Yamaha AVENTAGE 2021 AV Receivers Bulk Up on Power and 8K Features

P

PacketofCrisps

Audioholic Intern
I'm using 7.1.4 at the moment and I happened to notice some dialogue on the surrounds yesterday. Though I was watching live sports - the Formula One race, it was in Atmos I think. I assumed it was a live mixing thing - and the voices on the surrounds were pretty quiet anyway.

Anyway, I set up two Scenes today so I could rapidly switch between 7.1.4 and the other 5.1.4.

I played a Netflix episode with an Atmos soundtrack and could hear no vocal bleed in either setting. Same with a 5.1 soundtrack - no bleed. I used Dolby for both tests.

A programme with a 2.0 track - the surrounds had the dialogue in both 7.1.4 and 5.1.4. I then switched to Surround AI and the surrounds fell silent.

I don't know what Dolby is supposed to do with 2.0 sources. I'd assume that Dolby Labs tested Yamaha's implementation to check it was correct.

p.s. I did a similar 2.0 test on my A2080 system and it was the reverse - I got no dialogue on the surrounds with Dolby - but they sprang into life when I switched on Surround AI. Very odd.
Just been noticed this today, it's very annoying because you don't know what's correct and what's a bug, I would imagine how it works on the A2080 is correct based on how the surround AI works?

Two days is enough for me with this amp, boxing up tomorrow and going back, there's just too many quirks and unknowns, I feel Yamaha have pushed these out without proper testing, based off what Gene said the next revision will be a lot better.
 
Last edited:
Falstaff

Falstaff

Audioholic Intern
Just playing with settings on my A8A and was wondering if you guys see anything out of the usual in these readings. I ran YPAO using all placements including height and ended up with these. I ran it three times and they all ended up being similar. The sub consistently ended up with -7 dbs, however I’m impressed with the listening results.
 

Attachments

T

tparm

Audioholic
I asked Tidal about this and this and here's what they said. From there answer I think you need MQA to get Atmos.

TIDAL Support (TIDAL)

Dec 6, 2021, 6:08 PM EST

Hello!

Thank you for contacting TIDAL. I'm Ty'Quasia and I'll be glad to assist you with using TIDAL and your subscription.



In the future, you can use the Yamaha MusicCast app to connect your Yamaha device to TIDAL, however MusicCast doesn't support MQA. I do apologize for this. I would suggest to reach out to Yamaha to request this feature as they manage and update the MusicCast app.
MQA had nothing to do with Spatial tracks. ATV will play Tidal Atmos tracks and do MQA.
 
T

tparm

Audioholic
I have the A6A and use the Fire TV Stick 4K Max and use the Amazon Music app to get Ultra HD.
My Fire Stick 4K Max only plays back in 16 bit when connected to my AVM 70 but 24 bit when connected to my TV and playing back through the Sonos ARC. Frustrating and Fire TV and AMHD customer service is hideous.
 
S

snakeeyes

Audioholic Ninja
I don't think any of the streaming services give you access to "your" music when/if you stop paying your subscription.

When you bought CDs you actually owned the music (till you scratched the disc).
This is true but I have a much broader taste in music than ever before. I listen to music all day since I work from home. I would need to purchase several CDs per day to keep up and then I would be broke. :) But yes I still like discs but mostly just used Atmos and DTSX movies. Sometimes concert Blu-ray or multichannel SACDs also.
 
AllenB

AllenB

Enthusiast
I asked Tidal about this and this and here's what they said. From there answer I think you need MQA to get Atmos.

TIDAL Support (TIDAL)

... MusicCast doesn't support MQA. I do apologize for this. I would suggest to reach out to Yamaha to request this feature as they manage and update the MusicCast app.
Thanks. That's kind of disappointing of Yamaha.
Edit: I doubt this is a MusicCast issue. It appears the A6A cannot play high-res music from Tidal.
Steps:
1. Started playing a track recorded in 96 kHz / 24-bit.
2. Powered off the A6A, and force-closed the MusicCast app.
3. Started the A6A by pressing the Scenes button I have assigned to Tidal.
4. Turned on the TV to show the Information, and the A6A is playing only 48kHz.
Not a MusicCast issue AFAICT.
 
Last edited:
AVR Enthu

AVR Enthu

Full Audioholic
My Fire Stick 4K Max only plays back in 16 bit when connected to my AVM 70 but 24 bit when connected to my TV and playing back through the Sonos ARC. Frustrating and Fire TV and AMHD customer service is hideous.
It's interesting how Amazon stole the marketing language from video industry ("HD" and "Ultra HD") to promote and sell its high-res music. It's both clever (for their business) and stupid (insult to the brain and basic maths). They are distorting the meaning of high-res music and trying really hard to segment high-res music into two artificial categories by playing on subscribers' Ego and the sense of exclusive access to "something even better". An old trick.

"High Definition"
"High Definition" label is not a high-resolution music at all. There is no such thing as "high definition" music. It's absurd. What they call "HD music" is simply a traditional lossless, usual resolution FLAC file of CD-quality (16-bit x 44.1 kHz x 2 channels = up to 1,411 kbps of bitrate). They stream this category up to 850 kbps and call it "HD", without even exhausting the remaining 550 kbps of usual resolution 16-bit/44.1 music.

"Ultra HD"
Their "Ultra HD" label is, in reality, nothing more than high-res FLAC files with higher bit rate. Silly label, indeed. A classic high-res FLAC file could be 24-bits x 48 kbps x 2 channels = 2.3 Mbps or 4.6 Mbps for a file with 96 kHz
It is this bit rate that should be in "HD" category and not in "UHD"; simple audio math would suggest.

They stream this category in on average ~3.75 Mbps. On mobile phone with limited data packages, thought needs to be given. One hour a day of this category of music for one month would generate ~50 GB of data (3.75 Mbit/s x 60 sec x 60 min = 13.5 Gbit/h / 8 (bit into Byte) = ~1.7 GB/h x 30 days = 50.5 GB/month.

It turns out that "ultra HD" label in streaming music from Amazon is kind of fake news. In video environment, UHD at least has a real meaning of 3840x2160 resolution. In music environment, it's completely artificial category purely serving to up-segment and milk subscribers.

If they had really wanted to sell a proper Ultra HD musical equivalent to popular label used in 4K home theatre, they would have introduced DSD streaming, at least in stereo. Either way, this "UHD" is just yet another marketing stunt. It would cost them a lot of money to prepare DSD music library, set-up a new array of low-latency servers and convince consumers to take it for much higher price.

Minimal DSD64 file could take ~3 Mbps x 2 channels = ~6 Mbps of internet bandwidth. One hour of such pleasure would take: 6 Mbit/s x 60 sec x 60 min = 21.6 Gbit/h / 8 (bit into Byte) = 2.7GB/h. One hour a day of DSD music for one month would generate 81 GB of data. While hypothetical streaming of basic DSD over home network would be fine for unlimited data plans, it would be a no-go on vast majority of mobile phone plans and millions of home plans, as this broadband map below suggests. So, we are faw away from DSD streaming on more commercial scale, similarly to 8K in video environment.

They also have issues with so called remastered albulms. Investigating the repository of their music more deeply brings a mixed bag of results. It's difficult to identify whether some remastered albums are really what they say it is. Try to listen original and remastered versions of, say Nirvana's Nevermind or similar, to see whether there is a significant difference and if the remastering origin could be identified.

It's nice to explore a lot of music on offer, I do it daily, but let's keep our heads on shoulders in terms of audio maths and aggressive marketing of meaningless labels for music. Any thoughts?
 
clone1008

clone1008

Full Audioholic
It's interesting how Amazon stole the marketing language from video industry ("HD" and "Ultra HD") to promote and sell its high-res music. It's both clever (for their business) and stupid (insult to the brain and basic maths). They are distorting the meaning of high-res music and trying really hard to segment high-res music into two artificial categories by playing on subscribers' Ego and the sense of exclusive access to "something even better". An old trick.

"High Definition"
"High Definition" label is not a high-resolution music at all. There is no such thing as "high definition" music. It's absurd. What they call "HD music" is simply a traditional lossless, usual resolution FLAC file of CD-quality (16-bit x 44.1 kHz x 2 channels = up to 1,411 kbps of bitrate). They stream this category up to 850 kbps and call it "HD", without even exhausting the remaining 550 kbps of usual resolution 16-bit/44.1 music.

"Ultra HD"
Their "Ultra HD" label is, in reality, nothing more than high-res FLAC files with higher bit rate. Silly label, indeed. A classic high-res FLAC file could be 24-bits x 48 kbps x 2 channels = 2.3 Mbps or 4.6 Mbps for a file with 96 kHz
It is this bit rate that should be in "HD" category and not in "UHD"; simple audio math would suggest.

They stream this category in on average ~3.75 Mbps. On mobile phone with limited data packages, thought needs to be given. One hour a day of this category of music for one month would generate ~50 GB of data (3.75 Mbit/s x 60 sec x 60 min = 13.5 Gbit/h / 8 (bit into Byte) = ~1.7 GB/h x 30 days = 50.5 GB/month.

It turns out that "ultra HD" label in streaming music from Amazon is kind of fake news. In video environment, UHD at least has a real meaning of 3840x2160 resolution. In music environment, it's completely artificial category purely serving to up-segment and milk subscribers.

If they had really wanted to sell a proper Ultra HD musical equivalent to popular label used in 4K home theatre, they would have introduced DSD streaming, at least in stereo. Either way, this "UHD" is just yet another marketing stunt. It would cost them a lot of money to prepare DSD music library, set-up a new array of low-latency servers and convince consumers to take it for much higher price.

Minimal DSD64 file could take ~3 Mbps x 2 channels = ~6 Mbps of internet bandwidth. One hour of such pleasure would take: 6 Mbit/s x 60 sec x 60 min = 21.6 Gbit/h / 8 (bit into Byte) = 2.7GB/h. One hour a day of DSD music for one month would generate 81 GB of data. While hypothetical streaming of basic DSD over home network would be fine for unlimited data plans, it would be a no-go on vast majority of mobile phone plans and millions of home plans, as this broadband map below suggests. So, we are faw away from DSD streaming on more commercial scale, similarly to 8K in video environment.

They also have issues with so called remastered albulms. Investigating the repository of their music more deeply brings a mixed bag of results. It's difficult to identify whether some remastered albums are really what they say it is. Try to listen original and remastered versions of, say Nirvana's Nevermind or similar, to see whether there is a significant difference and if the remastering origin could be identified.

It's nice to explore a lot of music on offer, I do it daily, but let's keep our heads on shoulders in terms of audio maths and aggressive marketing of meaningless labels for music. Any thoughts?
How does this compare to other services that claim "Hi Res" music?
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Can anyone really hear the difference between regular CD music vs 96kHz/24 bit music from the same recording?

All this talk of HD or UHD music reminds me about all this talk of 0.0007% THD+N vs 0.007% THD+N. :D

In the end, besides the original source, the salient thing always comes down to the speakers, room and setup, not 48kHz or 96kHz or 0.0007% THD+N in Pure Direct mode.
 
diablo676

diablo676

Junior Audioholic
With reading about the high res options in the last day or two I dug out my Fire Cube, download latest firmware and listened to a few things on Amazon Music in high res. Okay so I got 192 kHz. Though played the same stuff on my Shield which downconverts everything to 16 bit/ 44.1 or 48 kHz. Seemed to sound better somehow. Though may not have been at the same volume and I may have twiddled with some controls. So who knows.

Mind you, as I'm rather old, my hearing is probably 13 bits at 30kHz. :confused::D
 
diablo676

diablo676

Junior Audioholic
So I bet you really think you sound good singing in the shower huh? :p
Actually I usually prefer to have a bath and play music on my bluetooth speaker.

These days my hearing stops at about 9 kHz. Though my vocal range never went as high as that - though maybe yours does? :p:p:D
 
T

tparm

Audioholic
It's interesting how Amazon stole the marketing language from video industry ("HD" and "Ultra HD") to promote and sell its high-res music. It's both clever (for their business) and stupid (insult to the brain and basic maths). They are distorting the meaning of high-res music and trying really hard to segment high-res music into two artificial categories by playing on subscribers' Ego and the sense of exclusive access to "something even better". An old trick.

"High Definition"
"High Definition" label is not a high-resolution music at all. There is no such thing as "high definition" music. It's absurd. What they call "HD music" is simply a traditional lossless, usual resolution FLAC file of CD-quality (16-bit x 44.1 kHz x 2 channels = up to 1,411 kbps of bitrate). They stream this category up to 850 kbps and call it "HD", without even exhausting the remaining 550 kbps of usual resolution 16-bit/44.1 music.

"Ultra HD"
Their "Ultra HD" label is, in reality, nothing more than high-res FLAC files with higher bit rate. Silly label, indeed. A classic high-res FLAC file could be 24-bits x 48 kbps x 2 channels = 2.3 Mbps or 4.6 Mbps for a file with 96 kHz
It is this bit rate that should be in "HD" category and not in "UHD"; simple audio math would suggest.

They stream this category in on average ~3.75 Mbps. On mobile phone with limited data packages, thought needs to be given. One hour a day of this category of music for one month would generate ~50 GB of data (3.75 Mbit/s x 60 sec x 60 min = 13.5 Gbit/h / 8 (bit into Byte) = ~1.7 GB/h x 30 days = 50.5 GB/month.

It turns out that "ultra HD" label in streaming music from Amazon is kind of fake news. In video environment, UHD at least has a real meaning of 3840x2160 resolution. In music environment, it's completely artificial category purely serving to up-segment and milk subscribers.

If they had really wanted to sell a proper Ultra HD musical equivalent to popular label used in 4K home theatre, they would have introduced DSD streaming, at least in stereo. Either way, this "UHD" is just yet another marketing stunt. It would cost them a lot of money to prepare DSD music library, set-up a new array of low-latency servers and convince consumers to take it for much higher price.

Minimal DSD64 file could take ~3 Mbps x 2 channels = ~6 Mbps of internet bandwidth. One hour of such pleasure would take: 6 Mbit/s x 60 sec x 60 min = 21.6 Gbit/h / 8 (bit into Byte) = 2.7GB/h. One hour a day of DSD music for one month would generate 81 GB of data. While hypothetical streaming of basic DSD over home network would be fine for unlimited data plans, it would be a no-go on vast majority of mobile phone plans and millions of home plans, as this broadband map below suggests. So, we are faw away from DSD streaming on more commercial scale, similarly to 8K in video environment.

They also have issues with so called remastered albulms. Investigating the repository of their music more deeply brings a mixed bag of results. It's difficult to identify whether some remastered albums are really what they say it is. Try to listen original and remastered versions of, say Nirvana's Nevermind or similar, to see whether there is a significant difference and if the remastering origin could be identified.

It's nice to explore a lot of music on offer, I do it daily, but let's keep our heads on shoulders in terms of audio maths and aggressive marketing of meaningless labels for music. Any thoughts?
I understand you don’t like their terminology… ok. Besides that, how is their service any different from Apple (except Apple sucks because they rely on Airplay), Qobuz or Tidal (except their reliance on MQA)? They all have losselsss and hi-res tiers, all will have the same bandwidth issues (who has cell plans with limited data these days? I’m not sure any of us can hear the difference between services. I am certain I Amy hear the difference between a 48, 96 or 192 kHz but I’ve thought I can hear the difference in a 24 vs 16 bit track. I have no way to scientifically prove this and don’t care to. For me there isn’t one service that fits all my needs. I’ve had Tidal, AMHD, Qobuz, and Apple. Apple Spatial on ATV is awesome and frankly even limited to 16 bit their masters tracks sound good to me. Qobuz and AMHD over my Node sound excellent. I don’t care for Tidal and I’m not an MQA hater, for some reason I don’t think their tracks sound great and I also mesh with their AI for music discovery.
 
clone1008

clone1008

Full Audioholic
Actually I usually prefer to have a bath and play music on my bluetooth speaker.

These days my hearing stops at about 9 kHz. Though my vocal range never went as high as that - though maybe yours does? :p:p:D
Only if I grab the twins... :oops:
 
J

jakkedtide

Audioholic
Back to Yamaha receiver talk!

What is the best ypao eq to use? I have been using low freq because all the graphs look straight but obviously my room is not perfect at all. Very bad probably. What is everyone using? Flat? Natural?

We should get people opinion on this as Gene @gene will probably talk about this in his next video when he goes over ypao! ❤
 
OldAndSlowDev

OldAndSlowDev

Senior Audioholic
Back to Yamaha receiver talk!

What is the best ypao eq to use? I have been using low freq because all the graphs look straight but obviously my room is not perfect at all. Very bad probably. What is everyone using? Flat? Natural?

We should get people opinion on this as Gene @gene will probably talk about this in his next video when he goes over ypao! ❤
Low freq means it only corrects low frequencies. You can see that only the left part of the PEQ is doing something. So no correction for mediums and treble. I think most people use flat as it’s supposed to give you the most neutral sound.
 
clone1008

clone1008

Full Audioholic
Low freq means it only corrects low frequencies. You can see that only the left part of the PEQ is doing something. So no correction for mediums and treble. I think most people use flat as it’s supposed to give you the most neutral sound.
I use Flat for everything except for the sub I use Low.
 
newsletter

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