Emotiva UPA-7 Seven Channel Power Amplifier Review

[jeffsg4mac]

I believe there is going to be a new addition to the family in our house soon. His name is going to be an XPA 5

 

[3db]

I think I would prefer it over the Onkyo PA MC5500. It may not have the bells & whsitles of the Onkyo but it seems to have a more rugged power supply and capacitance bank for 50% of the price of the Onkyo. Who cares that Emotiva isn't THX certified. I hope it never will be certified so that Emotiva can pass the savings on to the consumer.

 

[acacia987]

it would be cool to see a review dedicated to the UMC-1. any chance that is coming up?

 

[eddie]

it would be cool to see a review dedicated to the UMC-1. any chance that is coming up?

+1 I believe he said it's in the works.

 

[sjcguy]

For 2ch setup, Gene bi-amped the speakers. did anyone notice that? does that mean UPA-5/UPA-7 performs better when bi-amping?

 

[Matt34]

For 2ch setup, Gene bi-amped the speakers. did anyone notice that? does that mean UPA-5/UPA-7 performs better when bi-amping?

Maybe the speakers performed better, I don't know how it would improve the abilities of the amplifier?

 

[96cobra10101]

I got my UPA-7 today and it rocks!!! Still can't believe the bottom end my Klipsch's have now. Can't even notice my subs are OFF! Even at low volume it sounds great. Can't wait to get the UMC-1. Would love to have a complete Emotiva system eventually.
I have a question about bi-amping though, do you use a cross-over, and which kind if you do?

 

[gene]

My tower speakers have built in passive subs. That is why I biamped. The actual subs have no xover so they are run full range relying on the natural rolloff of the drivers to act as a LPF. I like bi-amping these speakers b/c I feel you get better control of the bass. Not all speakers will benefit from biamping however.

 

[sjcguy]

what is your opinion about bi-amping with UPA5/7 vs XPA-3/5 (single channel)

 

[blindcat7]

Thanks for this review. I'm a long ways off from moving to a separate amp since I am still trying to decide on an up to date receiver with preouts to begin the process of moving to separates, but I am always keeping watch for the next step.

One question I had was why this amp has a better S/N ratio than the UPA-1? I'm no amp expert, so maybe I am making too much of that one rating or not understanding the importance in relation to the other stats, but it sounds to me just from that number that you give something up in return for the extra wattage of the mono amps. I had always thought that one of the advantages, of monoblocks was less noise and distortion, but it seems to me that the UPA-7 wins in that area. Can someone with more knowledge set me straight?

Thanks,

Chris

 

[jsleonardo]

Upa-2

Hello, great review but I'm interested in UPA-2 to connect my front speakers. I checked the review of UPA-2 but does not have the measurement/bench testing.

Does this mean that the power of UPA-2 is similar or close with UPA-7 if 2 channels are driven?

What would be the theoretical power of UPA-7 if it drives 6 Ohms impedance speakers?

Thanks in advance.

 

[scattershot]

I notice that the same company's processor's haven't been refreshed to include HDMI 1.4a compatibility (including Arc and Ethernet over HDMI).

Are there any processors you would recommend for under $700 US that would?

OR should I perhaps look for a known receiver (like an Onkyo 808) and use it as a pre-amp?

Thanks.

 

[GranteedEV]

I notice that the same company's processor's haven't been refreshed to include HDMI 1.4a compatibility (including Arc and Ethernet over HDMI).

Are there any processors you would recommend for under $700 US that would?

TBQH I don't even know any seperates receivers under $700, period.

I'd look into the marantz SR5005 from outlaw audio's site. It's an AVR with HDMI1.4, and makes a great prepro. Plus they've got deals to pair it with one of their amps.

 

[bandphan]

What would be the theoretical power of UPA-7 if it drives 6 Ohms impedance speakers?

Thanks in advance.

There isnt any such thing as an 8, 6, 4, 16 ohm speaker. They all have dips and peaks. You need to look at the impedance plot for you speakers and see where they dip and if that frequency is an area that calls for power, ie mids and lows Thats why manufactures rate as "nominal"

 

[Seth=L]

Hello, great review but I'm interested in UPA-2 to connect my front speakers. I checked the review of UPA-2 but does not have the measurement/bench testing.

Does this mean that the power of UPA-2 is similar or close with UPA-7 if 2 channels are driven?

What would be the theoretical power of UPA-7 if it drives 6 Ohms impedance speakers?

Thanks in advance.

If the UPA-7 and UPA-2 were both operated in 2 channel (UPA-2 only being capable of operating in 2 channel) the UPA-7 would wipe the floor with the UPA-2. The UPA-7, as described earlier in this thread when comparing to the UPA-5, has a larger power supply. In fact, the power supply in the UPA-7 is so much bigger than the one in the UPA-2, they won't even come close to each other in performance. Compare 300va transformer to 850va and 40,000uF in the UPA-2 to the 90,000uF in the UPA-7.

At 6 ohms the UPA-2, assuming their published specifications are correct, would achieve around 160 watts in a 6 ohm load. Like Bandphan said though, no speaker is constantly at one impedance. Nominal ratings are an average or more correctly the mean of the impedances the speaker will impose on an amplifier. Basically the rating is meant to give you an idea of what the impedance will most often be throughout the frequency band the speaker will play.

 

[KEW]

Just as an interesting comparison,
The 125W X 2 UPA-2 has a 300va transformer and 40,000uF secondary capacitance.
The 200W X 1 UPA-1 has a 300va transformer and 80,000uF secondary capacitance.

I wonder why Emotiva decided to double the capacitance for half the number of channels?

 

[3db]

Spec misprint perhaps??

 

[KEW]

Spec misprint perhaps??

No, you can see 2X capacitors in the UPA-1! (Scroll about 1/2 way down the page.)

http://emotiva.com/upa2.shtm

http://emotiva.com/upa1.shtm

Maybe they just wanted to have something to fill in the void where the second channel electronics were removed.

 

[Seth=L]

Just as an interesting comparison,
The 125W X 2 UPA-2 has a 300va transformer and 40,000uF secondary capacitance.
The 200W X 1 UPA-1 has a 300va transformer and 80,000uF secondary capacitance.

I wonder why Emotiva decided to double the capacitance for half the number of channels?

More dynamic headroom, simplest answer. The UPA-1 also employs a true triple darlington output stage with 6 transistors. I believe the UPA-2 uses a version of triple darlington, but somehow does it with only 4 transistors per channel.

 

[KEW]

The 125W X 2 UPA-2 has a 300va transformer and 40,000uF secondary capacitance.
The 200W X 1 UPA-1 has a 300va transformer and 80,000uF secondary capacitance.

I wonder why Emotiva decided to double the capacitance for half the number of channels?

Seems to be an Emotiva trend:
The 300W X 2 XPA-2 has a 1,200va transformer and 45,000uF secondary capacitance.
The 500W X 1 XPA-1 has a 1,200va transformer and 120,000uF secondary capacitance.