AVS Forum banner

Yamaha R-S201 Stereo Receiver

27K views 30 replies 15 participants last post by  audiolan 
#1 ·
I was surprised to see Yamaha releasing a receiver with what seem to be less than stellar specs. I'm just wondering if anyone has tried out the R-S201 and, if so, what your impressions are.
 
#5 ·

Quote:
Probably a misprint. Hard to imagine a receiver that won't flat below 40hz.
That's a power spec, not a FR spec. By rating it only down to 40 Hz, they can claim increased power or lower THD.
 
#6 ·

Quote:
100 watts x 2 into 8 ohms (40-20,000 Hz) at 0.2% THD, for example.
But that's not the real spec. The spec sheet is here .


Power into 8 ohms is specced at 1 kHz with 10% THD! IOW, this is a 100-watt receiver only if you measure it the way you would measure a minisystem. Interestingly, the 4 ohm spec (140 watts), while also rated at 1 kHz, reports only 0.7% THD.


Now, this might be a perfectly respectable receiver driving a pair of Polk bookshelves in a bedroom. But that spec sheet does not inspire confidence.
 
#8 ·
They just want to market this as a 100-watt receiver. (Or maybe a 200-watt receiver, which is a common-enough marketing gag.)


Now it might be that this is a perfectly respectable 50 watt receiver. But we won't know unless somebody does some independent measurements.
 
#10 ·

I glommed the specs out of the Yamaha user manual, and they are different again...but not so bad.

It looks like the 40Hz lower bound in the power spec is an indication this amp won't like low-impedence loads

at higher outputs. On the other hand, the overall spec at a constant 50W RMS (high output but no dynamics) is 20-20K, 0,2%THD.

If the slew rate of this amp section is fast enough it might make a decent budget audiophile unit.

Later you can use the REC OUT to make it the tuner in a better system. And the truth is the person who can

detect 0.3% distortion in an amp that's not being driven to clipping is maybe 1 in 300 - and none of them are over 35.

The power consumption spec tells me loud and clear that:

(1) this is a processor-controlled "switcher" amp, a la Bang & Olufson IcePower (icepower.com), and

(2) us old farts would call this a 70-80 watt unit.

I wish someone would throw one on a test bench...

 

AUDIO SECTION
• Minimum RMS output power
(8Ω, 40 Hz to 20 kHz, 0.2% THD)
[North America, General, Australia and Europe models]
........................................................................... 100 W + 100 W
[Asia model] ......................................................... 85 W + 85 W
• Input sensitivity/Input impedance (1 kHz, 100 W/8Ω)
CD, etc. ................................................................. 500 mV/47 kΩ
• Output level/Output impedance
CD, etc. (Input 1 kHz, 500 mV)
REC .................................................................. 500 mV/2.2 kΩ
CD, etc. (Input 1 kHz, 500 mV, 8Ω)
PHONES ............................................................ 470 mV/470Ω
• Frequency response
CD, etc. (20 Hz to 20 kHz) ........................................... 0 ± 0.5 dB
CD, etc. (10 Hz to 100 kHz) ......................................... 0 ± 3.0 dB
• Total harmonic distortion
CD, etc. to SPEAKERS
(20 Hz to 20 kHz, 50 W, 8Ω) .................................... 0.2% or less
• Signal to noise ratio (IHF-A network)
CD, etc. (500 mV input shorted) ......................... 100 dB or more
• Residual noise (IHF-A network) ........................................... 70 μV
• Tone control characteristics
BASS
Boost/Cut (50 Hz) .......................................................... ± 10 dB
TREBLE
Boost/Cut (20 kHz) ........................................................ ± 10 dB
FM SECTION
• Tuning range
[North America model] ................................... 87.5 to 107.9 MHz
[Asia and General models]
................................... 87.5 to 107.9 MHz/87.50 to 108.00 MHz
[Australia and Europe models] ................... 87.50 to 108.00 MHz
• 50 dB quieting sensitivity (IHF, 1 kHz, 100% MOD.)
Mono ................................................................. 3.0μV (20.8 dBf)
• Signal to noise ratio (IHF)
Mono/Stereo ............................................................. 72 dB/70 dB
• Harmonic distortion (1 kHz)
Mono/Stereo ................................................................ 0.3%/0.5%
• Antenna Input .........................................................75Ω, unbalanced
AM SECTION
• Tuning range
[North America model] ...................................... 530 to 1710 kHz
[Asia and General models] ...... 530 to 1710 kHz/531 to 1611 kHz
[Australia and Europe models] ........................... 531 to 1611 kHz
GENERAL
• Power supply
[North America model] ...................................... AC 120 V, 60 Hz
[General model] ...................... AC 110-120/220-240 V, 50/60 Hz
[Australia model] ............................................... AC 240 V, 50 Hz
[Europe model] ................................................... AC 230 V, 50 Hz
[Asia model] .......................................... AC 220-240 V, 50/60 Hz
• Power consumption
[North America, General, Australia and Europe models]
.......................................................................................... 175 W
[Asia model] ....................................................................... 140 W
• Standby power consumption
[North America, Australia, Europe and Asia models]
................................................................................ 0.5 W or less
• Dimensions (W×H×D) ................................ 435×141×322 mm(17'1/8"×5'1/2"×12'5/8")
• Weight .................................................................... 6.7 kg (14.8 lbs)

* Specifications are subject to change without notice
 
#11 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by magyar666  /t/1501133/yamaha-r-s201-stereo-receiver#post_23995315

 

AUDIO SECTION
• Minimum RMS output power
(8Ω, 40 Hz to 20 kHz, 0.2% THD)
[North America, General, Australia and Europe models]
........................................................................... 100 W + 100 W
 
...
 
• Power consumption
[North America, General, Australia and Europe models]
.......................................................................................... 175 W
 

Power in: 175W

Power out: 200W minimum (100W + 100W)

 

It's a perpetual motion machine!
 
#12 ·

Oh, you noticed that too, did ya?  B&O has similar specs (short for specious?) gobbledygook on their IcePower "1000watt Amps that fit in your shirt pocket..." Like I said, its a 70-80 watt per side unit...but look in the catalogs -- 80 watts per can get real pricey, quick...where the hell is Bob Carver when you need him...
 
#13 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by LDBetaGuy  /t/1501133/yamaha-r-s201-stereo-receiver#post_23985109

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav  /t/1501133/yamaha-r-s201-stereo-receiver#post_23984258


It's a $150 entry-level stereo-only receiver. I guess they figure there's still a market for those.

What specs are "less than stellar?"

100 watts x 2 into 8 ohms (40-20,000 Hz) at 0.2% THD, for example.

Pretty common in econo AVRs. It should be used with a subwoofer. Next! ;-)
 
#14 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilcar Barca  /t/1501133/yamaha-r-s201-stereo-receiver#post_23996757

Quote:
Originally Posted by magyar666  /t/1501133/yamaha-r-s201-stereo-receiver#post_23995315


 

AUDIO SECTION

• Minimum RMS output power

(8Ω, 40 Hz to 20 kHz, 0.2% THD)

[North America, General, Australia and Europe models]

........................................................................... 100 W + 100 W

 

...

 

• Power consumption

[North America, General, Australia and Europe models]

.......................................................................................... 175 W

Power in: 175W

Power out: 200W minimum (100W + 100W)


It's a perpetual motion machine!

UL Power consumption by amplifiers is not tested under full output conditions. They establish normal operating conditions as 1/8 unclipped power.

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/impedance-selector-switch-1/what-is-ul-csa-actually-testing


"

How Does UL Measure Power?

The UL engineer I spoke with told me that the subject of heating under normal operating conditions continues to be discussed as the testing methods have essentially remained unchanged since the time of one and two channel, Class A and AB amplifiers with linear power supplies. UL, CSA and International A/V Standards have established 1/8 unclipped output power, all channels driven into rated load as representative of normal operating conditions. In the old days they used to simply feed a 1 kHz sine wave tone into one of the amplifiers channels when connected to a fixed impedance test load and Oscilloscope across the speaker terminals and ramp the gain up until clipping was visually observed. "
 
#15 ·
UL power consumption.


That's something. What next? CE power consumption?


Be reasonable people. Do not talk nonsense.
 
#16 ·
Would this receiver power a pair of 4ohm speakers with a powered sub w/ variable speaker level low / high pass filter. The speakers have two 6 1/2" woofers each.
 
#17 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus  /t/1501133/yamaha-r-s201-stereo-receiver#post_23986205


But that's not the real spec. The spec sheet is here .


Power into 8 ohms is specced at 1 kHz with 10% THD! IOW, this is a 100-watt receiver only if you measure it the way you would measure a minisystem. Interestingly, the 4 ohm spec (140 watts), while also rated at 1 kHz, reports only 0.7% THD.


Now, this might be a perfectly respectable receiver driving a pair of Polk bookshelves in a bedroom. But that spec sheet does not inspire confidence.

What's wrong with Polk bookshelves?
 
#18 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk  /t/1501133/yamaha-r-s201-stereo-receiver#post_23997323


Pretty common in econo AVRs. It should be used with a subwoofer. Next! ;-)

This isn't an AVR. It's a two-channel stereo receiver.


I know, I know...you're gonna say they're basically the same thing because "stereo receivers" are so..."cheap"...


I, for one, am thrilled that companies like Yamaha and Onkyo are still making these units -- I have an Onkyo 8555 two-channel receiver that serves as the heart of my hi fi setup and truth be told, the thing feels, acts and looks like a decent integrated amp. I find it interesting that Onkyo and Yamaha seem to be competing with each other in this "somewhat affordable return to serious hi fi" battle, as all their products seem to cross-compete with one another...i.e. Onkyo makes a range of stereo receivers (well, not really a "range" but they offer a few) and so does Yamaha...Onkyo offers that gorgeous power amp with the VU meters in their reference hi fi lineup, now Yamaha has an integrated stereo amp that features the meters...Onkyo offers that massive nine-channel home theater amp and now Yamaha offers one in its ADVANTAGE line...


Picked correctly and mated with the right loudspeakers, I believe a two-channel receiver can be every bit as formidable in a serious music setup as a respected integrated (or MAYBE a preamp/amp separates setup) -- I'm not talking about a stereo receiver you'd get at Radio Shack for 99 bucks or one of the bottom line Sherwoods they sell, but a good, solidly built one from Harman Kardon, Onkyo, Yamaha (forget Sony), Outlaw, NAD, etc...


I happen to like Onkyo and Yamaha's all-brushed hairline aluminum faceplates on their stereo receivers and the way some of the knobs attempt to scream "throwback" to an earlier day of stereo gear enthusiasm...
 
#19 ·
Picking on a $150 stereo receiver that has good build quality and nice design, and enough power for most people using 2 channel? And a remote? Not to mention AM/FM. And probably, from Yamaha, a sound that a wide range of people will enjoy? Not to mention, one that people can buy at a local store.


Comments about slew rate on an amp like this ... right. The comments about it not achieving 100W RMS are only a little less ridiculous.


It's gear like this that even keeps most people buying speakers and listening music.
 
#20 ·
So what are you saying Buzzy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: smilinjohn
#21 ·
Has there been any further analysis of this receiver?

This looks like one that would be good for me.

Right now I use a Technics from the early 90s, and it satisfies me.

My current speakers (Pioneer bought at the same time) I think are 65W each and I don't ever turn them even close to all the way up, so I don't see why a higher wattage system would be of benefit. I'll probably get newer speakers, I already had to fix one (replace a capacitor, 220uF if i remember) and they are old.

I don't want surround sound, don't need Internet Radio, don't need digital in as long as the devices I connect to it have analog out - just want built in AM/FM, remote control, and ability to connect up to four or five analog stereo components.

This looks perfect for someone like me, but does anyone here have experience with it?
 
#22 ·
Has there been any further analysis of this receiver?

This looks like one that would be good for me.

Right now I use a Technics from the early 90s, and it satisfies me.

My current speakers (Pioneer bought at the same time) I think are 65W each and I don't ever turn them even close to all the way up, so I don't see why a higher wattage system would be of benefit. I'll probably get newer speakers, I already had to fix one (replace a capacitor, 220uF if i remember) and they are old.

I don't want surround sound, don't need Internet Radio, don't need digital in as long as the devices I connect to it have analog out - just want built in AM/FM, remote control, and ability to connect up to four or five analog stereo components.

This looks perfect for someone like me, but does anyone here have experience with it?

Hi Alice,


Welcome to AVS; glad to see your first post is one on a stereo receiver product!


I don't have any personal experience with this Yamaha, as I run an Onkyo stereo receiver in my dedicated two-channel rig, but I've used Yamaha stereo receivers in the past, even mated with graphic EQs (remember those?) and they sounded plenty fine...even their phono sections...


What else are you considering in this price range?
 
#23 ·
Yamaha is not the only company to market Stereo amps or Receivers in this class. You can find similar from Sony, Teac, and Sherwood.

But, you have to wonder why the 100w/ch Yamaha RS201 cost $129 and the Yamaha RS300 with only 50w/ch cost $280?

How can more be less? Well, it can't. I suspect internally the RS201 is made with the cheapest components possible. And a close look at the specs shows a big difference -

Yamaha R-S201 ($129) -
100 watts x 2 into 8 ohms (40-20,000 Hz) at 0.2% THD

Yamaha R-S300 ($280) -
50 watts x 2 (stereo) into 8 ohms (20-20,000 Hz) at 0.04% THD


Further, let's look at the Yamaha A-S301 for $350 --
60 watts x 2 channels into 8 ohms (20-20,000 Hz) at 0.019% THD

Also notice the substantial increase in the price between the Integrated Amp and the Receiver. Once again, how can more cost less? Though to be fair, the A-S301 has built-in DACs. Further, the more expensive Amps and Receivers have a PHONO input, the R-S201 does not.

If something seems to good to be true, it probably is.

That said, the R-S201 is an amp (and similar), it does work, and if you are on a starvation budget and really want a Stereo Amp, this is probably an acceptable starter system.

Though I would rather see you spend more and get it right first time, than spend considerably more and do it twice.

Steve/bluewizard
 
#25 ·
Yamaha is not the only company to market Stereo amps or Receivers in this class. You can find similar from Sony, Teac, and Sherwood.

There is a massive difference between the good-for-crap Sony and Sherwood two-channel receivers and the others we're mentioning here -- especially when you lump those brands in with the likes of TEAC, which makes a pretty upscale networking stereo receiver (and which was even reviewed in an audiophile publication; I have the issue but can't think of the magazine off the top of my head)...


Sony in particular (in all fairness, Sherwood makes some decent stuff once you get out of their entry-level pool; you know, the stuff that's sold at RadioShack) I wouldn't touch with a 100-foot cattle prod in this sector (two-channel receivers) and I don't care for their surround AVRs either.
 
#24 · (Edited)
Indeed, there is definitely something to be said about the fact that these specs don't always tell the real story -- that is, just because an amp/receiver boasts more wattage doesn't mean it should cost much more...it's all in the build quality, parts, etc. My situation is a perfect case in point: I'm runnin' an Onkyo 8555 stereo receiver rated at 100 watts per channel, while Onkyo's own reference hi-fi power amp -- with the cool retro VU meters -- puts out like 80 or 85 watts per channel according to the company...now, there's no way the build quality of my receiver is up to the standards of that monster amp, yet the amp is rated with significantly less power output. In reality, it would probably crush my receiver into dust when both are pushed hard -- numbers don't tell the whole story...


Another point I was trying to make is that Onkyo's reference two-channel power amp is ridiculously more expensive than my TX-8555 I'm using as a comparison -- yet my unit is said to put out significantly more wattage...


That being said, I don't necessarily agree that all these stereo receivers -- unless we're talking an $89 Best Buy/Insignia off-the-shelf special -- and entry-level integrated amps are merely for "starter systems" and novices who don't know much about high fidelity; I have found that these components are more than fine for most of our listening needs, even when analyzing serious two-channel material in the form of CDs or LPs, and that their price tags shouldn't necessarily reflect that they're JUST for "extreme NON-audiophile types"...


I say, LONG LIVE AFFORDABLE, DOWN-TO-EARTH stereo gear!
 
#26 ·
You realize I was talking about a class of equipment, not specific brands. Those just happened to be some brands that I was aware of that made way too powerful Receivers for way too little money.

When the Yamaha R-S201 cost $129 and has 100w/ch, and the next Integrated Amp up in the line is the Yamaha A-S301 which sells for $350 and has 60w/ch. Something doesn't add up.

Still, for people on starvation budget, these are OK amps, but just OK.

I really don't think anyone who is moderately serious about music is going to settle for an amp like this. Far more likely they are going to be willing it sacrifice some power in exchange for a bit more quality and a bit more money.

Steve/bluewizard
 
#27 ·
You realize I was talking about a class of equipment, not specific brands. Those just happened to be some brands that I was aware of that made way too powerful Receivers for way too little money.

When the Yamaha R-S201 cost $129 and has 100w/ch, and the next Integrated Amp up in the line is the Yamaha A-S301 which sells for $350 and has 60w/ch. Something doesn't add up.

Still, for people on starvation budget, these are OK amps, but just OK.

I was agreeing, in a way, with your assertion by pointing out how, in the case of Onkyo, a receiver like mine can put out 100 watts per channel while their reference-grade power amp puts out like 80 or 85 watts per channel (not really much of a discernable difference there, honestly) and it costs a ridiculous amount more than my unit did...so I agree with what you're saying about "things not adding up..."


I was merely pointing out that so-called "entry level" or "novice-esque" amps and receivers are sometimes nothing of the sort once you sit down and experience them -- I don't think a lot of this gear is given enough credit. Let's just call it the "affordable class"...


I don't know; I'm just one of those guys who flip through Motor Trend or Automobile and look for pictures or reviews on the latest Camry, Accord, Eclipse or Camaro...because I can RELATE to that level budget; I don't immediately go to the features on the Maseratis or Ferraris as I can't really relate to them. Likewise with audio gear -- I'm always amazed and interested when I see these "affordable" more readily-available pieces of gear comprising a system than I am looking at those gold-plated towers of contraption with speaker cable the width of a tire loosely snaked across some hardwood floor in some ridiculously exotic setup that costs hundreds of thousands just in interconnects alone...


I really don't think anyone who is moderately serious about music is going to settle for an amp like this. Far more likely they are going to be willing it sacrifice some power in exchange for a bit more quality and a bit more money.

Steve/bluewizard

If we're talking, as I pointed out, REAL cheap, super-novice stuff like the Sherwoods that RadioShack stocks or perhaps some Best Buy Insignia special that's sitting on display and weighing two pounds, sure -- I would stay away from those like Miley Cyrus jumped naked in my bed. But time after time you'll read reviews of affordable gear like these Yamahas or Onkyo's newer TX-8020 and 8050 receivers, and all about how their owners are more than satisfied.


Just my two cents...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom White
#29 ·
Would it work for a Zone 2 Zone out??

I'm new to the audiophile and have been doing extensive research on building sound in my house but cant find a solution to power the backyard zone 2 speakers.

I have the yamaha rx-v675
5.1 satelite boston ac. speaker setup w/2 added rears (=7.1)
And for Zone 2 outside, 2 polk rc80i & 2 def. techs. aw6500

I had my denon avr hooked up, and it worked great, but needed it for a second theater. And I would prefer a more suitable unit. All i could come up with is the Yamaha r-s201, s500bl, or the russound x75 in that price range. But Im still not sure if i understand what would b the proper or adequate setup
Is there n e one that uses this type of setup?
 
#30 ·
Hi,

Okay first of all the the A/V world I do not equate higher price with higher quality.

Obviously a $600 receiver can potentially have better components and build quality than a $100 receiver, but I don't believe that you can make the assertion.

What really gets me in the A/V world is so-called "High Definition" audio and also the high dollar digital audio cables.

I have never met a person who can actually A/B best the difference between high definition audio and the same audio down-sampled to CD quality. I have meant plenty of people who claim they can but never anyone with the A/B tests to demonstrate they can.

Secondly in the case of digital cables, I have seen a LOT of reviews claiming the higher cost cables sound better, but with digital audio, what matters is that the same 1s and 0s that enter the cable also exit the cable - that is something that is easy to test for but the reviews don't do that test. The differences in sound often claimed are not the kind of differences you would get from packet loss.

It seems that in the audio world, confirmation bias plays a big factor. Something costing more, we humans have been conditioned to believe that higher cost means better quality, and confirmation bias confirms that in our mind whether or not it is actually true.

So a higher cost receiver with less watts per channel doesn't mean it will produce better sound. It might in some cases, but I refuse to make that assumption because in the A/V world there are just too many cases where clearly a higher priced product has no benefit to the actual audio we can hear yet people believe it does.

-=-

That being said - I personally am not a golden ear. In fact I am actually slightly on the hard of hearing side. Often when there are subtle differences that are genuine, they do not make a difference to me. That's just my reality.

The receiver that I want to replace is a Technics SA-GX130 that I bought new over 20 years ago. That is mostly what I am looking for, something of similar audio quality that is going to last at least a decade (two would be nice).

The Technics - it is starting to bleed left channel to right speaker and vice versa. It's had a good run.

I'm single, my home is small - it is not uncommon for modern houses (like the kind in Agrestic in Weeds) to have master bedrooms bigger than my living room, I really do not need a system capable of loud audio. The 65W speakers I currently have are more than loud enough.

I also am within the Aspie camp and one of the quirks that I have, I do not like surround sound, it is too much input input from too many directions, hence why I am looking at stereo receivers.

Maybe the Yamaha S-300 is better, but just because the price tag is higher doesn't make it so.

It looks like it has something they are calling "pure direct" and an iPod dock. That may be the cost difference.

iPod doc is useless to me, and the "pure direct" - whether it really improves sound or is just hype they can charge more for is an interesting question.

Maybe the build quality is better, would be nice to see comparisons of the circuit boards.
 
#31 ·
I completely agree with your thoughts.
I am currently awaiting the delivery of a yamaha amp and cd player system.

As much as i know as a newbie, yamaha amps are mid-fi components with above the average build quality (with regards to the price point of course). This is pure conjecture on my part but the power supplies in all but the highest priced ones are EI type transformers , the others being toroidal may contribute to better sound.

My choice was made mostly on price, availability and after sales service but having looked around I did wonder which amp had the best internals for around 500 dollars and personally I felt it was the nad 326bee with a toroidal transformer and discreet parts instead of ICs.
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/au...d-c545bee-and-c326bee-amplifier-603248/review

Any thoughts on the 'budget' amp with the best internals?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top