OLD amp Vs NEW amp - Yamaha AX-1090 vs Yamaha A-S801

[paul.arhitex]

- JUST from the sound point of view(RAW Power and sound quality) can the Old Yamaha compete or come close to the performance of the New Yamaha?
The old one is Yamaha AX-1090 and the new one is Yamaha A-S801.
I will post also a picture with the main specs of the both amplifiers.
Extra question: Can an old amp keep it's performance after 10/20 years or the technology evolved too much and the new ones are more powerful and have better sound quality?

Sorry for my english - i'm from Europe
Cheers!

 

[j_garcia]

Other than room correction and maybe bass management & connection types, on paper, the old one looks better in terms of what you're asking.

The difference there isn't going to actually add up to a massive difference. You will likely notice it during peaks only.

 

[TLS Guy]

- JUST from the sound point of view(RAW Power and sound quality) can the Old Yamaha compete or come close to the performance of the New Yamaha?
The old one is Yamaha AX-1090 and the new one is Yamaha A-S801.
I will post also a picture with the main specs of the both amplifiers.
Extra question: Can an old amp keep it's performance after 10/20 years or the technology evolved too much and the new ones are more powerful and have better sound quality?

Sorry for my english - i'm from Europe
Cheers!View attachment 18740

The old amp is the better amp in all important parameters. Driving a difficult speaker load, I would bet the old amp would sound noticeably better.

 

[paul.arhitex]

Other than room correction and maybe bass management & connection types, on paper, the old one looks better in terms of what you're asking.

The difference there isn't going to actually add up to a massive difference. You will likely notice it during peaks only.

So u mean that the power capability/sound quality of an amplifiers is not lost in time. (if no capacitor is burned and stuff)
And even if it's sounds very stupid: 140rms watts from 1996 should be ''equal'' with 140rms watts from 2016 even if we assume that the new amps are made with newer technology and better parts

 

[TLS Guy]

So u mean that the power capability/sound quality of an amplifiers is not lost in time. (if no capacitor is burned and stuff)
And even if it's sounds very stupid: 140rms watts from 1996 should be ''equal'' with 140rms watts from 2016 even if we assume that the new amps are made with newer technology and better parts

I have amps nearly sixty years old, I have never had to service.

That older amp almost doubles its power into 4 ohms compared to 8 and therefore has a much better current reserve. Its signal to noise ratio is significantly better.

Do not necessarily right off older vintage gear. A lot of it, but by no means all, is much better than what is produced in these money grubbing years.

I would not be surprised either if that older amps outlasts the new one.

If it is audio quality, rather then facilities you are after, then the older one gets the top bill.

 

[paul.arhitex]

Yes - My dilemma started when i looked at the components from inside of the amps.
The newer ones look more beefier. Even the 6999$ one looks build with more muscular parts BUT it puts out just 2x100w at 8ohms
I'am i missing something?

 

[PENG]

The old amp is the better amp in all important parameters. Driving a difficult speaker load, I would bet the old amp would sound noticeably better.

FYI, that's just the way Yamaha specifies their "dynamic" whatever. Otherwise yes, it would be impressive. By the way, even their AVRs are specified this way, for example:

RX-A3060

Dynamic Power per Channel (8/6/4/2 ohms) 175 / 220 / 295 / 410 W

http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/aventage/rx-a3060_u/?mode=model

I agree the old one looks much more powerful on paper, but the power consumption figure (we don't know the basis), at only 390W do not indicate impressive power supply for a 145X2 W class AB amps, relatively speaking.

 

[PENG]

Yes - My dilemma started when i looked at the components from inside of the amps.
The newer ones look more beefier. Even the 6999$ one looks build with more muscular parts BUT it puts out just 2x100w at 8ohms
I'am i missing something?
View attachment 18754

The AS-3000 is their high end product, as such it is probably specified much more conservatively. If you look at Marantz and Denon's equivalents (pricewise), they are also specified at around 100W, or less.

I have no doubt the A-S3000 may actually be more powerful than the AX-1090 for low impedance loads under certain conditions, but the AX-1090 will be more powerful than the A-S801. In real world applications, the AX-1090 could be as, or more powerful than the A-S3000, despite it's lower quality power supply.

For $300, if the AX-1090 is in good operating condition, it is a better buy unless you need the additional features that the 801 (I assume there could be 1 or 2) may offer.

 

[paul.arhitex]

The AS-3000 is their high end product, as such it is probably specified much more conservatively. If you look at Marantz and Denon's equivalents (pricewise), they are also specified at around 100W, or less.

I have no doubt the A-S3000 may actually be more powerful than the AX-1090 for low impedance loads under certain conditions, but the AX-1090 will be more powerful than the A-S801. In real world applications, the AX-1090 could be as, or more powerful than the A-S3000, despite it's lower quality power supply.

For $300, if the AX-1090 is in good operating condition, it is a better buy unless you need the additional features that the 801 (I assume there could be 1 or 2) may offer.

make sense what u say and yes the old one is in a very good condition - i just need a 2 channel amp to drive my front BIG speakers in a future DTS:X home theater receiver setup.

- Normally i would prefer 2 monoblocks or an amp that has more than 2X300w 8ohms but.... i found just expensive on the used market and i cant afford to buy Emotiva in this moment

 

[3db]

Although the old Yamaha is more powerful than the new (but its poorly specced so we don;t know for sure), I noticed that the new Yamaha is much better at doubling its power than the older Yamaha when moving down from 8 to 4 ohms. Unless you know your speaker hits 2 ohms, I'm inclined to go with the newer model. Based on the Yamaha AVRs tested here, my thinking is that Yamaha is very conservative in their power ratings for their new products.

 

[paul.arhitex]

Although the old Yamaha is more powerful than the new (but its poorly specced so we don;t know for sure), I noticed that the new Yamaha is much better at doubling its power than the older Yamaha when moving down from 8 to 4 ohms. Unless you know your speaker hits 2 ohms, I'm inclined to go with the newer model. Based on the Yamaha AVRs tested here, my thinking is that Yamaha is very conservative in their power ratings for their new products.

Actually the old one is doubling dow it's power better in 4ohms

OLD amp 2x145 8‎Ω
max power 2x250 4‎Ω

NEW amp 2x100 8‎Ω
max power 2x160 4‎Ω

high dynamic power
8 / 6 / 4 / 2‎ Ω
OLD 220/290/360/460
NEW 140/170/220/290

 

[3db]

Actually the old one is doubling dow it's power better in 4ohms

OLD amp 2x145 8‎Ω
max power 2x250 4‎Ω

NEW amp 2x100 8‎Ω
max power 2x160 4‎Ω

high dynamic power
8 / 6 / 4 / 2‎ Ω
OLD 220/290/360/460
NEW 140/170/220/290

Doubling its power would bring the old one up close to 440 but its a 120 watts from that. The new one is only 60 watts away

 

[Swerd]

I think everyone here agrees that there is nothing wrong with the older Yamaha AX-1090. The newer A-S801 offers somewhat less power, although that difference of 140 vs. 100 watts may or may not lead to an audible difference. That depends on the speakers you use. What speakers do you use? And do you know what their sensitivity and impedance values are?

 

[paul.arhitex]

I think everyone here agrees that there is nothing wrong with the older Yamaha AX-1090. The newer A-S801 offers somewhat less power, although that difference of 140 vs. 100 watts may or may not lead to an audible difference. That depends on the speakers you use. What speakers do you use? And do you know what their sensitivity and impedance values are?

actually i use DiY tower speaker - but don't imagine that are cheap speakers because i'm an architect/designer and i like to build stuff and products
- i use Scan-Speak drivers: 2x12inch woofers + 2x6inch mids and 1 tweeter
- @ 8 ohms total
- very thick cabinets and well made
- sensitivity.. i think around 90db

 

[TLS Guy]

actually i use DiY tower speaker - but don't imagine that are cheap speakers because i'm an architect/designer and i like to build stuff and products
- i use Scan-Speak drivers: 2x12inch woofers + 2x6inch mids and 1 tweeter
- @ 8 ohms total
- very thick cabinets and well made
- sensitivity.. i think around 90db

How did you get to 8 ohms using two 12" drivers and two 6" mids?

 

[Swerd]

actually i use DiY tower speaker - but don't imagine that are cheap speakers because i'm an architect/designer and i like to build stuff and products
- i use Scan-Speak drivers: 2x12inch woofers + 2x6inch mids and 1 tweeter
- @ 8 ohms total
- very thick cabinets and well made
- sensitivity.. i think around 90db

90 dB is very sensitive and should not require a high powered amp. But impedance, especially the lowest point (usually somewhere in the bass range) is also important.

Are these your own design, or is there a web page for the original design? If so, it might show an impedance vs. frequency graph.

 

[Swerd]

As an example, here is the impedance vs. frequency curve for KEF Reference 201/2 speakers taken from http://www.soundstage.com/measurements/speakers/kef_201-2/

It shows an impedance low point of about 4-6 ohms in the 100-200 Hz range. As a result, these speakers might be somewhat power hungry.

 

[paul.arhitex]

90 dB is very sensitive and should not require a high powered amp. But impedance, especially the lowest point (usually somewhere in the bass range) is also important.

Are these your own design, or is there a web page for the original design? If so, it might show an impedance vs. frequency graph.

mmm unfortunately i don't have an impedance vs. frequency graph, i.m not that evolved in this field yet(i'm still learning) i've just used 2 x 4ohm woofers in series (89db) and 2 x 4ohm mids and 1 x 8ohm tweeter + the crossover

 

[paul.arhitex]

As an example, here is the impedance vs. frequency curve for KEF Reference 201/2 speakers taken from http://www.soundstage.com/measurements/speakers/kef_201-2/

It shows an impedance low point of about 4-6 ohms in the 100-200 Hz range. As a result, these speakers might be somewhat power hungry.

ohh these are the woofer used
Scan Speak 30 W 4558 T00 Aluminium

 

[Swerd]

mmm unfortunately i don't have an impedance vs. frequency graph, i.m not that evolved in this field yet(i'm still learning) i've just used 2 x 4ohm woofers in series (89db) and 2 x 4ohm mids and 1 x 8ohm tweeter + the crossover

Impedance in the bass range is also determined by the cabinet dimensions as well as the woofers you selected. It results in a bass 'tuning' with a characteristic sound and impedance.