Hi,
I am asking this question for a mate. He currently has 2 Mayersound UPA-1C as top boxes for his kit and has a lead on some UPA-1P's. Unfortunately the 1C's would have to go to contribute to the cost of them. Does anyone have an opinion on this? He has had some opinions that say the 1C's are still one of the best boxes about and he should stick with them even though they are 25 year old techniology. He is attracted by the Constant-Q horn, the wider coverage and not having to lug an additional 4U case around when doing the smaller gigs but the 1C's do sound great (some say sweeter than the 1P's) and throw so well. But then, the 1C's can struggle to keep up with his Subs when running flat out and then added SPL of the 1P's could be better matched. Decisions, decisions.

Any thoughts?

Only to note that the UPA1s are, in my opinion, the worst sounding boxes ever made. I see no reason that the powered version will be any less obnoxious than its unpowered sibling.

I have to admit, there are folks who like the UPA1s, but I am not alone in my opinion. Seems to be a love it or hate it box.

Tell you what though - when you use the UPA1s with the appropriate controller and subs, as a system it goes outrageously loud. When its loud though you just have to pretend not to notice the octave and a bit gap between where the subs stop and the controller has dynamically raised the crossover frequency of where the top box starts.

Surely that will be a sign that you have failed to bring enough gear for the gig...

We used them for an event where we had previously used d&b E3's and found that the spill from teh rear of the cabinet was almost unacceptably loud. They were being used as a front fill for teh front of the audience, and were still quite loud when stood behind them onstage. This was a problem we ha not had with the E3's and thus we have reverted to E3's, despite the higher hire cost.

The D&B E3 and the Meyer UPA1C are completely different loudspeakers and so I struggle with the comparison here?! They are designed for different applications and have very different ratings.

Back to the original question personally I would stick with the UPA1C's. Having used them over and over again both outside and inside I find them to be a much punchier box with much more headroom behind them. (Obviously driven by a large enough amplifier and correctly set controllers)
Having run a rig of both boxes (granted UPA1A's in this instance) the 1A's kept going when the 1P's had run out of room and were obviously being compressed by the circuitry.
What amplifiers are your friend using? What are the subs?

Dom

He is using a Lab 1200c Amp. M1 processor. His 4 subs are 15" RCF folded horn cab made by ASS.

Ok, well there are several issues here for me....

4 Subs matched against 2 UPA1-C's is, for my taste a little unbalanced in favour of the subs....The UPA1-C's struggling isn't so suprising... (although without the models of the Subs this is hard to concrete substantiate.
The 1200C whilst being a great amp, I would suggest that it is slightly underpowered to get the absolute most out of the UPA1'c before the amp starts to run out of steam...(Just from my experience of using this configuration)

I still hold that I don't believe the UPA1P will offer any improvement except for the transport options...

Dom

Agreed, I can think of better ways to spend the money. The only other reason I can think of replacing 1Cs directly with 1Ps is if you had a fair few of the powered variant and wanted to standardise your stock and infrastructure.

Another option is to buy another amp and pair of 1Cs second hand perhaps?