Yamaha RX-A860 AVENTAGE 7.2 Atmos/DTS:X A/V Receiver Review

[Verdinut]

Wrong. Bass explosions are handled mostly by the sub and 20 dB + peaks are very aggressive. I don't have a problem with you disliking this particular unit. However, stop the BS, get your facts straight and stop painting all Yamaha models with the same brush.

I notice that you like Yamaha products cause you have some in your system. I am sorry if I irritated you with my comments but everyone has the right to his opinion!

Yamaha was one of the first manufacturers to inflate power ratings starting from the 1960's if not before. I know that for a fact. I was building tube amplifiers then.

I don't consider Yamaha's all the same. I corrected the text in one of my posts to indicate that that Denon and Marantz AVRs were also well built.

Concerning the explosion at the back of the listening room, what about the situation with no subwoofer in the system? Not all surround systems have a subwoofer. Also, in such situation, with a big power demand, it's possible that there could not be enough reserve left for clean harmonics with a limited power supply

 

[3db]

I notice that you like Yamaha products cause you have some in your system. I am sorry if I irritated you with my comments but everyone has the right to his opinion!

Yamaha was one of the first manufacturers to inflate power ratings starting from the 1960's if not before. I know that for a fact. I was building tube amplifiers then.

I don't consider Yamaha's all the same. I corrected the text in one of my posts to indicate that that Denon and Marantz AVRs were also well built.

Concerning the explosion at the back of the listening room, what about the situation with no subwoofer in the system? Not all surround systems have a subwoofer. Also, in such situation, with a big power demand, it's possible that there could not be enough reserve left for clean harmonics with a limited power supply

My beef is that:
a) you don't understand the validity of ACD tests and that you rest everything on them. You are obviously missing the point that the manufacturer sets the sensitivity of the protection circuits. Yamaha has bested nearly all the time the 2 channels test full spectrum against equivalent models of other brands but don't fare so well in the ACD test. Why do you think that is?
b) Your building of tube amps has nothing to do with what Yamaha does for power ratings. Its all too convenient for you to ignore the miriad of good test results here at Audioholics.
c) I missed your correction before posting.

 

[Verdinut]

My beef is that:
a) you don't understand the validity of ACD tests and that you rest everything on them. You are obviously missing the point that the manufacturer sets the sensitivity of the protection circuits. Yamaha has bested nearly all the time the 2 channels test full spectrum against equivalent models of other brands but don't fare so well in the ACD test. Why do you think that is?
b) Your building of tube amps has nothing to do with what Yamaha does for power ratings. Its all too convenient for you to ignore the miriad of good test results here at Audioholics.
c) I missed your correction before posting.

I know all that. I'm well aware that manufacturers can put whatever they want in their amplifiers to protect them from overheating or overload because of the UL and CSA regulations. The need did not exist to the same extent when they were using bigger power supplies.

As you know, at the base the purpose of an amplifier is to amplify without restriction as a simple wire with gain. If a manufacturer adds channels to a receiver using the power supply that was used for a unit with 2 or 4 less channels, it's obvious that this power supply will be likely to overheat, a situation which requires the thermal protection circuits and power limiters. Yamaha is not the only one doing this, but in the case of the RX-A860, the too aggressive protection circuits don't help the ACD performance.

I did not say that Yamaha doesn't make good electronics. Their high end receivers are in the same league as the flagship D+M products, but I am not in agreement with several manufacturers decision to reduce their producing costs to be competitive by cutting corners in the power supplies.

As you know, Gene mentioned the problem in his review of the A860.

But I don't think that the situation is going to change soon as we are facing a competitive worldwide market.

 

[PENG]

As you know, at the base the purpose of an amplifier is to amplify without restriction as a simple wire with gain. If a manufacturer adds channels to a receiver using the power supply that was used for a unit with 2 or 4 less channels, it's obvious that this power supply will be likely to overheat, a situation which requires the thermal protection circuits and power limiters. Yamaha is not the only one doing this, but in the case of the RX-A860, the too aggressive protection circuits don't help the ACD performance.

That is right in principle, but I think Yamaha is being smart to optimize 2 to 3 channel performance because in most HT applications it is rare to have all channel driven to the limit. As mentioned before, explosion sound effects in the surround channels are largely taken care of by the subwoofer channel. It is also a fact that such sound effects are typically (yes, there are always exceptions) for very short duration. Even in Star war movies, you don't get non-stop explosion scenes. Also, sound effects from explosions, dinosaurs and King Kong stomps can probably sound fine even at 10% THD, might even sound better.

My point is, if you are given a set budget, it is a smarter move to invest more on making sure the amps can produce the highest possible output and lowest possible distortions than on a power supply that can support ACD outputs but at a much lower level. After all, a few dollars more on electronics (e.g. transistors, DACs) can yield more tangible results than spending the same on the much more expensive power supply components. Just look at the older HK AVR vs Denon's. In the same price range, the Denon AVR38XX consistent beat HK's AVR5XX and 6XX in two channel outputs, actually even in 5 and 7 channel outputs though by lower margins. The same goes for NAD, another company that are known for good ACD output performance, except for their flag ship models, Yamaha and D&M's beat them in most of the publicly available bench tests results in two channel output and in many cases ACD as well when compare products within the same price range. I do feel that Yamaha might have over done it a little in this regard, and I find D&M has the better balanced approach most of the time.

 

[hk2000]

Where is your proof or is this just speculative conjecture on your part? I don't how you could possibly reach that conclusion after reading all the stellar tests results here at Audioholics on past receivers?

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/trading

 

[3db]

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/trading

Gene states specifically thats across all manufacturers and not just endemic to Yamaha even though Gene uses Yamaha as an example. Its a rookie mistake on your part.

 

[PENG]

Gene states specifically thats across all manufacturers and not just endemic to Yamaha even though Gene uses Yamaha as an example. Its a rookie mistake on your part.

Noticed in that linked page, there's the article on the ACD controversy thing? The last paragraph made me laugh, it's so true, yet the ACD fans just won't accept the truth.

"Patrick Hart - Former Product Manager of Yamaha
In the eighties when I was Yamaha's Product Manager the EIA was grappling with the problem of how to measure dynamic power. Dynamic power was the new term for how much power an amp could deliver and sustain for 10 milliseconds with a "down time" in between of 500 milliseconds (at full RMS power). Back then the EIA was trying to banish the old IHF "Peak Power" term which came out of the fifties and sixties and at the same time coin a new one, dynamic power, to show what a real amplifier driving a real load in the real world could really do on musical peaks. Pretty honest, huh?

Now we come back to the "true RMS" reading and it's interpretation, if you want to advertise your $400 receiver as having 100 watts RMS. To be able to say this, many companies will look to that 20 year old mandate for dynamic power and dissect it so that producing 100 watts RMS for 500 milliseconds is okay. And with multi-channel amps and the totally random nature of music or soundtrack power demands spread among so many channels, who is to say they're wrong in rating their receivers in such a way?? It does keep the amplifier's cost down to hit a consumer friendly price point - and "real world" it's still pretty honest.

Remember, these receivers are hardly ever driven so close to their limits for any extended period. Unfortunately, for the few hearing-insensitive consumers that insist on their own continued self-destruction, many manufacturers have to add a limiter."

 

[M Code]

Keep in mind..
In the early 80s....
Music CDs were introduced and the mixing/mastering teams had little exeprienec with digital streams so they would keep the digital levels on the conservative side to avoid harsh clipping... As clipping in analog streams may be tolerable for short durations but in digital streams if clipping, stand back as all kinds of racket could be outputted.. Thats why the volume levels on certain early CDs were on the low side.

With that said, the later digital streams delivered a dynamic range 20-30dB higher than current analog systems. This resulted in many established amplifiers and loudspeakers not sounding/performing well as they could not handle the dynamic peaks without limiting and/or clipping....

Fast forward to the later 80s'...
The mixing/mastering engineers learned how to handle the digital stream, plus the amplifier and loudspeaker teams elevated their design experise as to handle the higher dynamic range sources. Loudspeaker design expertise went through some major upgrades especially with later advanced design PC-based tools plus more sophisticated cone materials... Here NASA and certain Euro speaker brands lead the way...

Just my $0.02...

 

[hk2000]

Gene states specifically thats across all manufacturers and not just endemic to Yamaha even though Gene uses Yamaha as an example. Its a rookie mistake on your part.

"Yamaha as well as other manufacturers have been cutting corners on their receivers' power for years now (Yamaha more aggressively than others, I believe). . . " Enjoy your Yamaha.

 

[TimAdams1965]

Crap, wish I would have known how much these things struggle on power output before I bought this. I am coming from the old RX-V3800. That is now going to the office setup. I was already planning on using the pre-outs to power the fronts with an amp, but after seeing the meek 35 watts driving all the channels, I now have a Emotiva A-500 arriving on Wednesday. This combo should work well.

 

[Rhythm-man]

With all the great streaming options in the Yamaha Aventage receivers now, I've been planning to purchase the Aventage RX-A2060 receiver for a 5.2.2 Atmos speaker set-up. But after reading Gene's review of the Yamaha RX-A860 and his comment "I'd actually caution people against using 4 ohm speakers" with this receiver, I'm reconsidering my plan. Since all of my speakers are rated at 4 ohm (Adam Audio and MartinLogan), I'm now hesitant to buy the RX-A2060, which Yamaha rates at 140 Watts with two channels driven from 20 Hz to 20KHz (8 ohms, 0.06% THD).
My question to Gene is, given the meager power output of ~35 Watts per channel with all 5 channels driven by the RX-A860, would you also caution me to purchase the RX-A2060, especially since all my speakers are 4 ohm? If so, which of the other receiver manufacturers should I consider now? Anthem? Denon? Sony? or Marantz? Or do they all tend to overstate their power ratings these days, e.g., skimping on their power supplies? Thanks for any advice on getting a solid receiver to drive my 4 ohm speakers.

 

[Vandersteen]

Just wanted to say thanks for the helpful review. Glad I was within the return period on this. Picked up a 1060 instead. Using it as a preamp in a 2.1 system. Definitely crisper sound than the 860. Assuming this is due to the better dac and preamp outs.

 

[jkongting]

I just got a RX-A3060 when my old AV receiver died in January based on the mini review on the Yamaha last year in Audioholics. It sounds more analytical than the old one and I actually prefered the way the old AV handled the surround sound and made the old soundscape more believable to my ears, at least in the early going with the new one. I still have my main channels driven by the same separate Carver amp as before, so that part has not changed, so I could hear a difference. I have these PSB's main speakers for 4 years, but added a new PSB center channel and sub-450 when I upgraded the AV receiver. The YPAO showed that I had some problems in the midrange possibly from floor reflections, but the sub seems to have integrated very well with the main speakers and the treble also had minimal EQ adjustments. After the preliminary adjustments, I am waiting for the new speakers to loosen up before doing any more serious fine tuning, but the sound does seem to have improved in the last week. I may upgrade the surrounds, but I am still looking for some speaker stands. I don't want to put them on the wall as moving them would be a real pain if it does not sound right.

 

[SSJBen]

With all the great streaming options in the Yamaha Aventage receivers now, I've been planning to purchase the Aventage RX-A2060 receiver for a 5.2.2 Atmos speaker set-up. But after reading Gene's review of the Yamaha RX-A860 and his comment "I'd actually caution people against using 4 ohm speakers" with this receiver, I'm reconsidering my plan. Since all of my speakers are rated at 4 ohm (Adam Audio and MartinLogan), I'm now hesitant to buy the RX-A2060, which Yamaha rates at 140 Watts with two channels driven from 20 Hz to 20KHz (8 ohms, 0.06% THD).
My question to Gene is, given the meager power output of ~35 Watts per channel with all 5 channels driven by the RX-A860, would you also caution me to purchase the RX-A2060, especially since all my speakers are 4 ohm? If so, which of the other receiver manufacturers should I consider now? Anthem? Denon? Sony? or Marantz? Or do they all tend to overstate their power ratings these days, e.g., skimping on their power supplies? Thanks for any advice on getting a solid receiver to drive my 4 ohm speakers.

I have a RX-A2050, the model prior to the A2060. They share the same hardware.

I have the A2050 running SVS Ultra speakers which dips down to 4ohms frequently (and also as confirmed by Gene in his SVS Ultra bookshelf review). No issues here really. Also depends how loud you are playing according to your room size too. If you have like a 5000 cu. ft room, no receiver from today is going to do justice to most power hungry speakers.

That said, speaker efficiency also plays a big part. Since you didn't state specifically what speakers you are using, I can't answer that for you. But basically, the higher the speaker's efficiency, the less power it needs to be driven.

 

[Rhythm-man]

Thanks, Ben, for your comment. FYI, my LCR main speakers are Adam GTC77s and my surrounds and rears are Martin Logan ElectroMotion IC and IW, respectively. Sensitivity of the Adam speakers is 88 dB and it's 90 dB for the MLs. My room size is about 1400 cubic ft (a small room) and we don't listen to loud music much anymore, (but occasionally I do when I'm alone in the house when listening to some of my band's music). Just wondering if the A2060 receiver will be able to really make these speakers sing...or should I opt for an Anthem or Denon instead?

 

[SSJBen]

Thanks, Ben, for your comment. FYI, my LCR main speakers are Adam GTC77s and my surrounds and rears are Martin Logan ElectroMotion IC and IW, respectively. Sensitivity of the Adam speakers is 88 dB and it's 90 dB for the MLs. My room size is about 1400 cubic ft (a small room) and we don't listen to loud music much anymore, (but occasionally I do when I'm alone in the house when listening to some of my band's music). Just wondering if the A2060 receiver will be able to really make these speakers sing...or should I opt for an Anthem or Denon instead?

All of your speakers are considered pretty efficient and your room isn't actually too big (in fact, smaller than mine by about 200cu. ft). I had no issues running the SVS Ultra speakers with the A2050 to be honest. While I did eventually added an Emotiva XPA-Gen2 for the LCRs, I only did so because I got a very good deal on the amp.

If you can spring for the Anthem, absolutely go for it. Everything aside, ARC is the best room correction software out of YPAO and Audyssey.

 

[PENG]

All of your speakers are considered pretty efficient and your room isn't actually too big (in fact, smaller than mine by about 200cu. ft). I had no issues running the SVS Ultra speakers with the A2050 to be honest. While I did eventually added an Emotiva XPA-Gen2 for the LCRs, I only did so because I got a very good deal on the amp.

If you can spring for the Anthem, absolutely go for it. Everything aside, ARC is the best room correction software out of YPAO and Audyssey.

I agree with everything except the ARC being the best part. There are some mostly subjective reviews on REQ software but I have not seen anything that is based on mainly on facts and blind testing results. I read one such shoot out from the Harman website long time ago, but that one involved older versions of YPAO and Audyssey that is no longer relevant. Can you provide a link or two to such reviews on updated versions of REQ, obviously including the Anthem ARC?

 

[SSJBen]

I agree with everything except the ARC being the best part. There are some mostly subjective reviews on REQ software but I have not seen anything that is based on mainly on facts and blind testing results. I read one such shoot out from the Harman website long time ago, but that one involved older versions of YPAO and Audyssey that is no longer relevant. Can you provide a link or two to such reviews on updated versions of REQ, obviously including the Anthem ARC?

The fact that ARC does not apply full-range EQ is already an obvious advantage IMO. Ask Gene too.

I have no link to a shoot out because it's very difficult to do one now a days due to how frequently these PEQ softwares are being updated every 2 or so years.

My opinion that ARC does better than YPAO is because I personally tuned a friend's HT room both with a RX-A3040 and an Anthem MX720 which he very recently upgraded to. I compared the graphs, taken before and after on REW. I however, didn't blind tested them so take it with a grain of salt if you want.

 

[asahitoro]

I'm running some KEF Reference 2s (4 ohms/90db) and a KEF 100c up front (6 ohms/90db). Will the 860 have enough to power these? My room size is medium and they're paired with a HSU VTF-3 MK 2 subwoofer and 6.5" two way ceiling speakers in the rear.

Thanks.

 

[PENG]

The fact that ARC does not apply full-range EQ is already an obvious advantage IMO. Ask Gene too.

I already know the answer on that one, but that's sort of subjective too and there are different opinions expressed by different PhD's in this field of knowledge. Besides, many of Audyssey user use L/R bypass anyway so that takes that part partially out of the equation in that scenario. To me, if the software allow you to choose the bandwidth to EQ would be an advantage, otherwise I wouldn't say one is an advantage over the other, especially when one allows you to bypass L/R.

I have no link to a shoot out because it's very difficult to do one now a days due to how frequently these PEQ softwares are being updated every 2 or so years.

I understand your point, but the update in YPAO and Audyssey (from XT to XT32) seems significant. My REW plots show significant improvements from XT to XT32 SubEQ.

My opinion that ARC does better than YPAO is because I personally tuned a friend's HT room both with a RX-A3040 and an Anthem MX720 which he very recently upgraded to. I compared the graphs, taken before and after on REW. I however, didn't blind tested them so take it with a grain of salt if you want.

That's great, if that's your opinions, just that I thought you have read something that is supported with strong evidence. By the way, I use REW too, and have collected numerous graphs so I know one has to take those graphs with a gain of salt for sure because the results depends on how one runs the REQ. Mic positions, noise floor in the room, settings on the subs, etc.etc...all impact on the final results. That's why if I recommend any REQ I would make it clear it is my opinion based on my own experience.

If you are interested, we can compare our graphs via PM. I can tell you in my HT room Audyssey did next to nothing above 220 Hz.