Yamahaholics

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>I have owned 2 Yamahas in the past and I really enjoyed the overall quality of the product as well as the sound of the product (rx-v1200 &amp; 2400). I think the Yamaha DSP's are the best in the business if you enjoy that, I never used mine becasue I never wanted to hear what Top Gun would sound like in some church in Germany.

I had the chance to swap my 2400 for a Denon 3805 strait across (paid right around $850 w/tax for the 2400, so I think I got a good deal on the Denon) I was hesitant to begin with as I have always owned Yamaha in the past but I thought I would give it a shot, very happy I did.
.
This is my first Denon product and so far I prefer the sound of the Denon over the Yamaha, but there are alot of thing I prefer on the Yamaha over the Denon (like the entire shell design front and back pannel layout and I really miss the good ol amber display) But the sound is what is important to me, that is where the Denon is the clear winner.... for my speaker set it just sounds much deeper and way more powerfull, again, in my opinion.

Time will only tell on how my luck is with this Denon but when the time comes to purchase a new receiver, I will go with what sounds best with my ears and speakers. I can tell you, I will look at Denon and Yamaha first! &nbsp;

Brent.

My Home Theater (have not had time to update my receiver picture yet)

Receiver: Denon AVR-3805
Fronts: Polk Audio RTi10's
Center: Polk Audio CSi5
Surrounds: Polk Auido FXi3's
Rear Center: Polk Audio RM2600 Center Channel
Sub: Polk Audio PSW404 x2</font>

 

[sparky]

<font color='#000000'>I bought a yamaha 2400, a velodyne dd 15 sub, and i am using two sonus faber electa amator speakers with a samsung 46&quot; dlp hi def. I am getting my mind blown at the sound of this thing. Everything comes in digital from the cable company and the cd player to the yamaha and the yamaha converts it to analog. The sub blows away any sub i have heard and the yamaha sets everything up automatically with a mic. The sub uses an on screen display and a mic with a test tone too. I cross at the thx 80hz. You can get the bass response very flat and the parameric equalizer is 100% digital. A lot of my friends have self powered subs but their jaws drop when they hear this thing. Every note is perfectly clear down very deep with no boomy sound at all. It is so tight and clean, about all you can do is grin. I don't know how much the yamaha has to do with the sound but the bass crossover is seamless and the high end is crystal clear. I have owned a lot of high end tube gear over the years but this is a new experience for me. I never though I would be enthused about a receiver but I love it. The sansumg is wonderful too. What a picture!!! My advise to all you guys is to save your money and buy a velodyne dd 15 or 18 or 12 or 10. If you can't afford one at least go hear one. They are way ahead of anyone else out there. The yamaha seems like a bargain. The velodyne is another story, you have to pay dearly for it.</font>

 

[abe]

<font color='#000000'>rgriffin25,

You seems pissed off by lots of 'generic' praises of Yamaha gear AND claims 'there are many other equally good by .....'. &nbsp;But I have lot of trouble finding any 'non-generic' facts from you either. &nbsp; Any detailed reason why xyz or abc is as good as or better than Yamaha (similar priced of course) ?


Personally I owner Yamaha 1400, and 496 before that. &nbsp;Until last year I've also owned &nbsp;Bryston 4B-ST power amp with Camelot DAC for my 2 channel gear. &nbsp; The SOUND QUALITY of Yamaha puzzled me comparing to my 2 channels which are highly claimed within audiophile circle ( Audiogon, AudioAsylum, AudioReview, etc ). &nbsp; &nbsp;Later last year I sold all my gears and only Yamaha stayed. &nbsp; That is how good Yamaha is. &nbsp;

FYI, &nbsp;my current set up comprises of Yamaha 1400 + Dynaudio Contour Special 25's ( Google them and see how good they are! )


So you still having problem with my recommending Yahama ?


Abe</font>

 

[rgriffin25]

<font color='#000000'>Abe,

You were correct in saying that I did not like the generic comments left about Yamaha. I know they make a good product. If you have read all of the posts in this thread you will notice a couple of things. The first few that were left were very basic and those people missed the point of the question. Now your response and many others are right on target.
I'm sure there are people that appreciate the real life experiences over &quot;a salesman told me it was the best&quot;. &nbsp;I am not saying that all comments were like that. I just felt if your going to make a recommendation you need to back it.</font>

 

[rgriffin25]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>

rgriffin25 : When making the comparison between the two receivers I compared the spec sheets thouroughly. There were only minor differences in the two.

The Yamaha upconverts to component video.
(which with my tv I do not need that feature.)
The Yamaha has DPL IIx
For those keeping score that is 2 points for Yammy!

Pioneer Elite
Multiple EQ settings- allows users to use MCACC or 2 other custom settings for different sources.
Hi-Bit audio conversion - Converts all audio sources to 96/24 resolution
Build quality and ergonomics

Then if you consider I bought the Pioneer for $680 shipped, it was the best value at the time.
Pioneer 3 points for performance and with the price factored in, +1 it receives a 4.

So on that particular day the Pioneer won. I have no regrets on my purchase. &nbsp;With all the other specs compared there is no reason at all anyone shopping for a good &quot;value&quot; receiver should disregard the Pioneer VSX-53TX.

Abe,

BTW I felt that this explanation I posted earlier in the thread was sufficient...

</font>

 

[hopjohn]

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

abe : <font color='#000000'>rgriffin25,

You seems pissed off by lots of 'generic' praises of Yamaha gear AND claims 'there are many other equally good by .....'.  But I have lot of trouble finding any 'non-generic' facts from you either.   Any detailed reason why xyz or abc is as good as or better than Yamaha (similar priced of course) ?</font>

<font color='#000000'>What was generic about those claims? Sounded pretty detailed to me.

Your Bryston was inferior to the Yammy? You've just saved me thousands my friend. Now if I can only figure out how to sell all these pet rocks...I'd be set for life.

</font>

 

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'>I think Yamaha makes pretty good musical instruments, but I've noticed little difference in sound or build quality between Yamaha, Denon and other mass market audio. I think the reason this gear is so popular because it gives good affordable multi-channel because that's what's in, not to mention the fact that truly great MC audiophile grade gear is expensive, which is why I don't have any. I don't know why this board is so popular for Yamaha, considering the quality of the Administrators reference systems, who apparently have little to do with it.</font>

 

[RX-V2400]

<font color='#000000'>Your argument sort of shoots its self in the foot. True most pro-sumer middel range stuff is much the same in sonic quality, true audiophile stuff, as you rightly say being out of most of our ranges, but the popularity of Yamha is that within this average Joe range they give full features at the best price by far.

Also read this in relation with the threads myself and Zumbo have started about supplementing the Yamaha power supplies, and you will see the Yamaha recievers are the pathway to get top notch sound at a fraction of the audiophile price. No other recievers have the functionality to build on in this price range.

It's really quite simple and all getting very boreing.</font>

 

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>I have the Yamaha RX-V2400 and the reason I chose it over other comparable receivers (including ones by Denon, Marantz, Integra, Rotel...etc.) is that I liked the sound the best. &nbsp;Sound quality is really a matter of personal preference and I listened to numerous receivers from the list mentioned above and didn't find one I liked better for even 3 times the price of the Yammy. &nbsp;The 2400 kicks butt when it comes to home theater as well as 2 channel stereo and multi channel audio. &nbsp;I have it hooked up to B&amp;W speakers and an SVS subwoofer for a 5.1 system and I would rather watch movies at home then go to the theater because the sound quality is so much better with my home system.

It always strikes me as funny when some one puts down someone elses product (with relatively comparable specs) because it really comes down to personal preference. &nbsp;There are alot of good receivers out there. &nbsp;You just have to listen to them and see which sound you like the best.

As a side note, the picture quality on my TV (Mitsubishi 65&quot; Diamond) actually went down after I hooked up my cable to the receiver. &nbsp;With it's video upconversion feature to component video, the least I expeceted was to have the same picture, not worse. &nbsp; I had been running S-Video from the cable box to the TV before. &nbsp;I've talked to some &quot;experts&quot; about this and have tried changing cables, checking my connections, etc. &nbsp;and nothing seems to help. Any of you have this problem? &nbsp;Thoughts, suggestions? &nbsp;Anything would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.</font>

 

[abe]

<font color='#000000'>hopjohn,

I didn't say Bryston is inferior to Yamaha, instead what I meant was 'Yamaha is not inferior to Bryston'. &nbsp; Bryston's are highly acclaimed by many many people including me. &nbsp; Comparing Yamaha to Bryston is meant to be a compliment to Yahama.

I sold my Bryston etc. because (1) want to integrate all my system into one. &nbsp;no space for both 2-channel and HT &nbsp;(2) by keeping Yamaha alone will NOT sacrifice much in terms of sound quality. &nbsp;



Abe</font>

 

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#8D38C9'>The Audioholics staff will be quick to note that using a receiver, any one even close to affordable, will usually degrade the picture quite noticably. &nbsp;If you must use the receiver to switch vid sources, like I have to, that's just something you have to deal with. &nbsp;The PJ I use just doesn't have enough inputs for everything I need to hook up.</font>

 

[hopjohn]

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

abe : <font color='#000000'>I didn't say Bryston is inferior to Yamaha, instead what I meant was 'Yamaha is not inferior to Bryston'.</font>

<font color='#000000'>If the Yamaha is &quot;not inferior&quot; to the Bryston, it can be one of two things: 1. equal to or 2. better than. Either way your statement is ridiculous.

Yes the yamaha consolidates things into one package, that is the main reason why people recognize it as inferior.

I'll agree to diasgree with you, as I'm guessing you are talking about the convenience of two products in your particular situation, while I'm talking about their accurate sound reproduction properties.</font>

 

[Yamahaluver]

<font color='#0000FF'>It is a subjective field and this thread only reinforces this theory. Having said that Yamaha is an unique and among the few companies which make the musical instruments as well as the equipment to play them back with. The amp/speaker divison was created to fulfill Yamaha's own requirment for their musical instruments like electronic pianos etc. This later got developed as a consumer outfit. Most of those who work there are taken from the musical manufaturing department and are part time musicians themselves, this fact I confirmed when I last visited their factory in Japan.

They have always been the renegades, their sonic signature being quite neutral has always been considered to be on the brighter side and this goes for their speakers as well. To those which includes myself, we love that sound and nothing else comes even remotely closer to it. I for one downgraded years back from super expensive, so-called esoteric equipment to Yamaha and have never looked back ever since.</font>

 

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They have always been the renegades, their sonic signature being quite neutral has always been considered to be on the brighter side and this goes for their speakers as well. To those which includes myself, we love that sound and nothing else comes even remotely closer to it. I for one downgraded years back from super expensive, so-called esoteric equipment to Yamaha and have never looked back ever since. </td></tr></table>Japanese audio has always been known for it's brighter tendencies, and there's nothing wrong with that. Just a different sound, not necessarily better, or worse, depending on you're tastes. I've found it dosen't work so well for classical though. Cheers!</font>

 

[RX-Z9 Martin Logans]

<font color='#000000'>If it's newer and cost more it must be better right. LOL


It was between the 5803 and the RX Z-9

Let's say the 5 month wait for the Z-9 was worth it.</font>

 

[abe]

<font color='#000000'>hopjohn,

you wrote:
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the Yamaha is &quot;not inferior&quot; to the Bryston, it can be one of two things: 1. equal to or 2. better than. Either way your statement is ridiculous.
</td></tr></table>


Nothing 'ridiculous' about it at all.  The fact may be harsh for you to swallow but you just can't argue with it.  I owned both systems for a while and, just out of curiousity, did fairly extensive A/B comparison.  I made the testing env as 'controlled' as possible, e.g., same SPL, same digital source, etc. and speakers as revealing as possible, Dynaudio Special 25's.   Well I will have to say that I just couldn't discern any difference sonically.  Maybe it's just me -- I am not 'golden ear' type.   If you can hear or have heard any difference between the two, good for you. But I couldn't.

People often are biased against integrated or packaged systems (vs. dedicated 2-channel ones) thinking they are of inferior sound quality.  This may be true in many cases, but it is not default.  In my opinion, Yamaha did an excellent job integrating many 'non-audiophile' features without sacrificing the sound quality. and I am telling you this from my experience.

Abe</font>

 

[hopjohn]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>

abe : The fact may be harsh for you to swallow but you just can't argue with it.  

I've already agreed to disagree with you on this matter, but I guess you just aren't contempt with that. The bottom line is you are happy with what you have, and you didn't have to spend a fortune on what you currently own to be satisfied. I'm truly very jealous of you, because I wish I could find audio nirvana so easily.

If your 1400 meets all the criteria you require for the finest in 2 channel reproduction, then I'm truly happy for you. I'm sure the margains that most people do claim in general about the differences in seperates and receivers are not as signifigant as they'd like them to be, and I would also concur that the law of diminishing return certainly exists as you go up in price. I just don't believe that the law begins and ends with the 1400 for me personally.

The 4B-ST you previously owned is a wonderful piece of equiptment with 250 w/c and distortion ratings at .007% @ the full frequency range with both channels driven. I would fully expect that amp to be more dynamic and have tighter control of a speaker, particularly less efficient models, than that of your 1400. Do the differences outweigh the cost to spend more? Well that is a subjective debate that can only be settled by the individual, and this individual says no, you say yes. The rest of you can decide for yourself.</font>

 

[Yamahaluver]

<font color='#0000FF'>Direct comparisons are futile but suffice to say that the RXV-1400 will fulfill what is expected of it to its best, sometimes better than other comparative models, in case of the Bryston a more apt comparison should be the Yamaha MX-1/MX-2 power amps with THD of less than 0.0007, class A power, 1 ohm drive capability, I am sure the match would be quite even then.</font>

 

[abe]

<font color='#000000'>hopjohn (Posted on April 04 2004,3:30)
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The 4B-ST you previously owned is a wonderful piece of equiptment with 250 w/c and distortion ratings at .007% @ the full frequency range with both channels driven. I would fully expect that amp to be more dynamic and have tighter control of a speaker, particularly less efficient models, than that of your 1400. </td></tr></table>

Fully agree.   That's why I bought Bryston 4B-ST (year 2000 model) in the first place.  

I myself was 'shocked' by the 'little to none difference' between 1400 to 4B-ST,  honestly I expected more.   One huge advantage of 1400 is that it has DAC-amp all within one box -- I feed digital signal directly to 1400.  I believe, and this has been confirmed by at least another poster here on Audioholics, that sonically this configuration is much superior to analog feed into 1400 which is solely used as an Amp.  Very likely the integrated internal signal processing and amplification can do much better job over all.

IMHO, amplification has the least impact in the signal path, given the current stage of electronics technology, comparing to electrical-to-mechanical conversion (speakers) and digital-to-analog conversion (CD players, DACs).   Thoeretically only Class A amps can have significant improvement.  Unfortunately I has no experience with them so far.


Abe</font>

 

[mustang_steve]

<font color='#000000'>Reason i like Yamaha is the performance I get &nbsp;for what little money I have. &nbsp;Things like magneplanar speakers, mono-block amps, and pre-amps that cost more than a carbon fiber bicycle are jsut a wee bit out of my price range. &nbsp;

In that, i found yamaha to fit my preferences. &nbsp;Good features, good sound (slightly bright, but not as bright as the majority of japanese gear), and most importantly a good price.

I have used my RX-496 for nearly a year now, and I don't regret my purchase one bit. &nbsp;I also have a CDC-585 cd changer that I find to be a very solid changer. &nbsp;I have had the cd changer nearly a year and a half, and not one single problem.


If you want to know my history in audio...started with my dad's quadrophonic system, Sansui preamps, amps, processors, and &nbsp;speakers. &nbsp;Technics Casette deck, Sansui reel-to-reel, and some rather bizarre record palyer (it could change records both ways and had a wireless remote if that helps). &nbsp;The speakers were one pair of each: front: sansui SP-2500, Sansui SP-35, Sanui SP-2400. &nbsp;rear (quad channels): Sansui SF-2. &nbsp;

This system not only got insanely loud, but it sounded good too. &nbsp;This system was part of the family home theater for a good many years.

Once I was about 18, my dad bought a Sony pro-logic setup, and gave me a few peices of the sansui gear. &nbsp;That started my trip...

I was quick to damage the amps since I had no knowledge of impedance htough....so I ended up with a crap pioneer sx-205....still used the SP-35 and SF-2 set though...the SF-2 was not very impressive outside of quad channel though...while the SP35 had gorgeous sound, but no bass....none...I ended up downgrading to a set of KLHs once i went off to college...those things were usable...not much more...

Then a few years later, and many speaker sets later, i got sick of the pioneer and went out for better. &nbsp;I wanted a stereo receiver....denon's offerings were rahter cheap-looking...I nver found a stereo Onkyo...but there was the yamaha...I tried it with about every speaker I couldget the salesman to hook up to it...and decided to bring it home...

Since then I've never looked back. &nbsp;the old pioneer is still around for use as a beater system for BBQs and such...don't want to put my good system outside.</font>