Yamaha RX-A760 Receiver

R

rnatalli

Audioholic Ninja
Hi folks,

I've been considering replacing my MRX310 with something that can handle more channels and decided to give the Yamaha RX-A760 a go. Here are some of my impressions.

Unpacking
The unit comes packed like any other receiver you would buy. Cardboard box, foam, tape on the pouch holding the remote, manual, and other things. Nothing special to report here other than packed well enough.

First Impressions
The Yamaha does have some weight behind it and seems well built. Not quite as nice as my Anthem's powder coated, thick case and gold connectors, but does the job.

Setup
YPAO operates very quickly and I was up and running in less than 10 minutes. Yamaha's on-screen menu is one of the better ones and easy enough to navigate, although it is starting to look a bit dated compared to say the menu Sony receivers use.

Remote
The remote is the typical plastic variety you will find, but it’s well laid-out. Regardless, like most users I use a universal remote. I personally use Simple Controls and it had no problem picking up the Yamaha on my network for IP control.

Sound
So does the Yamaha sound? In all honesty, this was where I felt disappointed. I spent a lot of time after the initial setup messing with settings, EQ, etc., but just couldn't get it to have the full sound my Anthem produces. The Yamaha felt too polite and simply didn't grab all the details I've become accustomed to with the Anthem. I'm fairly certain in pure direct I probably wouldn't be able to tell a difference, but with YPAO and ARC enabled, the difference proves significant. Sorry folks, ARC crushes YPAO in every way, at least in my room and to my ears. In fairness, my MRX310 cost me $1,099 vs $569 (at Best Buy this week) for this receiver.

Summary
My review may seems like a downer for the Yamaha, but in reality the RX-A760 is a great receiver for the price. However, if you can spend another $400 or so, I would strongly suggest checking out Anthem or something using Audyssey XT32.
 
Last edited:
speakerman39

speakerman39

Audioholic Overlord
Hi folks,

I've been considering replacing my MRX310 with something that can handle more channels and decided to give the Yamaha RX-A760 a go. Here are some of my impressions.

Unpacking
The unit comes packed like any other receiver you would buy. Cardboard box, foam, tape on the pouch holding the remote, manual, and other things. Nothing special to report here other than packed well enough.

First Impressions
The Yamaha does have some weight behind it and seems well built. Not quite as nice as my Anthem's powder coated, thick case and gold connectors, but does the job.

Setup
YPAO operates very quickly and I was up and running in less than 10 minutes. Yamaha's on-screen menu is one of the better ones and easy enough to navigate, although it is starting to look a bit dated compared to say the menu Sony receivers use.

Remote
The remote is the typical plastic variety you will find, but it’s well laid-out. Regardless, like most users I use a universal remote. I personally use Simple Controls and it had no problem picking up the Yamaha on my network for IP control.

Sound
So does the Yamaha sound? In all honesty, this was where I felt disappointed. I spent a lot of time after the initial setup messing with settings, EQ, etc., but just couldn't get it to have the full sound my Anthem produces. The Yamaha felt too polite and simply didn't grab all the details I've become accustomed to with the Anthem. I'm fairly certain in pure direct I probably wouldn't be able to tell a difference, but with YPAO and ARC enabled, the difference proves significant. Sorry folks, ARC crushes YPAO in every way, at least in my room and to my ears. In fairness, my MRX310 cost me $1,099 vs $569 (at Best Buy this week) for this receiver.

Summary
My review may seems like a downer for the Yamaha, but in reality the RX-A760 is a great receiver for the price. However, if you can spend another $400 or so, I would strongly suggest checking out Anthem or something using Audyssey XT32.
Find this very interesting. Thanks for the review. It is good to point out that the Yammy 760 does NOT have Multi-Point YPAO. That means, you can only take measurements from the seating position. Hence, that is why I always recommend going with the Yammy 850/860. Having Multi-point will allow for (8) measurements, thus widening the sweet spot. To me, that is rather significant. YPAO has worked well for me in the past. But, I still much prefer Audyssey.

Cheers,

Phil
 
R

rnatalli

Audioholic Ninja
I don't believe the Multi-Point would make a large difference. I very much prefer Audyssey too, but unless you move to XT32, ARC and Dirac have it beat IMO.
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
I don't believe the Multi-Point would make a large difference. I very much prefer Audyssey too, but unless you move to XT32, ARC and Dirac have it beat IMO.
Are you saying that Multipoint YPAO is only found on the 1xxx, 2xxx, and 3xxx series because I know that these higher end models do supprt multipoint. The additional $400 you suggest would put you in the 1xxx series which does support Multipoint.
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
Stay tuned for my RX-A860 review. Great streaming features but the amp and preamp sections were a bit of a let down. Features are affecting basic performance in these newer Atmos mid priced receivers.
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
Find this very interesting. Thanks for the review. It is good to point out that the Yammy 760 does NOT have Multi-Point YPAO. That means, you can only take measurements from the seating position. Hence, that is why I always recommend going with the Yammy 850/860. Having Multi-point will allow for (8) measurements, thus widening the sweet spot. To me, that is rather significant. YPAO has worked well for me in the past. But, I still much prefer Audyssey.

Cheers,

Phil
I am not so sure that automated room equalization would be any good for multiple locations. I need to do more research into the subject, but I had a discussion with an acoustic scientist recently that is leading me to think automated room equalization is only good for correcting peaks in bass at one listening position and not much else.
 
speakerman39

speakerman39

Audioholic Overlord
I am not so sure that automated room equalization would be any good for multiple locations. I need to do more research into the subject, but I had a discussion with an acoustic scientist recently that is leading me to think automated room equalization is only good for correcting peaks in bass at one listening position and not much else.
Everything I know about using Audyssey and/or YPAO has taught me to believe measuring from more than just the MLP will result in a more accurate curve. Like all things audio, I could be wrong. But, I have read this countless times here and there. If my thinking is wrong, then fell free to educate me. I always open to learning new things. I have used Audyssey, YPAO, and MCACC. Of them all, I much prefer Audyssey. But, that is merely my opinion.

Cheers,

Phil
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
Well, like I said, I need to do more research into the matter, but there may be a few problems with automated equalization. One problem is equalizing issues that occur because of diffraction. If you taper down one peak or shore up one null, that only occurs at the microphone position- and if the problem is some kind of acoustic reflectivity like diffraction, it might not be able to do that very well. Trying to correct for one position will inevitably cause problems for another position, unless the EQ process is correcting for a resonance that occurs everywhere. Equalization can correct for a speaker resonance that occurs at all angles of the speakers dispersion, but the solution for that is really to get better speakers. And what about peaks and dips that do not match the response of the direct axis? Correcting for one position may just make another position worse.

This might be a good research project, but I don't have time to get into it very deeply at the moment. I would only say that, as with many other areas in home audio, it may be worthwhile to be skeptical of conventional wisdom.
 
speakerman39

speakerman39

Audioholic Overlord
Well, like I said, I need to do more research into the matter, but there may be a few problems with automated equalization. One problem is equalizing issues that occur because of diffraction. If you taper down one peak or shore up one null, that only occurs at the microphone position- and if the problem is some kind of acoustic reflectivity like diffraction, it might not be able to do that very well. Trying to correct for one position will inevitably cause problems for another position, unless the EQ process is correcting for a resonance that occurs everywhere. Equalization can correct for a speaker resonance that occurs at all angles of the speakers dispersion, but the solution for that is really to get better speakers. And what about peaks and dips that do not match the response of the direct axis? Correcting for one position may just make another position worse.

This might be a good research project, but I don't have time to get into it very deeply at the moment. I would only say that, as with many other areas in home audio, it may be worthwhile to be skeptical of conventional wisdom.
That makes some sense. Okay just keep us all posted. Sounds like I have more reading to do as well. So, this could me for Audyssey, YPAO, or even MCACC right?

Cheers,

Phil
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
It would be for any automated room correction EQ. I think automated EQ is still not a bad idea for bass frequencies, but even then it can only really attack one listening position. The only real cure for a rocky room response in bass frequencies is multiple subs with careful placement. EQing can kill peaks at the listening position, I'm not sure what else it is good for.
 
speakerman39

speakerman39

Audioholic Overlord
It would be for any automated room correction EQ. I think automated EQ is still not a bad idea for bass frequencies, but even then it can only really attack one listening position. The only real cure for a rocky room response in bass frequencies is multiple subs with careful placement. EQing can kill peaks at the listening position, I'm not sure what else it is good for.
I have always thought that giving more measurements allows for a wider sweet spot. That of course, would also give a more accurate representation of one's room. Lets us know what you find out. Thanks!

Cheers,

Phil
 
Last edited:
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
Playing devil's advocate...
See my quotes inside your quote!
Well, like I said, I need to do more research into the matter, but there may be a few problems with automated equalization. One problem is equalizing issues that occur because of diffraction. If you taper down one peak or shore up one null, that only occurs at the microphone position- and if the problem is some kind of acoustic reflectivity like diffraction, it might not be able to do that very well.
but with a multi-point system, that peak or null is only likely to show up at one of the mic position used so you are not committing to exclusively adjusting for that single location, instead you are applying an algorithm to determine how much weight to assign to the data from that point.
Trying to correct for one position will inevitably cause problems for another position, unless the EQ process is correcting for a resonance that occurs everywhere.
Multipoint EQ provides an indication of whether or not the resonance (or other discontinuity) is localized or spread through the room. It could use this information to make decisions on whether to correct with 100% conviction or hedge against localized behaviors
Equalization can correct for a speaker resonance that occurs at all angles of the speakers dispersion, but the solution for that is really to get better speakers. And what about peaks and dips that do not match the response of the direct axis? Correcting for one position may just make another position worse.
So, can I infer that it is better to correct for multiple positions so as to avoid this problem?
This might be a good research project, but I don't have time to get into it very deeply at the moment. I would only say that, as with many other areas in home audio, it may be worthwhile to be skeptical of conventional wisdom.
It would be really nice to see some conclusive research on this.
I think it is discouraging that any research you do becomes suspect as you vary room dimensions/listening positions/furniture/speakers/etc. It would need to be a complex multivariate study to be able to reach any conclusive result.

I like the idea of eliminating some of those variables by having a standardized room. It seems like it would be reasonable to develop a standardized "audio-spec" bonus room above a two car garage which would cost little extra to build that avoids some of the pitfalls that we run into with our more random room sizes. If you planned to use this room for HT/Audio then you could add the standardized (prescribed) treatments and audiophiles could argue over whether on not GIK had the best treatment system. Speaker companies could then provide specific suggestion on location/toe-in, and listening position(s) for any customers who bought a home with an "audio spec" room. There would be restrictions of furnishings, but it would be the customer's choice whether or not they decided it was worth it.
I guess the problem is money. Unless the company that developed and evolved these standards could find a route to a profit, there is no incentive. Trying to get builders to pay a "THX licence fee" for using certain dimensions would be an exercise in futility.
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
Hey Kurt, you bring up some good points. As a counter argument, I would say that the reflective peaks above the Schroeder frequency are too fine to sensibly EQ, ie the software might be able to do some equalization, but the spatial point at which that equalization occurs is too small to be called a 'listening position'. Move a few millimeters to the right or left and the behavior changes a lot, nevermind the effects of a human body and human head will have in place of the microphone which totally messes up the EQ'd response. This is the reverberant sound field, and I don't see what Auto-EQing is going to help there.

At the Schroeder frequency and below, EQing will help, but even then more so with a single listening position than with multiple positions. However I think it to be a worthwhile endeavor at least, in that limited capacity.

I don't see Auto-EQing as being good for anything other than taking down peaks in bass, or being used as a mediocre band-aid for bad speakers. Read section 2.4 of this paper for something to mull over about this subject.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
I think the reduction the bass peaks is probably the most common benefit cited here (which really challenged the older system that did not address bass), but I also believe in the reduction of the high frequencies (i.e. the prescribed Audyssey curve). Maybe that is because my room is acoustically "live".
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top