kde Posted August 19, 2013 Author Share Posted August 19, 2013 I am grateful for the responses and am learning from the knowledge. I am at a "good place" -- I watched a movie last night and enjoyed the UMC1 and thought the sound was good. It just seems that if I can get a good buyer for the UMC 1 with the upgrade card... then swap to the Marantz AV7005 for a few dollars more... it would be worth the experience to try something new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZombieWoof Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Your (if it's the old style ) UPA-7 is 125 watts minimun per channel I have one & a UPA-2 125 watts as well pushing 9 channels to 5 CornScala & 4 CS-1.5 type clones all 9 have Dave Harris's Eliptrac-400 , B&C DE750TN-16 2" drivers I use a TX-NR1009 as a pre/pro for the dual video processors (same vid processors in the Oppo 105) really helps the PQ on my DirecTV as well as up-procesing SD on DVD's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willland Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 It terms of power... I use the Emotiva UPA 7 (~100 watts per x 7 channels = 700 watts). I have 7 speakers hooked up to it... so assume ~100 watts per speaker. If I add a receiver with 100 watts per channel (7 channel receiver x 100 watts = 700 watts)... and use the amp for the mains -- does that mean I have 700 watts from the amp divided by 3 (left, center, main) so ~233 watts per speaker plus the receiver for the 4 surrounds (700 / 4 = 175 watts per speaker)? Is this correct? No and yes. Taking some of the load away from the Emotiva and giving it to the receiver to handle, will indeed allow for more power to be distributed to the speakers driven by the Emo, but not 233 watts/ch. Probably more like about 140 to 150 watts/ch would be available for your front soundstage. Many amplifiers with a single power supply will distribute according to the demands of those channels powered by that amp The Acurus amps that I have in my HT system do just that. Here is an excerpt from Indy Audio Labs Aragon "Legacy" section. This Aragon 2002 is internally identical to the Acurus A200 that I have driving my RF-63's. The 2000 Series THX® Ultra2-Certified amplifiers from Aragon bring powerful, dynamic, high-end performance to the masses at substantially lower pricing. The 2000 Series amplifiers will deliver 200 watts into 8 ohms and 300 watts into 4 ohms for effortless performance from nearly any loudspeaker systems. The 2000 Series amplifiers feature a single power supply design that we call SmartPower™. In this configuration, a channel could provide substantially more than its rated output for short periods of time by getting more energy from the power supply while the other channels aren't demanding as much. SmartPower™ enables the amplifier to perform at optimal levels in high-end two-channel audio environments as well as in the most demanding home theater applications. Other amplifier mfr's also use a similar design philosophy for some of or all of their amplifiers. One mfr that also comes to mind is NAD, which terms their design as "PowerDrive" which enables the amplifier to provide massive power peaks way above the amplifiers rated specs. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 The 2000 Series THX® Ultra2-Certified amplifiers from Aragon bring powerful, dynamic, high-end performance to the masses at substantially lower pricing. The 2000 Series amplifiers will deliver 200 watts into 8 ohms and 300 watts into 4 ohms for effortless performance from nearly any loudspeaker systems. The 2000 Series amplifiers feature a single power supply design that we call SmartPower™. In this configuration, a channel could provide substantially more than its rated output for short periods of time by getting more energy from the power supply while the other channels aren't demanding as much. SmartPower™ enables the amplifier to perform at optimal levels in high-end two-channel audio environments as well as in the most demanding home theater applications. Other amplifier mfr's also use a similar design philosophy for some of or all of their amplifiers. One mfr that also comes to mind is NAD, which terms their design as "PowerDrive" which enables the amplifier to provide massive power peaks way above the amplifiers rated specs. If one channel can "borrow" power from another, because they share a single power supply, isn't that a weakness of the design, rather than a strength? For best imaging and freedom from crosstalk, or effects related to crosstalk, isn't it best to have a separate power supply for each channel? It sounds like the manufacturer decided to go with a single power supply (to save money, weight, design complications, who knows?) and is describing the primary drawback of that design as an advantage. That may be good marketing, but it seems a bit misleading to me. The 100 dB crosstalk specs of the MX-D1 power amps I use is probably helped by each channel having its one power supply. The imaging ability is certainly very good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZombieWoof Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 mono blocks are the only way around a shared power supply Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willland Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 If one channel can "borrow" power from another, because they share a single power supply, isn't that a weakness of the design, rather than a strength? I suppose it could be a weakness, but many mfr's use a similar design for some of their amps. Maybe to simplify things, reduce weight, reduce cost, or all of the above. For best imaging and freedom from crosstalk, or effects related to crosstalk, isn't it best to have a separate power supply for each channel? I would say that you are correct, but that design is not as "necessary" in a HT setup as it would be in a 2-channel rig. I have owned Acurus, B&K, NAD, Parasound, and Sunfire amps and all were of a similar design philosophy. That may be good marketing, but it seems a bit misleading to me. I would not say misleading if full disclosure in the design description. Some of these mfr's mentioned do have their designs that feature multiple power supplies(dual monoblocks, etc.) like Parasounds Halo amps and Indy Audio Labs and Modial Designs Aragon amps, but they do come with a premium price and weight increase over their "lesser" models. My Acurus A200x3 specs at 90dB crosstalk which ain't so bad for a single power supply driving three channels.[] Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willland Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 To Kde, Sorry for straying a little off topic.[:$] Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derrickdj1 Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 If one channel can "borrow" power from another, because they share a single power supply, isn't that a weakness of the design, rather than a strength? For best imaging and freedom from crosstalk, or effects related to crosstalk, isn't it best to have a separate power supply for each channel? It sounds like the manufacturer decided to go with a single power supply (to save money, weight, design complications, who knows?) and is describing the primary drawback of that design as an advantage. That may be good marketing, but it seems a bit misleading to me. This not necessarily a weakness from my perspective. Borrowing power will mean that the speaker that need the extra power, will get it and have improved dynamic range, less transient clipping, better driver contol and lower distortion. In an amp with 7 channels, all the channels will not be needing to use to max watts available. To tie this into the thread top, this may result in a warm sound.[:|] lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kde Posted August 19, 2013 Author Share Posted August 19, 2013 Ha! I am fine going off topic a bit. It's crazy how everything is fine... then I start to think about an upgrade and then BAM... my mind starts racing! I'm sure that the Marantz AV7005 will be suitable, but at $900 plus shipping... I am now wondering if the AV7701 is worth the extra $600 to buy new (vs refurbished) and have the 4k availability. I realize the 4k bit may not be immediate, but I am one of the guys who think it may be more mainstream quicker than expected (ex Apple and others potentially pushing). Also, my Pioneer Elite plasma is pushing 7 or 8 years and I may be in the tv market in upcoming years. Everything is still on the table -- if I could find the right buyer... I could sell the Emotiva package (UMC & UPA7 & upgrade card) and just keep things simple with an AVR for awhile since young kids with early bedtimes keep my volumes low anyways. I think I would just miss the 30 minutes each month I can find to blast the volume on a movie scene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heritage_Head Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 I paid 800 (retail1600) for my elite brand new in the box last year model. Go to best buys web sight and see what they have posted for clearance. And location of the piece Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted August 19, 2013 Moderators Share Posted August 19, 2013 I'm sure that the Marantz AV7005 will be suitable, but at $900 plus shipping... I am now wondering if the AV7701 is worth the extra $600 to buy new (vs refurbished) and have the 4k availability. Accessories4Less has the Marantz AV7005 Refurbished for $799 with Free Shipping. If you need 4k, they have the Marantz AV7007 Refurbished for $1099 with Free Shipping Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wstrickland1 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 If you didn't need HDMI and want warm sound you should buy my B&K Reference 50. It really is a wondeful sounding pre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kde Posted August 21, 2013 Author Share Posted August 21, 2013 After all this exploration... I may push off my decision to upgrade. Even though it doesn't happen very often, I was getting frustrated with the HDMI switching of the UMC and some of the pauses (though not a bad issue). Over the past few days... I took some time to play with the system and crank it up. One major learning is that I had been listening to music in PLIIx and recently discovered the "Direct" mode which was much cleaner and more musical sounding. Not sure if this is the majority or not, but I liked the Direct mode more than the stereo mode (by quite a bit). Given that 95% of our use is for tv watching, 4% for movies, 1% music (me sitting in room alone for 30 minutes every 6 months) -- I never really moved the mode settings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted August 21, 2013 Moderators Share Posted August 21, 2013 I had the UMC-1 for over a year and overall I liked it but never was fully satisfied with the sound. The "quirks" were manageable. I had gone through a major debate between the UMC-1 and the HK AVR3600 before deciding to give the UMC-1 a shot but always wondered in the back of my mind, did I make the right decision. I ended up selling the UMC-1 and buying the HK AVR3600 and could not be happier. The ONLY thing I miss about the UMC-1 is the ability to adjust the levels of the channels on the fly. It was great to be able to lower the sub volume when the wife was asleep or temporarily bump up the center channel a notch or two. In the end, the UMC-1 just wasn't for me since I was HORRIBLE at trying to manually adjust the EQ since EmoQ was pretty much unusable with how it calibrated my system. For my setup, it was a good move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.