Yamaha RX-Z9 - av_phile hijacked thread

P

pam

Audioholic
<font color='#000000'>Hi

Still nobody has done a review of Yamaha RX-Z9.

Why Yamaha does not send test version? To nobody?

Everybody seems to promise a review of RX-Z9.</font>
 
Yamahaluver

Yamahaluver

Audioholic General
<font color='#0000FF'>Hi PM,

I have had the Z-9 in possesion for the last three months or so but unfortunately my work has kept me really busy for the last three months and looks like it would be two months more before I would get some freedom to write a review.

All I can say is that when this unit is pumping, it is really powerful and only a fool would go for an external amp as this would serve most needs really well, the good thing is that unlike Yamaha's previous offerings, the Z-9 has so much power that nothing comes close to bringing it to its limits and the clarity therefore remains better on the average.

There is too many adjustments in this unit and one needs to sit down and do a serious study of the manual before getting into the setup. YPAO helps in this case for novices but it isnt up to my taste.

Yamaha hardly has any extra units to send for testing and this is according to a Yamaha insider I talked to recently, all Z-9 is being lapped up by the dealers in a jiffy.</font>
 
P

pam

Audioholic
<font color='#000000'>Hi

What I would like to see is a formal review by this site or any other site/magazine.</font>
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
<font color='#000000'>Pam;

Ask and you shall receive. &nbsp;Yamaha will be shortly shipping me a Z9 to review. &nbsp;Stay tuned...</font>
 
F

footman

Junior Audioholic
<font color='#000000'>The new issue of Sound and Vison has a review of the Yamaha RX-Z9.</font>
 
R

Ross

Junior Audioholic
<font color='#000000'>In S&amp;V? &nbsp;Is it a regular in depth product review? &nbsp;

If so, then sweet!

thanks,</font>
 
R

Ross

Junior Audioholic
<font color='#000000'>Indeed, today my question was answered. &nbsp;The latest S&amp;V does have an in-depth product review of this unit. &nbsp;It tested out at 140 watts across all seven channels at clipping, with low distortion, and at an impressive 21.5 dbw's. &nbsp;This thing is potent!

best,</font>
 
P

pam

Audioholic
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
footman : <font color='#000000'>The new issue of Sound and Vison has a review of the Yamaha RX-Z9.</font>
<font color='#000000'>Hi

I went back to Sound and vision site and I also have the magazine at home and I could not find it. THe latest issue for me is the one who talks about Voum.

Please confirm which month you are talking about.</font>
 
G

Guest

Guest
<font color='#000000'>hy guys..i have a question for you...i'm interesting in buying an a/v processor to use with separate final amplifier ( parasound A21 &nbsp;for front speaker and A52 for surround)..which do you suggest between DSP-Z9 and Parasound HALO C2? my two final amplifiers are next to the processor...so i think that the balanced output are not so necessary for the purity of the sound..but anyone knows what is the signal/noise in the digital input of the yamaha? thank you so much for your answer (i hope you'll do so).
Sorry for my english...i'm italian &nbsp;
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
P

pam

Audioholic
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
pam : <font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote (footman @ April 08 2004,2:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The new issue of Sound and Vison has a review of the Yamaha RX-Z9.
Hi

I went back to Sound and vision site and I also have the magazine at home and I could not find it. THe latest issue for me is the one who talks about Voum.

Please confirm which month you are talking about.</font></td></tr></table>
<font color='#000000'>I have just bought the new issue of S&amp;V (May). It contains a three page review of RX-Z9.</font>
 
G

Guest

Guest
<font color='#000000'>thanks but....i live in italy &nbsp;
could you tell me how they speak about it?and if is written the signal/noise ratio using a digital input...or just wich are the pros and the cons if is possible.
thank you very much Pam</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
P

pam

Audioholic
S&V review of RX-Z9

Hi

Finally was able to get it. It arrived but it was not a very usefull review. You can learn more by getting the RX-Z9 brochure on the internet.
It seems that they have listened to it but I did not get a critical tool for comparing (with AVR-5803 for example).
 
J

JAB

Audioholic Intern
Ditto on Sound & Vision review on Z9. I was in a hurry and made the mistake of buying it. I should have known better when I saw the author's name, David Ranada, who has never done a review with any substance I have ever read. Should have spend 3 minutes reading it at the mag display and put it back on the shelf!!

So I'm stuck with the magazine and read the article "Sounds Terriffic" by one John Sciacca who places Bose Acoustimassive Disaster Series II speakers in the recommended $1000 to $2,499 class along with names such as Atlantic Technology, NHT, B & W, Mirage, etc. The reason - they will look very appealing to the wife!! I hope this was put in the article with tonque-in cheek. If not, Mr. Sciacca should go for an ear check, although I doubt he even listened to them. Reminds me of all these music reviewers who heap praise on the latest CD for realistic sound who have never been to a live concert.

But hey, Mr. Bose had the last laugh on me - purchased a new Miata Mazdaspeed and every time I drive it I have to look at his logo plastered on the radio/CD player and door speakers. Arrrgh!

Al
 
A

av_phile

Senior Audioholic
The Z-9 is without doubt one of the heftiest receiver in its class, in term of size and weight. It's certainly as flexible, feature-laden and as future-proof as can be(What will i do with 9 channels at the moment?).

But let me just state my criticsm of it. Not so much on the receiver, much less from listening to one, as I am sure it's impressive alright. What follows is my distress at reading its technical specification on power rating. I hope i am wrong, but based on what little I know, the Z9's technical write on power is anything but candid. It appears to be more a marketing hype than anything.


(1) Overstated output power


Downloading the Z9 brochure, I was disappointed by some of its misleading and useless power rating. The brochure claims a 300w/channel power using 4 ohm loads at 1Khz. I really find this spec a product of dimwits. Why would anyone bother to listen to music at only 1khz???? What's the point of this spec? And measured at 4ohms? Check the back panel of the receiver just beside the speaker terminals. It has this very revealing caution: MIN Speakers: 6 ohms. So why measure at 4ohms when you can't listen to it with 4ohm loads???? Totol BS.

After measuring at 4 ohms and 1 khz, there another section that says it delivers only 170w/channel into 8 ohms 20h-20kz. That would seem more realistic. But check again.

Looking at the electric power consumption, it says 1,000 watts. How a 7-channel 170 watt/channel amp plus 2 channel 50watt presence channels, plus preamp circuit (say 50watts) can give out a total of about 1300 watts when it consumes only 1,000 watts is so beyond me that any technology behind it must be worthy of a Nobel prize for Physics!! :confused:

(2) Inadequate and Misleading Dynamic Headroom

The receiver is supposed to give an instantaneous peak power of 210 watts into 8 ohms. That's rather pathetic. If the continuous is 170 watts, you get less than a 1db headroom. A piano or drum being struck requires around 1.4 times the continuous power rating during the first few milliseconds, assuming your volume setting is already in that continuous power level. If the amp can't hack it, the drum or the piano at that level will sound muffled and constrained. But i am sure the receiver can hack it at much lower volume levels.

Lastly, those other dynamic headroom figures apart from that in the 6-ohm load are totally useless. The receiver cannot handle loads below 6 ohms as cautioned at the back. This is NOT a high current amp as blatantly advertised. The fact that the user is cautioned against using any load lower than 6ohms betrays this. NO high current amp has such a caution. NAD can drive 2-ohm loads, Rotels and Harman kardon, likewise, though 4-ohm loads are stated minimum.

I have nothing against the receiver. In fact, I wouldn't mind having one.

Most likely this amp can give no higher than 120 watts CONTINUOUS into 8 ohms cleanly, ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN. That should fall within the ambit of its electric power consumption. But there's be very little power left from which to drive instantaneous peaks CLEANLY. Still an adequate power for the average listening room.

The suspicious rating used by Yamaha seeems to be no different from most other Japanese brands like Pioneer and Onkyo which have no qualms overstating their power with gusto. Using DIN or JETA standards is a nice way to overstate a rating. Nothing in the tech spec states that the rating was measured with ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN. It is very easy to extract the most numbers when only ONE channel is driven. Which is probably what Yamaha did for the Z9.

My caveat is not with the receiver. But with those marketing gurus at Yamaha who must have muscled into the technical guys' better judgement to make an impressive amp unnecessarily more impressive by overstating power ratings. What for? The better to mislead unwary and uninformed customers? Seems these people have no confidence in their otherwise excellent products.
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
to Av_Pile

Manufacturer's specs are not very accurate and like statistics, have a way of twisting the truth in their favour.

Sound And Vision did a review of the new Z9 . In its lab tests, they tested it for 2 channel and then 7 channels loaded and according to them, output power dropped by a mere 2db, hardly a significant drop. (if I recall this right as I glanced thru this quickly while at the grocery store) .

The rest of the review IMO was poor as it went on and on about features but said next to nothing about tehe quality of the sound.

Hope thie helps
 
Yamahaluver

Yamahaluver

Audioholic General
The rear printed rating is for nominal consumption figure only and not peak. The max power rating is much higher as the S&V tests would indicate.

BTW: not all amps need to be heavy to produce wattage, take a look at this D-MOSFET beauty for around $5000 from Yamaha. It specs clain 500Wx2rms but the Deutshce Audio magazien tested it and found it delivered around 535Wx2 continous, not bad for a amp weiging in a under 20lb with no high power caps, of course this a different concept in amplification but the tests also found it to be a superb audio performer.

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/components/mxd1.htm
 
A

av_phile

Senior Audioholic
3db said:
Sound And Vision did a review of the new Z9 . In its lab tests, they tested it for 2 channel and then 7 channels loaded and according to them, output power dropped by a mere 2db, hardly a significant drop. (if I recall this right as I glanced thru this quickly while at the grocery store) .
A 3db decrease in power output is equivalent to halving the rated power spec. So I would agree that the Z9's real CONTINOUS power output would be somewhere in the 120 watts range. Not 170 as claimed.
 
A

av_phile

Senior Audioholic
Yamahaluver said:
The rear printed rating is for nominal consumption figure only and not peak. The max power rating is much higher as the S&V tests would indicate.

BTW: not all amps need to be heavy to produce wattage, take a look at this D-MOSFET beauty for around $5000 from Yamaha. It specs clain 500Wx2rms but the Deutshce Audio magazien tested it and found it delivered around 535Wx2 continous, not bad for a amp weiging in a under 20lb with no high power caps, of course this a different concept in amplification but the tests also found it to be a superb audio performer.

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/components/mxd1.htm
Yamaha's rear panel is silent on whether their power consumption figures are average, nominal or max. Most likely max. The heft of the torroid looks it. For an amp to deliver true 170 wpc into 7channels with at least a 1.5 db dynamic headroom will require a power consumption in the 1.5KVA range.

Pls check if the CONTINUOUS power rating is across all audible frequencies from 20Hz to 20Khz and WITH ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN into 8-ohms. It is very easy to extract the most numbers when rating CONTINUOUSLY at only 1Khz and with only ONE chanel driven and into 4-ohm load. The maximum power that the transformer gives is routed to only one channel at only one frequency. This spec is totally useless, unless one likes to listen to his stereo set-up with only one channel and at 1Khz only.
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
AV_Phile;

I feel I need to interject here for a moment as many of your statements are a bit misplaced. Yamaha never claimed the Z9 will deliver 170watts x 7 simultaneously. I know it may seem a bit misleading but welcome to the audio world where marketing rules! The truth is there really is no standard for multichannel power claims. Most manufacturers rate their amps on a per channel basis. They test at 1kHz because that does yield a slightly higher #. What you may also not realize is most reviewers make all channels power measurements while holding the line voltage constant (yet they don't usually state that). IMO a bogus test, far from real world. The majority of receivers and even power amps use unregulated power supplies (for a variety of reasons I won't expand upon here). Thus as the line voltage drops, so do the rails on the amps, especially when the Xformer saturates and the power supply caps run out of gas.

The all channels driven test is a bit of a misnomer. When do we actually listen to all channels driven simultaneously at full bandwidth continuously? If you do, you should get your hearing checked and your speakers to make sure nothing is blown.

The reality is the average power consumption of the receiver is much lower than you would expect, especially in todays home theater realm where all speakers are about 90dB SPL sensitive or higher, set to small, crossed over at 80Hz and have dedicated powered subwoofers (where the real power is needed!).

What amazes me is how people squabble over a few watts for an unrealistic test and forget all of the technical merits, features and quality of the product. I agree playing the power game can get annoying, but Yamaha is far from being the first at doing this. Would you rather have a product with a substandard digital amp that claims even higher power (incidentally much higher distortion and noise) with much less processing power, features, and fidelity simply because it will deliver more power?

I see now more than ever I need to slow down on writing cable articles and start writing articles on amplifier power :)
 
newsletter

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