I have a Yamaha rx-v667 receiver, do i need a external amp?

S

sidespin

Enthusiast
I've read a lot on these forums, and this is the first question I have. I'm currently using a Yamaha rx-v667 receiver to power my 5.1 system. I'm using Focal Chorus 714v floorstanders for my mains and a Focal Chorus 700v for my center. I'm using a powered KEF sub, and for surrounds, a pair of polk monitor 30's.

I'm wondering if I get an external amplifier, ie- Emtovia, Rotel, NAD, or Outlaw, something on these lines, if it would help my sound. I don't listen at ridiculously loud levels. Probably moderate levels to be precise.

My current Yamaha receiver is rated at 90w X 7 @ 8ohms.

My Focal 714v specs are :

Frequency response (+or-3dB) 52Hz - 28kHz
Low frequency point 43Hz
Sensitivity (2,83 V/1 m) 91dB
Nominal impedance 8 Ohms
Minimum impedance 4.2 Ohms
Crossover frequency 300Hz / 3 000Hz
Recommended amplifier power 25 - 150W


My Focal 700v center specs are:

Frequency response (+or-3dB) 61Hz - 28kHz
Low frequency point 52Hz
Sensitivity (2,83 V/1 m) 91dB
Nominal impedance 8 Ohms
Minimum impedance 5.2 Ohms
Crossover frequency 3 000Hz
Recommended amplifier power 25 - 120W


After reading some of the articles and threads about amplifiers, I'm wondering if I'm giving enough power to the front 3 speakers from my receiver alone. I read that power is exaggerated by the makers and that it may not really be a 90w X 7. If so, would getting an external amp give me better sound.

I use my system for music, movies, and little bit of gaming. The Focal speakers are new for me as they're replacing my Polk Monitor 60's as I had for mains, including the new Focal center. I'm skimping out on the surrounds for now because of budget, and also the surrounds being used mostly in movies, which I haven't watched too much of lately.

If getting an external amp would help, should it be a 2 channel amp? I've seen 3 channel amps, which I think might be good for the center channel as well too. I'm pretty much mostly concerned about getting the proper amount of juice to my front 3 speakers.

Any thoughts? Am I fine with just the receiver, or would adding an amp improve my sound a noticeable amount?

Thanks!
 
gmichael

gmichael

Audioholic Spartan
Your speakers don't seem very hard to drive. You don't need and external amp at all unless you crack your volumn up to ear bleeding levels.
Wether or not one might improve their sound is debateable. I'll leave that debate up to others to have.
 
S

sidespin

Enthusiast
thanks for your input. i would rather not spend any money if i didn't have to. i don't listen at really high levels, so i hope i'm good to go.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Can you give us the dimensions of the room and how far will you be sitting from the front 3 speakers?
 
Alex2507

Alex2507

Audioholic Slumlord
Am I fine with just the receiver, or would adding an amp improve my sound a noticeable amount?
I too think you're 'fine' with just the rec'r and I think you may see a sound quality improvement with an external amp. That would depend on how the phase angle interacts with the impedance curve at frequencies below around 300 Hz or so but you've given your rec'r's power supply some breathing room by only running 3 channels.

You mentioned budget concerns so my immediate response to that is to enjoy what you have. :)
 
S

sidespin

Enthusiast
My room is a medium room, but with 2 open sides. It's about 16 X 16, and 9 feet high. The entire left side is open space, and then there's another opening on the front right side, of about 6 feet.

My receiver is actually running all 5 speakers plus a subwoofer, but the sub is self-powered.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
My room is a medium room, but with 2 open sides. It's about 16 X 16, and 9 feet high. The entire left side is open space, and then there's another opening on the front right side, of about 6 feet.

My receiver is actually running all 5 speakers plus a subwoofer, but the sub is self-powered.
I guess your room has a square shape and that is not the best. Other than that it is less than 3000 cubic feet so the 667 should not have too much trouble with your setup. I would still add a 2 channel amp (2X200W) to drive the front speakers that are basically 4 to 6 ohms.
 
S

sidespin

Enthusiast
the room is actually more rectangular. i know the dimensions i wrote were of a square, but i cut off the open left side. maybe more like 16 x 20, like a diamond shape. square then, triangular. my speaker impedence is 8 ohms no? i thought nominal meant the regular impedence.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
the room is actually more rectangular. i know the dimensions i wrote were of a square, but i cut off the open left side. maybe more like 16 x 20, like a diamond shape. square then, triangular. my speaker impedence is 8 ohms no? i thought nominal meant the regular impedence.
It is hard to find a good definition for "8 ohm nomial". Focal says the 714V has a minimum impedance of 4.2 ohms. Without seeing the impedance vs frequency curve I think it may be safe to assume a power amp that is capable of driving 4 ohm speakers will be better for those speakers. The 667 is fine for a small room but I feel your room is large enough to benefit from an amp that is capable of 200WX2 into 8 ohm and 300WX2 into 4 ohms.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
the room is actually more rectangular. i know the dimensions i wrote were of a square, but i cut off the open left side. maybe more like 16 x 20, like a diamond shape. square then, triangular. my speaker impedence is 8 ohms no? i thought nominal meant the regular impedence.
Nominal impedance means nothing. The best rule of thumb, is to say the impedance will be closer, to the minimum impedance + 10%. If the phase angles in the bass frequencies are in negative territory, then the impedance the amp actually sees can be lower than even the minimal impedance.

Very few speaker manufacturers provide enough information to determine how well an amp receiver will do with any given speaker.

As a general rule most speaker systems are grossly underpowered for concert hall volume, at least for classical music, which has a huge dynamic range.

We were talking about this an our AES chapter meeting a few months ago. For really clean reproduction, much more power is required than usually imagined. The caveat is that the speakers have to be able handle it without excessive thermal compression or burn out.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
Hey Sidespin, one thing you could do to help determine your power requirements is to watch a movie with a dynamic soundtrack (like an action movie), at your normal listening volume. After it has been running for an hour or so, check the top of the receiver to see how hot it is.

If it's cool, or only slightly/moderately warm to touch, you at least aren't putting undue strain on the amp section of the receiver. That said, it doesn't mean that there is sufficient power to accurately reproduce all the intermittent dynamic peaks in the soundtrack.

However, if the top of the receiver is quite hot to touch, that will be a dead giveaway that the receiver's amp section is not up to the job and needs help.
 
C

Chitown2477

Audioholic
I recommend you add a two channel amp to your setup and here is why. I have a Pioneer Elite VSX-21THX AVR with 110 WPC (x7) on a 5.1 setup. I recently added an Emotiva UPA-2 amp to run my two front Klipsch RF-52s. The AVR is now only running my center (Klipsch RC-52) and surrounds (Klipsch RS-42s). I had been thinking about this upgrade for while and the tipping point was the UPA-2 on clearance at 33% off.

My HT is used 70/30 movies/music but I tend to play music loud. I wanted to get better 2 channel stereo sound (increased loudness with clarity). Even though the Klipsch speakers are fairly efficient and don't need much power to drive them, I wanted to see if there was a difference. (My living room is 12x15x9 and the back opens up to the dinning room about the same size. I have a very thick curtain to divide the rooms when HT is on which I think helps to tame some room acoustics. I have acoustic panels as well).

The UPA-2 made a significant difference. Two channel stereo is much fuller and the overall sound clarity is really more than I expected. The real test was my wife noticed a big difference. (She normally thinks most upgrades I make only have improvement in my mind. LOL.) The overall sound for movies is also much better. The overall sound stage is, IMO, much more dynamic. The front speakers are so much more alive now. Though I have my crossover point at 80 for the sub, the low end on my front speakers is now fuller as well which really is nice for stereo. While I am still tweaking the sound levels, I certainly don't turn my system up on the dial as much as I used to - there simply is alot more headroom.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
S

sidespin

Enthusiast
From the responses, it seems like adding an external amp will make a noticeable difference. Especially with the minimal + 10% rating for impedance. It just seems like my Focal mains aren't sounding to it capabilities. This is a subjective feeling, but it feels like there's more sound in the speaker that's not coming out right now. It almost feels like it's underpowered or not sounding to it full capabilities.

From the consensus, even with some saying that it might just be fine, I'm leaning towards adding an amp. From the suggestions, it seems like I should be looking for a 2-channel amp. I don't particularily care about my surrounds, but I'm wondering if my Focal center should be amped separately too. Or is that not necessary?
 
S

sidespin

Enthusiast
what kind of power specs should i be looking at if i'm going to get a 2 channel amp? should i be looking at the specs for 4 ohm or 8 ohm?

ie - 200w x 2 @ 8ohms / 400w x 2 @ 4 ohms

That's the specs from an Adcom GFA-5800. Would that kind of power be alright, or is that overkill?

Peng, I noted that you wrote to find something like: 200w x 2 @ 8ohms / 300w x 2 @ 4 ohms

Any ideas? I appreciate your responses. :)
 
gmichael

gmichael

Audioholic Spartan
From the responses, it seems like adding an external amp will make a noticeable difference. Especially with the minimal + 10% rating for impedance. It just seems like my Focal mains aren't sounding to it capabilities. This is a subjective feeling, but it feels like there's more sound in the speaker that's not coming out right now. It almost feels like it's underpowered or not sounding to it full capabilities.

From the consensus, even with some saying that it might just be fine, I'm leaning towards adding an amp. From the suggestions, it seems like I should be looking for a 2-channel amp. I don't particularily care about my surrounds, but I'm wondering if my Focal center should be amped separately too. Or is that not necessary?
If you want to go with an external amp, this one would be nice, as well as budget friendly. http://emotiva.com/upa2.shtm
 
S

sidespin

Enthusiast
If you want to go with an external amp, this one would be nice, as well as budget friendly. http://emotiva.com/upa2.shtm
Thanks gmichael. I just bought it. *Click* :) I love these forums. Great ideas and a great place for directions. I appreciate everyone who responded and was able to help me in making my decision. I was checking audiogon, and most everything was at least $400 starting. at least the amps that i was looking at. $299 + free shipping is a good value. and, from the reviews, it seems like i made out well. Sweet!
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
what kind of power specs should i be looking at if i'm going to get a 2 channel amp? should i be looking at the specs for 4 ohm or 8 ohm?

ie - 200w x 2 @ 8ohms / 400w x 2 @ 4 ohms
In general I get very careful with any advertised "double down" power output specs because I think most of the time they are just hypes/marketing tricks. Under ideal condition when there is no voltage drop, increase in losses or change in efficiencies due to increase in current, if you half the load resistance (8 to 4 ohms) the power output should double but in the practical world you get all sort of losses and there is the well known voltage drop that increases with current. If you have an older design Adcom power amp you will know what voltage drop means every time you turn it on (lights dim).

Most well designed/made power amps would spec something like 200W into 8 ohms and 300 to 350W into 4 ohms. If their marketing department wants to appeal to the audiophile group that don't have much background in physics/EE, they could easily turn it around and spec the same amp as 175W into 8 ohms and still 350W into 4 ohms, hence "double down" and those audiophiles will say, wow this one doubles down, it must be a better amp..

That's the specs from an Adcom GFA-5800. Would that kind of power be alright, or is that overkill?
Any power you don't ever use can be considered overkill, but you never say never so to me the more power the better as long as you can afford it and have room for it.

Peng, I noted that you wrote to find something like: 200w x 2 @ 8ohms / 300w x 2 @ 4 ohms

Any ideas? I appreciate your responses. :)
I said that because I knew you could easily get a two or three channel amp with that kind of specs, e.g. Emotiva, Outlaw, Parasound, Adcom.

I know people will tell you some how a 125WX2 UPA-2 will open up your speakers when your mid range 125WX7 AVR will not. I don't believe an UPA-2 with a little 300VA transformer will do much better than any mid range AVR in 2 channel output. The fact is, most 125WX7 mid range AVR will have a much larger P/S transformer and HTM lab measurements consistently show that those AVRs, e.g. most Pioneer Elite models, Marantz AVR6000 series or up, Denon AVR3000 series and up, Onkyo 800 series and higher etc., will deliver >200WX2 at 0.1% distortion.

Even the lower models such as your 667 should be quite comparable with the UPA-2 in two channel applications. Check out the following lower end models lab measurements:

http://hcc.techradar.com/node/5986

http://www.hometheater.com/content/pioneer-vsx-918v-av-receiver-ht-labs-measures

http://www.hometheater.com/content/yamaha-rx-v663-av-receiver-measurements

The last one, the RX-V663, predecessor of the 667:

"This graph shows that the RX-V663’s left channel, from Multi input to speaker output with two channels driving 8-ohm loads continuously at 1 kHz, reached 0.1% distortion at 166.7 watts and 1% distortion at 190.7 watts. Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reached 0.1% distortion at 218.0 watts and 1% distortion at 245.9 watts."

Now that was for 1 kHz, so for 20 to 20,000 you may get less, say 10% less, still pretty decent compared to the UPA-2. By the way, sooner or later, more forum member will remind you that doubling the power will only get you 3 dB increase in volume, such increase will be noticeable but certainly no where near being twice as loud.

Anyway, it is up to you to believe in science or Placebo. My suggestion is, if you want your investment to make an audible difference, go for at least something like a XPA-2 or 3.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Thanks gmichael. I just bought it. *Click* :) I love these forums. Great ideas and a great place for directions. I appreciate everyone who responded and was able to help me in making my decision. I was checking audiogon, and most everything was at least $400 starting. at least the amps that i was looking at. $299 + free shipping is a good value. and, from the reviews, it seems like i made out well. Sweet!
I did not see this post as I was composing my response. If I did, I would not have said what I said about the UPA-2. Sorry!
 
S

sidespin

Enthusiast
No problem Peng. I want to hear your honest opinion. I just put my order on hold so it's ok. I checked out the XPA-3, and that was something that interested me. As, my front mains and center are all Focal. However, my center channel is rated at (Recommended amplifier power 25 - 120W)

My front mains are rated at (Recommended amplifier power 25 - 150W)

The powerload from the XPA-3 wouldn't be too much for those speakers, especially the center?

The XPA-3 is rated at 300 watts RMS @ 4 ohm / 200 watts RMS @ 8 ohm

My yamaha receiver is rated at 90w X 7 @ 8ohms

The price point of the UPA-2 is definitely nicer, but I can stretch my budget. Especially, if it will make a noticeable difference compared to the UPA-2.

Any thoughts? Peng, I'm guessing your honest opinion was to go for the XPA-3. Seeing the specs of my speakers and my yamaha receiver, would the XPA-3 still be your recommendation?
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
No problem Peng. I want to hear your honest opinion. I just put my order on hold so it's ok. I checked out the XPA-3, and that was something that interested me. As, my front mains and center are all Focal. However, my center channel is rated at (Recommended amplifier power 25 - 120W)

My front mains are rated at (Recommended amplifier power 25 - 150W)

The powerload from the XPA-3 wouldn't be too much for those speakers, especially the center?

The XPA-3 is rated at 300 watts RMS @ 4 ohm / 200 watts RMS @ 8 ohm

My yamaha receiver is rated at 90w X 7 @ 8ohms

The price point of the UPA-2 is definitely nicer, but I can stretch my budget. Especially, if it will make a noticeable difference compared to the UPA-2.

Any thoughts? Peng, I'm guessing your honest opinion was to go for the XPA-3. Seeing the specs of my speakers and my yamaha receiver, would the XPA-3 still be your recommendation?
The UPA-2 will definitely get you more output but the increase just does not seem too significant to me. You will be fine with a 2 channel amp but the XPA-2 costs $100 more and that's why I recommend the XPA-3 that I believe will ultimately get you much more bang for the bucks than the UPA.

Don't worry about having too much power. Your Focal towers and the center will be fine with the XPA-3. They will only take what they need and you just have to make sure you don't crank the volume too high. With 200/300W on hand you won't have to worry about the impedance and phase (angle between voltage and current) vs frequency as the XPA-3 has a large enough power supply to provide the current drawn by the speakers without audible distortion.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

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