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

[Jon_Welker]

Matthew,

I'm still certain as to how you can say that the Elite's lack "real world" power without having backed it up with that much, besides having hooked up a bunch of systems. Well, a word of advice to us all...to each their own...

 

[Seth_L]

Hah, this is commical. All the Yamaha apologists still want to nail Sony to the wall for not hitting their rated power in their lower end units.

Before we all go claiming that no reciever in that price range can hit it's power rating, lets not forget the DA3ES and the DA5ES could hit their power ratings in all channels driven test.

 

[ShaunLB]

*sigh* Plenty of recievers can/can't meet various published specs. Lets go ahead and end this at that and stop picking various brands to nitpick over. We already determined that all rating must be tken with a grain of salt and that individual preference and actual performance is what really matters. If any particular product/brand has a shortcoming lets start seperate threads, seems like a shame to ruin the semi-conclusive point this thread has reached.

 

[Mike Veroukis]

John I know these other companies make decent units, they all make well built units that last but what you have to remember is the first thing is they aren't being honest about the ratings

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that they aren't honest. I would instead say they are vague, perhaps intentionally vague, but vague non the less. When they say 100x5 they don't tell us what that really means. Even HK receivers, which have a rating for 2 channels and another rating for multiple channels, doesn't tell us CLEARLY under what circumstances it will output to the rated spec.

It is obvious that there is some frustration amongst us enthusiasts as we just want to know what the true specs are, or more accurately, what the specs really mean. Even the test lab results don't seem to offer a realistic alternative. Perhaps what we need, as a community made up of enthusiasts, is to put together a standardized set of tests an amp can be put through. This standardized benchmark could then be offered to manufacturers and magazines. The standard would be clear and consistent as it would be created by us the users. Of course this is just an idea, but I think it's something the folks here at the HTF could help organize and administer.

- Mike

 

[Lewis Besze]

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.

"Clipping" is normally considered at .01%.

 

[Geoff L]

Yup fact, if all the receivers in the market were actually tested with all channels driven, many woud be shocked at the numbers big time...

Yes, their are those that will meet and or exceed their all channel driven power rating, but this is the small side of HT receivers and usually the upper echalon.

Take these Yamaha #s with a grain of salt and listen to what ever brand/unit and make your choice. I'd take the 2400 30-watt fudged numbers Yammi in a second over, lets say a receiver I've owned and had benched.

Get a load of this, Pioneer VSX-811S
This thing benched 72-watts per, with all (6) channels driven 8-ohm, 20-20, at .05% dist.
These #'s matched up closely to another bench test of the same model Pioneer over at HT-Spot. I really do dislike dishen on a equipment, (no dis-respect to 811 owners)...

Tho it would appear this is a very decently powered HT-receiver, the wattage is the worst sounding, un-dynamic, totally lifless power I've ever heard, PERIOD!!!
This regardless of the audio/video source being feed to it and speakers or sub/speakers being used...

Just goes to show that bigger supposed actual wattage output of a amplifier/s dose not ALWAYS directly correlate to the better or better sounding unit!

Regards
Geoff

 

[Lewis Besze]

To be honest, I've always taken those lab test result with a grain of salt, as they do NOT seem to be real "real world" tests.

Yes you're right,but if it was a "real world test" it would be even worse figures.
At least at S&V they test those receivers into a constant load of 4 or 8ohms,and with a very easy 1khz sine wave.
Now a real music program as we know, consists of more then a single frequency,including the power hungry bass frequencies.Couple this to the fact that no speaker is a constant load,not too mention some impedance phase variations,and you would find that you running out of "watts".
Now having said that most people use only a few watts in every day listening,but when you really crank up those action movies you'could run out of power quickly,however it would impossible to predict what would be sufficient in each case.If power is concern now or in future upgrades,like a tough to drive speaker,then buy a power amp and forgett about it.Exactly what I did,I won't have to worry about it for a long time.

 

[Geoff L]

Hey Lewis

Don't know just asking, Dose S&V really test with a 1khz sine into 4 or 8ohm?

Would seem a more real world way would be with varying dummy loads "averaging" 8-ohm or 4-ohm,,, and full bandwidth freq response instead of 1k whcih even my AM raido might put out a realistic number....

Just curious, my 811 was done by a friend that works at the Sound Room in GR, MI.

Regards
Geoff

 

[DonnyD]

Why is it that everytime the word "Yamaha" shows up in a thread, we all have to read the same persons spew about it. Personally, I think if something positive can't be said, then say nothing at all......

I own Yamaha and my last three receivers have been Yamaha......and yes, everytime I upgrade I go to a shop who handles several top brand and always A-B... and I always buy Yamaha. Persons such as the spewer or some magazine views don't even come close to making me second guess...... My ears are my judge.......

This is a great forum in which to learn about all things Home Theater but sometimes it seems products get bashed a little much.... this time simply because of a magazine....and some person's ever present diatribe....and do we know anything about that magazine, the editors, or testers??? Does anyone ever question their methods?? I too take that stuff with a grain of salt but my grain is more like a boulder.

Again, I will continue to think of this forum as a partner in HT building.... and I will try to ignore some person's constant negatives......

 

[John S]

Lewis Besze, I am not so sure about that....

especially in a real world test using a DD or DTS signal.

never would all channels be demanded to put out full output, or even close to it. This would free up the channels used in a more continuous nanner to have more output.

All this is pretty easy really, til you get into digital amps.


Look at the AC power requirements for any given unit with an amp or amps in it.

If that number does not add up to significantly more than the total of all the rated amps in the unit, then there is no possible way it could be true.

Take an Onkyo 501
Rating on power amps 65w x 6 channels = 390
Look at the AC power requirements, it says like 120V 280w or so. Laws of physics says this is not possible.

The rating should be more like 120v 500watts at an absolute minimum to produce a true 65w x 6 channels.

 

[Geoff L]

John thanks for mentioning that.

I was going to make note of that at some point in my prior Pio-811 post, but it slipped my mind.

Rarely if ever in real world use, would a multi channel receiver see an input signal that requires all channels to be driven, full range, and at full power. And if this was to happen it would only be for a split second at best. Add to that, that most run their speaks small with a powered sub,,,, and the currant draw would be even less persay.

Donny:
I agree on the particular someones that seems to send Yamaha lookers running for the hills nearly ever time their mentioned. It's getting old and rather irratating, I could along with others here, tear appart the respected H/K's if I felt the need to also, but I don't!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers
Geoff

 

[Lewis Besze]

never would all channels be demanded to put out full output, or even close to it

I agree that not many soundtracks out there utilizes all channels at once with the same amplitude,but my point wasn't about that but rather to illustrate the level of their test.

 

[James W. Johnson]

The same magazine (Home Theater Mag) reviewed the RX-V2200 here...
http://www.hometheatermag.com/receivers/114/


And the RX-V1 here...
http://www.hometheatermag.com/receivers/23/


ANd here are more older receiver reviews..
http://www.hometheatermag.com/receivers/


Its obvious that Home Theater Magazine does very rigorous testing compared to Sound and Vision.
Sound and Vision measured the RX-V1 at almost the speced output with all channels driven, HTM beat it up.

This makes me respect HTM more that I did in the past...I think I will subscribe.

 

[Don Barduca]

One thing to note about that James is that the 2200 is a couple years older and weighed near the same as todays 2400 with more channels and more features. So likely power supply/heat sink what have you has been downgraded a bit since the 2200.

 

[James W. Johnson]

No way, Yamaha has upgraded the amp section since then, I believe the power supply is around 3lbs heavier.

Edit: whoops I saw the 76wpc and thought that was 2 channels only...hmmm perhaps their 2400 was defective?

This graph shows that the RX-V2200's left channel, from CD input to speaker output with two channels driving 8-ohm loads, reaches 0.1% distortion at 76.5 watts and 1% distortion at 106.9 watts. Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1% distortion at 142.6 watts and 1% distortion at 206.5 watts. With five channels driving 8-ohm loads, the amplifier reaches 0.1% distortion at 73.8 watts and 1% distortion at 101.4 watts.

73.8 x 5 channels and .1% distortion is quite respectable...the 2400 IS beefier in the amp section so something is amiss...unless they changed their measuring techniques.

 

[BrentG]

I can't believe how many people say "well it heavier it has to be better" do you people really think that. I think that is no way to compare units at all, any cheapy revieve can through a steel plate to add weight in their if that will make it seem better to you.

If that is the case I got some really old tube radios that out weigh my V2400 so I better use them instead I guess, LOL

 

[Kevin. W]

My 1400 makes a damn fine pre/pro matched with my Rotel RMB-1095.

Kevin

 

[Don Barduca]

There are exceptions, but weight is typically a good indicator of a good receiver. And if the transformer weighs so much more then why is the new 2400 less powerful than the 2200 from a couple years ago.

I beleive it's because they sacrificed power for more features. Either that or Yamaha was royally screwing it's customers over the past 4 years or so, since the price now for the RX-V2400 is the same as the previous "heavier" receivers that had far, far less options. Yamaha doesn't strike me as that sort of company. Hell they held out on licensing THX as long as they could to follow their own path.

Plus, I have seen comparisons with Yamaha's against other competitors with the RX-V1300 and they overstated their all channels driven watts by about 100% then too. Some (like Onkyo) are even worse in their ratings, but most at least perform better than the current Yamaha did (strength-wise which is not to say that their amps don't put out a detailed rich sound, which they do.) Prove me wrong!

 

[Michael R Price]

Shaun, that was pretty much what I wanted to say, my thoughts exactly.

I thought a good test of clipping was 1% THD at 1KHz? I don't think .01% distortion could be considered outside normal operating range for some amplifiers. Besides, doesn't distortion rise very very rapidly once the amplifier is clipping?

Low distortion ratings across the entire audioband are still nice, but why hold amplifiers up to such strict standards when testing their output capability? I think 0.01% distortion at rated power is way too much to ask of a low cost receiver.

 

[Rich Wenzel]

I agree with Michael, I think clipping is at 1% or at the least .1%...

Rich