Don't buy Emotiva UPA-2

[KEW]

while the UPA-5 is on sale!

The UPA-5 is on sale for just $25 more at $400 (shipped) and will make one heck of a two channel amp!

We're talking headroom city if you use the UPA-5 as a 2 channel amp!

Comparison data from Emotiva site:

UPA-2/UPA-5
Shipped Price: $374/$399
Transformer Size: 300VA/600VA
Secondary Capacitance: 40,000uF/90,000uF
S/N ratio @ 1 Watt: 93dB/119dB
S/N ratio @ full power: 107dB/116dB
Height: 3.875”/7.75”
Weight: 30 lbs/58 lbs

 

[96cobra10101]

I bummed. I would have bought 2 UPA-5's instead of 1 UPA-7 and Biamped my mains. Should have waited a month.

 

[AJinFLA]

I bummed. I would have....Biamped my mains.

Well, according to our resident EE and another understudy, that wouldn't do you any good. You know, have 4 channels driving each separate reactance leg of the XO's , vs 2 channels driving it as a voltage divider. Who knew?

cheers,

AJ

 

[96cobra10101]

Well, according to our resident EE and another understudy, that wouldn't do you any good. You know, have 4 channels driving each separate reactance leg of the XO's , vs 2 channels driving it as a voltage divider. Who knew?

cheers,

AJ

But from what I have read Bi amping sounds better, why would it not in this instance? I am not disagreeing with you, just new to high end audio.

 

[AJinFLA]

But from what I have read Bi amping sounds better, why would it not in this instance? I am not disagreeing with you, just new to high end audio.

I might have been joking ever so slightly. As far as "sounds better", I would say...it depends. At higher levels, yes, maybe.

cheers,

AJ

 

[JerryLove]

But from what I have read Bi amping sounds better, why would it not in this instance? I am not disagreeing with you, just new to high end audio.

Ignore AJ. Or go to the thread on bi amping. He's just being passivep-aggressive.

That having been said; the upa-5 has a larger transformer and, if it can be bridged, offers more power over 2 channels.

Still, more power than you actually use has no effect on sound... but i don’t know how much you use.

 

[AJinFLA]

Still, more power than you actually use has no effect on sound... but i don’t know how much you use.

 

[tcarcio]

More power means louder........not better..............or blown speakers...

 

[96cobra10101]

Ignore AJ. Or go to the thread on bi amping. He's just being passivep-aggressive.

That having been said; the upa-5 has a larger transformer and, if it can be bridged, offers more power over 2 channels.

Still, more power than you actually use has no effect on sound... but i don’t know how much you use.

Well, I see a lot of chat about headroom, wouldn't that be a reason even if you don't use all the power? If I wanted the latest and greatest in home theater I would go with a 9.2 processor.

2 UPA-5's would be 10 channels of power, a UPA-5 and a UPA-7 would be 12 channels. If I biamped one of the 2 UPA-5's, I would have 4 for mains, a center, 2 front highs, 2 side, 1 rear.

A UPA-5 and a UPA-7 would get 4 for mains, a biamped center, 2 front high, 2 side and 2 rears.

I also have 2 powered subs so the amp wouldn't be needed for them. I just think the this is a killer deal on the UPA-5 and I am looking for an excuse to get one.

 

[AJinFLA]

Well, I see a lot of chat about headroom, wouldn't that be a reason even if you don't use all the power?

Bingo. That is exactly why more (available) power is better. But is not so much the slight increase in available power, as I explained in the Bi-Amp thread, it is that you separate the tweeter/woofer amplifier channels, which means if the woofer load channel clips, it will not be as audible as when the XO network is driven full range. See my link in that thread about clipping, that the uninformed are blissfully ignorant of.
Of course adding a more powerful woofer amp helps in this regard.

 

[JerryLove]

Well, I see a lot of chat about headroom, wouldn't that be a reason even if you don't use all the power?

What is headroom? Is it power above your average that you might use? If so it's used power.

The other option is that headroom is power you will never use. Do you really believe those little computer speakers will be better served with a 2000w amp than a 1000w amp?

If I wanted the latest and greatest in home theater I would go with a 9.2 processor.

and if you never attach more than 5 speakers what will you have gained.

But youur statement is correct. If you want the most power, mcintosh puts out a 2000w amp, and i believe it's bridgeable.

If what you are interested in is sound quality, then it is misused money.

 

[KEW]

...the upa-5 has a larger transformer and, if it can be bridged, offers more power over 2 channels.

The UPA-5 cannot be bridged; however, the secondary capacitance is available, on demand, to whichever channel needs it at the moment. Thus, one channel playing on a UPA-5 would have much more capacitance available than with the UPA-2. The UPA-2 probably offers a goodness plenty, but I know I always wonder if there is some possibility that I don't have adequate headroom. The UPA-5 resolves that issue for $400 without having to go out and buy a 200+ WPC amp.

Here is a pretty good article on how much power you might need for those little peaks:
http://www.axiomaudio.com/dynamicheadroom.html

 

[tcarcio]

Alway's thought headroom was whatever you needed and then some? I can listen to music with my system at 100db and have clean chest pounding sound and still have more............headroom......

 

[96cobra10101]

What is headroom? Is it power above your average that you might use? If so it's used power.

The other option is that headroom is power you will never use. Do you really believe those little computer speakers will be better served with a 2000w amp than a 1000w amp?

and if you never attach more than 5 speakers what will you have gained.

But youur statement is correct. If you want the most power, mcintosh puts out a 2000w amp, and i believe it's bridgeable.

If what you are interested in is sound quality, then it is misused money.

OK? You lost me here. Computer speakers? I don't get it.

5 speakers? I was talking about possibly getting a 9.2 pre because they are available. Why would I stick with only 5 speakers? I have 7 now.

I never said anything about getting the most power, just bang for the buck. I wasn't asking about bridging, but bi-amping. My mains are Bi-amp capable I believe, by simply removing the jumpers between the terminals.

What is misused money? I could play music out of clock radio and save a ton of money on equipment, and space and electricity, but I don't, I want a nice sound, the nicest that i am willing to spend money on.

Maybe do me a favor and reply with something helpful to my question that makes more sense to me since you chose to reply originally. Judging by your post count, you may have more knowledge on this than me, and maybe you could elaborate on your answers a little better. Thanks

 

[JerryLove]

OK? You lost me here. Computer speakers? I don't get it.

I used an extreme example (speaker which are likely drawing <1W powered by alternately a 1kW and 2kW amp), to illustrate the point that unused power is unused, and so makes no difference.

5 speakers? I was talking about possibly getting a 9.2 pre because they are available. Why would I stick with only 5 speakers? I have 7 now.

You seemed to be making a metaphor. Perhaps I mus understood you.

I never said anything about getting the most power, just bang for the buck. I wasn't asking about bridging, but bi-amping. My mains are Bi-amp capable I believe, by simply removing the jumpers between the terminals.

The best bang-for-buck is with a larger two-channel amp rather than a smaller 4-channel.

Since you already have an amp: the question you have to ask is "is 4-channel twice 2-channel in power?". If the answer is "yes", then you should be OK. If the answer is "no" then you risk clipping on your bi-amped setup where the single-amped setup would not have clipped.

Of course, unless your 4-channel amp is half-the-wattage-per-channel that the 2-channel is, it's also possible to envision a scenerio where you clip on 4 but not on two... but it seems to me to be the less likely case.

What is misused money? I could play music out of clock radio and save a ton of money on equipment, and space and electricity, but I don't, I want a nice sound, the nicest that i am willing to spend money on.

I answered your question in my actual statement.

Yes, you could play your music out of a clock-radio... but that would not be a good use of the funds you are playing with, and I'll quote here, "If what you are interested in is sound quality"

Buying equipment which has no effect on sound quality is a misuse of money if what your goal in spending money is, is to improve sound quality. Is that statement more clear?

Maybe do me a favor and reply with something helpful to my question that makes more sense to me since you chose to reply originally. Judging by your post count, you may have more knowledge on this than me, and maybe you could elaborate on your answers a little better. Thanks

There are two possabilities. Either I didn't make sense, and so you did not understand me; or I made perfect sense and your failure to understand is your own.

I point this out because you've just sarcastically told me to be "helpful" and told me that my post was non-sense. Terribly rude from where I'm sitting.

 

[JerryLove]

Alway's thought headroom was whatever you needed and then some? I can listen to music with my system at 100db and have clean chest pounding sound and still have more............headroom......

As I've seen it used on this forum, "headroom", at least "useful headroom", generally referrs to the use of a "fudge-factor" in determining WPC requirements so as to allow for an overly conservative estimate.

We can compute that a peak volume for a given situation would require 100w; then there's some milli-second event where the speaker hits max draw at an odd ohm, or where we find that the 100w amp can only do 90w if it's across all channels, or where there's a sustained 100w and that turns out to be a problem... so we get an amp with more power than we computed is neccessairy in order to ensure that, if we are wrong, sound does not suffer for it.

But it should have sane limits. If you've got a 91db speaker that you listen to with max peaks at 106db; that computes to 40WPC. Getting a 120WPC amp might be very reasonable given the prices of such amps. Getting a 1200WPC amp would be a waste of money.

I suppose, however, that there are differning levels of uncertainty in the calculations; but I would remind you that ever 3db doubles the power draw. The difference between 125W and 200W is small in terms of db.

 

[AJinFLA]

Maybe do me a favor and reply with something helpful to my question that makes more sense to me since you chose to reply originally.

Good luck with that. You're liable to hear soon about dolphins and 5 Guys in a tiled bathroom, or something equally nonsensically incoherent.

Judging by your post count, you may have more knowledge on this than me, and maybe you could elaborate on your answers a little better.

To the contrary. Ignorance does not preclude prolific posting, unfortunately. Hence the blissful unawareness of voltage swing requirements vs channel current loading, in the posterior grabbed example of the latest Bi-Amping post.
Par for the course sadly. But sometimes its best to let them wallow, than continue to attempt imparting knowledge.

cheers,

AJ

 

[AJinFLA]

More power means louder........not better..............or blown speakers...

Incorrect. Greater dynamic/burst power capability tends to sound "better" at higher SPL's, not "louder". A system with low compression can be played at quite high sound pressures, without it being perceived as "loud".