Choosing between the Yamaha RX-A8A and the RX-A6A

E

Eliut

Audiophyte
I am leaning towards buying a new Yamaha Aventage Receiver. It carries 2022 technology and Yamaha seems to be doing well with the promised firmware updates. At this point, the only things pending to deliver just impact gamers and I am not one.

I am replacing my now obsolete (then flagship), nearly 20 yr old Onkyo TX-NR1000 7.2 AVR which used to power both my indoor and outdoor HT plus my gym stereo zone. My indoor home theater measures 14' w x 16.5' l x 11.5' h. My 5.1 speakers are also discontinued but still in great shape: Polk LSi9 front, LSiC center channel, and LSiFX surround (Dipole setting) and a Polk PSW1000 subwoofer. These Polk speakers are rated 4ohms. They sound great but they are power hungry. My outdoor HT has 5 DAS DS-108 speakers.

I noticed that the A8A has a few premium build components beyond the two additional amps compared to the A6A: Larger block capacitors, premium DAC for all channels (ES9026PRO x2 vs. ES9026PRO x1 ES9007S x1), beefier transformer, larger power supply (600w vs 500w), iron legs.

Do you guys believe those items make a difference in the sound quality or reliability/service life of these units? Is it worth investing the extra money on the A8A over the A6A? Channel utilization wise, I could use either one in various combinations: 5.1 for HT, passively bi-amping my front LF mains, and 1-2 stereo zones.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Unless I have more speakers, I would get the A6A for myself (my system is 5.2.4).

I don't think there is a difference in SQ.

For reliability, I think less amps is better. But only time will tell if 9 amps is more reliable than 11 amps. :D

Back when I was deciding between the RX-A2080 vs 3080, I chose the 3080 because I have 9 speakers. It’s the same way with the A6 vs A8 to me.
 
Last edited:
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
If it means taking away from something else in the system, like speakers, then go with the A6A. If it is just a comparison of the two and nothing else suffers, I agree with ADTG and normally do recommend, going with the higher model. More often than not, you will not regret that. Even if there is only a small power bump, it typically means a more robust amp section and better headroom (though maybe not much in terms of SPL).

If the plan is to add amps down the road, then no need for the A8A. LSi9s and LSiC I would say borderline would benefit from an amp if you listen loud.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
The question is, will you take advantage of the items you listed in the 8 vs 6?
If you don't need the 2 more power amps then I don't see any real advantages for the a8s, nothing audible anyway. It depends on the price difference too, I would probably pay $200 more for the a8a just for the flagship status.

The better surround/height dac chip won't make an audible difference, not even to golden ears. The 600 W vs 500 W is a moot point as those are the undefined power consumption figures, not transformer VA ratings at all. If they were, I would never consider Yanaha AVRs.

That site does a good job overall in comparing different models but they clearly are not too technically oriented.
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Ninja
If you don't need the 2 more power amps then I don't see any real advantages for the a8s, nothing audible anyway. It depends on the price difference too, I would probably pay $200 more for the a8a just for the flagship status.

The better surround/height dac chip won't make an audible difference, not even to golden ears. The 600 W vs 500 W is a moot point as those are the undefined power consumption figures, not transformer VA ratings at all. If they were, I would never consider Yanaha AVRs.

That site does a good job overall in comparing different models but they clearly are not too technically oriented.
But why are AVR manufacturers reserved about publishing what power consumption figures relate to?

Pro audio manufacturers, QSC is one of them, which clearly specify what exactly is the power consumption of an amplifier at 1/8 of the rated power with both channels driven, also at 1/3 of the published rated power output, and finally at continuous sine wave output at 1% clipping (not the 10% crap that Yamaha and others do for their AVRs).
 
Last edited:
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
But why are AVR manufacturers reserved about publishing what power consumption figures relate to?

Pro audio manufacturers, QSC is one of them, which clearly specify what exactly is the power consumption of an amplifier at 1/8 of the rated power with both channels driven, also at 1/3 of the published rated power output, and finally at continuous sine wave output at 1% clipping (not the 10% crap that Yamaha and others do for their AVRs).
Sales and marketing wouldn't like all that directly comparable stat stuff....
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
But why are AVR manufacturers reserved about publishing what power consumption figures relate to?

Pro audio manufacturers, QSC is one of them, which clearly specify what exactly is the power consumption of an amplifier at 1/8 of the rated power with both channels driven, also at 1/3 of the published rated power output, and finally at continuous sine wave output at 1% clipping (not the 10% crap that Yamaha and others do for their AVRs).
Agreed, but as HD said....;) He may be right, unfortunately.
 
newsletter

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