New Emotiva UPA-1 mono-block 300 watts/4 ohms - $299

[RoadRunner6]

Emotiva should soon (a week or two) have their new mono-block amp in stock, the UPA-1. This will sell for $299 (there is a rumor that you can buy two for about $269 or so each as a special reservation price before the shipment arrives). More info should be available at the Emo product page or at the Emo Forum maybe on Monday, Jan 25th. I Don't expect these to remain in stock too long until the next shipment.


http://i474.photobucket.com/albums/rr101/chuckienut/upa101-1.jpg

http://i474.photobucket.com/albums/rr101/chuckienut/upa1_back.jpg


UPA-1
Number of Channels: 1

Topology: Fully Discrete, Dual Differential, High Current, Short Signal Path Class A/B

Power output (all channels driven):
300 watts RMS @ 4 ohm (0.1% THD)
200 watts RMS @ 8 ohm (0.1% THD)

Power Band Response: 20 Hz to 20 kHz with less than .05db deviation at rated power
Broadband Frequency Response: (-3db): 5Hz to 150kHz

Amplifier Gain: 32db

Signal to Noise Ratio
1 watt: >89db
Full Power: >117db

Input Impedance:
Unbalanced – 47kohms
Balanced – 23.5kohms

Transformer Size: 300VA

Secondary capacitance: 20,000uF

Output Devices: 6

Size: 17” W x 3.875” H x 18” D
Weight: 26 lbs (35 lbs boxed)

[blackraven]

Just a prettier version of this- http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/2200.html

[RoadRunner6]

I don't think so. The Emo amp is much more substantial IMO. It is twice as tall, 50% deeper and weighs 45% more than the 2200.

[blackraven]

The specs are about the same with the Outlaw having less THD but the Emo has a a few more features like the useless XLR's which are not truley balanced. Some of the weight is due to the larger size.

Both are good buys and the EMO's have the edge in looks. Although, I like the low profile minimalist look of the Outlaw.

http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/2200.html

[RoadRunner6]

Some of the weight is due to the larger size.

http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/2200.html

"Some of the weight is due to the larger size." Plus what is inside like a large toroidal transformer, etc. I don't think they made it higher and deeper and filled it with rocks just so it looks more substantial and weighs more.

Yes there are no reviews on the Emo UPA-1 yet but the comments I have heard from their people make me believe this will be a very quiet amp of high performance, time will tell. I only put this info here because it seemed to me that this amp will be a fast seller and a standout in their line of amps considering its very low price for what it seemingly offers. I thought it would be of intertest to some, but obviously not you. So if you want to criticize it I'll add mine to the Outlaw 2200. Realize that I own Outlaw equipmnent and think they are an excellent value for the money.

The 2200 is a very good amp but I don't think it will match the UPA-1 in performance. Stereophile said about the identical NHT A1 amp:

"...........The Evolution T6's A1 monoblock amplifier doesn't have enough heatsink area to enable it to run at high power for long periods of time. It shut itself down after driving 70W into 8 ohms for 15 minutes, the top of its chassis too hot to keep my hand on......The A1's A-weighted signal/noise ratio (ref. 1W into 8 ohms) was respectable, at 82.6dB, this decreasing to 72.7dB when taken wideband, unweighted..........."

Another review on the 2200 found that it was down 1dB at 20Hz.

Generally the 2200 was reviewed to be a very good amp. However, these comments about its long term power ability, frequency response and its rather disappointing noise figures confirm that it is not the most substantial or quiet amp even though the tests confirmed its raw power specification figures.

[blackraven]

RR, I'm not criticizing you or the amp. I was just pointing out that there is another monoblock out there that is similar. If you re-read my last post, I said that both are good buys and that the Emo looks better. My only negative comment was the XLR's which are not truly balanced. They could have left these off and charged less!

[RoadRunner6]

RR, I'm not criticizing you or the amp. I was just pointing out that there is another monoblock out there that is similar. If you re-read my last post, I said that both are good buys and that the Emo looks better. My only negative comment was the XLR's which are not truly balanced. They could have left these off and charged less!

I agree that the Emo amp looks better. However, you were implying that these are two amp that are probably quite equal in performance. That is where I disagree from my initial reading about this UPA-1. I think the build quality is most likely superior with better performance in amp noise and brute power.

Just wanted to point out what might be a huge seller for Emotiva. If my initial opinion is wrong, I'll eat my Emotiva t-shirt (I haven't ordered it yet). :biggrin5:

[RoadRunner6]

UPDATE:

From Emotiva:

You may now preorder/reserve a UPA-1. The expected arrival date is 2/10/10.

The standard price on the UPA-1 will be $329. Yes, I know we projected $299, but production costs are going up, as always. We believe it's still an amazing deal at $329, and hope you will think so also.

PREORDER PRICE SPECIAL
If you preorder a UPA-1 before February 15th, 2010, you get a price break. If you buy a single UPA-1, the price is $299. If you buy two or more, they are $279 each.

On the Feb. 16th, the price goes up to $329 for one, and $299 each for two or more.

You may preorder your UPA-1 now by emailing: customerservice@emotiva.com

[blackraven]

Sounds like a good deal but its not much of a savings compared to the XPA-2 which has more power. Now I wouldn't mind having 2 of the XPA-1 mono blocks.

http://emotiva.com/xpa1.shtm

[RoadRunner6]

Two of the UPA-1's run $558 on the special price and the XPA-2 is $799. The XPA-2 is a real powerhouse at 250/500watts per channel. However, the UPA-1 measured at 368 watts into 4 ohms which isn't too shabby. The XPA-1, now that is an amp, 500/1000 watts per channel!


UPA-1 Inside Look
http://i474.photobucket.com/albums/rr101/chuckienut/upa2_inside400.png

[nightflier]

It's interesting that the price has gone up, which coincides with what I'm reading about most imports from China. If this trend continues, who knows, maybe one day we'll get back to US-based manufacturing that actually competes on price, too.

I'd half-expected PS Audio to make a Trio-based pair of monos and double the output to 200/400w, but that never happened. There's a few others that have crossed my mind, albeit, at higher prices:

Headroom (http://www.headphone.com/headphone-amps/power-amplifiers/headroom-desktop-monoblock-amp-pair-120v.php)

Odyssey Audio (http://www.odysseyaudio.com/products-khartago-mono.html)

Channel Islands (http://www.ciaudio.com/D200MKII.html)

Monarchy Audio (http://www.monarchyaudio.com/SM70.html)

NuForce (http://www.nuforce.com/hi/products/Monoamp/ref9v3se/index.php)

I realize these are all much more expensive, but they can be had used for less. The Emotiva is certainly at a bargain-basement price-point, but will it perform at a higher level? Considering Emotiva's track record, the answer is probably yes, but my only question is how does Emotiva do it? It's almost unbelievable.

[blackraven]

For now the UPA-1's are $558 but the price is going up to $598 a pair which is still cheaper though than the XPA-2

[Glen B]

Emo has a a few more features like the useless XLR's which are not truley balanced.
I disagree. Balanced is balanced. Whether circuits are full differential from input to output or single ended with active balanced inputs, long cable runs will still benefit from the noise reduction of balanced connections. Therefore, the XLRs are not useless. IMO, there too much focus in these forums on whether amps are "truly" balanced or not. I think this does a disservice to newbies, who from what I've seen, may be misled into thinking equipment that is "truly" balanced is automatically superior to other equipment that is not truly balanced. There is a lot of fine equipment out there with electronically balanced inputs.

[kexodusc]

Hmmm, My understanding is the amps only have inputs, and either receive the balanced signal or don't. So the amps are "truly balanced". A source or pre-amp unit (like my cd player) may have phase splitting hardware or not at various stages and be "truly balanced" from input to output or not...most consumer audio products I've heard of convert the balanced signals to "unbalanced" signals internally anyway, leaving noise reduction in the line as the primary benefit sound wise, though there may be slight sound differences that some find more or less pleasing vs RCA's. Nice to have the option.

Do they sell speakers with XLR connections? That signal's getting unbalanced at some point in the path anyway.

Personally I've heard some dB gains with XLR, and otherwise mixed results for sound quality. Some high end manufacturers insist they sound worse, some say they sound better. It's such a cheap feature to add though, no harm if some people can benefit from it.

Are there any sub $2000 a/v receivers offering XLR yet?

[blackraven]

Emotiva stated themselves that they were not truly balanced and I read a review somewhere that stated that they were not truly balanced. And I don't think that at that price that it would be. They are still excellent buys and I will probably buy one to go with my MMG's along with a used tube preamp.

[kexodusc]

Emotiva stated themselves that they were not truly balanced and I read a review somewhere that stated that they were not truly balanced. And I don't think that at that price that it would be. They are still excellent buys and I will probably buy one to go with my MMG's along with a used tube preamp.

Hi Blackraven,

Is it possible you may have confused pieces of equipment? My memory was that Mr. P talked to Emotiva and they mention the CDP wasn't fully balanced throughout internal circuitry, but I've never heard anything about the amps. What review was it you were looking at? It would be nice to know for sure so people that are insistent on fully balanced gear only don't get mislead into buying something not for them. There's enough trickery in this industry as is and I hope Emotiva isn't contributing to that.

I'm not an engineer, but I don't think there's any way to make an amp "not truly balanced" with the XLR's - there's no line level output stage. With amps specifically (pre-amps and sources are other matters) it either recieves the XLR signal or doesn't...balanced ouput signals are very different than RCA's so the amp would have to be capable of accepting the opposite-polarity signals. I'm not aware of any home audio amp on the planet that receives an XLR signal and then doesn't convert it to an unbalanced signal on the way to the speakers. Can anyone think of any?

[blackraven]

Here's some links concerning Emotiva amps and XLR. You can have XLR inputs and outputs but no have the internal balanced circuitry. maybe it was the ERC-1, but it would be odd for them to not have a true balanced CDplayer with true balanced amps to hook up too.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/pre-pro-systems-separates/100541-official-emotiva-q-thread-88.html

[kexodusc]

Here's some links concerning Emotiva amps and XLR. You can have XLR inputs and outputs but no have the internal balanced circuitry. maybe it was the ERC-1, but it would be odd for them to not have a true balanced CDplayer with true balanced amps to hook up too.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/pre-pro-systems-separates/100541-official-emotiva-q-thread-88.html

Thanks BR. That doesn't really clear much up on the issue, but safe to say Emotiva and other companies like Rotel, NAD, etc should all be doing a better job of specifying how much of the paths in their gear remain balanced. Too many companies getting accused of this...

[RoadRunner6]

Here is a post from Vincedog3 on the Emotiva forum form back in December. He has recently been hired on the Emotiva staff.

Quote;

"...............« Result #3 on Dec 23, 2009, 5:33pm »
P.s. the Architecture of the XPA-2 and XPA-1 are different. At the input for instance the XPA-1 is quad differential and also it is fully balanced. As from the website
FEATURES:

• True Differential Reference™ design.

• Fully balanced quad differential input stage.

The XPA-2 is Dual Differential, and the balanced input is summed. You get the benefit of common mode noise cancellation, but the XPA-1 is fully balanced.

I heard both the XPA-1 and the XPA-2 both are great amps, but the ease and clarity of the XPA-1s make me want them................"

I also read that that the UPA-1 was not fully balanced.

[koven]

Meh... Emotiva is quite overrated IMO... good for HT, not good for music.

[RoadRunner6]

Meh... Emotiva is quite overrated IMO... good for HT, not good for music.

Ugh, is there something different in the musical sounds you hear in a movie versus music? Like movies like Ray, Amadeus, Chicago, etc. The speaking voice and the singing voice reproduce the same frequencies. The amp does not know the difference. :D

[frenchmon]

Me h... Emotiva is quite overrated IMO... good for HT, not good for music.

Actually Kovan, the CDP is not bad at its price point...It sounded better than my Rotel CDP.

frenchmon

[winston]

My personal observation about this upa-1” is that it might be the answer to my needs, and also it will be my last power amp purchase. (I’m thinking) anyways I have sold my Acurus 150x2 & 100x3 the proceeds from this can buy me a set of these UPA-1s with some beer money left over” so I’ll be pulling the trigger by now and February 15Th 2010.

That been said” I already have two very good receivers that will be fine for my home theater system in 5 or 7.1 modes, in my present set up I used the pioneer elite receiver” because I’m able to used the (Surround Back speakers binding posts to bi-amp my fronts) when in 5.1 mode!! To get a better cross over performance” (but It is still missing something)

I came very close to buying the XPA-5 or XPA- 3 during the emotiva December sale but I pass” because I need to have good bi-amping results (and from personal experience I don’t think those five and three channel amplifiers were designed for Bi-amping!!) (Others may say different but that’s just my opinion) the XPA-1 would have been the way to go, but buying two of those beasts’ (would have been an over kill for my needs) and way too much more than I wanted to spend!! Subsequently there was a buzzing about a poor mans mono-block power amplifier coming from emotiva after the success of the UPA-2!! Well its almost here now” and all things been even the XPA-1 and UPA-1 are the two amplifiers from emotiva that are truly Bi-amp able IMO” and the UPA-1 is my choice.

(XLR, balanced, unbalanced are of very little concerned to me" as I'm not big on the DIN" connection family.

[Glen B]

Thanks BR. That doesn't really clear much up on the issue, but safe to say Emotiva and other companies like Rotel, NAD, etc should all be doing a better job of specifying how much of the paths in their gear remain balanced. Too many companies getting accused of this...

IMO, equipment having balanced inputs/outputs with other internal stages being single ended IMO is not dishonest as long as the manufacturer does not claim the gear is full differential when its not. Therefore, the manufacturers have no "better job to do". When gear is full diferential, usually the manufacturer will state this clearly. I would hope that anyone who is insistent on having gear that has full differential circuit topology would do their homework.

Differences in topology may boil down to a matter of personal taste. I have the option of runing my gear balanced or unbalanced. I have tried both, and while neither stand out as being superior, I do find a slight difference in the sonic presentation between the two, and prefer the sound of the balanced connections (I did try identical brand and length cables, and level matched). That said, I could happily live with RCA connections if I were forced to.

[Glen B]

Hi Blackraven,I'm not an engineer, but I don't think there's any way to make an amp "not truly balanced" with the XLR's

Yes, the non-inverted and inverted signals are fed into dual op-amps and the outputs are summed. You still reap the benefit of noise reduction without the entire circuit needing to be full differential. There is no deception involved. The benefits of an amplifier being "fully balanced" throughout is a subjective matter.

[RoadRunner6]

Winston, I'm not into bi-amping but many at the Emo forum, including the big boss have mentioned using the XPA-5 (as well as other Emo multi-channel amps) for bi-amping. I don't know what the difference would be between running two UPA-1's to the same speaker versus running two channels of an XPA-5 to the same speaker, other than crosstalk issues etc. Maybe you could expound on that (sorry if I missed it before).

[midhifi]

I just would like to share my experience with this new amplifier . I bought a pair of UPA-1s for a dual mono set up for listening to music. I have to admit that I used them only for two days. The amps look nice, seem to be well built. They can produce strong bass and run cool. They are dynamic, have good separation due to the dual mono configuration.

However, from the point of view of sound quality, I did not have any excitements described by those on the Emotiva's own forum at all. The problem is the congested/veiled upper-mid and high frequency, lack inner dynamics. They are troubled by violin and piano. The music produced on these amps sounded dry and lack of elasticity. My pair of Rotel 980s configured in dual mono can produce music obviously more lively, much more enjoyable. The comparison was made with the same source: a Sony NS999ES CD/SACD player, the same preamps: a DIY passive preamp with a 27-step pot or a Parasound 850 active preamp, the same speakers: NHT 2.9.

I did try the UPA-1s in my second sound system. There, my two Rotel 960s in dual mono set up also performed better. In this setup, the source is from a PC ->Monarch 24/96 DIP jitter reducer->A MSB Nelson Link DAC III->Rotel 960 preamp->NHT Classic 3 with a NHT sub one.

I was disappointed because I wanted to upgrade my Rotel 980s by these UPA-1. But for music, I definitely have to keep my Rotels. UPA-1s might be very suitable for home theater because they can produce stronger/puncher bass than the Rotels. Also, I might have made my conclusion too early, I should have waited a little longer to give the UPA-1s some time to break-in.

I was wondering why I did not have the same positive experience as those posted on Emotiva's forum. By reading the posts there, I found that some of the posts are for HT setups and some are for upgrading from receivers. I wish to read feed-backs by comparing the UPA-1 with other well-known amps in a pure music set up.

After this experience, I did read the descriptions of some Emotiva's amps on its web more carefully. I found that the UPA-1 is a simpler amp than XPA-1 and XPA-2, and I realized I was expecting too much from UPA-1. My plan now is to save more for Emotiva's biggest amp: the mono XPA-1.

No flame please, I just would like to share my experience. Hope this post can balance those posts on Emotiva's web and help people to choose Emotiva's amps, especially those looking for new amps mainly for music.

[nightflier]

midhifi, let us know if the sound changes as these break in. Or have you returned them already?

[midhifi]

I ran them for two days, but they changed little. I haven't returned them yet. I am still breaking them in. Hope they can make enough change so that I can keep them.