Yamaha Debuts RX-Z9 at CEDIA 2003

[Hondaman]

<font color='#0000FF'>From what I am reading, I am not sure Bruce would know a flagship if he were in the crows nest while it sank.
Every thing I have heard and seen regarding the new yamaha gear is very positive, with one exception!!!</font>

 

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>Gentlemen;

I am growing tired of disputing power figures.  The bottom line is just about every receiver and many high end multi channel amps rate power with 1 or 2 channels driven.  Why is that?  To inflate #'s.  Its a #'s game that they must play to make power hungry people happy whom believe they need so much power when in fact 90% of the time the receiver/amp is used at the other end of the spectrum and thus the user should be more concerned with noise and distortion than shear brute power.  In addition, it is a rare occurance, if at all, when all channels will be taxed simultaneously.  I for sure would not want to be surrounded by 7 speakers pumping 200wpc each at any given time.  I value my hearing too much

Many of the multichannel amps (IE. Post Klipsch Aragon, Adcom, Sunfire, to name a few) only rate power in 2CH or even more vague 1CH in 4 ohm loads.  Their power supplies are simply not capable of driving the rated power into 7 channels.  Its funny when I see a traditional 40lb 5CH Class AB power amp selling for almost $3K with a single 1KVA xformer boasting 300wpc (of course thats 2CH driven only) when my old Aragon 8008x5 weighing in at 120lbs with a 2.5KVA xformer specs 200wpc x 5 all channels driven.  You have to look at the fine print to know how the manufacturer is rating the product!


The bottom line is the Z9 currently has one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, amp sections on the market as far as receivers go.

This debate has inspired me to write an article (God knows when I will have the freetime?) about the misconceptions of power ratings and the consumers perceived obsession with attaining the most power they can regardless if it inhibits fidelity of the system.  Stay tuned as I am now loaded with an arsenal of new test gear from Sencore to support my statements with measurements, analytical facts and common sense.  In the meantime, I would appreciate it if everyone keeps the flame wars out of the discussion and stay with the topics at hand.</font>

 

[Yamahaluver]

<font color='#0000FF'>Gene,

I beg you to write the power rating article as it will clear up lots of misconceptions and misnomers, unfortunately it will also break and bust quite a few egos.</font>

 

[Hondaman]

<font color='#0000FF'>Gene, &quot;I would appreciate it if everyone would keep the flame wars out of the discussion and stick to the topic!

I have to agree and also apologize for entering.

I read it all and have little to add most of the time but I do find the personal attacks to be overwhelming at times and fell pray this time. My mistake!

Some here just seem to feel this is an argument room rather then a forum to pass knowledge and opinions among friends.
there are those who like certain equipment and those who do not but this is no reason to attack. I guess if one does not like the equipment being discussed then he should keep his opinions to himself or state it and be done.</font>

 

[_audiouser_]

<font color='#000000'>Agreed- the Z9 is a monster.
The Amp section looks to more than beefy enough for any user. &nbsp;Yamaha has totally forged a new path here by including video scaling right in the unit.

I personally would have rather seen fewer component ports and some DVI ports. &nbsp;I don't buy the spec wasn't complete yet. &nbsp;DVI is alive and well the computing space (this is being typed on a DVI monitor). &nbsp;Which is the same interface used to connect to the majority of projectors and has been in use for over three years. &nbsp;I think allot of &quot;home entertainment&quot; companies would like to see DVI die. &nbsp;Keeping that convergence with open computing standards down to minimum if you know what I mean.

I'm seriously considering this unit myself, but I'm waiting to see

-DLIIx is it included or not?
-how the scaler holds up for image quality
-SN ratio and true wattage
-what is the remote like

These questions will only get answered in a hardcore review or two.

For the record I do not think anyone ever needs more than 120 watts, any more to me is over kill (for the standard home).

I do think it sucks that jo blow can't walk into an electronics store and trust the specs printed on the units. &nbsp;Yes, I agree wattage alone is not the only factor in a good receiver. &nbsp;I must say tho if you can't accurately compare the units specs your buying based on falsehoods and esthetics. &nbsp;If manufactures don't have to state hard true numbers, they really don't have to compete on the technology and instead focus on aesthetics. &nbsp;lo and behold they do, 200 pounds of copper, aluminum face plate or piano finish anyone?. &nbsp;How about 2 billion buttons and dials on the front?

Most people don't want to say &quot;I got suckered&quot; or &quot;my new gear is god awful&quot; and they don't. &nbsp;See where I'm going here? &nbsp;Big companies are not going to really compete unless you force them too. &nbsp;Competition start with an accurate comparison, which we just do not have in the audio industry, and seem to accept it.</font>

 

[Audioholics]

<font color='#000080'>Yes a power output article would be a good thing. I think we'll seriously consider doing that very soon.

Personal attacks stop here. Corrections of facts are one thing, but please avoid direct ad hom attacks - they are unfair and uncalled for.</font>

 

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>Sorry to break everyone's bubble, but I haven't uttered any false facts in my posts.  I thought this site fostered a discussion of information on all sides of the issue.  Some users here seem to think otherwise, that's there option, but they seem more comfortable dissing me than dealing with the facts.

I stand by what I said, period. &nbsp;I'm not a &quot;fanboy&quot; on any brand.

And the room correction is practically useless in the the most important region (the bass).</font>

 

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>Bruce;

I agree this discussion forum is meant to hear all sides of the story and in a friendly non hostile manner. &nbsp;However, you posted some fallacies about the Z9, particularly on how you rate its all channel power ability that I had to clarify. &nbsp;You have to realize that power is not always the biggest feature people are looking for in product, especially since most people will never need more power than what is offered in the current flagship receivers. &nbsp;You need to open your mind to the fact that flagship receivers have come along way, and in many cases easily outperform similiarly priced separates solutions. &nbsp;Separates do not always guarantee better performance or value for that matter.</font>

 

[Audioholics]

<font color='#000080'>While I do not condone the personal atacks, here are the points of contention:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually the point I was trying to make is that Yamaha is bringing out less than Flagship featured products, not worthy of the Flagship moniker. &nbsp;

I'm not saying they're not good products, just not Flagship quality.</td></tr></table>Contention: Your plural use of the term &quot;receivers&quot; implies that Yamaha is attempting to add the 'flagship' moniker to its entire lineup. In reality, each company really only has one flagship receiver. For Yamaha, that is the RX-Z9.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1) &nbsp;Z9 implements a fairly useless automatic parametric EQ feature (63Hz is the lowest setting) that cannot be manually accesssed. &nbsp;This means it's not really useful for taming the bass mode peaks found in most HT rooms.</td></tr></table>Far from &quot;useless&quot; this feature is a welcome addition and is now a standard for 'flagship' receivers. Parametric EQ enables many modes and nodes to be corrected in a room that would otherwise be left unadjusted. While we encourage room treatments to correct anomolies, this is a welcome and USEFUL addition. We concur that parametric EQ of the bass frequencies would be VERY helpful, but it does not make the remaining features &quot;fairly useless&quot; in the least.

You are welcome to stand by your statements, of course. Much of this falls into the realm of opinion, anyway.</font>

 

[Dan Banquer]

<font color='#000000'>The entire subject of power and audio for the home is one of the most misunderstood, misapplied, and generally misguided topics. For the past few months Gene and I have been talking about writing an article on this very subject. If we get to do this, I think it just might help explain why most of what you read in consumer audio mags is simply not true.
Now that Gene has some good test equipment available to him I am hoping he finds the time to run some of the tests that I have been encouraging him to do.</font>

 

[PaulF]

<font color='#000000'>I recently read somewhere that the DVI spec does not allow upconversion of analog video formats, a requirement that was imposed by the studios.

If this is true it could limit the full potential of DVI, and just when we are starting to reach a point where we are getting useful upconversion functionality in receivers. If so, then I can understand why Yamaha and others may be holding off inlusion of DVI, as to output it, you would need at least one input, and being a flagship you would probably want more.

However I don't understand the concern where HDCP or other copy protection mechanism is employed.

Is what I read correct, perhaps others can verify?

Also regarding the i.LINK connector, I assume this is based in IEEE 1394. The DVD forum seems to have approved 1394 for the connection of both audio (at least DVD-A) and video. Will this also carry the traditional PCM, DD and DTS bitstreams? If so it would allow a single connection between DVD player and receiver. This would also make the Z9 the first reciever to support this functionality (I think).

It could also negate the need to a DVI monitor output if compatible display devices come to market, but I see a format war looming with HDMI. However 1394 does require the receiver to do the video decompression.

Paul</font>

 

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Parametric EQ enables many modes and nodes to be corrected in a room that would otherwise be left unadjusted </td></tr></table>

This is simply not necessary with most quality speakers.  

Controlling first reflections of mid-to-high frequencies can be helpful (with acoustic treatments) but this isn't controlled by parametric EQs.

Typically the only room modes that actually need correcting in an HT room are the bass frequencies.  These are due to modal frequency peaks caused by room dimensions.

Also, the parametric &quot;Q&quot; or filter width  is severly restricted (too large) in the Yamaha also making it less useful.  My point is this feature is more whiz-bang marketing than truly a useful feature.  

Having a true parametric EQ that will allow narrow parametric filter widths, instead of 1/3 octave widths is actually quite useful for bass frequency peak reduction.


By the way, if you actually read my post, I was referring to the 2400 receiver's amplifier ratings not the Z9.</font>

 

[pam]

<font color='#000000'>Hi

For me the topic is about Yamaha RX-Z9.

Competition seems to be:
- Denon AVR-5803 (street price: 3K);
- Onkyo TX-DS989V2 (Street price: 2.3K);
- B&amp;K AVR-507 (street price 3.2K);
- Pionneer VSX-49TXi (because of room calibration and i.link, street price 2.6K);
- Sunfire Ultimate (because of reputation and the good sound of it's separates - street price 3.3K);
Please tell me if I have missed someone in that Price range (street price 4K and less - I expect Yamaha to be a little bit higher than the Denon (may be 3.2) unless they want to kill the others or kill themselves).
Of course, we could look at others: A home theater could cost 100K. 10K is enough for me: after all you can travel around the world for 6 months with this money (If you spend no more than a month in US, Europe and Japan).

My question would be:
- Sound: does it sound better in stereo and with Cinema then the competition;
- Connections: Does it have all the connection that the other have; The i.link seems very interesting: I am hoping that the Pioneer DV-47Ai could be use fro SACD and DVD-Audio with this receiver (direct digital); About DVI, who in the receivers listed up here has DVI?
- Power: Enough but I still want my friends to enjoy a film not all the neibourghoud;
- Upgradable (would be nice to have Dolby Pro-Logic IIx as stated before) is a must especially on the decoding side.

I think that we will be able to know more after a few reviews. I just can't wait.

The i.link is an interesting feature: why use 6 wires with SACD and DVD-A, (I can not accept that therefore I won't buy until I can use only one connector for the sound between my laser disk and my receiver) when the original signal is digital. The best DA converter should be in the receiver. After all a good DA conversion is only neede once.

Of course, I would like to see the same thing with Video but it is not there yet (IE IEEE1394, DVI, others that I don't know). Not as far as I can see (and as far as all those Flagship receiver seems to see). Also I can live with a DVI direct to my HDTV (especially when they have two connections).

Looking at the PDF file from Yamaha, the specs seems very interesting.

- &nbsp;

</font>

 

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>Pam;

We don't at all feel the Sunfire Ultimate receiver should be in the same category as the other products you mentioned.  We feel it is too lacking in performance and features.  Please read our review of the Sunfire Theater Grand III.  The Sunfire Ultimate Receiver is based off of the TGIII and has the same limitations that we noted.

Sunfire Theater Grand III

As for the Denons, Yamahas, B&amp;K's, etc, these are all fine machines.  What may help is if you compile a matrix of features you consider important and determine which of these products meets most of your needs.  Then arrange a demo so you can see how they perform and function before making a final decision.



Bruce;

I think Dr. Floyd Toole would disagree with you on the importance of room correction.  You should check out some of his white papers.

Companies such as TACT make some very good quality room correction devices that address mid and high frequencies. Yamaha is one of the first to make it affordable in a receiver.

Most people don't have the luxary of room treatment to correct problems.  We don't listen to our systems in a perfectly acoustic sound chamber.  Room correction coupled with moderate room treatment sounds like a very good step in the right direction.  

I agree with you it would be disappointing if Yamaha YPAO is limited to 62Hz like some have been saying. &nbsp;Most of my room problems are with bass and I have already treated my surroundings for the higher frequencies. However, this is just the beginning, as technology advances, I am sure this type of feature will become even more effective in Yamahas next generation of products.</font>

 

[pam]

<font color='#000000'>Hi

Thanks for the info about Sunfire.

I am looking at something that will bring me the same music as Onkyo tx-ds989v2 (actually I have listened to the Integra 9.2) but with some more digital connections (ieee1394 for dvd-a and sacd).

About DPLIIX:
http://www.dolby.com/events/CEDIA/PLIIx/manuf.html
says that RX-Z9, Pioneer Elite VSX-59TXi will have it.
Also that Denon 5803 and RX-Z9 will have hardware upgrade.

Strange about the RX-Z9: either you have DPLIIX or you need an upgrade?

Of course everybody else is developing it (Kenwood, Onkyo, HK).

So we can see the fall with new products (Pioneer is also coming with DV-59AVi with HDMI (digital) to HDTV). I can accept not to use my receiver and to connect directly a TV. It has 216MHz/14-bit video processing: must be to generate an analog signal.

Please confirm a 3 Mb/s signal (only 3Mhz) is decompressed into 1920X1080 X 30 Frames X 3 colors = 186,624,000 bits/second (hence the need of a video switch at 200MHz = 200,000,000).
It would be nice to decode the signal in the receiver (only one decoder for all equipment).

Onkyo should come out with something in the next few months, they are overdue and their competition is getting stronger.

Finally, in my dream, all this could be loaded on a hard disk and transmitted from a server via wireless (I like Net tune but the is not enough, I could probably live with X-10 but I am not ready to add more cabling in my home). If a compressed digital signal can be sent in 3 Mb/s why not over wireless (with 54 Mb/s)?

Take care</font>

 

[PaulF]

<font color='#000000'>Pam,

The Marantz SR9300 also seems to fit within your target range.

Paul</font>

 

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>gene,
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I think Dr. Floyd Toole would disagree with you on the importance of room correction.  You should check out some of his white papers.

Companies such as TACT make some very good quality room correction devices that address mid and high frequencies. Yamaha is one of the first to make it affordable in a receiver.
</td></tr></table>

I'm familiar with those white papers and the audio principles that form their foundation presented in F. Alton Everest's textbook &quot;Master Handbook of Acoustics&quot;

I'm not talking about sophisticated room correction per se (which is much more than just parametric EQ, as a reading of the TACT manuals will reveal), but the relative weak technology of Yamaha's YPAO and Pioneer's MCACC specifically (what I call marketing hype without true quality results).</font>

 

[Yamahaluver]

<font color='#0000FF'>Just as it is being said that Pioneer's and Yamaha's parametric EQ are hype, in similiar terms, companies like Parasound which claim high current amplification and Dynaudio, which claims hexacoil wound drivers are all marketing gimmicks. The Parasound HCA-2200/1200 are extremely hot running amplifiers with exceptionaly poor reliability. It is a classic example of a poorly designed hot running amplifier which sells itself with hype to gullible buyers whose idea of good sound is reading reviews from dubious sources. It has the tendency to cook itself to death and it is more of a high current generator than a amp. How many speakers out in the market neeed 45amps to run. Dynaudio maybe an exception due to its inefficinent design but all the current speakers run happily with much lower current requirments and manage to sound way better than inefficient speakers.

Same goes for the Danish Dynaudios, one of the dullest sounding boomy speakers which touts hexacoil as one of their innovations when it is a standard procedure for many speaker maufacturers, they just dont hype or market it. No wonder that even though the Dynaudio comes from Denmark, the Danish Broadcasting Company still uses 15 year old Yamaha NS-1000x.  

</font>

 

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>Gene / anyone-

Any chance of getting a DPLIIx update for the 2400?

I really like how this unit looks</font>

 

[pam]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>

pam : <font color='#000000'>Please confirm a 3 Mb/s signal (only 3Mhz) is decompressed into 1920X1080 X 30 Frames X 3 colors = 186,624,000 bits/second (hence the need of a video switch at 200MHz = 200,000,000).
It would be nice to decode the signal in the receiver (only one decoder for all equipment).</font>

<font color='#000000'>Hi

Can someone give me more info about this? &nbsp;

</font>