Yamaha CX-A5200 and MX-A5200

P

poleepkwa

Audioholic Intern
I am interested in members experience here with the video processing on the CX-A5200. I have bought a new Nvidia Shield and have a Benq W2000(HT2050) projector. I do not seem to see any visible difference between processing on or off.
What have other people's experiences been with this?
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I am interested in members experience here with the video processing on the CX-A5200. I have bought a new Nvidia Shield and have a Benq W2000(HT2050) projector. I do not seem to see any visible difference between processing on or off.
What have other people's experiences been with this?
Yeah. Same here. I’ve never noticed any difference with any AVR or AVP doing the video processing vs off. So I usually set it to video pass-through.
 
J

J19801110

Audiophyte
Hi guys, I created an account to clear something up as it’s been bothering me. ;-)

Basic YPAO only equalises the frequency domain but YPAO R.S.C.has two sets of filters: a layer of FIR filters that do both time and frequency just like Audyssey and a layer of PEQ which are used to apply “tone” once the reflections are taken care of.

read more at my blog:
Simple online.blog. Just google YPAO FIR

I would recommend:
1. Let YPAO do it’s thing. Use my other article (Configuring YPAO the Right Way) to get great results. YPAO is less heavy handed than Audyssey and will sound great.
2. If you need more grunt for subs, run a used SVS AS-EQ1 or Audyssey subEQ - both with XT32 - to clean things up. This is what I do. Best of both worlds.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Overlord
Hi guys, I created an account to clear something up as it’s been bothering me. ;-)

Basic YPAO only equalises the frequency domain but YPAO R.S.C.has two sets of filters: a layer of FIR filters that do both time and frequency just like Audyssey and a layer of PEQ which are used to apply “tone” once the reflections are taken care of.
Are you sure? Is that from a credible source such as Yamaha tech support/engineering?
As far as I know it has already been "cleared up" that YPAO (even the top/latest version R.S.C...) are IIR based, NOT FIR.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Are you sure? Is that from a credible source such as Yamaha tech support/engineering?
As far as I know it has already been "cleared up" that YPAO (even the top/latest version R.S.C...) are IIR based, NOT FIR.
Well, I think I asked Yamaha about "YPAO". I ASSUMED YPAO was "YPAO RSC 64bit". But perhaps I shouldn't assume. :D

I just sent another email to Yamaha support regarding "YPAO vs YPAO RSC 64bit" and which IR filters they use.

1. Does YPAO use IIR?
2. Does YPAO RSC 64bit use FIR?

Will see. :D
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Overlord
Well, I think I asked Yamaha about "YPAO". I ASSUMED YPAO was "YPAO RSC 64bit". But perhaps I shouldn't assume. :D

I just sent another email to Yamaha support regarding "YPAO vs YPAO RSC 64bit" and which IR filters they use.

1. Does YPAO use IIR?
2. Does YPAO RSC 64bit use FIR?

Will see. :D
I thought YPAO (any versions) filters are IRR because:

1) They are parametric filters.
2) FIR requires much more processing power/resource and the higher end YPAO R.S.C. equipped units supposedly don't need to down sample to 48 kHz or even 96 kHz (you said they could do it at 192 kHz right?).

So as they say there is no free lunch, it might be too good to be true to have both IIR and FIR filter sets, yet don't even down sample.

Time to have Yamaha clarified this again, thank you.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Hi guys, I created an account to clear something up as it’s been bothering me. ;-)

Basic YPAO only equalises the frequency domain but YPAO R.S.C.has two sets of filters: a layer of FIR filters that do both time and frequency just like Audyssey and a layer of PEQ which are used to apply “tone” once the reflections are taken care of.

I would recommend:
1. Let YPAO do it’s thing. YPAO is less heavy handed than Audyssey and will sound great.
2. If you need more grunt for subs, run a used SVS AS-EQ1 or Audyssey subEQ - both with XT32 - to clean things up. This is what I do. Best of both worlds.
I just got confirmation again (2nd time) from Yamaha Support when I asked them specifically about YPAO RSC 64bit using IIR or FIR:

"Yamaha receivers use IIR filters in YPAO

Kind Regards,
National Technical Support
Yamaha Corporation of America"


So based on this and the previous email response, I would have to say that all YPAO versions use IIR, not FIR.

Perhaps you could send Yamaha Support an email to debate their answer that YPAO RSC 64bit uses IIR?
 
Last edited:
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I thought YPAO (any versions) filters are IRR because:

1) They are parametric filters.
2) FIR requires much more processing power/resource and the higher end YPAO R.S.C. equipped units supposedly don't need to down sample to 48 kHz or even 96 kHz (you said they could do it at 192 kHz right?).

So as they say there is no free lunch, it might be too good to be true to have both IIR and FIR filter sets, yet don't even down sample.

Time to have Yamaha clarified this again, thank you.
Yeah, all Yamaha AVRs don't down-sample at all, so all 192 kHz.
 
J

J19801110

Audiophyte
IIR / FIR. We could debate that mathematically but I think it’s pretty irrelevant to the end result as the implementation has a lot more to do with it.
I was in touch with the original engineers in Japan who designed the thing btw.

What was said is that YPAO R.S.C. corrects the time domain (mainly first reflections) and not only the frequency domain.You cannot edit these filters in the GUI and they get transferred over when you copy stuff. So you can’t just zero out the PEQ and be done!

Also, it is my personal opinion that YPAO RSC does better above 80Hz than Audyssey and doesn’t do damage to the upper ranges. Audyssey does much better below 80Hz. However, people make very silly mistakes when measuring so read my articles. They are there to help you! I don’t actually make any money on that blog. :p

Dirac is very good at both but a pain in the butt to set up with a Yamaha. I also think it’s unnecessary if you set up the Yamaha properly.
And again... I do use Audyssey below 80Hz so I’m not just a YPAO fanboy.
;-)
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Overlord
IIR / FIR. We could debate that mathematically but I think it’s pretty irrelevant to the end result as the implementation has a lot more to do with it.
I was in touch with the original engineers in Japan who designed the thing btw.

What was said is that YPAO R.S.C. corrects the time domain (mainly first reflections) and not only the frequency domain.You cannot edit these filters in the GUI and they get transferred over when you copy stuff. So you can’t just zero out the PEQ and be done!

Also, it is my personal opinion that YPAO RSC does better above 80Hz than Audyssey and doesn’t do damage to the upper ranges. Audyssey does much better below 80Hz. However, people make very silly mistakes when measuring so read my articles. They are there to help you! I don’t actually make any money on that blog. :p

Dirac is very good at both but a pain in the butt to set up with a Yamaha. I also think it’s unnecessary if you set up the Yamaha properly.
And again... I do use Audyssey below 80Hz so I’m not just a YPAO fanboy.
;-)
I don't disagree, but you might have missed the post(s) that started the question about FIR or IIR. It wasn't about debating whether it matters or not but to answer the question regarding who use what. That is more about fact finding, curiosity etc.. It's like 105 W vs 120 W, it may or may not matter, but people often want to know.

I am a little lazy to go back to find out who asked, but iirc it was asked.., I responded but indicated I wasn't 100% sure, and adtg offered to email Yamaha.
 
J

J19801110

Audiophyte
No dramas. I understand. Apologies. I don’t doubt IIR is correct btw but there were a lot of other things said about it that are factually not correct like being able to zero out the results by just removing PEQ.

I tried to stay clear of IIR/FIR in the blog article as people assume one must be better than the other. Depends a lot on implementation, the frequencies you’re correcting etc.

Yamaha corrects first reflections but also measures second order reflections. Instead of correcting all of those, it feeds the measurements into the DSP and “augments” them. This is why I love Yamaha. Correctly set up, the walls literally disappear. I don’t care for Denon’s implementation of Audyssey and the default tone curves. You have to match speakers well to a Denon. Marantz fares better in my opinion. But that’s all personal taste.

Anyway, I hope some of this helps.Good day, guys! Happy listening. :)
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Overlord
No dramas. I understand. Apologies. I don’t doubt IIR is correct btw but there were a lot of other things said about it that are factually not correct like being able to zero out the results by just removing PEQ.

I tried to stay clear of IIR/FIR in the blog article as people assume one must be better than the other. Depends a lot on implementation, the frequencies you’re correcting etc.

Yamaha corrects first reflections but also measures second order reflections. Instead of correcting all of those, it feeds the measurements into the DSP and “augments” them. This is why I love Yamaha. Correctly set up, the walls literally disappear. I don’t care for Denon’s implementation of Audyssey and the default tone curves. You have to match speakers well to a Denon. Marantz fares better in my opinion. But that’s all personal taste.

Anyway, I hope some of this helps.Good day, guys! Happy listening. :)
Yeah, with Audyssey, the Editor App finally came to the rescue a couple of years ago. For those who are serious about getting the best out of Audyssey, they really should spend $20 to get the App, but too bad owners of the older models including the $4000 AV8802A won't be able to take advantage of it.
 
P

poleepkwa

Audioholic Intern
No dramas. I understand. Apologies. I don’t doubt IIR is correct btw but there were a lot of other things said about it that are factually not correct like being able to zero out the results by just removing PEQ.

I tried to stay clear of IIR/FIR in the blog article as people assume one must be better than the other. Depends a lot on implementation, the frequencies you’re correcting etc.

Yamaha corrects first reflections but also measures second order reflections. Instead of correcting all of those, it feeds the measurements into the DSP and “augments” them. This is why I love Yamaha. Correctly set up, the walls literally disappear. I don’t care for Denon’s implementation of Audyssey and the default tone curves. You have to match speakers well to a Denon. Marantz fares better in my opinion. But that’s all personal taste.

Anyway, I hope some of this helps.Good day, guys! Happy listening. :)
Nice to see you here too. I have used your blog as a starting point into the world of Yamaha YPAO.
I am interested in your experience with the microphone placements as suggested by you on your blog.
I see that you recommend too use the 8 point measuring setup.
For a single row setup (sofa) I interpret you placement as follows in my current 3 seater
Position 1: 30 cm in front of the listeners ears
Position 2 : 30 cm in front of the listeners ears, 70 cm to left
Position 3 : 30 cm in front of the listeners ears, 70 cm to right
Position 4-6 : same as 1-3, but at listeners ears
Position 7-8: between positions 1-2 and 1-3 (30 cm in front of the listening position and 35 cm to the left/right).

Now I look at the image from Yamaha is seems the the depth between measurements is quite a bit bigger than the 30cm between the front and back measurements that you suggest.

Care to comment?
 
Last edited:
J

J19801110

Audiophyte
Nice to see you here too. I have used your blog as a starting point into the world of Yamaha YPAO.
I am interested in your experience with the microphone placements as suggested by you on your blog.
I see that you recommend too use the 8 point measuring setup.
For a single row setup (sofa) I interpret you placement as follows in my current 3 seater
Position 1: 30 cm in front of the listeners ears
Position 2 : 30 cm in front of the listeners ears, 70 cm too left
Position 3 : 30 cm in front of the listeners ears, 70 cm too right
Position 4-6 : same as 1-3, but at listeners ears
Position 7-8: between positions 1-2 and 1-3 (30 cm in front of the listening position and 35 cm to the left/right).

Now I look at the image from Yamaha is seems the the depth between measurements is quite a bit bigger than the 30cm between the front and back measurements that you suggest.

Care to comment?
hi there! :)

Mmm, you’re obvious very detail oriented which is good!
The most important thing about the first measurement is that it is smack bang in the middle of your listening area - in this case the middle of your sofa as this position is used for distance, delay and later on for angle measurement. Now I know listeners don’t lean forward on the sofa normally so their head is in the middle of the seat so to speak but this is how you should measure this so you have ample space for the boomerang later on in the process. Also, in these first 3 positions there’s less interaction of the sound with the headrest but you still get the full reverb of the room - important for the DSP!

The rest is about right. When measuring just one sofa, I do the middle of the seats first, then headrests, then in-between seats. The distance is dependent on the size of your sofa of course. Obviously you calculated 30cms. :)

Yamaha’s manual is shockingly bad for many things. Don’t even get me started!
 
P

poleepkwa

Audioholic Intern
It is indeed pretty terrible. You mention the usage of the boomerang. Where do you place it? In the centre of the listening position, or there where your ears in the main listening position? My " issue" in my listening room is that there is a small wall(90cm) behind my listening sofa. So that is why I experiment a lot with measurements.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Gene, you mentioned that the SNR for the CX-A5200 is 101dB A-Weighted.

I think you measured the CX-A5000 SNR at 103dB Unweighted, not A-weighted. So if the CX-A5200 is 101dB A-Wt, then the SNR of the CX-A5200 is not as good as the CX-A5000.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Overlord
I listened to that whole You-tube video and have come to the following conclusions:

- Separate AVP/or C are better, less jam-packed, not affected by the power amp section.
- AVR such as the RX-A3080 have internal amps that can be used for some less demanding "effect" channels.

So given that typically an "equivalent" AVR could be had just before or after the replacement model is out, for much less money that an AVP/C, one can do better in terms of value, without sacrificing sound quality.

In this case, the CX-A5200 could not even beat (in all likelihood) the RX-A3080 that is now available for under $1,500.


Reliability is an unknown, one would think the AVP/C would likely last longer but again, may be not, and the heat issue can be mitigated with a $10 quiet fan on slow speed.

If it is the WAF restriction, I would be very tempted to try out a RX-A3080 now.
 

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