Yamaha RX-V4600 Receiver Review Thread

[John330]

Hello all,

First post here although I've been visitng this site for quite a while. I'm a regular at a couple of others also but without a doubt, this is one of the better A/V sites on the net.

I saw that a couple of you had questions regarding the 4600's amp section. I also have read the article that Gene has referred to. I do think that this article does make some good points and in general is correct in saying that all channels driven tests as used elsewhere can be unrealistic for most people.

At the same time, it would be nice to know what a unit is capable of all channels driven if only to compare power supplies to other receivers. It would be useful in relative terms and for those few consumers that truly are trying to drive a more difficult load speaker wise.

Over at brand 'X' Aud/Vid website the RX-V4600 was tested 5 channels driven. In this torture test they measure continuous output for 5 seconds. Yes, it is a little unrealistic but at least it is something for comparing different amps. The 4600 measured 138 for 1 channel and 116 for 2 channels. When 5 channels were driven the rear channels were delivering 38 watts prior to clipping.

As the referenced article points out, for many people this is not an issue. However, for those driving 4 ohm speakers with below average sensitivity, this is something to consider. In Yamaha's defense, this is common for mass market receivers. For those who truly do need more current from an amp, it would be nice to know this as there are products out there in this price range
with different power characteristics all channels driven. This is no knock on Yamaha as they do make some nice equipment. But as in most hobbies, one box can't be all things to all people.

 

[ht_addict]

As the referenced article points out, for many people this is not an issue. However, for those driving 4 ohm speakers with below average sensitivity, this is something to consider. In Yamaha's defense, this is common for mass market receivers. For those who truly do need more current from an amp, it would be nice to know this as there are products out there in this price range
with different power characteristics all channels driven. This is no knock on Yamaha as they do make some nice equipment. But as in most hobbies, one box can't be all things to all people.

Issue or not this is good example of good example of false advertising of a product. We must remember that alot of people getting into or already into the HT hobby, do not know what we know. They goto the store, listen to various speakers, not knowing sensitivity, ohmn rating, etc. Then they may listen to a receiver not knowing the true power rating off the unit. They may not know what questions to ask the salesman, who may or may not be willing too devulge what they know how the unit performs. Now the buyer gets all their new gear home, hooks it up and cranks the tunes or watches a movie at insane level only too find their receiver either shutting down, the speakers not sounding the way they did at the dealers. Or they blow a tweeter. I know everything I just said maybe a little left of extreme, but too advertise 7x130w is just not right.

 

[newfmp3]

I agree with a lot of points made here.

That being said, I got my 4600 2 days ago. I've Been working 12-14 hours a day since then so I have had limited time with it.

Trust me, comparing directly to my t773, the 4600 can indeed hold it's own. In fact, I'm getting rid of the 773. I'll post more later on, I'm still at work now.

I really do agree with most of the points that Gene did in his review. But, I do find the EQ very useful. But it takes a lot of time to get it fine tuned to where it makes the speakers sound better...not worse. As with any tool, if you use it wrong, it won't do you any good.

Oh, and I hate the F#$%#$% remote. It's junk.

 

[Wrk_hrd2Play_hr]

I agree with a lot of points made here.

That being said, I got my 4600 2 days ago. I've Been working 12-14 hours a day since then so I have had limited time with it.

Trust me, comparing directly to my t773, the 4600 can indeed hold it's own. In fact, I'm getting rid of the 773. I'll post more later on, I'm still at work now.

I really do agree with most of the points that Gene did in his review. But, I do find the EQ very useful. But it takes a lot of time to get it fine tuned to where it makes the speakers sound better...not worse. As with any tool, if you use it wrong, it won't do you any good.

Oh, and I hate the F#$%#$% remote. It's junk.

newfmp3, I'm waiting for your thoughts on a comparison with the T773 once you've had some time to play with the Yammy.

 

[newfmp3]

I'm not the only one comparing the 773 to the 4600, you can read some here. Sorry, I have been so busy at work as of late. I work at a university, and it's the first week of classes. 12-14 hr days and what not.

http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Advice&Number=107633&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1

The NAd is going back tomorrow. To be honest though, I will miss the NAD somewhat. The remote is awesome. Adjusting the channels on the fly is great. And the thing is built like a tank. Great power. Just too bad it didn't have the sound that "I" was looking for.

As far as the controversial power thing is concerned. I don't notice any difference in power, loudness etc. Not that it matters, but with the nad I had to turn the thing to -16 to get what I wanted out of it. The YAmaha gets to about 28 and it's loud enough. But, there are too many factors there to compare those numbers. The eq alone can boost volume levels to make that difference. So, it doesn't mean a thing.

I'm in a 11x17 room, open to a another area almost twice as big but an odd shape. I use neo6 for most music. 5.1 channels. Heat is NOT a problem. But I leave the fan on always. The NAD has 5 mini fans on all the time. So, I only found it fair to compare both with their fans on. You can't turn off the NAD fans. The yamaha even at insane volumes, for long periods handles what I threw at it fine. It will get a bit warmer then the NAD, but what did you expect? It isn't going to beat the NAD in that area. But, I do have 4/6 ohm speakers, and I have it in the 8 ohm setting as Gene suggested, and it's handling it quite fine. I had planned to get a 2 or 3 channel amp next year for even the NAD. 110W is nothing for 400 watt m80's. And I'll probably still get that amp and relieve the YAmaha some. I think in the end using the yammie as a pre, I will have a much better setup then just the NAD would have been alone. TO be honest though, getting an dedicated power amp is more of a peace of mind thing at this stage as the Yammie is doing quite well.

Out of the box, the yamaha's sound did not impress me. Matter of fact, the NAD impressed me more out of the box. The difference was the yamaha and it's eq. After spending a LOT of time with the EQ ( it's not exactly intuitive to use) I got a sound closer to what I was looking for. And finally, the M80's were singing. I will agree that the NAD for music is a little more dynamic. Separation effects are a little more pronounced but only noticeable when doing a/b comparisons (with the eq off on the 4600 as well because with it on and set right the yammie sounds SO much better)

Sound is a personal taste thing, and is going to differ from person to person. But, if you do audition the yamaha, know that proper eq settings are critical. Poorly setup and it'll destroy the sound of a good set of speakers. Any eq is like this.

YPAO is pretty much useless to me. I ran it for kicks. It did get all of my distances perfect. My sub was a little off, almost by 4-6 feet. The EQ settings were not to my liking at all. I hate automatic things, so I like to do this all manually anyways.

Which leads me to my main problem

The GUI is nice. Well laid out. You can even make do without the GUI and just use the display on the unit for most things. BTW, the display on the Yamaha is so much better then the NAD it's not even close. You CAN dim the display too. I say this because there was a review just recently done ( HT secrets I think?), a poster here mentioned it. I can't remember what site, but it did the all channels test. Anyways, there were a lot of little errors in it, and they couldn't even get the display thing right. IT DOES DIM. 3-4 different settings actually.
That being said, there is no overlay over component. Yes, it'll display the GUI over component. But, you will not get the Master volume level, input setting, lfe level etc messages that I was expecting to get as you use the amp. It does this over s-video though......bad design. I really wanted this for the woman as I wanted her to be able to SEE just how loud she turns it up. I wanted to be able to say, NEVER go above XXX. Now I can't.

Another thing, as most companies do these days, they expect you to do EVERYTHING over the gui. You can't trim the levels of the channels with the remote. Gene mentioned this as well. I had amps from 12-15 years ago that did this! Absolutely NO excuse to not have this on a modern day receiver, yet alone a $2k one. I did find a workaround. The crappy remote has 2 memory presets. About the only thing I like to change levels of often is the sub. So, I set one preset with sub on say -2, and the other on say +4. I would have liked to have one button on the remote that would switch between all the presets, because there are much more then just 2.

Now, my biggest complaint, and most frustrating part of this yamaha. The REMOTES. They are utter complete pathetic CRAP. The article I mentioned above said they liked them...HA! Another point that proves they don't' have a clue. My woman will never figure this remote out. Between having to set a slider on amp/tv/source then choosing which mode you want to be in just to turn up the volume or change a setting, to the fact that the darn thing is contrary as all h@#$ and refused to learn most of my remotes properly....I HATE THE REMOTE!!! NAd has a clear winner with the HTR2. That is a well thought out, well designed, high quality remote. The Yamaha is the complete opposite. The lighting is miserable. You can't seem to turn off the light, which means the useless POS is just draining batteries with every touch of a button. If there is a way to turn it off...please tell me!

When it comes to features.....take a guess which one wins?

When it comes to looks? I'm actually leaning towards the NAD???WHA! Yup, I am one who likes the NAD plain jane look. But, I do like the display better on the yammie, and the deeper black is nicer. So I guess I like the design better on the NAD. I also like there is no darn door. I like the buttons on the front better on the NAD. Also, the buttons have a nicer feel to them. But, the NAD volume is a pita. It's jerky, and not to mention that whatever material it is made of, you always mark it, or leave prints behind. It's like a silk or satin painted wall that you can never touch. The Yamaha's volume knob is much smoother and precise. But, it's almost 2 times bigger then it needs to be. Why?

When it comes to power, I'll choose the NAD. Only because of what I have READ about it, and how it doesn't get so warm. Because, if I had not ever read up on it before hand, I don't think I'd even notice a power difference. Now, if I was running both speakers a/b/7.1, I'd say it would be more noticeable.

When it comes to sound, if the nad had a built in EQ, what a different story this would be. But it doesn't, and I consider this to be a mandatory option in todays world of receivers. I admit it, I had fallen for the internet hype of the NAD and ordered it. I did not mind that it didn't have all the DSP's in the world as long as it sounded right. Oh well, nothing lost or gained. I got the 4600, and it never costed me a cent in difference or shipping.

When it comes to connectivity: DUH, the nad has like 2 opticals? Whoopie doo! All I need to say

When it comes to ease of use. HAnds down, NOT the yamaha. The manual is 4 times thicker and I think that says it all. Also, more features means bigger learning curve. Get over it, start reading, enjoy.

When it comes to video quality: equal. MAke sure to connect a ground up to the yamaha. For some reason it doesn't even have a 3 pronged power cable? How brilliant.

Anyways, I'm tired...

Bottom line is, I like like it, and Gene's review is pretty much spot on

 

[Wrk_hrd2Play_hr]

I'm not the only one comparing the 773 to the 4600, you can read some here. Sorry, I have been so busy at work as of late. I work at a university, and it's the first week of classes. 12-14 hr days and what not.

http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Advice&Number=107633&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1

The NAd is going back tomorrow. To be honest though, I will miss the NAD somewhat. The remote is awesome. Adjusting the channels on the fly is great. And the thing is built like a tank. Great power. Just too bad it didn't have the sound that "I" was looking for.

As far as the controversial power thing is concerned. I don't notice any difference in power, loudness etc. Not that it matters, but with the nad I had to turn the thing to -16 to get what I wanted out of it. The YAmaha gets to about 28 and it's loud enough. But, there are too many factors there to compare those numbers. The eq alone can boost volume levels to make that difference. So, it doesn't mean a thing.

I'm in a 11x17 room, open to a another area almost twice as big but an odd shape. I use neo6 for most music. 5.1 channels. Heat is NOT a problem. But I leave the fan on always. The NAD has 5 mini fans on all the time. So, I only found it fair to compare both with their fans on. You can't turn off the NAD fans. The yamaha even at insane volumes, for long periods handles what I threw at it fine. It will get a bit warmer then the NAD, but what did you expect? It isn't going to beat the NAD in that area. But, I do have 4/6 ohm speakers, and I have it in the 8 ohm setting as Gene suggested, and it's handling it quite fine. I had planned to get a 2 or 3 channel amp next year for even the NAD. 110W is nothing for 400 watt m80's. And I'll probably still get that amp and relieve the YAmaha some. I think in the end using the yammie as a pre, I will have a much better setup then just the NAD would have been alone. TO be honest though, getting an dedicated power amp is more of a peace of mind thing at this stage as the Yammie is doing quite well.

Out of the box, the yamaha's sound did not impress me. Matter of fact, the NAD impressed me more out of the box. The difference was the yamaha and it's eq. After spending a LOT of time with the EQ ( it's not exactly intuitive to use) I got a sound closer to what I was looking for. And finally, the M80's were singing. I will agree that the NAD for music is a little more dynamic. Separation effects are a little more pronounced but only noticeable when doing a/b comparisons (with the eq off on the 4600 as well because with it on and set right the yammie sounds SO much better)

Sound is a personal taste thing, and is going to differ from person to person. But, if you do audition the yamaha, know that proper eq settings are critical. Poorly setup and it'll destroy the sound of a good set of speakers. Any eq is like this.

YPAO is pretty much useless to me. I ran it for kicks. It did get all of my distances perfect. My sub was a little off, almost by 4-6 feet. The EQ settings were not to my liking at all. I hate automatic things, so I like to do this all manually anyways.

Which leads me to my main problem

The GUI is nice. Well laid out. You can even make do without the GUI and just use the display on the unit for most things. BTW, the display on the Yamaha is so much better then the NAD it's not even close. You CAN dim the display too. I say this because there was a review just recently done ( HT secrets I think?), a poster here mentioned it. I can't remember what site, but it did the all channels test. Anyways, there were a lot of little errors in it, and they couldn't even get the display thing right. IT DOES DIM. 3-4 different settings actually.
That being said, there is no overlay over component. Yes, it'll display the GUI over component. But, you will not get the Master volume level, input setting, lfe level etc messages that I was expecting to get as you use the amp. It does this over s-video though......bad design. I really wanted this for the woman as I wanted her to be able to SEE just how loud she turns it up. I wanted to be able to say, NEVER go above XXX. Now I can't.

Another thing, as most companies do these days, they expect you to do EVERYTHING over the gui. You can't trim the levels of the channels with the remote. Gene mentioned this as well. I had amps from 12-15 years ago that did this! Absolutely NO excuse to not have this on a modern day receiver, yet alone a $2k one. I did find a workaround. The crappy remote has 2 memory presets. About the only thing I like to change levels of often is the sub. So, I set one preset with sub on say -2, and the other on say +4. I would have liked to have one button on the remote that would switch between all the presets, because there are much more then just 2.

Now, my biggest complaint, and most frustrating part of this yamaha. The REMOTES. They are utter complete pathetic CRAP. The article I mentioned above said they liked them...HA! Another point that proves they don't' have a clue. My woman will never figure this remote out. Between having to set a slider on amp/tv/source then choosing which mode you want to be in just to turn up the volume or change a setting, to the fact that the darn thing is contrary as all h@#$ and refused to learn most of my remotes properly....I HATE THE REMOTE!!! NAd has a clear winner with the HTR2. That is a well thought out, well designed, high quality remote. The Yamaha is the complete opposite. The lighting is miserable. You can't seem to turn off the light, which means the useless POS is just draining batteries with every touch of a button. If there is a way to turn it off...please tell me!

When it comes to features.....take a guess which one wins?

When it comes to looks? I'm actually leaning towards the NAD???WHA! Yup, I am one who likes the NAD plain jane look. But, I do like the display better on the yammie, and the deeper black is nicer. So I guess I like the design better on the NAD. I also like there is no darn door. I like the buttons on the front better on the NAD. Also, the buttons have a nicer feel to them. But, the NAD volume is a pita. It's jerky, and not to mention that whatever material it is made of, you always mark it, or leave prints behind. It's like a silk or satin painted wall that you can never touch. The Yamaha's volume knob is much smoother and precise. But, it's almost 2 times bigger then it needs to be. Why?

When it comes to power, I'll choose the NAD. Only because of what I have READ about it, and how it doesn't get so warm. Because, if I had not ever read up on it before hand, I don't think I'd even notice a power difference. Now, if I was running both speakers a/b/7.1, I'd say it would be more noticeable.

When it comes to sound, if the nad had a built in EQ, what a different story this would be. But it doesn't, and I consider this to be a mandatory option in todays world of receivers. I admit it, I had fallen for the internet hype of the NAD and ordered it. I did not mind that it didn't have all the DSP's in the world as long as it sounded right. Oh well, nothing lost or gained. I got the 4600, and it never costed me a cent in difference or shipping.

When it comes to connectivity: DUH, the nad has like 2 opticals? Whoopie doo! All I need to say

When it comes to ease of use. HAnds down, NOT the yamaha. The manual is 4 times thicker and I think that says it all. Also, more features means bigger learning curve. Get over it, start reading, enjoy.

When it comes to video quality: equal. MAke sure to connect a ground up to the yamaha. For some reason it doesn't even have a 3 pronged power cable? How brilliant.

Anyways, I'm tired...

Bottom line is, I like like it, and Gene's review is pretty much spot on

Well said. Thanks much for your insight. Certaintly validated my decision about going with the 4600

 

[DR_AUDIO]

Power

Hello all,

First post here although I've been visitng this site for quite a while. I'm a regular at a couple of others also but without a doubt, this is one of the better A/V sites on the net.

I saw that a couple of you had questions regarding the 4600's amp section. I also have read the article that Gene has referred to. I do think that this article does make some good points and in general is correct in saying that all channels driven tests as used elsewhere can be unrealistic for most people.

At the same time, it would be nice to know what a unit is capable of all channels driven if only to compare power supplies to other receivers. It would be useful in relative terms and for those few consumers that truly are trying to drive a more difficult load speaker wise.

Over at brand 'X' Aud/Vid website the RX-V4600 was tested 5 channels driven. In this torture test they measure continuous output for 5 seconds. Yes, it is a little unrealistic but at least it is something for comparing different amps. The 4600 measured 138 for 1 channel and 116 for 2 channels. When 5 channels were driven the rear channels were delivering 38 watts prior to clipping.

As the referenced article points out, for many people this is not an issue. However, for those driving 4 ohm speakers with below average sensitivity, this is something to consider. In Yamaha's defense, this is common for mass market receivers. For those who truly do need more current from an amp, it would be nice to know this as there are products out there in this price range
with different power characteristics all channels driven. This is no knock on Yamaha as they do make some nice equipment. But as in most hobbies, one box can't be all things to all people.

The RX-v667 which is advertised at 95watts per channel actually does 68 watts at clipping in to 8 ohms with 5 channels driven..........so, by inference the 4600 should do more.
. http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?print_page=y&section_id=3&article_id=863&page_number=1&preview=

 

[newfmp3]

it's too bad audioholics does not believe in the all channels driven test at all. I can understand why, but with a lot of other reviewers doing it, it's hard to compare their results to others.

I'm still fighting with the EQ. Just trying to take he edge off of the highs just a tad. The Yamaha can be brighter, and if you jack the eq up too high it'll be harsh. trying to find that sweet spot is the key. But, I would rather be able to tweak these things then to be stuck with a receiver that sounded one way and thats it. Killer is, I had 2 months to tweak the NAD with my external EQ and it had it perfect for music. And I have had a very busy week, and no time at all to tweak the yamaha which is more difficult to setup by far.

 

[surveyor]

RX-V4600 Power Test

The following test of the RX-V4600 was done at Secrets of Home Theatre and Hi Fidelity.
Power Amplifier

Number of Channels: 7. Minimum to pass is power amplifiers for all available channels (e.g., 5 in 5.1 receivers and 7 in 7.1 receivers).
Power Output: Specified at 130 watts per channel into 8 Ohms, 20 Hz - 20 kHz, THD <0.04%. It does not specify this with all channels driven. The RX-V4600 delivered 38.3 watts RMS per channel, at 1 kHz, with five channels driven, before going into clipping (when THD reaches 1% or more). Minimum to pass is 10% below rated RMS power specification, all channels driven for a 5 second period.
Two Channel Power Output: Two-channel output was 136 watts RMS per channel. Max power output for two channels driven must be 25% above specification for all channels

Here's the link.
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/main.html

 

[PENG]

This is very strange. I did a search for other test bench reports for Yamaha receivers and found this:

RX-V657
Output at clipping (1 kHz into 8/4 ohms)
1 channel driven: 181/278 W (22.6/24.4 dBW)
5 channels driven (8 ohms): 67 W (18.3 dBW)

STEREO PERFORMANCE, DIGITAL INPUT
All signals were PCM and 16-bit except where noted otherwise. Reference level is –20 dBFS; all level trims at 0. Volume setting for reference level was –3.5.
Output at clipping (1 kHz, 8/4 ohms)
both channels driven: 129/188 W (21.1/22.7 dBW)

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=863

Even this lower model managed 67W X 5 1kHz at clipping, and that is 1W higher than the HKAVR330:

Output at clipping (1 kHz into 8/4 ohms)
1 channel driven: 95/148 W (19.8/21.7 dBW)
5 channels driven (8 ohms): 67 W (18.2 dBW)

PCM Stereo performance (1kHz, 8/4 ohms, both channels driven)................................86/25W in multi-channel, shutdown after half a second.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/322004163324.pdf

I like to compare those test results using HK's as a reference because HK seems to produce numbers close to or exceed what they specify.

Did they test the 4600 with the impedance switch set to 4 ohms? If they did, according to the S&V reviewer the current capability will be limited to half.

It is hard to believe a 40 lb weight Yamaha could not do better than 40WX5.

 

[surveyor]

This is very strange. I did a search for other test bench reports for Yamaha receivers and found this:

RX-V657
Output at clipping (1 kHz into 8/4 ohms)
1 channel driven: 181/278 W (22.6/24.4 dBW)
5 channels driven (8 ohms): 67 W (18.3 dBW)

STEREO PERFORMANCE, DIGITAL INPUT
All signals were PCM and 16-bit except where noted otherwise. Reference level is –20 dBFS; all level trims at 0. Volume setting for reference level was –3.5.
Output at clipping (1 kHz, 8/4 ohms)
both channels driven: 129/188 W (21.1/22.7 dBW)

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=863

Even this lower model managed 67W X 5 1kHz at clipping, and that is 1W higher than the HKAVR330:

Output at clipping (1 kHz into 8/4 ohms)
1 channel driven: 95/148 W (19.8/21.7 dBW)
5 channels driven (8 ohms): 67 W (18.2 dBW)

PCM Stereo performance (1kHz, 8/4 ohms, both channels driven)................................86/25W in multi-channel, shutdown after half a second.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/322004163324.pdf

I like to compare those test results using HK's as a reference because HK seems to produce numbers close to or exceed what they specify.

Did they test the 4600 with the impedance switch set to 4 ohms? If they did, according to the S&V reviewer the current capability will be limited to half.

It is hard to believe a 40 lb weight Yamaha could not do better than 40WX5.

Peng, I would bet your right about the 4 ohm switch.
It had me scratching my head untill you mentioned that.

 

[gene]

It is hard to believe a 40 lb weight Yamaha could not do better than 40WX5.

Again please refer to: The All Channels Driven Amplifier Test Controversy

 

[PENG]

Peng, I would bet your right about the 4 ohm switch.
It had me scratching my head untill you mentioned that.

I said it, but I wasn't so sure. It is unlikely a reviewer would make such error.

 

[newfmp3]

I still don't take weight seriously. The oversized volume know could way over a pound itself

And as I mentioned already, their review has a few small details wrong, which makes me question the rest

Besides, if I believed every review, i would have never have bought the NAD due to quality concerns, and the nad was built like a tank.

Audioholics tested the 4600 at just under 130 watts, 2 channel at 8 ohms. Assuming Gene left the ohm switch at 8 ( even while testing the 4 ohm rating) that is on par with what these other guys got. This only confuses me more.

If the 4600 is supposed to have beefier internals, then what in the name of god does the 2500 get o all channels according to these guys?

I can see why Audioholics doesn't entertain these discussions.

 

[PENG]

Again please refer to: The All Channels Driven Amplifier Test Controversy

Gene, I read your article a couple of times but I am not sure if I understand it fully. I think to output say, 100WX5, the power draw from the 120V outlet will be about 1000W. The 120V circuit should be able to handle it without excessive voltage drop, as long as nothing else is drawing from the same circuit. So I don't see the need for a regulated power supply unless the reviewer is testing a flag shop model such as the AVR7300, or AVR5805.

As for the test tone thing, I understand the reviewer might have used a 1 kHz mono tone, thereby triggered the limiter circuit. Presumably, S&V used a similar test tone to test the RX-V657, how come they didn't activate the limiter in the supposedly less powerful receiver?

 

[PENG]

The RX-v667 which is advertised at 95watts per channel actually does 68 watts at clipping in to 8 ohms with 5 channels driven..........so, by inference the 4600 should do more.
. http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?print_page=y&section_id=3&article_id=863&page_number=1&preview=

Sorry about duplicating, I didn't see your post when I did mine.

 

[gene]

I think to output say, 100WX5, the power draw from the 120V outlet will be about 1000W. The 120V circuit should be able to handle it without excessive voltage drop, as long as nothing else is drawing from the same circuit.

Actually with a linear amp and power supply, expect real world efficiency to be around 40%, including transformer losses, power factor correction, etc. Thus the consumed power would be 1250watts in this case or 10.4amp draw from the wall. This kind of draw will definately cause the line voltage to drop a few volts from steady state which can corrupt the distortion figures making the amp clip much sooner than it would in a sterile, regulated environment.

In the future, I will run power tests regulated and unregulated to show the differences.

As for the other receivers under their test, I cannot answer for how they conducted their tests so you might want to ask them. However, its sort of nebulous since this test has very little relevance on real world performance.

If fidelity is your concern, you should worry more about bandwidth linearity, output impedance, distortion and SNR over the power spectrum of the amplifier and how much dynamic range it has. Yamaha, and many other leading receiver companies design their amps to be very dynamic, more so than meeting an "all channels driven" test.

 

[PENG]

If fidelity is your concern, you should worry more about bandwidth linearity, output impedance, distortion and SNR over the power spectrum of the amplifier and how much dynamic range it has. Yamaha, and many other leading receiver companies design their amps to be very dynamic, more so than meeting an "all channels driven" test.

I agree with your last sentence. My question was purely technical, and you answered it. Thanks!

 

[gene]

Taking a look at the S&V 5CH amp measurements for the 2 Yammie receivers, it appears they both initiate their current protection at the same power delivery threshold. Without this feature, they would likely have to have larger heat sink area to meet UL or what they feel to be their own safety limits. On the flip side, the 4600 is a much more dynamic amp as indicated by their test results.

 

[mhammond]

HDMI Problems

Help! I'm having a problem with the Yammie and my Denon 2910 dvd player. When I try to run a 1080i signal through the receiver on the HDMI switching circuits all I get is a black screen on the TV. My satellite receiver signal goes through no problem, and when I plug the TV straight into the HDMI output on the dvd player it also works. The problem seems to be an incompatiblity between the Denon and the Yamaha only on the HDMI level... Anyone?