Emotiva UPA 200 or XPA 200 to drive Sierra Towers

[wilejoe]

A good rainy Saturday night to all. With that sale going on at Emotiva now those amps are only $100 apart. Is there a difference in quality of those two amps or are you just getting an extra 25w !50w compared to 125w.I think I'm going to do what Imcloud suggested and get the Emotiva XDA2 Dac. I'm probably going to get the Ascend Sierra Towers or the Salk Songtowers depending on which one the wife thinks looks better in the living room. I am using my setup to play music throughout the lower portion of the house, living room dining room, kitchen etc. I know this is not optimal listening conditions but this is where I spend most of my indoor time . Thanks in advance .

 

[PENG]

A good rainy Saturday night to all. With that sale going on at Emotiva now those amps are only $100 apart. Is there a difference in quality of those two amps or are you just getting an extra 25w !50w compared to 125w.I think I'm going to do what Imcloud suggested and get the Emotiva XDA2 Dac. I'm probably going to get the Ascend Sierra Towers or the Salk Songtowers depending on which one the wife thinks looks better in the living room. I am using my setup to play music throughout the lower portion of the house, living room dining room, kitchen etc. I know this is not optimal listening conditions but this is where I spend most of my indoor time . Thanks in advance .

The XPA's transformer is only rated 10VA higher, or less than 3%. What you gain is 90,000 uf vs 40,000 uf. I have no idea why Emo put that much capacitance in that 150WX2 amp considering the XPA-5 has only 60,000 uf. For virtually the same power output spec, I think the UPA is better deal. I know it is only $100 less but that's like getting a 25% discount on the XPA, again only for a transformer that is 3% larger and more storage capacitance, what for?

 

[mpompey]

Dude, go for the XPA-5, more power is more power.

In today's economy, you wont even miss the $100.

Plus, in the end you'll save your self the nagging headache of
"I should have got the XPA-2"...

 

[wilejoe]

.

.

Plus, in the end you'll save your self the nagging headache of
"I should have got the XPA-2"...

That's just what I'm afraid of.

 

[ImcLoud]

I own the XPA2 and love it, another option is a pair of Outlaw 2200's, I love mono blocks for stereo listening, I bought mine bstock and love them, $550 for a pair shipped {they never last in Bstock, by the way and they are there now} no chance of cross talk there, lol...
https://www.outlawaudio.com/mofcart/bstock.html
Model 2200 Monoblock Power Amplifier
I love them little guys, if you don't care about matching components... I have a set driving my csb1's

I also have a xpa2 powering my 2.2 in my front parlor

But honestly I prefer the 2200's and the $250 in my pocket, although I love the xpa2, its just not worth the extra $250 {even at the sale price}....
I have played my 2200's for hours at a good volume and they stay nice and cool, but the xpa2 easily will do the same....

Its a tough call... you are going to love the sierra towers, someday maybe you will add a set of usl15's or sb12's to them, lol...

 

[wilejoe]

I misread mpompey's post. I didn't realize he said XPA 2 not the XPA 200 which I was considering. The XPA 200 is only $399 for 150 watts of power. My question was is the extra 25 watts worth $100 extra or is there something else in the XPA series that makes it a much better sounding amp then the UPA 200 (125w) amp. I'm trying not to go to crazy here.

 

[Goliath]

Dude, go for the XPA-5, more power is more power.

Simply increasing power does nothing but increase headroom - which means very little if you never decide to make use of that headroom.

 

[Goliath]

The XPA 200 is only $399 for 150 watts of power. My question was is the extra 25 watts worth $100 extra or is there something else in the XPA series that makes it a much better sounding amp then the UPA 200 (125w) amp. I'm trying not to go to crazy here.

It makes very little sense to spend $100 for a fraction of a dB, which you will never hear under any circumstances. For frame of reference, if you had to double your amplifier power you would net +3dB overhead. Take out an SPL meter, increase the master volume until it registers +3dB. Trust me, it's very, very small. I really wouldn't worry about an extra 25 watts.

 

[j_garcia]

3dB may be small, but it is easily audible as well - it represents a 50% difference in level. If you drop the level of the right speaker -3dB vs left, most people would quickly notice it. Some factors here are likely to be how loud you expect to listen, how far you sit from the speakers, how big your room is, etc... If you don't generally listen very loud, then you might not need the XPA. I've had a variety of amps and I am extremely pleased with my XPA-3. For a non-critical listening setup, it sounds like you'll be fine with the UPA-200 though.

 

[RichB]

3dB may be small, but it is easily audible as well - it represents a 50% difference in level. If you drop the level of the right speaker -3dB vs left, most people would quickly notice it. Some factors here are likely to be how loud you expect to listen, how far you sit from the speakers, how big your room is, etc... If you don't generally listen very loud, then you might not need the XPA. I've had a variety of amps and I am extremely pleased with my XPA-3.

To me, 3DB often feels quite large.

For HT, it is too soft when I cannot hear the vocals and the adjustment not that large, usually in the 3DB range.
Once adjusted, peak volume also feels significantly louder.
A 6DB increase feels gigantic.

Music is a different matter since there is no reference.
The volume know is all over the place depending on the record, music type, mood, presence of spouse, children, and the cat.
Strangely enough, the cat is most tolerant of my occasional sonic binge.

- Rich

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yeah, going from 125 to 250 WPC would get you 3dB more.

But the question is, how much power do you really need?

If you use subs, the speakers will require A LOT LESS power.<O</O

As an experiment, I sit 12ft or 3.66m from my speakers. I listen to some pop/rock songs and the max SPL is 108dBC. With all subs turn off, the max SPL is 87dBC. So in this experiment, the amps are required to drive only 84dB for each speaker.<O</O
<O</O
This means that for speaker w/ a SEN of 90dB/2.83v/m and distance of 3.66m (12ft), it would take the amp only 3 watts. TWO speakers would increase SPL by 3dB. Two speakers each playing 84dB would produce a total volume of 87dB. So for each speaker to produce 84dB, it would only take 3 watts each.

So measure your Total SPL from just your speakers.

 

[Goliath]

3dB may be small, but it is easily audible as well - it represents a 50% difference in level.

I never said it was inaudible, just that the difference was not large. If you up the volume by 6 dB, that would be large. Increasing the volume 10 dB higher would be very large. 3 dB is not a 50% difference in level.

 

[j_garcia]

Yes, I've read that too: 10dB is what listeners identify as a "definite difference". That does not mean that even the average listener cannot hear a 3dB difference and we're talking about a measured difference of 50% in level not what listeners "perceived". As in, 3dB is an industry standard measurement for speaker sensitivity because of the fact that it is an actual 50% difference in output.

 

[Goliath]

Yes, I've read that too: 10dB is what listeners identify as a "definite difference". That does not mean that even the average listener cannot hear a 3dB difference and we're talking about a measured difference of 50% in level not what listeners "perceived". As in, 3dB is an industry standard measurement for speaker sensitivity because of the fact that it is an actual 50% difference in output.

Can you show me how you worked out your calculations?

 

[j_garcia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3dB-point

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel
[/URL]

 

[RichB]

Yeah, going from 125 to 250 WPC would get you 3dB more.

But the question is, how much power do you really need?

If you use subs, the speakers will require A LOT LESS power.<O</O

As an experiment, I sit 12ft or 3.66m from my speakers. I listen to some pop/rock songs and the max SPL is 108dBC. With all subs turn off, the max SPL is 87dBC. So in this experiment, the amps are required to drive only 87dB or only 84dB for each speaker.<O</O
<O</O
This means that for speaker w/ a SEN of 90dB/2.83v/m and distance of 3.66m (12ft), it would take the amp only 7 watts. TWO speakers would increase SPL by 3dB. Two speakers each playing 84dB would produce a total volume of 87dB. So for each speaker to produce 84dB, it would only take 3 watts each.

So measure your Total SPL from just your speakers.

That is an interesting analysis.
To properly analyze this, I have trying to get handle on the dynamics of music.
The more dynamic the greater the peak requirements.

The more compressed music should fit within the RMS view of power requirements.
However, some uncompressed will have huge swings in DB and power.
So doesn't it come down to the dynamics of the recordings that you listen to.
I read a post suggesting that live acoustical recordings can have 20DB peaks.

That seems modest but let's go with it.
In that case, there would be about 20 times average power to peaks.
So, in this case, 3 watts would require 60 watts peak. Still no problem.

So it depends on your speakers, sub use, room size.
Many times with amps we talk about distortion, but I think distortion is less of a problem at high volume (driven within the amps limits) than at low volume. Most SS have less distortion at their rated power than they do at 1 watt.

I think the problem is not necessarily a matter of distortion but of compression.
So is there a difference between the UPA and XPR line driven within their limits?
I am not sure, but I read owners who think so.
There must be some reason for the extra hardware.
Perhaps and EE can chime in here. The extra transformer, capacitance, and transistors should add something.

- Rich

 

[RichB]

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel
[/URL]

I think I did my math wrong.
Does a 20 DB peak requires 100 times the power?

- Rich

 

[Goliath]

I read a post suggesting that live acoustical recordings can have 20DB peaks.

That seems modest but let's go with it.
In that case, there would be about 20 times average power to peaks.

Nope. 100 times the average power!

 

[Goliath]

As in, 3dB is an industry standard measurement for speaker sensitivity because of the fact that it is an actual 50% difference in output.

3 dB sensitivity gain/loss would be a halving or doubling of amplifier power to maintain the same SPL. It's still not a significant difference. Yes, a doubling of voltage equates to a 6 dB increase, so 3 dB would be 50% of the measured level, but so what? All we care about is perceived volume - you know, what we can or can't hear.

 

[RichB]

Nope. 100 times the average power!

Thanks, I caught that.

It 20 DB peaks a reasonable expectation for well recorded music?
I am sure that amps can produce peaks but depending on the design they cannot sustain it.

- Rich