RX-V1200 vs RX-V2200 - Opinions/comments?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Mike Veroukis, Apr 26, 2002.

  1. Mike Veroukis

    Mike Veroukis Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    Real Name:
    Michael
    Hey!

    Well I bought an HTR-5450 (aka RX-V520) a while back and teamed it up with a pair of Paradigm Studio40s. I've read several postings here about how many of the lower end receivers may not deliever the full rated power when driving all 5 channels. This has lead me to believe that to help me get the most out of my speakers I should probably upgrade my receiver. Lucky for me the place that I bought it from is running a trade in special where I can trade it in for another receiver + difference in price.

    So I've been looking at a few options. The Yamaha RX-V1200 and the RX-V2200 both seem like good contenders. My first question here is what are the major differences between the two receivers? I know that the 2200 has 100W vs the 1200's 80Ws per channel. Is there anything else? I did a quick check at the Yamaha site and they seemed pretty much the same to me.

    The other major question I have is if I decide to get the RX-V1200 which is rated to have the same power per channel as my current HTR-5450 (80W/channel), would the RX-V1200 do a better job of supplying the rated power to all channels when they are all driven? I'd imagine that the 1200 has a better power transformer and beefier amp section and therefore it should clearly out perform the 5450 even though they are rated the same. Yes I know the 1200 is 6.1, but let's just assume I'll be running a 5.1 setup.

    Here's my "buy for now, plan for later" logic. If the only difference between the 2200 and 1200 is the power rating and the 1200 does a better job of supplying power to each channel then the HTR-5450, I might as well get the 1200. Later when I get bigger floor standers for mains I can make us of the 1200's pre-outs and attach an external 2/3 channel amp (Rotel or something in that level) to drive those. Does this sound like a good idea? Any suggestions?

    - Mike
     
  2. Norman L

    Norman L Second Unit

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mike,

    I am in the same boat. I bought the ONYKO 600 with no pre-amp-outs, the receiver is rated at 80 Watts - but no rating on all channels at the same time. Watching the intro to Toy Story II I blew my B & W Dm2000 speakers. They were rated 50 to 250 watts. B & W insists that the amp went below 50 when the movie call for loud, low, sound. I am returning the 600 for a receiver that has pre-outs. I thought about the new Onyko 700 which will replace the 696 but the 696 was tested by Sound & Vision to run at 46 watts on all channels and the unit is rated by Onkyo at 100watts.

    I am considering the Yamaha 1200, Denon 2802, Marantz 6200.

    Any opinions?
     
  3. Duane R

    Duane R Second Unit

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2002
    Messages:
    308
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    110
    I just replaced an HTR-5460 (V620) a week ago with a new RXV-1200. I was intent on spending the extra $200 for the 2200, but to my ears, the 1200 sounded better. The only differences that I'm aware of is that the 2200 will control multiple input sources (TV's VCR's, etc) vs. the audio only zone 2 on the 1200, and the 2200 remote does macros. I think there may be another DSP or 2 with the 2200, but I'm not sure. The amp section does have enough juice to run my 4 JBL ND310 towers (used for mains and surrounds) without any fuss.
     
  4. Mike Veroukis

    Mike Veroukis Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    Real Name:
    Michael
    @Norman:
    Yeah, i read your posts and that was one of the things that got me thinking I should upgrade my receiver. Now the Studio40s need a min of 15watts, so I have more room to play with then you do. I've heard from others that B&Ws really like a lot of power. You might want to take a look at the Rotel RSX-972 which has plenty of power. I think it has fallen in price and is around the RX-V2200 price range. Now it's a 5.1 amp so if you need a 6.1 then it's not what you want. Not sure what other features it has but is worth considering. I was actually looking at one last night and the salesman told me that the Onkyo's, Yamaha's and Denons are like well trained athletes while the Rotel is a body builder. With a pitch like that I was tempted to buy it on the spot. Damn, it sounds great too, but I'm not sure it's what I want. It lacks features that the Yammies have. This is why I'm thinking to get a yammie for now and later get a Rotel amp for the mains/center channel later.
    @Duane:
    Thanks for your comments on the 1200. I've heard from others that the 1200 sounds better then the 2200. In your opinion, how does the sound compare to that of your old 5460? You went down 20watts per channel, but I have a feeling the 1200 is making up for it with quality, right?
    - Mike
     
  5. Evan M.

    Evan M. Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2002
    Messages:
    910
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i went through the same thing. compared the 1200 and 2200 to the denon 2802 and 3802. yamaha was hands down winner. than extensively compared the 1200 to 2200. both are fantastic receivers. they almost seemed like the same thing to me. we were upgrading from an rx-v620. it sounded very thin for music and wanted something better. the 1200 and 2200 really sound pretty identical. i will say that for some reason the 1200 sounded a touch (and i mean touch) better for music. however when listening to the two side by side you could hear the difference in power right off. the 2200 had more power. both were set up exactly the same. the 2200 just had more punch. it sounded as if the 1200 would struggle a little bit. the 2200 remote is very good. it is very easy to figure out and does the macros which is quite neat. the 2200 has one more input and has rec. out on multi room. i also heard of a few people on another thread having problems with a ticking sound on the rear surrounds during 5.1 movies at higher volumes. they switched to the 2200 and never had that problem again. for 200$ i figured it would be worth it to go to the 2200. especially since the next step up is the 3200 for around 500$ more. if you have anymore questions please let us know. either one you go with will be a great receiver. good luck.
     
  6. Norman L

    Norman L Second Unit

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    According to the online Yamaha manuals the:

    1200 - In Stero mode does not play the subwoofer.

    2200 - In Stero mode plays the subwoofer.

    Is it a misprint for the 1200 or is it correct. It does not make sense.
     
  7. Bob Sheen

    Bob Sheen Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know that it's correct for the 2200.

    Bob
     
  8. Duane R

    Duane R Second Unit

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2002
    Messages:
    308
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Mike,

    I think the overall sound quality improved quite a bit. It seems to have more low-end "grunt" now. The 2200 was definetely brighter than the 1200. Even though I lost 20 watts, I only had to raise the volume about 3 "clicks" to get an equivalent sound level. I also figure that the $200 I saved would pay for a good chunk of a 5 channel amp down the road.
     
  9. Mark C.

    Mark C. Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 21, 1999
    Messages:
    557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    I was listening to the 1200 vs. 2200 yesterday with a buddy about to buy a home theater system. I couldn't tell a difference between the two, but we both agreed that the 2200 sounded better than the Denon 3802.

    All the receivers were running Boston Acoustics Reference bookshelves combined with an M&K sub. My buddy is going withe the 1200.
     
  10. Bob J.

    Bob J. Extra

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 1999
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I got my 2200 last week and havn't really had time to setup and go thru ALL the options. But that #%@$#*$& remote is quite confusing to me....maybe it's just me. I can't get it to set up for my Sony sattelite receiver, using "cbl/sat". Other brands are listed, but not Sony. What gives?

    Otherwise, this unit has a lot of options and is DEFINITELY an upgrade over my old Denon.
     
  11. Mike Veroukis

    Mike Veroukis Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    Real Name:
    Michael
    Thanks for the info guys, very informative! The plan is to go into the shop today and give them a good listen and maybe work out some prices. I'll be sure to enquire about the reported lack of sub output in stereo mode on the 1200. Seems kinda weird to me considering the low-end RX-V496 my dad has outputs to the sub in stereo.

    @Bob: Isn't the remote a learning remote? It doesn't want to learn your Sony's codes?

    - Mike
     
  12. Norman L

    Norman L Second Unit

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mike,

    I just came back from a shop and tested the 1200, the sub does work in stereo with mains at large or small, the manual is wrong.

    I bought it at a authorized dealer for $679 and will use the Amex price match with an internet dealer @$551. Amex will refund in a check.

    The remote has learning but I think it does not have marco's. Other threads on Home Theater Spot say the the learing feature has a bug. Has the been fixed by Yamaha?
     
  13. Mike Veroukis

    Mike Veroukis Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    Real Name:
    Michael
    Normal:

    Thanks for the info. I too went to a shop and tested the sub outs in stereo. I was unable to a/b test the 1200/2200 as they had them set up in two rooms. I was able to a/b test the 1200 with a Denon 2802 and no question about it, the 1200 sounded warmer and fuller, especially at high volumes. I'm considering going to some other shops to a/b test the 2200/1200, although I doubt there will be much difference.

    Anyways, thanks for all the info guys.

    - Mike
     
  14. Norman L

    Norman L Second Unit

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mike,

    I am going nuts, I think I am going to pass on the 1200 and consider the 2200 even though it is more than I wanted to spend. I just was advised that in the Jan issue of Sound & Vision the 1200 was reviewed, I did not read it since I cannot find it, but it stated that in a bench test with all channels going the output was 50watts per channel. This is not acceptable for me. I would be limited in speaker selection. (I have blown a pair of B & W DM2000 from an amp that was less than 50 watts).

    Denon 2802 is 90watts and rated with five channels at 74Watts, 6 channels @61watts. That is acceptable but other feature of the Denon are not.

    Keep me informed
     
  15. MatthewJ S

    MatthewJ S Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2001
    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    sO far I agree with most of the opinions expressed here (except the 1200 sounding better for music?)...the power is one major diff., the macro ability is another, and althogh Yamaha prints it's lit. in a confusing manner, the 1200's zone 2 is not source selectable as the 2200's zone 2 is independant of zone 1 .....My 2200 comes from Yamaha in about a week......
     
  16. Noah

    Noah Agent

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is a preposterous trend developing on the forum, and that is that somehow the Yamaha RXV-1200 objectively sounds BETTER than the 2200. Even more silly is the notion that it could sound better only for two channel audio. These receivers are practically IDENTICAL. Made in the same factories by the same people. Except for 20 watts of power in the amp section, zone two video switching, and 1 DSP mode, they are near clones of one another. Any differences in sound quality are surely attributed to the setups in which they were auditioned, or more likely the length of time both had been set up and running. I have heard both on the same speakers (even both on a different set of speakers), and I would be hard pressed to tell them apart, except maybe at the highest listening levels, where I guess the 1200 would distort earlier. I bought the 2200 simply because of my speakers' power ratings and sensitivity (B&W 600 series 3), and I would advise others to do the same.

    P.S. By the way, they BOTH rock.

    Noah
     
  17. Kevin C Brown

    Kevin C Brown Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2000
    Messages:
    5,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good post Noah.

    I found it hard to believe that the 1200 could sound any "better" than the 2200 when most of the chip set is identical.
     
  18. Mike Veroukis

    Mike Veroukis Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    Real Name:
    Michael
    I have to agree with Noah as well.

    Since I started this thread I guess I should also now let you all know that I ended up getting the 2200. I am very happy with this receiver. It replaced my HTR-5450 and there's no looking back now.

    Noah is also right when he says they both rock. I too chose the 2200 simply for the increase in power. It's good to have that extra little bit of room.

    I compared the 1200 to a Denon 2802 and I was amazed as to how much better the Yamaha sounded. Perhaps I should have compared the 2200 to the 3802, but I fell in love with the Yamaha sound so I was pretty keen on it.

    Anyways, thanks to every for their input.

    - Mike
     
  19. Evan M.

    Evan M. Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2002
    Messages:
    910
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i have to agree with noah even though i am one of the people to originaly support the "preposterous" fact that the 1200 sounded a bit better than the 2200. when i auditioned both of them they were set up exactly the same and using the same speakers. to my ears the 1200 did sound a bit (albiet a tiny bit) "better" with music. obviously better to me doesn't mean better to everyone. in fact let me throw out the term better and replace it with "different". i wonder if the increse in power may have had something to do with it but i didn't think that effected sound quality at normal listening levels. what i didn't take into consideration is the fact that the 1200 could have had a lot more break in time than the 2200 and this is probably what made it sound "different". i originaly did not believe that breaking in a receiver could effect the sound but after getting the 2200 and slowly breaking it i noticed a distinct difference in the sound quality and it was not just my ears getting used to it. i should have realized this earlier but i always seem to forget the obvious[​IMG] . anyway thanks again for your input noah, when i bought the 2200 it was always in the back of my mind if i bought a receiver that didn't sound as good as one that i just auditioned so i could have a few more features. to me sacraficing sound quality is a no no unless there is no other alternative. and yes the 2200 DOES ROCK!!!!
     
  20. Kevin C Brown

    Kevin C Brown Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2000
    Messages:
    5,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Seeing as how this is a pro-Yamaha thread [​IMG], and I also had a Yamaha RX-V793 a while ago as a pre/pro, any thoughts as to the 1200 or 2200 as a pre/pro vs the Outlaw?
    And, if I *don't* need the extra power or zone 2 (B) stuff, I think the only other difference was 1 DSP mode?
    (Figured I'd ask the experts... [​IMG] Haven't had time to research yet...)
     

Share This Page