Interesting review in hometheater mag on the yamaha 2400 (1 Viewer)

[Rich Wenzel]

first they gave it near "hot ticket" ratings, 90 on build, 96 on value, 97 on features, 94 on performance, but only 86 on ergo, i guess thats why it did not get a hot ticket...

the other interesting part was the amp results...

yamaha rates it as 7x120
tests results, all into 8 at .1%
2 x 102.9
5 x 43.5
7 x 32.3

I wonder why reviewers put in the test results (I know it was done by someone else) but never comment on them...it has a few sentences explaining how THX Select certification "ensures that it hit a 105-decibel sound level in a room of up to 2,000 cubic feet when used with THX Select-certified speakers..." But no comment that the actual specs come in way underrated...

Its normal for reviews in most mags, but it always makes me wonders...I mean, its 90 watts lower than rates, or 75% lower...

Rich

 

[Jon_Welker]

If that's true, then that's pretty sad on Yamaha's part. I was just starting to gain a lot of respect for them for putting out well-built components at a good value. Looks like they might suffer from some of the same symptoms as Sony receivers.

 

[Rich Wenzel]

onkyo and denon also come in way under specs...

i have reviews of bryston and other big name brands coming in under spec as well...

rich

 

[ChrisLazarko]

One reason I like Harman/Kardon. Honest and to the point, in the end they may be showing lower power ratings on paper but in the long run they are being honest and gaining the respect from people.

Also, I noticed before that only the lower-end Yamaha's lacked power, now I see that it is moving up into there high-end line which is sad.

As for Denon and Onkyo, I noticed also they lack in there power ratings but most of there recievers come in close to par which is better than what Yamaha and Sony are doing.

30 watts per channel is just piss poor on mid/high-end reciever like that... while a Denon or Harman/Kardon at that price range would be pushing about 75 watts per channel... sad, just sad.....

 

[Rich Wenzel]

some x9x series of onkyo were pretty bad...i think the 696 was rated at 100 and came in the 40's

i think i saw the denon 5803 at like 115-120 when it was rated at 170...i think thats pretty bad...

on Sony, at least they dont claim that the power is all channels driven, they come out and say they can deliver xxx watts into anyone channel but they dont give a number for all channels...

i think nad, h&k and rotel are the most honest in the midfi brands..

Rich

 

[MichaelDDD]

Wow, not too long ago, I was checking out the Yam 2400 vs. the Denon 3803. I wound up getting in on the $648 deal at 6Ave.com and I'm very happy I did. A $1K receiver for $650? Hell yeah!

Down the road, the 3803 will make a fine prepro when paired with a 200 x 7 power amp.

Those real-world specs on the Yam are very disappointing, indeed; particularly to those who have bought a 2400 recently. :frowning: 7 x 80 would still be very good...but cripes, 7 x 32? That's shameful.

 

[James W. Johnson]

I would take that test with a grain of salt, id need to see another test from another party before believing those results. Yamahas usually put out pretty close to their rated specs on their higher end gear.

 

[MichaelDDD]

Home Theater Magazine is not a reputable source?

 

[Wayne Ernst]

Actually, the December issue of Sound and Vision tested 3 receivers: The Yamaha 640, the Onkyo 501 and the Panasonic (digital) receiver. The power outputs of the Onkyo and the Yamaha were a bit disappointing - I don't remember the actual numbers. However, receiver to put out anywhere close to its rated power was the Panasonic - and it produced 82 watts to 5 channels during the test. It was rated at 100 watts per channel. Granted, these are lower-end receivers for each respective line, but does kind of give you an idea of how a manufacturer rates their gear - and how it proves out when 5 channels are driven at the same time.

 

[Lewis Besze]

This is nothing new,and it all goes to the fact how manufacturers are rating their amps.The FTC should come up with a new method for multi channel amps, which would require them to rate them while they[all channels] under a load at the same time,not one by one,as the current standard does.

 

[Mark Hedges]

As for Denon and Onkyo, I noticed also they lack in there power ratings but most of there recievers come in close to par which is better than what Yamaha and Sony are doing.

That is untrue. Home Theater Mag recently reviewed the Denon 2803 and measured 35.3 watts for 5 channels at 0.1 THD, which is even worse than the Yamaha.

It seems to me that all the 33ish pound recievers bench test fairly similarly. You need to go up into the 45ish pound weight (like the Sony 4ES, HK 325,525, etc.) before you start to see decent multichannel power ratings.

 

[Nick V]

That is untrue. Home Theater Mag recently reviewed the Denon 2803 and measured 35.3 watts for 5 channels at 0.1 THD, which is even worse than the Yamaha

Wow, that's really interesting. I just opened up an old Sound&Vision yesterday that stated the 2803's power output at clipping was 83 watts for 5 channels. If I recall, they don't specify the THD.

 

[ChrisLazarko]

Hmmm, it's all getting shameful at this point. Yamaha probably being the most dissapointing of them all. I would like to see them rate them in real-terms so the average joe wouldn't be taken advantage of and get to know the real deal (and in the end it is me, the person who knows about the equipment who has to tell them the turth, try to get them to return it, and then show them all the specifications and what is better) which makes my life more difficult.

Well whatever, gives the more honest companies more business when people find out the truth!

 

[Mark H]

ChrisLazarko,
Why do you say Yamaha is the worst of them all? While I do agree that brands such as Harmon Kardon/NAD give respectible power ratings, I think it all boils down to people getting out there and simply LISTENING to these products. We can pick apart amplifiers which fall short of our expectations, knowing a thing or two about audio, but if an amplifier sounds great to somebody isnt that simply enough. I lost respect for magazine reviews a long time ago, as indeed a lot of people have. Yamaha recently won the EISA award in Europe for their entry level amplifier (RX-V440), again, something I take with a grain of salt,as I would if it was any other brand who won.
My point is that yes it is disappointing IF this amp, and others like it are falling way short of their rated specs, but for the average consumer who demos these and finds them acceptable, well surely thats good enough?

 

[MichaelDDD]

OK, I'm sad now. :frowning: I wonder what the "real world" rating of my 3803 is?

Maybe I should not buy a new DVD player and sock the money away towards a 7-channel amp?

 

[Andrew Pratt]

What I'd like to know is how the magazine awards a 94 on performance when bench results like that

 

[Steve Winkler]

I'm a little shocked and disappointed too. I have a Yamaha Rx-V2300 and have been very pleased and impressed with it's sound and performance. Anybody have the "tested" specs on the 2300?? (Maybe I don't want to know) IMO and experience with my gear, it crushed the Marantz SR7300 I had tried in power and was equally good in the sound department. I wanted to try a Denon 3803 and HK 525 but the $$ difference here in Calgary between them and the Yamaha was ridiculous. Sony 4ES would have worked too, but at the time was impossible to find.

I was looking to upgrade to the 2400 for 7.1, crossover flexability, component upconversion, etc., and probably still will, but those power specs are really surprising. I am driving efficient Dahlquist speakers and don't anticipate any problems but geez, how do companies get away with stating such inflated numbers??

It may be a home trial and return situation, just the tought of hooking up and un-hooking all those wires makes me cringe.

Cheers,

Steve

 

[MatthewJ S]

30 watts per channel is just piss poor on mid/high-end reciever like that... while a Denon or Harman/Kardon at that price range would be pushing about 75 watts per channel... sad, just sad.....

**************************end of quote.........

All I can say is that I sell Yam, DENON, ES, pioneer/elite., and Kenwood, and the Yamaha 2400 beats all of the above in it's class on output w/o strain,compression, or distortion...the 3803 (a fine rcvr) as an example has a more difficult time driving less sensitive speakers.........ymmv....#'s are bull%^*# , use your ears....

 

[Gordon Moore]

What I'd like to know is how the magazine awards a 94 on performance when bench results like that

Maybe it's only 30watts but a real clean 30 watts

The performance rating probably was coloured by YPAO and Yamaha's DSPs.

Not everyone runs 7 channels but those numbers are pretty low. Not a huge surprise since people have noticed that the amp section is much lesser quality than the 3300 (discontinued).

I wonder how the Z9 will fair? For the money you would think the numbers would be bang on.

 

[ShaunLB]

Gotta agree with some of you guys that actually care how the unit PERFORMS and SOUNDS. The Yamaha is just fine, all their reciever will put out great, clean, powerful sound. Regardless of power ratings.

Sounds like Chris needs to take more info into account before making his usual statements. But then, we all know that. After all, there are PLENTY of 30wpc stereo recievers out there that are 20x the price and 20x the performance of many 100wpc recievers...watts are a very strange beast.