-amping front speakers.. what a joke tongue.gif
post #119 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blu_One View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

another poster seemed to think you were trying to biamp your speakers. I assumed you wanted to replace the AVR internal amps with the UPA-500 amps. If so, then follow the procedure above. Passive biamping is a waste of time and wire so I wouldn't recommend that. More info here:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bi-wire_bi-amp.htm

Hahah, right on, bi-amping front speakers.. what a joke tongue.gif

 

Certainly true for the 'fool's biamping' or passive biamping method normally suggested. Properly biamped speakers with active crossovers between the preamp and power amp can make a difference, although I've always thought that if I was going to go that way it would be better to buy active, powered speakers to start with - you then get drivers and amps properly matched for sure by the manufacturer. Or, of course, DIY speakers could go that route too if one has enough knowledge.  I have been tempted to replace my M&K S150s with their powered counterparts, but the cost is prohibitive. One powered S150 costs almost as much as three of the regular speakers :(  Maybe one day. And if I do, I'll have an Emotiva XPA-3 for sale too :)

post #120 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Certainly true for the 'fool's biamping' or passive biamping method normally suggested. Properly biamped speakers with active crossovers between the preamp and power amp can make a difference, although I've always thought that if I was going to go that way it would be better to buy active, powered speakers to start with - you then get drivers and amps properly matched for sure by the manufacturer. Or, of course, DIY speakers could go that route too if one has enough knowledge.  I have been tempted to replace my M&K S150s with their powered counterparts, but the cost is prohibitive. One powered S150 costs almost as much as three of the regular speakers frown.gif  Maybe one day. And if I do, I'll have an Emotiva XPA-3 for sale too smile.gif

Yeah very good point, two very different scenarios, and like you said, one adds value, while the other doesn't..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Official Emotiva UPA-500 AMP Discussion Thread