Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Yamaha going very low end?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
75 replies to this topic

#21 of 76 OFFLINE   RobCar

RobCar

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 201 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 27 2002

Posted March 18 2003 - 05:43 AM

Excellent catch. There are more subtle differences (e.g., the 1300 has a removeable power cord, some cosmetic differences, etc.) but the lack of preouts in the 5590 seems like a big oversight. Maybe they'll drop the price signficantly to offset that?

#22 of 76 OFFLINE   Alan M

Alan M

    Second Unit



  • 454 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 03 2003

Posted March 18 2003 - 05:51 AM

I do own the 5560 ,and it does have preouts,would have thought from there up they did,not a wise decision by yammi.
Sory for the mis info

#23 of 76 OFFLINE   Mike Up

Mike Up

    Second Unit



  • 393 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 2002

Posted March 18 2003 - 07:13 AM

Quote:
Maybe they'll drop the price signficantly to offset that?

They did drop their price to $700, but it was still to high since RX-V models(which can't be bought authorized over the internet according to Yamaha's policy)sell cheaper from walk-in shops. I could had bought the RX-V1300 for $600. To me, the HTR5590 should had been at most $500, to make the loss of features easier to swallow.

Hopefully Yamaha is getting back to it's previous norm. The RX-V740 looks promising in that the power output might be higher by the brochure's parts list and weight information, 13Kg or ~29lbs.

However, I'm still not convinced until I see hard concrete evidence from a test result. The RX-V1200 looked to be a $800 MSRP power house when Yamaha upped it's weight to 33lbs, equaling the RX-V2200. However, even at 33lbs the receiver still lacked power output. Yamaha's earlier models weighed less and had higher power output, so weight is definitely not a good indication of output anymore.

Here's to hoping.

#24 of 76 OFFLINE   Evan M.

Evan M.

    Supporting Actor



  • 910 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 26 2002

Posted March 18 2003 - 10:15 AM

I have the rx-v2200 and it certainly doesn't sound underpowered at all. In fact I think that Yamaha is back to their old good form with the intro of the 1200, 2200 last year and this years newer rx-v and htr lines. They sounded a bit thin to me a few years ago. I had a denon 3802 for a bit that boasted 110 watts. It just did not stack up even close to the 2200 in clean power. however the 3802 is a fantastic receiver in its' own behalf.....Warning, rant about to begin....... My personal opinion though is that if one wants power and "good" power, they should look into separates. A receiver to me is built to do everything good, not great not bad, just good. As soon as you get into separates, everything is manufactured to do its' own job. I say this because so many people put much of their preference in a receiver on how loud it can go. The truth is that if you want a receiver that can really "crank" you need to spend big bucks and at that point separates may be a better route to go. If the public keep buying into the louder is better routine than receiver manufactors will continue to inflate their power ratings. And who can blame them, its cheaper for them and more people will buy there product.........End rant Posted Image I hope i didn't ruffle any feathers. I know this thread was not intended to be a separates vs' receiver debate. God knows we have scene too many of those Posted Image. I just always equate good, strong, clean power to a separate amp. In case anyone is curious I do not own any separates, nor will I probably any time soon, I can't afford to right now, my wife would destroy me if I came home with one. Posted Image

#25 of 76 OFFLINE   Mike Up

Mike Up

    Second Unit



  • 393 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 2002

Posted March 18 2003 - 10:55 AM

I own the RX-V2095 and originally upgraded to the RX-V2300. Concerning sonics, the RX-V2300 was impressive being that it was able to accomplish 'equaling' my RX-V2095's performance. This was a head to head stereo, 2 channel audition I did. However, with higher volumes they both strained with high distortion and a very thin sound. This was with their volume's very loud, at 50% volume.

I definitely did not hear any 'better' in the RX-V2300, over the RX-V2095. I sent the RX-V2300 back due to slight cosmetic damage and a bass management bug flaw that seems to be ever increasing in Yamaha receivers. It was in the last RX-V596 I was setting up. The subwoofer was active in all modes except DPL. A replacement was free of the problem. This time with the RX-V2300, I had the problem with "all channel stereo", but the sub was active just not working correctly as how it handled bass steering. Subwoofer output had more bass with speakers set to "LARGE", and decreased the bass output when speakers were set to "SMALL"( working opposite as it should). All other modes were fine as I had the unit 2 weeks before I discovered the 'all channel stereo' BM problem. Being this was the "2nd" Yamaha receiver I've seen with BM problems, I wasn't going to let it get to 3, I went with the Denon AVR-3803(and very glad I did after hearing the performance advantages).

With the Denon, I found better soundstaging, better imaging(resulting from better soundstaging), more refined highend with less harshness, and an amp section that doesn't distort or strain all the way up to 70% of full volume(where my ears could take no more).

Yamaha told me that the RX-V2300 had an improved amp section creating higher dynamics and more overall power output. Done this by increased transformer size, bigger capacitors, and newly redesigned amp section when compared to the RX-V2200. Also what they said, was shown on their site in a press release of the RX-V2300 bettering the older model. Denon also upgraded their block capacitors compared to the older AVR-3802.

Not disputing what you hear, I just found the complete opposite. BTW, I still own my Yamaha RX-V2095 and still really like it. It could be serving bedroom duty very soon.Posted Image

Happy listening.

#26 of 76 OFFLINE   Evan M.

Evan M.

    Supporting Actor



  • 910 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 26 2002

Posted March 18 2003 - 01:58 PM

Mike, it is apparent that you have done a well informed head to head comparison of the Denon and the Yammie. I think this is what I appreciate most about these forums. When I auditioned these units a year ago I was set on buying the Denon from the great respect that it was given here and other places. But like I said in previous threads the sound just bored me. The fact that we both think the exact opposite about these receivers is to me why we enjoy this hobby so much. It is based so much on individual preference that we try to strive for the perfect sound to us. I always like to read about what other people think about products I have heard or own(ed). It is always nice to hear other opinions. The fact that Yamaha has increased its amp section with the the 2300 is of course obvious and comes as no suprise. Why would any company stay status quo? If they didn't do any upgrade with the amp section than all that is left is adding dts-ex and a little change on the dac's. That just would not cut it in todays market. I don't think I know of any electronics company that wouldn't do any modifications to the amp section. Changes like these is what keeps me involved in the hobby. It is also what makes me poorer Posted Image.

#27 of 76 OFFLINE   Phil*K

Phil*K

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 170 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 23 2003

Posted March 19 2003 - 03:01 AM

FWIW,

I had a 5490 for about a month. Very nice receiver BTW. With this unit the signal was sent to the LFE channel per bass management during DD or DTS media. With PCM signals nothing was sent to the LFE channel. I ended up setting the sub output to both, setting the mains to large, and using the sub crossover which worked well.

With the V1 I have now, this is not the case. All signals produce an LFE out per bass manangement. I have the subs set to SW and all speaker set to small and have never had a problem with bass level.

I also had an Onkyo DS797 for a shorter period of time. It had an option on the menu which gave you the option of sending PCM bass signals to the LFE channel or not.

My point is that with the 5490, IMO, this was not a defect but its design. Many people feel that subs are not good for music. Also, and I'm far from an expert, I would think that it would be more important to match your sub to your speaker's feq response for two channel music than in DD or DTS.

Phil

#28 of 76 OFFLINE   Mike Up

Mike Up

    Second Unit



  • 393 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 2002

Posted March 19 2003 - 04:15 AM

Phil,

Those were defects. I don't use Yamaha's bass option:BOTH because it causes upper bass boosting. I always use the SUB option.

With the units, bass steering is were the defect was. Bass filtered from the speakers was not being steered to the subwoofer output as it should. With the RX-V596, the sub output was just not working. A faint sound could be heard but by all technicalities, it wasn't working at all. We exchanged the unit and the replacement worked great.

The RX-V2300 had a slightly different problem. With all channel stereo, the subwoofer 'output' was putting bass out when the speakers were all set to large and when the LFE mode was set to Subwoofer, NOT 'BOTH'. The subwoofer should had technically been turned off by this configuration. When selecting all speakers as small and the LFE option set to "sub"(which is what I use), the subwoofer output decreased it's output significantly to where bass was extremely weak. The bass should had a higher output. Definitely not working correct. Yamaha receivers only use the subwoofer while running the speakers full range, if the LFE option is set to "BOTH". I had many Yamaha receivers and they are all the same. This was the second BM problem I've experienced and the quality control was suffering as the unit had cosmetic defects also. For those reasons, I went to Denon.

These lower models don't have a subwoofer option for each sound mode. Yamaha receivers are very simplistic. One of the advantages of having the Denon, it's much more configurable. Denon and Onkyo are very similar in their features and options, Yamaha was a completely different animal. In fact, the Yamaha was the least configurable receiver I ever seen. One crossover, channel levels are global, sub setting is global, remembered sound mode is global for an inputs DD, DTS, PCM, Analog signal(Denon and Onkyo can use DPL for DD 2.0 and then remember to change to 7 channel stereo for PCM 2.0). However, that's why I loved the Yamaha, it was it's simplicity. I'm not saying all their receivers are going to have BM problems, but the last 2 brand new receivers I've seen in factory sealed boxes, had this problem for me. Maybe it's just bad luck, but I didn't want it to continue so I changed brands.

Have a good one.

#29 of 76 OFFLINE   Phil*K

Phil*K

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 170 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 23 2003

Posted March 19 2003 - 05:17 AM

Mike,

You may be right. You have had many more Yamaha's than I have. I was supprised that the V1 didn't require any switching arround to get bass through the sub pre-out during PCM playback. When using the 5490 I didn't notice a difference between DD/DTS or PCM sub performance with the setting at both versus SW or Main which is why I left it at both on the 5490. Like I said with the V1 I have it set at SW and all speakers to small. Everything works fine. I'll have to check out the 5540 my daughter has to see what it does.

Take care,

Phil

#30 of 76 OFFLINE   Mike Up

Mike Up

    Second Unit



  • 393 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 2002

Posted March 19 2003 - 08:13 AM

Unfortunately, many of these tech reps are only looking at what gets them by and don't know a whole lot. When I called to find information about the RX-V2300, they were pretty much clueless. I emailed a while back and they were also clueless in not even knowing how their own receivers worked.

I'm not talking about the LFE channel, I'm talking about the Subwoofer output. Most of the clueless reps don't even know the difference. Whenever you select the channel as small in ANY MODE, that bass information in those channels will be sent to the subwoofer output. When using either a DD or DTS "5.1/6.1" source, the LFE channel in those formats also goes to the subwoofer output. In an ideal setup with ideal speakers, the configuration would be all speakers set to "LARGE" and LFE option set to "SUBWOOFER". In that configuration all bass going to the Front Left/Right, Center, Surround L/R, and Surround Back L/R will only be played by the speakers connected to those channels. The Subwoofer will only play when there is a dedicated LFE channel in Dolby Digital or DTS 5.1/6.1. Only the LFE channel in Dolby Digital and DTS signals will make the sub play in an ideal situation. However, with the speakers set to small and using ANY sound mode, the subwoofer should play the bass signals at their reference levels and should not attenuate the bass at all, unless there is a defect in the bass management(as there was with both the RX-V596 and the RX-V2300).

It really pisses me off that these tech reps usually talk out of their asses and have no knowledge in what they're talking of. As the saying goes, a little knowledge(to the wrong person) can be dangerous. Unfortunately, these reps should wear a CAUTION sign around their necks.

Ah, I feel better now that I got that out.Posted Image

Have a good one.Posted Image

#31 of 76 OFFLINE   Evan M.

Evan M.

    Supporting Actor



  • 910 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 26 2002

Posted March 19 2003 - 08:45 AM

Mike, just curious if these were the same "clueless reps" who also told you that the amp section in the 2300 was upgraded from the 2200. If so I wonder if the information that you shared about the amp section being an upgrade is true now. Goes to show that in order to really know and like a receiver one must audition, audition and audition again like you and I did so we know what we like.

#32 of 76 OFFLINE   Phil*K

Phil*K

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 170 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 23 2003

Posted March 19 2003 - 10:04 AM

Well, I was curious on how many different answers we could get so I called Yamaha tech support and was very specific about my questions. Here's what he said and according to him this applies to all late model receivers.

1. For PCM/2 channel inputs. If you set your mains to small then anything below 90 Hz will be sent to the sub pre-out. If you set the mains to large then all will be sent to the main speakers and nothing will be sent to the sub.

2. If you set your mains to small then setting the sub output to SW is appropriate.

3. If you set them to large then you should select sub output to both vs. main so you wont lose the LFE output in DD and DTS. If you set the sub output to SW and speakers to large then you lose bass during PCM/channel playback.

This makes logical sense to me

Phil

#33 of 76 OFFLINE   Mike Up

Mike Up

    Second Unit



  • 393 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 2002

Posted March 19 2003 - 01:51 PM

Phil,

Yeh, he's correct on most. The LFE channel gets folded into the front channels when LFE/Bass output option is set to "MAIN". Otherwise everything was 100% correct.

My deal was that the speakers on both the RX-V596 and RX-V2300 were set to 'small'. They were both defective, no doubt. As said, we got a replacement for the RX-V596 and it was fine, no problems.

Boy, Yamaha most likely will make sure they spend extra QC on bass management after all the calls and emails branching off of this. I surely didn't mean this to be a big deal. It was not a bug or design flaw, just a defect in these particular units.

Have a good one.Posted Image

#34 of 76 OFFLINE   Mike Up

Mike Up

    Second Unit



  • 393 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 2002

Posted March 19 2003 - 01:58 PM

Evan,

Quote:
Mike, just curious if these were the same "clueless reps" who also told you that the amp section in the 2300 was upgraded from the 2200.


Nope, it's hit or miss. I was lucky enough to get someone who was in their escalated technical support and talked with him for over 30 minutes. Since I'm familiar with Yamaha receivers quite in depth, I can tell if someone is BSing me. He had knowledge that I was tapping.

BTW, Yamaha's press release confirmed everything he told me. See here.

I completely agree about auditions. THEY MUST BE DONEPosted Image .

#35 of 76 OFFLINE   Phil*K

Phil*K

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 170 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 23 2003

Posted March 20 2003 - 07:50 AM

Hey Mike,

Not to open another can of worms but I read the review in S & V and despite the numbers, the reviewer found it an adequate mid level receiver. In his con section he doesn't mention low power out, but does site the noise level in DD and DTS.

Phil

#36 of 76 OFFLINE   RobCar

RobCar

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 201 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 27 2002

Posted March 20 2003 - 08:00 AM

That's interesting. So what exactly has been the point of this thread, anyway? Seems like it's zig-zagged a bit. Is it that the rx-v730 doesn't have the power that its specs claim?

Either way, it's been interesting.

#37 of 76 OFFLINE   Mark All

Mark All

    Second Unit



  • 256 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2002

Posted March 20 2003 - 08:25 AM

Quote:
So what exactly has been the point of this thread, anyway?


Actually, the thing that would bother me more than the power output of the 730 would be the audible hiss in very quiet sections of Dolby Digital soundtracks. For exclusive home theater use, the power levels may not matter that much compared with receivers with higher true output levels.
Audio, ergo sum.

#38 of 76 OFFLINE   Mike Up

Mike Up

    Second Unit



  • 393 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 2002

Posted March 20 2003 - 08:35 AM

Phil,

I long for the days of Audio magazine. Audiophile reviews that had balls enough to say if a product was good or if it was bad, PLUS had the test measurements to prove their opinion. I'm not talking about inadequate noise, frequency, and 'very' basic power output tests as S&V does, but tests on parameters that the average S&V reader is not even aware of.

Now that's said, I have never seen Stereo Review or the newer version of it, Sound and Vision, ever say a receiver sounded bad EXCEPT for the Marantz SR7200. You basically have to interpret their comments and test results to come to your own opinion. I did notice one thing with this review, reviewer was making excuses how such poor test results wouldn't affect the performance. I'm getting sick of S&V's continuing excuses for poor performing products. The way I'll look at it, call a duck, a duck or don't say anything. I'm thinking of canceling my subscription because S&V doesn't seem to provide any meaningful information anymore. They only had test results going for them, and they cut back to the most basic tests, that only tell part of the story.

I however have more interest in Home Theater Mag, which I didn't care for years ago. I think it's a very, very good magazine today. I also like Stereophile's Guide to Home Theater. I wish there were more better magazines that offered test results with good opinion articles. However I only find other magazines to be very biased with no evidence to back their opinions.

It's HT and SGHT for me. S&V is soon to be history.

Have a good one.Posted Image

#39 of 76 OFFLINE   Mike Up

Mike Up

    Second Unit



  • 393 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 2002

Posted March 20 2003 - 08:46 AM

Quote:
So what exactly has been the point of this thread, anyway?


The title of the thread, "Yamaha going very low end?" .

These basic test results are shocking from such a reputable brand that was considered to have some of the top performing receivers in the lower price ranges just a few years ago(Prior to the EX decoding RX-V*000 line. The RX-V595 and previous lines were very good on power output and noise. ). I'm just disappointed by these newer receivers from Yamaha in the last couple of years, and is why I waited for some modifications to be done to their $1000 MSRP line, before I'd consider buying. With the RX-V2300, they did a good job on the amp section in my limited 2 weeks of having it. My initial impression could be wrong though, since I hadn't put it through the ringer as I have with my previous Yamaha RX-V793, RX-V995, and current Yamaha RX-V2095 and current Denon AVR-3803.

Here's hoping that a good company regains their reputation.

#40 of 76 OFFLINE   Phil*K

Phil*K

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 170 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 23 2003

Posted March 20 2003 - 08:52 AM

Mike,

You may be right. It does seem a contradiction in terms. I personally don't subscribe to any of them, but have been thinking of getting SGHT. It just seemed odd that he didn't mention the power problem in his conn section and I thought he would if it were really a problem in his mind.


Take care,

Phil


Back to Receivers/Separates/Amps



Forum Nav Content I Follow