Yamahas and 'musicality' (1 Viewer)

[Yogi]

It's that kind of exagerration that makes me ignore whatever else is in that same post....because Yamaha has taken the time to catalog a few dozen venues for their acoustic signitures is hardley a reason to trash them

So if I say I am not a fan of phil collins that would mean I am trashing him... Interesting perspective Matt.
Nothing in my two posts suggests that I am trashing Yamaha. Maybe reading the full post about people's opinion might give you a clue as to what they are trying to say and where they are coming from. I just said that its my personal preference from what I have heard from Yamaha in the past and that I am not a fan of DSP modes. In fact in my second post I say that with properly matched speakers it might sound better than Marantz and Denon. Now how is that trashing? Maybe the next time I say I am not a fan of something I should put a smiley face so no thinks I am trashing something and takes offence
Chill out Matt. Life is not that cold and hard

 

[Chris A H]

Yamaha has upgraded their receivers, and the harsh sound from 2-3 years ago is gone.

I just spent a few hours a few months back listening to the Denon 2802/3802 vs. the Yamaha 1200/2200 and was surprised at how much better the Yamaha sound was in both 2.0 and 5.1 music. Better fidelity, richer timbre and _much_ larger depth of sound, esp. the 2200 (the best of the bunch, made the speakers disappear in the room).

I actually thought the 1200 was slightly better than the 3802 in music, no comparison vs. 2802.

 

[Sanjiva]

I too completely agree with Chris. I had narrowed my choices to Yammy 1200, Onkyo 676, Marantz equivalent and Denon 2802/3802. I was looking for 50/50 between music/HT. I was on a budget. General feedback I got was - "go for Denon 2802 which should be good enough". I was pretty set on going for Denon 3802 myself if I could get a good deal from the dealers. After doing extensive auditioning myself, I just could not leave Y1200. I found it, IMHO, the best among the lot mentioned above for both HT and music. I think Yammys are unnecessarily criticized in music department. What matters is whether you like the detailed sound (Yammy) or the warmer (non-detailed, rolled off) sound (Denon). For HT, it is a no-brainer - Yammy all the way. For music, it is your choice, depending on the way you like your music.

Thanks.

 

[EdS]

I've owned a HK DPL receiver (forgot the model #, but it was rated around 50W/channel) and currently own the Yamaha 2095. I like both receivers and would not hesitate to audition another HK or Yamaha (or several other models) for my next upgrade. The HK and the Yam definitely sounded different, but I did not find the Yam to be bright or non-musical, I think it was more accurate than the HK's warm sound. I also found that with well recorded music (i.e. Lyle Lovett's Joshua Judges Ruth) the Yam sounded great. With music that was recorded sterile, the HK gave it a nice warmth. However, using several of the Yam's DSP modes, tweaked to my preference, is a good way of "fixing" some poorly recorded CD's so they sound much better. I never found the Yam to be "non-musical".

My advice, audition the equipment with an open mind, and take into account the speakers you will be driving. One man's "bright sound" is another man's "neutral sound".

 

[Bob McElfresh]

I'm about 95% HT rather than music, so feel free to discount my thoughts because of this...
A few years ago the "bright", "harsh" issue of Yamaha came up on another fourm. Someone pointed out that several other brands of receivers did some enforced equalization to reduce the higher-frequency sounds so their electronics were not so harsh. Yamaha was actually praised for being more accurate/true to the original recording than other brands. (Accuracy is a goal of music reproduction).
When I did several months of research into buying new speakers, I hit nearly all the stores in my area. In addition to looking at speakers, I paid attention to what electronics were used in the speaker demo rooms. In about 80% of the cases, Yamaha receivers were used. This included one store that sold Sony and Marantz out the front, but hid a Yamaha A1 in a cabinent to demo the speakers. Somewhat sleezy of them to my mind.
(This was about 4-5 years ago)
Just my $0.02

 

[Steve Marsh]

I just did a head to head comp with a Yammie 1300 and Marantz 8200.
Of course the Marantz is the better reciever at over twice the price..BUT. For movies the Yammie was so close and I mean so close it was not funny. When we put on a CD it was a diff. story. The Yammie was OK but the Marantz blew it away in all respects except for maybe extreame high end detail. The Yammie had a bit more fatiquing sound while you got the impression you could listen to the Marantz 24/7 on music.
Strangely enough the Yammie with a lower power rating seemed more dynamic on movies and resolved every little detail of the soundtrack while the Marantz was a little more layed back. I think this is a unfair comparison due to the price diff but I believe all the Marantz recievers have this warm layed back sound making them great for music but less than the best for movies.
IMO if one is shooting for a product that does both well then the Yammie is better but I have also heard a Rotel that I thought had the smoothness of the Marantz (almost) and the dynamics and detail for movies. IMO the Rotel 1055 is the best reciever for dual purpose.(at least that I know of)
Steve

 

[dave alan]

jeff: bottom line...the three dealers were correct.

 

[Brian O]

So, from what I am reading, the Yamaha receivers have improved their 2 channel stereo sound dramatically the last couple years?
The Yamaha 795 I had was bought a little over 3 years ago and was just plain weak on 2 channel, but was night and day on DD/DTS. It made no sense to me that it could sound so incredible on 5.1 material and yet be so unfulfulling in 2 channel sources, and all those DSP's didnt help. Believe me. Thin sound is thin sound. Again, night and day compared to the 5.1 source output.
In 5.1 sources though, the 795 was better than the Denon 3300 and HK 500. With my Outlaw 950 and my two HK Amps, I now have the best of both Worlds for my budget.
The 795 was also sold as the 1105 in some stores too. It was Yamaha's mid-priced receiver then behind the 995 and their Top model.

 

[Jeff.bart]

Thanks for all the comments. I will have to go back and listen more to the Yammy 1300/2300 and compare vs other receivers. Since I had pegged the 1300 as my next A/V, i was paying more attention to the speakers. That said, I did not notice problems with the sound of the 1300. I compared it to the Marantz 7200 most closely -- using Boston Acoustics V-50 books plus Def Tech sub -- and found the Yammy to have greater bottom-end oompth and top-end detail (in other words, great dynamics). I can't remember whether the Marantz sound warmer or smoother.

Why is this a concern? Well, I like to listen to music at night after a hard day of work, when the family is sleeping. If I am tense or tired, then I am edgy. Bright sound is more noticeable and doesn't do anything to lessen my edginess. It may even add to it. But warmer sound is more soothing.

It may be that I can use an onboard DSP or get an equalizer to create a warmer sound, if that's what I want in the Yammy. Otherwise it appears to have all the features, power, quality, support that I want in a receiver.

I will still give another listen to the Integra 7.2 and Rotel 1055, both of which are quite nice but double the price. And the NAD T-762, when it comes out, will get scrutiny. I love the sound of NAD. The Pioneer VSX45 is also on tap for a listening session. It might even exceed the 1300 in features.

 

[Steve Marsh]

Jeff
You will be very hard pressed to find a smoother Rx than the Marantz at this price. That said I feel that if music is your preference you are better off with the Marantz than the Yammie. Yes the Yammie has more oomph (dynamics) which certainly helps for movies especially. I find this strange because if you look at the power supply of the Yammie 1300 compared to a Marantz 62,7200 you will see it is far smaller. So where does the oomph come from. I am not sure.
Before you make your decission try to audition these products with some music you are very familiar with and possees a lot of fine detail. You will be able to see the tradeoff between smooth and detail with the Marantz. Then try a Rotel and you will see the smoothness is still there as well as more detail. Thus the price I guess.
If you want to be soothed after work for a lower price then I say go Marantz.
My 2 more cents
Steve

 

[Levesque]

I was using the Yamaha RX-V3200 alone with Studio-40 all around. 2 channel audio was good, not harsh at all, and not to bright. But something was missing. I then add a Rotel RMB-1095 and now use the RX-V3200 as a pre/pro. Ahhh. Smooth, clean, clear 2 channel audio. Rotel is the way to go... But...

The biggest difference in sound came from "room tweaking". Adding pillows in the corners, drapes on the back walls, book piles and wood furniture full of books on the side walls. A lot more improvement in sound then adding an amp.

And never neglect the source contribution. Adding a Denon DVD-3800 yesterday just did a dramatically change in sound.

 

[Ken Janisse]

I too am using an RX-V3200 receiver. This unit is very well built (and heavy). For speakers, I am using Paradigm Studio 100s. In normal 2 channel stereo, the sound is very good, but I have always read how great my speakers are in the bass category. I found that there wasn't enough bass for my liking and I believe that what I was hearing is what others have described as brightness. Then I discovered the "bass extension" button on the 3200. Now it sounds much better, the bass is more noticeable (does this mean warmer?) The difference is night and day. Without this mode, the speakers just aren't producing enough bass. I know that there have been lots of opinions expressed about not using tone controls, but to me, my system sounds so much better with the bass extension on.

Just my two coins worth...