Emotiva UPA-500 Five Channel Power Amplifier Review

[PENG]

I am still waiting for an efficient design that aims to maximize av quality by skipping dsp, video upscaling, fm/am, height/width, wifi, zone 2/3. The little money saved should be able to make a 4521or 7008 or 5011 more powerful than mini separates such as the upa and some rotel models. Those avrs already have quite power amp sections, they just need to beef up the power supplies by 25% or so to turn into a 2 channel mini separte killers.

 

[j_garcia]

To each his own. Maybe it is my emphasis on music, but my approach is to give the two main channels top quality power, and let the AVR handle the rest.

I agree, however I prefer to also include the center channel in that picture, so in my scheme, you'd either give matched power to the front 3 or all of them (in a 5.1 setup)

 

[npsquire1]

This may seem like a ridiculous question, Gene, (thanks for the good review btw) but to make sure i understand correctly, in your statement "The 200 and 500 have identical power supplies and power modules," that means that they both have the same amplifier, but the 500 just has that divided into 5 channels. If I were to drive only 2 channels with the 500, I would have the same results as the 200 amplifier?

Effectively, the question I am asking is, is the 200 a single amplifier with 2 outs, and is the 500 that same amplifier with 5 outs? Thanks for your time.

 

[gene]

This may seem like a ridiculous question, Gene, (thanks for the good review btw) but to make sure i understand correctly, in your statement "The 200 and 500 have identical power supplies and power modules," that means that they both have the same amplifier, but the 500 just has that divided into 5 channels. If I were to drive only 2 channels with the 500, I would have the same results as the 200 amplifier?

Effectively, the question I am asking is, is the 200 a single amplifier with 2 outs, and is the 500 that same amplifier with 5 outs? Thanks for your time.

That's not a ridiculous question at all. As far as I can tell, both amps have identical power transformers and capacitor banks. The UPA200 has 2 power amp modules while the UPA500 has 5 power amp modules. You can ask Emotiva for more clarity but the way I understand, if you just drive a UPA500 2CH driven, the power should be very similar to a UPA200 with 2CH driven. Hope that helps and If I'm mistaken, feel free to quote whatever Emotiva tells you and make sure you let them know you read about their amp on here. thanks.

 

[KEW]

This may seem like a ridiculous question, Gene, (thanks for the good review btw) but to make sure i understand correctly, in your statement "The 200 and 500 have identical power supplies and power modules," that means that they both have the same amplifier, but the 500 just has that divided into 5 channels. If I were to drive only 2 channels with the 500, I would have the same results as the 200 amplifier?

Effectively, the question I am asking is, is the 200 a single amplifier with 2 outs, and is the 500 that same amplifier with 5 outs? Thanks for your time.

It is a good question - especially given the UPA-200 is spec'ed as weighing 1.1 pounds more than the UPA-500! That may simply be a cut and paste error, but it is certainly smart to ask.

 

[Pottscb]

excellent

GENE: Excellent review. I think I says a lot how much time you spent, and with a $50K analyzer no less, to check this $399 piece of eq. Questions: In real world situations, what are the differences between the power testing results of "1KHz Psweep" and "Dynamic Power"? Would this be normal movie dialogue vs. an explosion? I agree with you that measly department store AV receivers need a shot in the arm, unfortunately, the prevailing trend in CE is for Pre-Amp outputs not to be included on cheaper receivers (which are the ones that need them most). For this same reason cheaper receivers should also have 7.1 analog inputs, which doesn't happen. Some recent research tells me that most receivers under the $1000 mark don't have BOTH Pre-Amp outputs and 7.1 analog inputs, which is a shame.

In your opinion, could the subjective sound of this amp be improved through the use of higher end material (capacitors, resistors, etc)? This is the only case I could think of for other companies to claim their higher price is justified. (whether it is or not...)

@KEN: I'm with you, I run an Anthem MRX300 with a Creek Audio Evo 2 in HT "bypass" mode, it provides wonderful music that is comparable to high end separates.

I know the Anthem isn't a cheap receiver, but it was a handy Pre-amp and it has a nice DAC and ARC room setup. The Creek amps output is rated about the same power as the Anthems, but it is more delicate and better matched for my efficient speakers (MA BX5) and it increases the power of the Anthems other amp channels.

 

[npsquire1]

I emailed Emotiva regarding my earlier question, and will post a response as soon as I hear back from them. Thanks for the quick replies!

 

[Sugarbear]

The Marantz SR6004 isn't a wimpy department store A/V receiver. I was referring to a typical $400-500 A/V receiver. The UPA-500 would be an upgrade to that.

Which of those has a full set of decent preamp outs?

This is the problem I see with the market for this amp. I have wished upon a star that AVR manufacturers would put pre-amps further down in their product lines but no dice...

 

[j_garcia]

This is the problem I see with the market for this amp. I have wished upon a star that AVR manufacturers would put pre-amps further down in their product lines but no dice...

If they did, those receivers would no longer be the lower product line. The supporting gear to add those connections cost money, a cost which is passed down to you, so the receiver would also become more expensive. The vast majority of buyers don't intend to use amps, so many manufacturers have models that don't have them.

All of the primary lineup from Marantz SR line have them and even the NR line has outputs for some channels.

 

[E.C.]

First post here

Hi, I've been reading this site for a long time and learner a lot, so thanks to all of you.
I had to chime in here because I've been considering some of these Emotiva components to hopefully upgrade my sound, especially for 2 channel music. I'm mostly happy with my HT, but I would like it to go louder cleaner- if that means smoother. It can get plenty loud now but I don't always like it there. When it comes to music it's just ok, but it can get a bit edgy and it's not particularly airy.

The equipment I have is:
Pioneer VSX-1018 which, by the way was around $500 when I bought it and it has 7.1 analog in and preamp out.
Kef iq7, and 1 and 300 center
Klipsch reference rsw 10"
Panasonic bdt500 as a source

I was considering the xda-1 and at first the upa-200, but now maybe the 500 instead. So my question is would I hear a noticeable difference from these additions, especially the amp.
P.S. I will be upgrading the fronts soon and maybe the sub, but I'd just like to know about the Emotiva stuff compared to the Pioneer

Thanks

 

[j_garcia]

Hi, I've been reading this site for a long time and learner a lot, so thanks to all of you.
I had to chime in here because I've been considering some of these Emotiva components to hopefully upgrade my sound, especially for 2 channel music. I'm mostly happy with my HT, but I would like it to go louder cleaner- if that means smoother. It can get plenty loud now but I don't always like it there. When it comes to music it's just ok, but it can get a bit edgy and it's not particularly airy.

The equipment I have is:
Pioneer VSX-1018 which, by the way was around $500 when I bought it and it has 7.1 analog in and preamp out.
Kef iq7, and 1 and 300 center
Klipsch reference rsw 10"
Panasonic bdt500 as a source

I was considering the xda-1 and at first the upa-200, but now maybe the 500 instead. So my question is would I hear a noticeable difference from these additions, especially the amp.
P.S. I will be upgrading the fronts soon and maybe the sub, but I'd just like to know about the Emotiva stuff compared to the Pioneer

Thanks

I can't speak for the 1018, but I've used one of the previous 101x models and found that even though it was THX select certified, that I didn't feel it really delivered the kind of power claimed. It struggled even with some bookshelf speakers when I pushed it. IMO, your KEFs warrant better amplification, but the 7s are listed as 90dB sensitive and 8 Ohm, so they shouldn't need a ton of power unless you have a big room.

Since you are saying it struggles when you turn it up, that would be an indicator of insufficient power for the size of space you are trying to fill. Offloading the mains or front three would help in this regard, IMO, however it also may not give you a HUGE gain in output going to the UPA amps. I think it would be an improvement, but it really depends on how MUCH more you are looking for.

 

[E.C.]

Thanks

I don't know if I would say that they are struggling when it comes to output; it gets very loud. It's just that I don't love the sound, sometimes. It is edgy at times and the sound can get congested. I tried placement tweaks and room treatment behind the mains with some improvement. I'm just looking for a cleaner, smoother sound. The room is 22'x14'X9' with carpet by the way.

 

[KEW]

I don't know if I would say that they are struggling when it comes to output; it gets very loud. It's just that I don't love the sound, sometimes. It is edgy at times and the sound can get congested. I tried placement tweaks and room treatment behind the mains with some improvement. I'm just looking for a cleaner, smoother sound. The room is 22'x14'X9' with carpet by the way.

That could also be a matter of the speaker drivers being pushed beyond their performance limits. I have experienced speakers getting edgy and congested when pushed too hard (by an amp that was not likely to be the weakest link). I know KEF makes some excellent speakers but don't know much about the model you have.

 

[E.C.]

Thanks for the input. I really don't listen that loud very often. I don't think I'm pushing them beyond their limits at all; I've had them much louder than what I normally listen with similar sound, just louder. I know that either the speakers or the amp or both will introduce more distortion at higher volumes. I guess I'm just hoping to refine the sound. I've heard other systems that are smoother and more, I guess atmospheric and I am hoping to get a little more of that sound. A couple weren't too much more expensive than mine but with separate amps; one had speakers with ribbon tweaters so maybe that's part of what I'm hearing. Just trying to get an idea of what kind of benefits, if any, to expect with different upgrades.
By the way the speakers are from one of their lower ranges, but not bottom; about $700 a pair. 3 way with uni-q mid/high.

 

[E.C.]

Sorry didn't mean to hijack the thread

Just noticed I did that. I'm new to posting in forums with threads

 

[PENG]

At low spl, say average 75 db the upa will not do much for you. Mostly likely your speakers are the major factor in your case.

 

[Steve81]

I can't speak for the 1018, but I've used one of the previous 101x models and found that even though it was THX select certified, that I didn't feel it really delivered the kind of power claimed.

To be fair, THX Select is only a certification for relatively small rooms, ie under 2000 cubic feet. Even in this case, it is only supposed to be "enough" power when driving THX Select certified speakers or speakers comparable in impedance and sensitivity to the THX spec.

It struggled even with some bookshelf speakers when I pushed it.

That a speaker is a bookshelf model is no indicator of how difficult it may be for an amplifier to drive. As an example, the Klipsch P17B dips below 3 ohms from 128-265 Hz, and is fairly reactive to boot. Even a THX Ultra certified receiver isn't meant to handle that kind of load.

 

[npsquire1]

Response to question of amplifier differences

That's not a ridiculous question at all. As far as I can tell, both amps have identical power transformers and capacitor banks. The UPA200 has 2 power amp modules while the UPA500 has 5 power amp modules. You can ask Emotiva for more clarity but the way I understand, if you just drive a UPA500 2CH driven, the power should be very similar to a UPA200 with 2CH driven. Hope that helps and If I'm mistaken, feel free to quote whatever Emotiva tells you and make sure you let them know you read about their amp on here. thanks.

Hey all, I got a response from EMOTIVA, and their sales rep informed me that Gene is right in regards to the same transformer being used in both units, with the same capcitance, and amplifier design. However, the results are that the UPA-200 will produce 125 watts into 8 ohms, and 200 into 4 ohms, while the UPA-500 will produce (with 2 channels driven) 100 watts into 8 ohms, and 165 into 4 ohms. This is because the UPA-200 has more "output devices" for each channel that it drives. Hopefully this was helpful to any who were curious.

 

[bootman]

... If Emotiva can get their pre pro right, they could be the pack-leader for a separates solution

UMC-1 + XPA-3 + UPA-500

Have you tried a UMC with the latest firmware?
Curious as to what you think we should expect out of it?


...and Gene, when are you going to finally test a UMC?

 

[slipperybidness]

Have you tried a UMC with the latest firmware?
Curious as to what you think we should expect out of it?


...and Gene, when are you going to finally test a UMC?

UMC has been discontinued now anyway. Time to start hassling Gene to review the XSP-1 and the XMC