<font color='#000000'>I apologize up front for the rather long post [response] that follows, but there were some statements issued by others in this post that have not been challenged or at least corrected. As a visitor, I feel that some other knowledgeable member of this discussion board should correct these, but since no one has stepped up to the plate yet, I guess I will.
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Posted by: zumbo on Mar. 10 2004,5:12
rgriffin25. You have caused me to research your receiver, & I have concluded that it does not even compare to the RX-V1400. Your receiver only has 100wx7. The RX-V1400 is 110wx7. That, my friend, is 70 more watts. And you can get one all day long for around 70 dollars less than you paid for yours! I can see why you are upset! The RX-V2400 is 120wx7. That, my friend, is 140 more watts. You can find one of these for about what you paid for yours!</td></tr></table>
Zumbo, the amplifier in the RX-V1400 is not 70 watts more powerful than that in rgriffin25’s, it is 10 watts per channel more powerful which is nothing and would not even be noticeable in everyday circumstances. The same can be said for the RX-V2400, it is not 140 watts more powerful, it is 20 watts per channel more powerful. Here a slight difference may be perceived (increased dynamics on loud passages), but nothing dramatic; at least not as dramatic as you are trying to make it out to be. It would be like saying a 50W x 7 amplifier is almost as powerful as a 200W x 2 amplifier, after all there is only a difference of 50 watts. This statement would also be untrue as there would be a difference of 150 watts per channel! Now that would be dramatic and something you would notice especially during exceptionally loud musical or movie passages. The last time I checked, one channel of an amplifier can not transfer its power to another channel unless your amp can be bridged. In other words, if one of the channels in a multi-channel amplifier (or receiver) is not being used, the power from the [unused] channel does not appear in another channel, it just goes unused, so you have to compare amplifiers channel to channel, not on the accumulated total wattage of the individual channels together.
The kind of grandiose statement you declare here is something that I would expect from some uneducated salesman (with respect to the HT/Audio industry) working on commission in some audio store pushing his wares on the misinformed who would buy into the hype. This was not meant to be derogatory to you as an individual, but the fact that no one else has challenged this line of thought or this statement before this is, well, sad, as there appears to be some [reasonably] astute individuals in these forums.
If we are to expect the HT (and Audio) industry to grow in [not only] sales volume, but knowledge and if we are to expect the companies to be honest in the reporting of specifications and features for their equipment, this line of thought must be revealed and corrected for the limited scope and misguided ideology in which it was stated.
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Posted by: S.R. Johnson on Mar. 28 2004,10:00
HI my name is Sarandon and I would like to add some things in this discussion. Yamaha has involved in music and making products for over 100 years!! Yamaha has brought some things that you would never had if they had invented such as the IC chip and the Digital Soundfield Processor just to name a few. Now I know that there are some receiver brands out there that can beat the Yamaha hands down in certain areas but does not
mean that the Yamaha can beat them at their own game! You just have to understand that Yamaha is a world wide brand name that is BOTH respected and sometimes feared! But that is IMO! And if I cant the sound out of an Yamaha receiver that I want (which i seriously doubt!!!!) I would goto my other number one brand, and that is Marantz!</td></tr></table>
I am not sure where to start with this one. Yes, Yamaha has been in the music business for quite some time, but that does not mean that they are by default the best. Ask a pianist what type of piano they would prefer to play for their concert at the Met and I’m sure names like Steinway, Baldwin, Kimball or Bösendorfer come up long before the name of Yamaha.
Yamaha invented the IC?!?! I’m sure Jack Kilby working with Texas Instruments and Robert Noyce who co-founded the Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation in 1958 – 1959 would find that interesting since they are usually credited by most with coming up the concept of the integrated circuit (working independently by the way). Of course neither would have been able to do this without the engineers at Bell Laboratories who invented the transistor in the first place, or did Yamaha do that also.
As far as Digital Signal Processing is concerned, before 1950, signal processing was all done with analog circuits. In the 1950s, people began to use computers in signal processing to simulate the performance before actually implementing the circuits since DSP couldn’t be done in real time as it was too impractical. Then in 1965, James W. Cooley (IBM) and John W. Tukey (Princeton) proposed their Fast Fourier transform (FFT) algorithm, which significantly increased the efficiency of DSP. This was the first major development of DSP technology. By the mid-1980s, integrated circuit technology had advanced to the level to make fast microprocessors, which enabled DSP to be done in real-time. This was the second major development of DSP technology. While Yamaha was one of two companies to introduce a sound field processor for home consumer use (the other was I believe JVC), the two big companies to advance DSP ideology further (as far as audio is concerned) were Meridian and of course Lexicon whom many consider to be the grandfather of the industry having done more research into sound reproduction and producing products for the professional recording and sound reinforcement industry for over 30 years. The idea that they can bring (and are willing to bring) this knowledge to the home consumer is to be admired.
It is one thing to be an advocate (zealous?) for a company and wanting to hearken there accomplishments, but we need to be able to this rationally and put that companies accomplishments and achievements in history correctly and give credit where credit is truly due. Yes Yamaha have helped introduce many individuals and companies to these advanced technologies based on the power of their name and for that reason they should be given accolades, but innovators they were not, at least not to the extent you declare.
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Posted by: Yamahaluver on April 05 2004,3:48
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.</td></tr></table>
Yamahauler, you have said that the MX-1 was a class A amplifier here (and elsewhere). I am not sure if you mean class A as in status or in operation, so I downloaded the manual for the MX-1/MX-2 power amplifiers. No where in the manual does it state that it is a class A amplifier. I believe that it is what is known as a ‘sliding bias’ amplifier similar to my Parasound (used in my HT) which means it operates in class A up to X watts (usually 6 – 8) and then switches over to class A/B1 or (more than likely in this case) A/B2. I base this on several factors:
1. Power output relative to power consumption. There has been some debate as to what classifies an amplifier as being ‘pure’ class A, with some defining it simply as idling heat dissipation of more than twice the maximum amplifier output. As an example, a 100 watt amplifier would draw 200 watts from the wall at idle. I personally believe that there is more to the story that this simple explanation. It would appear that the MX-1 does not even meet this minimum requirement since the MX-1 has a claimed output of 280W into an 8 ohm load with a power consumption of 420W. As a comparative example, the Parasound HCA 1500A (class A/AB1) has a rated output of 205W into 8 ohm’s with a power consumption of 700W. This amplifier is closer to the definition of what [some] constitute as a class A amplifier than the Yamaha, yet [Parasound] does not make the claim for their amplifier. Compare these to my Bedini which delivers only 50W into an 8 ohm load yet it consumes almost 500W from the wall outlet at all times, not just during musical peaks. This little amp needs a BTU rating as well as a power rating.
2. Pure class A amplifiers normally have a limited dynamic range (usually around 1.5 dB). If you look at the output of the MX-1, it appears to almost double its output as the impedance of the load halves (see Dynamic Power in manual). This is another characteristic of class AB1/AB2 amplifiers.
3. Weight is also another factor. Class A amplifiers require a very good power supply to operate properly since the outputs are ‘on’ all the time plus plenty of heat sink area to help dissipate the excess heat generated. The MX-1 weighs in at 52 lbs and appears to have internal heat sinks, the HCA 1500A weighs 40 lbs and also has internal heat sinks. My ‘little’ Bedini comes in at almost 35 lbs and has large external heat sinks. Half of this weight comes from just the transformer in the power supply. Remember, this is just a 50W amplifier. A class A amp with the output capability of the MX-1 would be heavy, probably in excess of 100-150 lbs and have a lot of large surface area heat sinks. Check out the big power amps by Jeff Rowland, Nelson Pass, Krell, Threshold and the old Mark Levinson for a visual. Those heat sinks are not there just for looks or a marketing gimmick and a lot of these amps are running class AB1, not just class A.
4. Along with being notoriously inefficient, class A amplifiers are expensive primarily because of the cost of the parts needed to put up with being on all the time and to help dissipate the heat this inevitably generates. My little Bedini cost $1500.00 dollars when new, to get an amplifier that can produce 100-200 watts (not to mention the 280 watts of the MX-1) would probably put you back on the wrong side of $5000.00 and that would be for a cheap amp!
This was not intended to take away from the MX-1. I have not heard one personally and I’m sure it is a perfectly fine sounding amplifier with a lot to offer, but I seriously doubt that it is operating in true class A.
By the way, if you ever get to hear a pure class A amplifier (especially driven by a good tube front end) there is a certain magic to the sound that is unmistakable and one you won’t soon forget. This is one of the reasons that I built the 2-channel portion of my system the way I did after hearing a friends system. I just could not get the sound of recording after recording out of my head.
Again, nothing here was intended to take anything away from Yamaha or any of their products. They are an outstanding company and make very good gear as does Pioneer, HK, Denon and NAD just to name a few. I have owned Yamaha equipment in the past and found them to be trouble free with many options and non-offensive; as well as nondescript and un-involving (for my taste) like most mass market equipment and receivers in general.
I have not owned a receiver for longer than I care to think about (approximately 15-18 years) because, as you can probably tell from above, I prefer good analog separates (read no op-amps in the signal path) to receivers or processors used as pre-amps [pre-pros] for several reasons:
• Most (not all) receivers and processors convert their analog signals to digital and then re-convert them back to analog even in their ‘direct’ or ‘by-pass’ modes. This causes most (again, not all) to sound two dimensional and somewhat bland.
• The level of performance I demand from a phono input can not be found in any current receiver or for that matter processor at any price. Most do not even have a phono stage in them. Yes I can buy a stand alone phono pre-amp (or make my own), but why subject this to a digital bit stream elsewhere in the reproduction chain.
• I like to modify equipment and separates allow me more avenues to squeeze the last ounce of performance out of a piece of equipment.
• I like the idea of keeping the heat and noise of a large power amplifier section away from the surround processor and from the line section of my pre-amp. In my current system, even the transformers for my pre-amp are in a separate chassis to keep their [potential] radiated noise away from the tubes, especially in the phono section.
• Since most of my time spent is listening to music (70%), watching television (really TiVo – 25%) with watching movies (DVD or VHS) coming in last (5%), I do not like most of the processing modes (DPL II & IIx, Neo:6, Logic 7, etc…) that seem to be popular these days to ‘enhance’ two-channel sound. To me it is like bleaching rice so that it looks appetizing then adding back all the nutrients that you stripped out, it’s just is not as good as the original.
These criticisms are directed primarily to what these A/V receivers and processors do to music, especially a good analog source. Movies are a different issue and I find that good old fashioned Dolby Digital (AC-3) is sufficient enough for me under most circumstances, but that is just my 0.02.
In closing, I again hope that no one is offended by anything written above. This hobby of ours is about reaching your desired sonic nirvana. I hope you all enjoy the system that you own and have painstakingly assembled, after all, that’s why you bought it in the first place, to enjoy the music they make and to help envelope you in the movie going experience at home.</font>
