would you call Yamaha RX-V1400 a "warm" receiver? (1 Viewer)

[Jason_Chen_LA]

Hi,

In a reply to one of my other posts, somebody described a receiver as "warm" - I'm not sure what that means. could someone explain? would you call the Yamaha RX-V1400 a "warm" receiver?

thanks,

Jason

 

[Shane Martin]

Jason,
I'm sure it won't take long for someone else to mention that receivers are not supposed to have a sound, but I will disagree. They do have a sound to them but I surely wouldn't call a Yamaha WARM sounding or what most people mention as rolled off highs. EVERY yamaha I've heard in the last 8 years(5 product lines worth) was a bit bright for my taste. Matted with a bright speaker and the results were not pleasing to me. The last audition I had was with the Paradigm Studio 20's along with the Signature 20's and both were a bit edgy and bright along with the Yamaha to me. I will say however that the finish on the Sig's is beautiful though expensive.

I wouldn't stress too much about it. Just decide what features mean the most to you and make that your final selling point. The sound quality although there is not all that big.

here is how i'd rate a few other receivers:
Denon: Warm
Yamaha: bright
Marantz: Neutral but underpowered
NAD: Warm
Rotel: Warm
HK: Neutral
Sony: Bright(keep in mind I own a Sony ES)
Elite: neutral.

My own advice is to ignore what other say in regards to the sound of a receiver and go listen to one yourself with your own CD's. How we perceive sound is what makes us the most happy.

 

[Michael Brand]

The older Yamaha receivers MAY have been bright, but the RXV-1400 and 2400 are what I would call neutral. I just bought a 1400, and with the auto-equalizer or (manual) graphic equalizer, you can make it sound anyway you want it too.

Room accoustics have a lot to do with how our systems sound. My room is neutral to slightly dead. My Yamaha auto equalizer (YPAO) actually increased my higher frequencies, and I have to say it sounds a lot better.

 

[David Judah]

I think that earlier Yamahas had a brighter sound to them, but the ones from the last few years to the current ones don't sound as bright to me. I wouldn't characterize them as warm though.

DJ

 

[MuneebM]

Shane, I have to disagree with some of your classifications. First and foremost, I'd say the Yamaha RX-V1400/RX-V2400 is more neutral than it is bright and the H/K receivers are definitely warm. So I will re-classify as follows:
Denon: Warm
Yamaha: Neutral to bright (newer models are neutral)
Marantz: Neutral
NAD: Warm
Rotel: Warm
HK: Warm
Sony: Bright
Elite: Neutral

 

[Jesse Sharrow]

I think the Yamaha can be bright. But I agree the YPAO can combat that. I love the sound of my yamaha, but I have relativly neutral speakers, bostons. I love how it sounds.

 

[Kevin*Ha]

"Marantz: Neutral but underpowered"

What makes you say this? I don't own a Marantz but I've been seriously considering one. I've listened to it twice (in decidely bad conditions) but it didn't sound underpowered to me. This is OT so if you want to PM me that would be great. Thanks.

 

[MuneebM]

Just want to clarify that I didn't make that statement, I was just quoting Shane Martin who can probably explain his original comment.

But yes, back to topic, the new Yamaha receivers (1400/2400) can be bright depending which speakers they are matched with, but they are definitely much more on the neutral side when compared to older Yamaha models. I've heard the 2400 on Paradigm Monitors and found it a tad bright, I bought the receiver and matched with my JBL Studios I think it sounds perfect: neutral with a tad more emphasis on the highs, just the way I like it. I like to call it detailed and crisp

 

[Shane Martin]

Every yamaha I've heard except for this years models were bright in every room. Do you like bright? That all depends(I don't).

The Ypao may fix that but it sounds like a dac issue to me rather than anything else. I don't like emphasized highs at all(becomes fatiguing quickly). Hey some love their Paradigm/Yamaha combo and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[John Garcia]

Denon: Flat, could use more power.
Yamaha: bright to neutral (agree with MuneebM) good power.
Marantz: Neutral to warm, varies with models. More power wouldn't hurt. Top model is a bit too expensive.
NAD: Warm Plenty of power.
Rotel: Warm
HK: Warm
SonyES: Flat to Bright. I will never buy another Sony.
Elite: neutral. Top 2 models are very good, but expensive.

I would not say Marantz was underpowered compared to all but the NAD and Rotels in the same price ranges. In fact, I felt that the 6200 I bought had better power than the Denon 3802 I auditioned at the time, and the Denon cost 40% more. My 8300 has very respectable power, but call me crazy, I would have liked even more (added monoblocks for my mains). The sound with music is worth it!

I find it odd that I feel both Marantz and Denon's older models actually seemed to sound a bit better than the current generations.

 

[Kevin*Ha]

I just got back from a demo with a HK 7200 and it definitely had more power than the Marantz. I haven't pushed the Marantz yet, so we'll see. I do agree on them being slightly overpriced.

John - I agree 100% on the older Denon's sounding better - but I'm told thats often just personal preference. They seem to have gone from warm to flat/neutral to my ear.

 

[David Judah]

The new Sony ES's(with the digital amps)don't sound like their predecessors brightness-wise. I was never thrilled with Sony receivers in the past(even ES), but I must admit I was pleasantly suprised. I actually preferred the 3000 ES to the Denon 3803 and the Pioneer 53TX in a recent evaluation session.

DJ

 

[Tony K]

Hello, I am pretty new to this forum and I find myself trying to learn a new language. Can anyone explain what "Warm" and "Bright" mean?

Thanks

 

[MuneebM]

Tony, here's a quick explanation:
- "warm" is the term used to describe receivers that emphasize the lower (bass) frequencies more than the higher frequencies (treble)
- "bright" is the term used to describe receivers that emphasize the higher frequencies more than the lower frequencies
- "neutral" means just that: neutral, similar emphasis on low and high frequencies, also known as flat

 

[John Garcia]

Neutral means little coloration of the sound. When I say flat, I don't mean neutral, I mean the sound is not very exciting, just shy of neutral.

 

[Chu Gai]

Well let's see a couple of receivers from S&V's reports.
HK 330 A/V FR
Stereo Performance 20-20k +0, -0.4 dB
Multichannel

 

[Angelo.M]

Sorry, but no. Or, put another way, they don't mean a thing.

Chu and I are like-minded on the subject. The terms are meaningless (and, hence, useless) outside of the experience of an individual listener. One man's "warm" is another's "muddy;" your "bright" might be someone's "detailed;" "neutral" could substitute for "flat;" "forward" for "shrill;" etc and so on... None of these terms correlate consistently with (1) any measurable performance parameter, (2) any build specification or feature or (3) the experiences of listeners (or even a single listener on multiple occasions).

So, as you have been advised, decide what you need in a receiver and limit your choices to products that have what you need. Remember that amplification source characteristics are among the least important elements in the chain of sound reproduction. Your central nervous system is the most important factor, followed by your listening space's characteristics, your speakers and the characteristics of the software. Everything else (processing, amplification, interconnects, the phase of the moon, the size of your Shakti Stone, etc) is much further down the line.

 

[John Garcia]

To me, a manufacturer tends to be consistent in their design philosophy, and selection and implementation of DACs, which play a considerable role in how a particular brand sounds. I completely agree with Angelo and Chu that people hear things differently, and in particular, the environment and all of the other gear associated with an audition will greatly affect the resulting sound.

While the characteristic sound of a given brand has it's own unique sound, what Angelo says about "one person's warm is another persons's muddy" is completely true, and I find the same results with speakers. It really depends on the amount of experience a listener has, and someone with a larger basis of comparison is likely to have a different opinion about how a particular piece of gear sounds compared to someone who has listened to a limited number of components over a short time.

I didn't use "categorization" of a brand's sound when looking for a receiver, I just went out and listened to as much gear as I could, and chose what I liked. Look around and see if there are specific capabilities that you want, look at remotes (I've been consistently disappointed with the included Marantz remotes), power etc... I actually ended up picking my 8300 over a Rotel because I know for a fact that the 8300 does not have (or at least does a very good job at suppressing) audio dropouts via digital connections. The Rotel actually sounded a little better, but seemed to have the dropout issue and my Marantz dealer gave me a great deal once he knew I was considering the Rotel.

 

[Chu Gai]

Let me spin what you said regarding design philosophy a little differently John. There's a contentious relationship that exists between R&D, purchasing, & marketing (no doubt I've left out other functional entities of a company like design) that is typically
weighted to driving manufacturing costs down. After all, stock value and shareholder satisfaction is not lightly dismissed if those at the top look to keep their positions and percs.
To that end, one may well find a consistency that's predicated on modularity and the reusability of components, subassemblies and reutilizing of manufacturing lines to improve the bottom line. Now if that means using a particular Burr-Brown or Crystal or whomever's DAC, then that's the way that particular company will go. Competition for say Sony's business by a particular DAC resistor, capacitor, or RCA plug manufacturer is fierce and Sony will play one against the other. Crystal may well say, use our DAC and it'll cost you 0.02 more per unit but it'll save you 0.10 in manufacturing costs. Sony will leverage that information against another company and ask them if they can do better, and how. R&D then plays a role that many scientists really don't like and that is designing circuitry to a price point and expending efforts on how they can make a competently performing unit at $2.00 less per unit manufacturing costs.

Now I'll quite agree that with say a receiver, as we move towards special effects or digital ambience enhancements and 'information extraction', there will be differences from what Yamaha does as opposed to a Lexicon or anybody elses.

I'll give whomever is interested my take on this warm/bright thing regarding speakers from a particular point of view and that is frequency response. Depending upon the speaker, one may well find a particular model 'bright'. If one examines the FR of that model, they'll find that there just isn't a lot of bass response. Therefore, the middle and high frequencies will be emphasised with respect to the bass since both content and SPL down there are lacking. In an attempt to get that bass back, the volumes are raised which only makes the problem worse and a perception that the speaker is bright and sounds brighter the louder you play it. The reasonable solution to my mind is to simply get a sub in order to provide that LF content that's missing. Also, there are these things called tone controls that ought to be used to make some fine adjustments if need be. Lot's of people though shy away from them much to their detriment I think. Note, that I've completed neglected that people aren't always particularly careful how they place their speakers in a room and a room's contributions to the sound which includes room modes which will alter one persons perceptions from another.

I do commend you John for letting your dealer know you were considering another brand, one that I take it he did not carry. Good move!

 

[Marty M]

The "best" sound is all in the ears of the listener. I had the Yamaha RX-V795 with Paradigm Monitor 7s. Many people would consider this as bright. I considered it detailed or accurate. I have upgraded to the Yamaha RX-V2400 and it is a bit warmer than the 795.