Yamaha RX-A6 multichannel performance

[Trebdp83]

Some still confuse LFE channel info from 5.1/7.1 signals with low frequencies from 2.0 signals. While both can be output from the subwoofer pre out depending on AVP/AVR settings, they are not the same thing.

This is why Denon/Marantz offers the LFE + Main(Low Frequency Effects from the LFE .1 channel in 5.1/7.1 signals + Low Frequencies from 2.0 signals in the Mains) setting for the Subwoofer output so that lower frequencies from 2.0 signals can be output from subwoofers when speakers are set to Large or when selecting Direct or Pure Direct modes regardless of speaker size settings.

The Yamaha RX-A6A, the actual subject of the thread, has no such feature and like other Yamahas is equipped with Yamaha’s “Extra Bass” feature which should never be used when speakers are set to Small as it actually boosts bass and introduces nasty noise and does nothing for getting sound output from the subwoofer when playing 2.0 signals and set to Pure Direct.

The lack of the “LPF of LFE” feature in Yamaha units means LFE frequency output cannot be adjusted. One might assume it is set at 120Hz but who the f#%k knows?

Without all of the information concerning specific speakers and settings, I wouldn’t say the RX-A6A should not be used to power 4 ohm speakers at all. I’d just be mindful of crossover settings, PEQ settings and volume levels in the receiver for the particular speakers.

Unless one is using the 7.1 EXT. IN on older Denon/Marantz units that bypass all but volume leveling, assume some processing is being done to signals in the unit when using the LFE + Main feature in Direct/Pure Direct mode. I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. Though, I have been up late tinkering with Spotify lossless output using Spotify Connect and Airplay among different receivers and devices. But, that is for another thread.

 

[PENG]

The fact is, if you connect a 8 ohm resistor to a 16 V source, the current flow will be 2 A whether you measure it upstream or downstream of the resistor load. Same for a filter load such as a series inductor, the current will be the same at the input and output side of the filter.

Unlike something like a mechanical filter (eg paper cone) the electrical filter load (LCR network for passive) enforces the filtered effect/frequency spectrum of the signal right at the connection point at source, ie in this case the amp’s output terminals. If you measure/probe for voltage then yes you won’t see the filtered effect, it will be full bandwidth for both pairs of wires, biwire or not. In that case the current seen by the instrument will be subjected to the very high input impedance of the instrument so any connected filter loads will have insignificant effects.

As you alluded to, I suppose, in the last video, that sometimes there may not be mechanical analogy that fits perfectly to electrical circuit theories.

 

[m. zillch]

That does not mean the currents in the two pair of wires/path are the same, and they are 100% not the same

Measured as these following proper analogous points (I more clearly diagram below, taken from part 2), rather than the bogus/invalid comparison points of x vs. Y (which marketers misdirect us to with their clever trick), they are the same.

You seem to be discussing current, not voltage, yet all your frame grabs are oddly taken from my first video which discussed voltage. Why didn't you address whatever objections you (may) have with my claims regrading current from my video which addressed current, Part 2?

In any event, which of these 6 proclamations I make in it (at 9m30s), if any, do you claim I am incorrect about?

Or is your position perhaps that in this following proclamation regarding current (from Pt. 2, 9m04s) I am incorrect?

It's hard to make these sorts of videos so they are both easy to understand by a broad YouTube audience (many of whom have never examined a single electrical block diagram in their life), yet also 100% technically spot on without using shortcuts and simplified language/concepts such as the often cited (yet imperfect) hydraulic analogy. I apologize if I at points made some mistakes and, for example, used the term "signal" whereas I more precisely should have clarified if I was meant voltage, current, or both.

 

[m. zillch]

P.S. I also had planned on a section debunking the misleading BS pushed out by Jon Risch (sp?) and Q-acoustics but I omitted it for brevity.

 

[PENG]

P.S. I also had planned on a section debunking the misleading BS pushed out by Jon Risch (sp?) and Q-acoustics but I omitted it for brevity.

I look forward to reading your high quality presentations related to this hobby. Welcome to this forum.

 

[PENG]

Measured as these following proper analogous points (I more clearly diagram below, taken from part 2), rather than the bogus/invalid comparison points of x vs. Y, they are the same.

You seem to be discussing current, not voltage, yet all your frame grabs are oddly taken from my first video which discussed voltage. Why didn't you address whatever objections you (may) have with my claims regrading current from my video which addressed current, Part 2?

In any event, which of these 6 proclamations I make in it (at 9m30s), if any, do you claim I am incorrect about?

View attachment 75740


Or is your position perhaps that in this following proclamation regarding current (from Pt. 2, 9m04s) I am incorrect?
View attachment 75741

It's hard to make these sorts of videos so they are both easy to understand by a broad YouTube audience (many of whom have never examined a single electrical block diagram in their life), yet also 100% technically spot on without using shortcuts and simplified language/concepts such as the often cited (yet imperfect) hydraulic analogy. I apologize if I at points made some mistakes and, for example, used the term "signal" whereas I more precisely should have clarified if I was meant voltage, current, or both.

Will get back to you tomorrow. For now, I would say it’s more about Pt1 that I had stronger reaction to, the later ones are much clearer.