Yamaha CX-A5200 and MX-A5200

AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I don't recall him saying anything about measuring with different filter settings. He did report his findings on the THD+N vs frequency, that the 5200 was higher, and 20 dB higher for the front L/R XLR input, see post#119 in the link below for details (but you are probably aware of that already).

https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/yamaha-cx-a5200-and-mx-a5200.112380/page-6#post-1326704

Those artifacts due to the use of slow roll off filters should not be audible anyway as they are originated in the ultrasonic band so for normal music and movie contents, it would most likely not be an issue at all. If that bothers you, then just the sharp roll off, we aren't bats afterall.:D
THD was about 0.01% with 4V and 0.05% with 8V.

THD was 0.005% with 2V.
 
P

poleepkwa

Audioholic Intern
Just keep in mind that whatever people "find" in their measurements, it is completely INAUDIBLE anyway. The SNR of the CX-A5100 is about 131dBA on S&V Magazine.
It was more of an academic interest and seems that since Gene benched it pretty thoroughly, I thought he might have noticed something similar. These filters changes usually are very, very subtle anyway.
 
Last edited:
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
I know, just posting the numbers so poleepkwa could see easier. :D
I should emphasize that one has to read those anomalies carefully. For example they may show a spike at freq within the audio band that seems high enough to be audible but if the origin is from outside the audio band such as was the case in Amir's finding on the Marantz, also due to filter setting, then afaic it can be ignored because normal contents don't have freq components that high and of magnitude high enough for it to be an issue. I know I am repeating..
 
Last edited:
P

poleepkwa

Audioholic Intern
Most of the measurements are of academic interest only. For me it is a general idea of how well things are engineered, but not as an indicator of how much I will like it.

Yamaha pre-pro are totally new world for me. I have noticed that it offers many similar things than for example Audyssey does like Dynamic EQ and Dynamic volume.
Adaptive DSP, Adaptive DRC and YPAO Volume seems to be similar.
What are the general consensus about their usage?
Is there a discussion thread about it somewhere?

If I have only a 7.2 system currently, should the angle measurements also be done?

Getting used to processor over the weekend, I think I can improve the YPOA measurements a bit manually.
Mostly have to look into EQ the bass.
I have very little experience with PEQ, having always relied on the automatic EQ.

So I plan to use the following steps:
- Use REW and UMIK
- Following same microphone positions as for YPAO
- Average the response
- Generate a correction file in REW
- Manually feed in the setting to YPOA
- Listen if it brings improvement.

Is this correct?
 
Last edited:
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Most of the measurements are of academic interest only. For me it is a general idea of how well things are engineered, but not as an indicator of how much I will like it.

Yamaha pre-pro are totally new world for me. I have noticed that it offers many similar things than for example Audyssey does like Dynamic EQ and Dynamic volume.
Adaptive DSP, Adaptive DRC and YPAO Volume seems to be similar.
What are the general consensus about their usage?
Is there a discussion thread about it somewhere?

If I have only a 7.2 system currently, should the angle measurements also be done?

Getting used to processor over the weekend, I think I can improve the YPOA measurements a bit manually.
Mostly have to look into EQ the bass.
I have very little experience with PEQ, having always relied on the automatic EQ.

So I plan to use the following steps:
- Use REW and UMIK
- Following same microphone positions as for YPAO
- Average the response
- Generate a correction file in REW
- Manually feed in the setting to YPOA
- Listen if it brings improvement.

Is this correct?
I don’t use any of those DRC or YPAO Volume.

One thing I still cannot believe is that even the cheap Yamaha models have PEQ and allows you to manually PEQ the subwoofers down to 15Hz. Yet my $5500 AVR-5308 and $7500 AVP-A1HD don’t have PEQ or even allow subwoofer Manual EQ.

So for my CX-A5100 in HT room, I do Manual PEQ only for the subs 20-80Hz, not do any EQ for all the other speakers.

For my AVR-5308 in the living room, I use Direct Mode and use the PEQ in the RBH SA-500DSP sub amp to PEQ the subs only 20-80Hz.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
I don’t use any of those DRC or YPAO Volume.

One thing I still cannot believe is that even the cheap Yamaha models have PEQ and allows you to manually PEQ the subwoofers down to 15Hz. Yet my $5500 AVR-5308 and $7500 AVP-A1HD don’t have PEQ or even allow subwoofer Manual EQ.

So for my CX-A5100 in HT room, I do Manual PEQ only for the subs 20-80Hz, not do any EQ for all the other speakers.

For my AVR-5308 in the living room, I use Direct Mode and use the PEQ in the RBH SA-500DSP sub amp to PEQ the subs only 20-80Hz.
PEQ is cheap to implement and there is no licensing fees!!
Your expensive Denon came with Audyssey XT Pro (if you pay additional fees) that might have been relatively more expensive to implement. Also, Audyssey is FIR based, whereas YPAO is PEQ based (pretty sure it is sort of IIR type filters, but not 100%), so naturally even the cheapest YPAO equipped AVRs would have PEQ filters for manual. At the end of the day, it is all about cost, a+b+c+....must = F (final total cost:D).
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
What are the general consensus about their usage?
Is there a discussion thread about it somewhere?
I am not aware of any consensus on the usage of DRC/REQ (whatever they are called..).:D

Getting used to processor over the weekend, I think I can improve the YPOA measurements a bit manually.
Mostly have to look into EQ the bass.
I have very little experience with PEQ, having always relied on the automatic EQ.
In my opinion, if you like to play around for fun, you should use REW to guide you in the process of applying manual PEQ adjustments post YPAO. Otherwise, there are two other options that I think are good enough if just for practical purposes, or "usage" as you called it.

a) Run YPAO, follow instructions to the letter and make sure the room is as quiet as it possible can. On completion, change all speakers to "small" and then forget about it.

Or

b) After a),run REW to plot graphs for FR, focus on left+right+center+subwoofers, focus on the range between 20-300 Hz and start varying the crossovers points between 40 and 100 Hz, plot REW graphs for each XO. You will be amazed to see how most likely XO80 or higher give you smoother response if your LCRs are very bass capable speakers.

- Generate a correction file in REW
- Manually feed in the setting to YPOA
I doubt it would work that way, but I have only used REW generated filters for my minidsp 2XHD. It does offer many choices of equalizers for export, one being "generic", but I am not sure if the file could be "manually feed in the setting to YPAO.." as such. You may want to find a YPAO discussion forum to get some expert help as I don't think AH has such a thread of YPAO where advanced/experienced users frequent.
 
Last edited:
P

poleepkwa

Audioholic Intern
I am not aware of any consensus on the usage of DRC/REQ (whatever they are called..).:D



In my opinion, if you like to play around for fun, you should use REW to guide you in the process of applying manual PEQ adjustments post YPAO. Otherwise, there are two other options that I think are good enough if just for practical purposes, or "usage" as you called it.

a) Run YPAO, follow instructions to the letter and make sure the room is as quiet as it possible can. On completion, change all speakers to "small" and then forget about it.

Or

b) After a),run REW to plot graphs for FR, focus on left+right+center+subwoofers, focus on the range between 20-300 Hz and start varying the crossovers points between 40 and 100 Hz, plot REW graphs for each XO. You will be amazed to see how most likely XO80 or higher give you smoother response if your LCRs are very bass capable speakers.



I doubt it would work that way, but I have only used REW generated filters for my minidsp 2XHD. It does offer many choices of equalizers for export, one being "generic", but I am not sure if the file could be "manually feed in the setting to YPAO.." as such. You may want to find a YPAO discussion forum to get some expert help as I don't think AH has such a thread of YPAO where advanced/experienced users frequent.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will try some other forums too see if I could get some help outside of Audioholics.
 
Last edited:
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
PEQ is cheap to implement and there is no licensing fees!!
Your expensive Denon came with Audyssey XT Pro (if you pay additional fees) that might have been relatively more expensive to implement. Also, Audyssey is FIR based, whereas YPAO is PEQ based (pretty sure it is sort of IIR type filters, but not 100%),so naturally even the cheapest YPAO equipped AVRs would have PEQ filters for manual. At the end of the day, it is all about cost, a+b+c+....must = F (final total cost:D).
It's about getting the sound you want and the method you use to get that sound.

If you prefer the sound of Auto-EQ, then manual EQ is not important to you.

But if you don't like the sound of any Auto-EQ, then Manual PEQ is a lot more important to you.

So if you don't like the sound of Auto-EQ and you can't use Manual Sub-PEQ, then you're out of luck. Someone asked about that. He doesn't like the sound of Audyssey XT32, but he wants to manually EQ his subs, but Denon doesn't allow that, and his Krell subwoofer doesn't have manual PEQ either. :D

Great engineering should provide both options of Auto-EQ and Manual Sub-PEQ, especially for $7,500 or $5,500.

So these newer AVPs that have both Dirac + Manual PEQ are doing the right thing. If the owner decides he doesn't like Dirac after 5 years, he can go to Manual PEQ for his subs.
 
Last edited:
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
It's about getting the sound you want and the method you use to get that sound.

If you prefer the sound of Auto-EQ, then manual EQ is not important to you.

But if you don't like the sound of any Auto-EQ, then Manual PEQ is a lot more important to you.

So if you don't like the sound of Auto-EQ and you can't use Manual Sub-PEQ, then you're out of luck. Someone asked about that. He doesn't like the sound of Audyssey XT32, but he wants to manually EQ his subs, but Denon doesn't allow that, and his Krell subwoofer doesn't have manual PEQ either. :D

Great engineering should provide both options of Auto-EQ and Manual Sub-PEQ, especially for $7,500 or $5,500.

So these newer AVPs that have both Dirac + Manual PEQ are doing the right thing. If the owner decides he doesn't like Dirac after 5 years, he can go to Manual PEQ for his subs.
Obviously you are so pissed about your $7,500 AVP, so now it is PEQ/Yamaha all the way,.... so what can say other than wish you luck on your CXA and PEQ..
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Obviously you are so pissed about your $7,500 AVP, so now it is PEQ/Yamaha all the way,.... so what can say other than wish you luck on your CXA and PEQ..
There are a lot worse things in life than a Denon AVP dying after 8 years. It's just a little money. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of life. So I'm over it.

These days I'm thinking about 4K/Atmos contents and HTPCs, not the Denon AVP.

I still mention the AVP only to make a point, but that's it. And it's not even about reliability. It's about not offering both auto-EQ and manual Sub-EQ.

The point is that it would be wise if every AVR company offers both Auto-EQ and manual Sub-EQ, especially on their mid and upper models.

Even if the AVP lasted 20 years, it's still a good idea for every company to offer both auto-EQ and manual Sub-EQ.
 
Last edited:
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
The point is that it would be wise if every AVR company offers both Auto-EQ with the ability to set the frequency range, and manual Sub-EQ, especially on their mid and upper models.
I fixed it for you!
I don't know if YPOA is a useful AutoEQ, but the D&M app for Audyssey really is a game-changer that makes D&M a very good option for anyone who uses AutoEQ!
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I fixed it for you!
I don't know if YPOA is a useful AutoEQ, but the D&M app for Audyssey really is a game-changer that makes D&M a very good option for anyone who uses AutoEQ!
With YPAO + PEQ, you can also limit the EQ range by copying the EQ curve (like Natural or Flat) to Manual PEQ and then flatten (zero out) all the frequencies above 200Hz if you don't want to EQ anything above 200Hz. This will effectively only EQ from 20Hz-200Hz.

It seems like these high-end companies are favoring Dirac as the Auto-EQ of Choice and PEQ as the Manual-EQ of Choice.

Of course, I wouldn't mind if Yamaha improved on the PEQ and gave us a 14-band PEQ for every speaker and sub. :D

I still haven't heard back from Yamaha about the FIR or IIR for YPAO. I guess I should shoot them another email.

I wonder if @gene ever mentioned this in his review of the Yamaha products. He is working on the review for the CX-A5200, so maybe he could mention this FIR vs IIR in his review? :D
 
Last edited:
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
With YPAO + PEQ, you can also limit the EQ range by copying the EQ curve (like Natural or Flat) to Manual PEQ and then flatten (zero out) all the frequencies above 200Hz if you don't want to EQ anything above 200Hz. This will effectively only EQ from 20Hz-200Hz.
I'm not sure everyone would agree on this point!
Certainly, from a purist's stand point there is a huge difference between restricting AutoEQ to only effect frequencies below 250Hz vs effecting the full range and then manually using EQ to undo it. I have not gotten into the details of the "to AutoEQ or not" arguments, but I believe one concern is that the processing required for AutoEQ might otherwise negatively impact SQ and simply applying manual EQ would not undo that processing. It is adding a lot of complexity to something that would ideally be more straightforward! Restricting the AutoEQ processing to frequencies below 250Hz as the D&M app allows seems a far more elegant solution!

It seems like these high-end companies are favoring Dirac as the Auto-EQ of Choice
I would not read too much into that! I think there is more good research and engineering behind XT-32 than the other commonly available RoomEQ systems. If these high-end companies chose to use XT-32, that would close much of the gap that their marketing departments are depending on to distinguish their product from the "more pedestrian" Denon and Marantz. They know they'll lose a lot of market if people start comparing their products directly with mainstream companies like D&M, Yamaha, Onkyo, etc!
It would be an interesting "thrust and parry" if Sound United ("the owner of every mainstream AVR but Yamaha") started including Dirac in their Onkyo and Pioneer products just to mess with the high end market. Dirac may have an agreement not to sell to any of the higher volume brands.
 
Last edited:
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
there is a huge difference between restricting AutoEQ to only effect frequencies below 250Hz vs effecting the full range and then manually using EQ to undo it.
Through vs Manual-No-EQ-No-Copy. Identical.



Through vs Flat-Copy-Above-200Hz-Set-to-Zero.


You have a point.

But it seems “Undoing the effects by EQ” looks similar to Through. Actually FLAT-Copy and setting all Freq to Zero above 200Hz looks better than THROUGH a little bit.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
Through vs Manual-No-EQ-No-Copy. Identical.



Through vs Flat-Copy-Above-200Hz-Set-to-Zero.


You have a point.

But it seems “Undoing the effects by EQ” looks similar to Through. Actually FLAT-Copy and setting all Freq to Zero above 200Hz looks better than THROUGH a little bit.
I believe most people who argue against using AutoEQ don't dispute that it yields a flatter frequency response (because it almost always does). They argue that there is something more happening that is not reflected on the FR chart. If there is truth to this, keeping it in the lower frequencies and essentially having pure direct above the chosen frequency avoids these artifacts in the regions of our most sensitive hearing while allowing Auto EQ to address the room's influence on bass.

That is why I think using AutoEQ with an App like D&M has to control how the AutoEQ is applied combined with PEQ (if you will be taking measurements) or GEQ (if you won't) is the preferable system for performing setup!
 
Last edited:
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I believe most people who argue against using AutoEQ don't dispute that it yields a flatter frequency response (because it almost always does). They argue that there is something more happening that is not reflected on the FR chart. If there is truth to this, keeping it in the lower frequencies and essentially having pure direct above the chosen frequency avoids these artifacts in the regions of our most sensitive hearing while allowing Auto EQ to address the room's influence on bass.

That is why I think using AutoEQ with an App like D&M has to control how the AutoEQ is applied combined with PEQ (if you will be taking measurements) or GEQ (if you won't) is the preferable system for performing setup!
IOW, run Auto-EQ, try PEQ, use what sounds best after we try everything? :D
 
Last edited:
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
IOW, run Auto-EQ, try PEQ, use what sounds best after we try everything? :D
I was thinking more in terms of partially (below ~250Hz) run Auto-EQ, then use manual EQ to obtain any specific "house curve" (or flat response) you may want.
Whether PEQ or GEQ is desirable depends mainly on whether the user intends to use REW or another measurement system (in order to know what parameters to apply for PEQ).
 

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