Yamahas and 'musicality'

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Jeff.bart, Sep 25, 2002.

  1. Jeff.bart

    Jeff.bart Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was all set to buy my receiver -- the Yamaha rx-v1300 or 2300 -- when the little devil popped in my ear and said: don't.

    Well, not a little devil. Rather several dealers that do not carry Yamaha. As it happens, all three carry my current top three brands: Energy Connoisseurs, Paradigm Monitors and PSB Images. So I haven’t been able to listen to how the Yamaha rx-vs handle any of those speakers. Instead, I’ve listened to them via receivers from NAD, Rotel and Denon.

    The standard charge of the three dealers in question is that Yamaha isn’t good for music – my primary interest. It lacks “musicality,” all three have said (reading from the same script).

    So, to users of the latest Yamahas, does the charge stand up? And to critics of Yamaha here, which receivers would you consider more “musical.” I don’t want to spend more than $900, $1000 tops, for a receiver. The rx-v1300 is still my favorite, though I do love the pricier NADs.
     
  2. Matt Jesty

    Matt Jesty Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 15, 2002
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    0
    Imagine! the dealers that don't carry Yamaha say it isn't as good as what they have ...forgive me for paraphrasing...
    Find a yMAHA DEALER THAT ALSO CARRIES THE OTHER brands you're intersetd in and A/B them for sound quality ...
    I carry Yamaha and DENON AND LIKE THE Yamaha line (with some exceptions) over the Denons (and the ELITES)...BUT i DON'T CARRY THE rOTEL and I would still recommend auditioning Rotels 'cause they are quite good....
    p.s., excuse my bad typing/ caps
     
  3. Jeff.bart

    Jeff.bart Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matt, normally I would recognize that the dealers had a particular bias. What gave me pause was this. Two of the three said they had carried Yamaha, but stopped because it didn’t handle music as well, in their view. They said Yamaha was too bright, too artificially punchy and put too many resources into nonessential features such as sound fields. When I asked them about other brands they didn’t carry, they were either more generous in their comments, or at least less critical. I deal with a lot of bullsh—ters in my profession, and I got every sense that they were being honest.
     
  4. Nick V

    Nick V Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    421
    Likes Received:
    0
    I gotta agree them Jeff. If your primary goal is music reproduction, DON'T go with a Yamaha!!

    I had a Marantz 5200 then upgraded to a 6200 which had problems. After my third 6200 unit, which still had the same problems, I lost faith in Marantz and decided to go with Yamaha.

    I currently have a Yamaha RXV-1200, and while I prefer it over the Marantz for HT, I MUCH preferred the Marantz for music.

    BTW, if you get a chance, go check out the Marantz receivers, they are great for music. The new line should be released shortly.

    Also, just out of curiosity, how much $$ do the Rotel receivers go for??
     
  5. Yogi

    Yogi Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well I have never liked Yamaha for their sound but I consider that to be my personal preference. They are big on features and the 100+ DSP modes but when it comes to sound they just lack the warmth and fullness, IMHO, or atleast the Yamaha's I listened to 2-3 years ago did. Since then I have never auditioned Yamaha gear so I could be wrong about their sound today.

    I feel that Marantz, Denon and HK handle music much better and do an equally good job on HT and I am not a fan of hearing how a particular musical rendition sounds in one of the 1000+ auditoriums around the world.
     
  6. Holadem

    Holadem Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2000
    Messages:
    8,967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Consensus here and elsewhere is that HT is fine, but for music, look elsewhere. Never heard them myself. Before you jump on me for saying that, I am also expressing the consensus (the same way you would recommend SVS without ever hearing one [​IMG] )
    --
    Holadem
     
  7. Martin Rendall

    Martin Rendall Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2000
    Messages:
    1,043
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find it hard to believe that a dealer would drop a manufacturer because their HOME THEATER receiver products don't do MUSIC well. Now it may be true that Yammies aren't "musical", but they're feeding you a line when talking about that being why they dropped Yamaha.

    Personally, I have an older Yammie, and I think it does a great job for music. There's lots of room for improvement (I did - external amp and stereo pre with HT bypass), but I honestly think it sounded great as a stand alone piece. I'm sure other receivers could well be better, so audition audition audition.

    If these stores are so concerned with "musicality", then I'm sure they'd let you try an in home demo.

    Best of luck,
    Martin.
     
  8. Steve Marsh

    Steve Marsh Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you want a reciever that does HT and Music well at a good price try the Rotel 1055.It is a little more cash but it is well worth it and i ahve tried marantz and NAD and Onkyo at home.
     
  9. Brian O

    Brian O Second Unit

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 1999
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    My experience with a Yamaha 795 proved to be very dissapointing in 2 channel, but outstanding in 5.1 formats.

    2 channel music was very weak and unfulfilling. The Pioneer Elite 24, HK 500, Denon 3300, and now the Outlaw 950 are much better in 2 channel.
     
  10. TomH

    TomH Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2001
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    0
    "There was just too much treble and the highs were shrill and harsh"

    Just my opinion but I have always compared the sound of Yamaha to the sound of typical Japanese music.
     
  11. RobertSchaez

    RobertSchaez Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    May 1, 2002
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a RX-V3000 and find it, like many of you have commented, a little lacking in "musicality". However, the speaker setup I have is less than stellar. As a matter of fact, it is pretty poor. I think speaker quality has an awful lot to do with the complete sound of any system. Three questions:

    1. What speakers are you folks using with the Yamaha receiver you are referring to?

    2. Is it the amplifiers, in other words, have you tried using the receiver as a pre-amp and connected a separate amp and found an improvement?

    3. Is it the pre-amp? Trying a separate amp makes little
    difference.

    Thanks!
     
  12. jeff lam

    jeff lam Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    1,798
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Real Name:
    Jeff Lam
    I have found the Yamaha receivers to be far more dynamic than the denon receivers of comparable price. Sure the Marantz will probably beat it for music but it all depends what speakers you own. If you have very laid back speakers the yamaha would be a better match than the warm sound of the marantz. If you have bright speakers, the marantz would be a good choice to help mellow them down. If your primary concern is HT, nothing can beat Yamaha for the price you pay. They are the cheapest and most dynamic out of all the top brands.

    Find a dealer of both denon and yamaha and make your own decision. Since you are on a $1K budget the Yamaha will be tough to beat.
     
  13. Yogi

    Yogi Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,741
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  14. Brian OK

    Brian OK Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2000
    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    0
    Having used a DSP-A1 for a few years, and just recently moved to Marantz MA 6100 Monoblocks (have had 2 for the mains for a few weeks, and should receive a third MA 6100 tomorrow for the center) I can say the "upgrade" is impressive.

    I use Paradigm Studio 40's for mains, with a CC Studio.
    The Paradigm 40's mesh very well with the Marantz.

    Keep in mind, I still enjoy the DSP-A1 for HT, but the monoblocks are another level for music, IMO, so far. Much more air and soundstage.


    BOK
     
  15. Jeff.bart

    Jeff.bart Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nick, the Rotel 1055 at the dealer I visited in the Wash, DC, area was charging $1300. He thought it was the best receiver in the under $1500 range. After that, he liked the Integra (7.1 and now 7.2) and then the NAD, followed a distance by Denon. I was impressed more by the Integra (first choice if money no factor) and NAD.

    At this point, I will hold back to see the latest Marantx 7300, Denon 3803 and NAD T762 (for which I have specs from a dealer). Music is my main concern. I am sure anything I get will handle my HT needs. I don't need to blow the house down.
     
  16. Matt Jesty

    Matt Jesty Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 15, 2002
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    0
    and I am not a fan of hearing how a particular musical rendition sounds in one of the 1000+ auditoriums around the world.
    ================================================== ========
    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...in fact before we had all the discrete formats, Yamaha was praised by people in the audio community for what they had achieved....
    as for Holadem implying that some might reccommend a product without auditioning it, this is what bothers me about having "BOOK KNOWLEDGE" about audio equipment...not very reasonable to take those kind of opinions....Others have stated that they recognize that it may be the speaker/rcvr combo which may taint the sound , so I ask, how many differant speaker systems have you demo'd with which rcvrs, and what music, and what source gear.?..etc...
    How many set-ups...Does your opinion come from more than 3 diff Yam rcvrs and 4 differant speaker systems, is it regurgetated pablum of rehashed postings.....
    "
    "Yamahas hurt my ears ,they sound to bright"
    "Denons sound too warm and non-distinct"
    "Onkyo is too sterile and impersonal"
    "horns honk and are fatigueing"
    "metalic tweeters are too tinny"
    "soft dome tweeters are laid back and sound like a blanket is over the"
    ....Not to say that some of these comments don't come from honest BLIND demo's but a little more specificity regarding what other gear was in the system might be more helpfull, along with an idea of how many other demos you've done that may have impact on your opinion,,,,,
    Ie; "I HAVE ONLY EVER HEARD YAMAHA WITH 2 differant speaker systems Klipsch and DEFINATIVE technologies, and I really liked the DEF TECHS which in my opinion sounded better wuth H/K,...YMMV"......THAT'S A USEFUL PERSPECTIVE
    ......
    Wow , I came off as harsh sounding as Klipsch speakers and a SONY DE series rcvr[​IMG] ...I didn't mean to offend[​IMG] ...I think I need more psychotherapy[​IMG] ........
     
  17. Steve Marsh

    Steve Marsh Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great
    I am an older man who likes 18 year old cheerleaders. You can PM me.
     
  18. Steve Marsh

    Steve Marsh Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    0
    On a more serious note. I have tries a Marantz, Nad and Rotel reciever with my Paradigm Studi 60 V2 and Cambridge Audio CD.
    The Marantz was the smoothest(but seemed weak with movies) and the Rotel was the best. I thought the Marantz gave up a little detail for smoothness while the Rotel had the corect combo of detail and smoothness IMO. The Nad was behind both but seemed to have more power and dynamics than the Marantz at the same power rating.
     
  19. Adam Barratt

    Adam Barratt Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 1998
    Messages:
    2,343
    Likes Received:
    1
    Real Name:
    Adam
    With such a subjective notion as 'musicality' other people's opinions are essentially worthless. The only one that really counts is your own.

    People bring their own biases and baggage that distort their perspective: one person's 'smooth' sound is another's 'sterile'. I like the way many Yamaha and Denon receivers sound and have disliked several of the Pioneer and Sonys I have heard, but haven't heard enough of any of these to form an opinion of the Denon, Yamaha, Sony or Pioneer 'sound' (if they even exist).

    Take blanket statements about the musicality of any given brand with a large pile of salt.

    Adam
     
  20. Matt Jesty

    Matt Jesty Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 15, 2002
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    0
    On a more serious note. I have tries a Marantz, Nad and Rotel reciever with my Paradigm Studi 60 V2 and Cambridge Audio CD.
    The Marantz was the smoothest(but seemed weak with movies) and the Rotel was the best. I thought the Marantz gave up a little detail for smoothness while the Rotel had the corect combo of detail and smoothness IMO. The Nad was behind both but seemed to have more power and dynamics than the Marantz at the same power rating.
    ================================================== ======
    Thanks Steve, this is the kind of perspective I find useful
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     

Share This Page