Yamaha 2010 Receiver Lineup? - Page 6

very sad, the information is essential

How much gain does your amp have? 1V pre-outs are a bit feeble, but they seem to work OK with amps such as Emotiva that have 32dB of gain. Too bad if you already have amps that need a higher voltage.

Yamaha has used 1V pre-outs for a while now, even the Z11 was 1V. In fact with the 3067 acquiring so much from the Z11 (such as the DACs, 11.2 operation, and a lot of YPAO features), perhaps there won't be any more Z series models?

Or the future Z11 replacement would be even more powerful with more features.

Could be, and I bet the engineers want to build it. But I doubt it makes much business sense these days.

Not to be contrary, but I would have thought that an obvious move for Yamaha would be to "replicate" the RX-V3900 to RX-Z7 'upgrade' starting from the RX-V3067 . . . and with an MSRP similar to that for the RX-Z7.

In addition to some component quality upgrades, the most reasonable additional feature would seem to be the inclusion of four (say) 60W power amps to drive the front and rear presence channels [for a total of 11 on board amps].

The amplifier's gain isn't the most important factor sadly. If the AVR's output stage has a voltage that is less than then input sensitivity of the amplifier's input stage, the amplifier will obviously still work, but the AVR will never be able to get the amplifier to drive the signal to its potential. Right now, my HTR-5860 can easily get the Adcoms to amplify any signal sent from it as the outputs are 2V and the Adcom's input sensitivity is 1.75V. With a 1V output vs. 1.75V input stage, the 3067 will have 43% less amplification ability than what I have now. Granted it just might even out the decibel loss I experience now with my AVR internal amps (surrounds/center) vs. Adcoms (L/R), but that means that to achieve the same volume from the amp, I have to turn the dial up significantly higher. There's a reason any halfway decent car stereo's outputs are usually 4V or 5V - that makes it VERY easy to drive an amplifier and waste less power achieving the same volume.


Oh, and the Z11's pre-outs:

Notice the rather low resistance on those outputs (500Ω vs 1200Ω on the 3067). That also factors in as well. This will still make a good amp, and hopefully a decent pre-amp for my mains. If I had a lot of money I'd get an Emotiva XP-3 for my center/rears and just get a damned good prepro for the setup (even though the Emotiva has a 5db higher gain than the Adcoms).
This isn't to say the 3067 sucks just because its pre-outs were given the "thumb the nose" treatment by Yamaha. It just means that I'm going to have to turn that volume knob up. WAY up.

I'm still looking forward to the 3067, as my old 5860 needs retirement due to lack of modern features.

I'm no expert on external amps, but amps with a higher gain tend to have a lower input sensitivity because they can max out with a smaller input voltage. It seems that most recent AVRs have quite low pre-out voltages. e.g. recent Denon's are 1.2V. This matches the input voltage of amps like Emotiva.

I had the 5760 which is similar to your 5860. It not only had 2V pre-outs, but a 4V sub output. The current 1V sub output might not be enough to trigger the auto-on circuit in some subs. But again, many other AVRs are similar.

I was thinking more that the days of a flagship like the Z11 (where cost was almost no object) are over. I never really considered the Z7 to be part of the Z series, because it was a 3900 internally and not based on superior components like the Z11.

I can imagine a 4067, and they might even call it a Z, but I think it would just be an incremental improvement over the 3067, not based on a completely different platform at more than double the price like the Z11 was compared to the 3800. With features changing every year, and the 3067 offering so much, the market for a $4-5K AVR must be extremely small.

These last few posts made me nostalgic for my Yamaha CX-1000 Pre-Amp.

A stately 1.5V @47 Ohms I might add

Actually that last part is a misread sadly. You actually have an input sensitivity of 0.15V @ 47kΩ (that's thousand).

On the flip side, that amp of yours has something I wish newer amps did: a usable headphone output. While I get sound from my Yamaha's headphone out jack, and it is nice sound at that in Pure Direct mode, it's a pitiful 150mV compared to your 4.5V (4500mV)

My Adcoms' input sensitivity is 1.75V. My 5860 has 2V outputs, so I can get very loud with not a lot of turning on the volume knob on the AVR. With a 4V sub output I actually had to put my sub at -8db, as it was that significant a variance.

Having 1V across the board will mean pretty much equal SPL for all speakers once the sub's volume is calibrated correctly, but at the cost of lost potential on my Adcoms since the require almost twice the input voltage to get a 1watt/75db signal. I can still go loud, but it'll require turning the AVR to near reference level to approach what I can get at -25db right now. Hopefully this won't induce unwanted clipping.

Whilst searching on google I stumbled across this page http://directories.csa-international...sl/certrec.xsl



Near the bottom the above models numbers are listed with other recent models.
Has anyone heard anything about the RX-A models.

I'm hearing we will be getting the A1000, 2000 & 3000 in Australia.

Cheers.

It's interesting to me that integrated amps still have a market. I would rather have an AVR as most integrated amps don't do digital. And unlike many people, I still listen to the tuner at home. It's nice to listen to local stations in the morning, and while you can get them via computer, it's easier to turn on the receiver in my bedroom.

I'm interested in the 2067 and the 3067 because they feature the new HQV Vida chip for HD/SD video. IMO, the chip would be a worthwhile feature with some HDTV shows from Comcast on my 159" screen.

Note that both the 2067 and the 3067 are listed in their product bulletins as featuring, quote: "HQV high-class chipset "VHD1900" for HD/SD Video (the VHD1900 is the new Vida chip)."

Some quotes from an article on the Vida from TWICE:

"In acquiring some of Silicon Optix's assets last year; IDT landed the rights to the HQV and Reon architecture. The firm's new HQV Vida chip takes these system's a step further to address new forms of video source material, including Internet video content."

"IDT said Vida's resolution enhancement technology will up-scale standard and sub-HD resolution images [such as some HDTV shows via Comcast on a 159" screen???] to achieve near-HD quality, while boosting detail in HD content."

How much of this is fact and how much is just BS/hype???

When the 3067 becomes available, I intend to find out. I'll purchase one from an Internet dealer with a no-restocking fee/30 day return policy and then compare the Vida to the Reon that's in my projector on my 159" HP screen.

Any mention of converting SD to HD that implies it somehow improves the resolution is flat out lies, IMO.

To consider the ridiculous case, imagine a 1x1 pixel image. There is no way to scale that to HD an get anything interesting. Missing detail is MISSING DETAIL. There is NO way to know what that detail was.

Go to your digital photo editor. Start zooming in on a photo. When you make it bigger, you may see more detail up to a point because the picture's resolution is such that viewing it on your computer screen is reducing it's resolution. But once you zoom in such that you are mapping pixels from the photo to multiple pixels on your computer, it will get blurry.

Scaling is a very well understood technology. What it does is to scale an image to a different number of pixels. It does not improve it. It's a necessary step if you want to see an image fill your screen.

Just had training on the new higher end models, the A700-A3000 are the newest models and will be the equivalent of the 767, 1067, 2067 etc... The A2000 and A3000 will feature the VHD1900 as stated earlier.

You can resize an image or you can resample an image. Both won't get you a true hd image but with good resampling algorithms, it can come close. Particularly with animated media.

My old Toshiba XA2 with the Reon chipset did an amazing job upscaling Incredibles.

With a good upsampling algorithm you can get sharp edges, but there's no way to reconstruct the original ultra fine detail which is the main benefit of a true HD image.

When 3840x2160 monitors are 'common' in five years of so, the most available hi-rez source will likely still be BD at 1920x1080. There will be an advantage to have HDMI 1.4 connections from BD player to AVR, and from AVR to monitor. That way, the BD (source) can be upscaled from 1920x1280 to 3840x2160 in any of (1) an 'upscaling capable' BD player, (2) the (optional) scaler in the AVR, or (3) the convert-to-native-resolution mechanism in the monitor. It makes sense that one of the three [that you might own] will do the job 'best' . . . 'theoretically' the one with the most mips and the best algorithm(!)

As stated, the scaler can only work with what's there in the final video master. Video that is sent as SD or less than HD resolution will be missing some of the finer details that are present, because they were mastered in a lower resolution.

A good analogy to this would be using SNES Super Mario (in his big form) and say a Wii's Super Mario. And for the sake of argument we're going to remain in the 2D realm, using a side shot view for the Wii Mario.

The SNES Super Mario is relatively small, and is made up of only a scant number of pixels, while the Wii Super Mario is rather large, and is made up of tens of thousands of pixels. Sure, you could blow up the SNES Mario to the same size as the Wii mario, but you will get one of the following as the result:

1) Using simple scaling, you get a big SNES Mario, but you can see him as made up of hundreds of blocks, and man does he ever look jagged around the edges...and the arms...and eyes...and nose...and...well, you get the picture.

2) Using interpolation (a form of anti-aliasing), you can smooth out the edges because the interpolator adds in pixels between the jagged areas to create smoother images. The problem is that you still only have the detail of the original model to go off of, and it's a fairly blurry end result. Big, but it looks like it's been through Filter Hell.

As for "enhancing HD material", um...yeah. Anybody that believes it can enhance 1080p, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. As stated above, 1:1 pixel ratio video already has everything there is to have in it. The only thing that the TV's processor can do beyond frame interpolation (Samsung's AutoMotionPlus 120/240 Hz picture "smoothing" modes) is add noise to the image. And we ALL know how much we just love noise, right?

So you can get a small, but clear image, or a larger but somewhat blurry image from a scaler. But you aren't going to get extra detail that isn't there in the first place.

This will hold true if the bandwidth is there for it. A "4k x 2k" image (3840x2160) image is possible on today's connections (assuming for the sake of argument that the LCD panel has enough pixels for it), but at only one fourth the max framerate of current 1080p video. Why? You're quadrupling the amount of bandwidth needed to provide that high a resolution, if you stay at 60 fps.

Simple Math version:

1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels.

2,073,600 x 60 = 124,416,000 pixels. This is the 60 FPS pixel rate, not counting the picture depth (remember, this is the Simple Math version).

3840x2160 = 8,294,400 pixels. Four times the # of pixels in 1920x1080.

3840x2160 x 60 = 497,664,000 pixels. Again, not counting the picture depth. Also, it's once again four times the 60 FPS rate of the 1920x1080 signal.

3840x2160 x 15 (fps) = 124,416,000 pixels.

You'll be able to achieve the 24FPS needed to on a 10.2 Gbps cable/output, which is the current maximum, but you will do so without Deep Color or anything higher than the base 8-bits per channel of data. And you can forget 60 FPS video at 4K x 2K until Dual Link HDMI comes out, because a single link channel ain't gonna cut it for that.

Were you told when the new models would be listed on the Yamaha site? I called and talked to a rep, and he had no idea when that would happen.

From the HDMI 1.4 'spec page'...

The "bad news" is that HDMI 1.4 will NOT support [distribution of] 7680x4320@60p video, which we are possibly/probably going to see as IPTV, DBSTV, or 4thGenOpticalDisk around 2020+ . . . so we are 'committed' to some successor standard after HDMI 1.4 eventually...

FYI: This is why I held out until now for an [HDMI 1.4] AVR replacement . . . 'cos regardless of the futurist predictions for 'high' ownership rates of 100" monitors with HDTV4 [7680x4320@60p] resolution in the mid 2020s, I 'vow' to stick with [an upper limit of] HDTV2 [3840x2160@60p]. So the two Yamaha RX-V667 AVRs with HDMI 1.4 I purchased recently should do me 'unto death'...

You'll want to note the frames per second limit I noted in my post. The current HDMI 1.4/1.4a compliant electronics can provide the resolution, but not the bandwidth for 60, or even realistically 30 FPS, just basic 24 FPS tops (which is what theaters actually use for their projector outputs). Some theaters do in fact use 3840x2160 resolution projectors, but those are uber expensive, and are bandwidth limited externally (but not internally).

So yeah, HDMI 1.4 can support the resolution, but at one quarter the frame rate of what the current max is, and will be stuck with that until bandwidth is increased into the dual link range.

Hi all,

Might not be the right place for these questions.....

I've given up on the 2010 Yamaha's at the <$1K level. At Ultimate Electronics sound room, using floor-standing $1100/pr FOCAL's, I A-B'd 667 vs 1065, and both against 3310 Denon. I prefer the "tone" of both Yamaha's to the Denon, but find the sound characteristic lacking compared to 2004 RX-V450. I was flabbergasted.

So, I am reconciled to finding a short-term upgrade to get us thru the next 2 or 4 years. Tricky part is that I am unsure from archived data sheets precisely which models over the years fully process audio from HDMI input.

Which Yamaha(s) from the prior 3 or 4 years do you suggest? I think that I am looking for a receiver equipped at a minimum of HDMI 1.2/1.2a for 196khz PCM as Pioneer BD-51 will send out via HDMI. To get "lossless" a good Yamaha implementation of HDMI 1.3 would be needed, yes?

So the question for you all who seem VERY technically aware of the blips and surges in Yamaha's audio progress over the last few years: If you were looking to meet the audio needs specified, which Yamaha on the used market would you consider? Bearing in mind my wife's (and to a lesser extent, mine) preference for the vocal warming done by the mid decade Yamaha receivers.

Or, am I barking up the wrong AV rack?

Sincerely,
Mike K

Not sure what was lacking, but if you didn't hear the RX-V450 in the same room as the new models I don't know how you can really compare them. Power should be similar, and you should have control over the "tone" when you set it up to your liking.

For lossless audio anything HDMI 1.1 or higher will accept PCM decoded in the player. But don't worry about 192kHz as there's virtually no material that uses it, and even if there were most receivers will not process it (they typically accept it and downsample if you want processing, or keep it at 192kHz and don't allow processing). Almost all Blu-rays use 48kHz, and a few music recordings 96kHz.

I would try a 667 from a store with a 30-day return policy, and see if you can get it to sound how you like in your own room. Or if you're ready to spend more wait a bit until the 2067/3067 appear (which could be in the next month or so). I'm not sure the 1067 will sound much different than the 667, but I think the 2067/3067 have better DACs and improved YPAO (especially the 3067, which is supposed to have the DSD1796 DACs that were used in the Z11).

kriktsemaj99,

Thanks. A couple of pages ago I described experience with 567 at home. Although in different room with different (albeit more expensive) speakers, I also heard the 667 as inferior to the old yamaha. 1065 was better to my aged ears than the 667, but not by much.

All of the tested AVRs at Ultimate were in direct 2-ch (minimal processing) modes. I liked the vocal tone of the Yamahas more than I did the "better" model Denon, but the Denon did much better at instrument definition. More power maybe?

I've little doubt that the 667 is an excellent value. But it, and perhaps the next highest up the chain, doesn't seem to characterize the sound in the way the 5 to 6yr old Yamaha of decent level did. So, I'm looking for the best HDMI 1.3 Yamaha from the last few years that I can afford, that has full decoding ability.

I don't care about video, only that AVR doesn't screw it up. Which of the Y's do you think meet the basic requirements?

Mike K

Sorry, I didn't see your previous posts (or I did but forgot already, it was several days ago ).

I haven't listened to the recent models, I would just expect you to be able to dial them in to sound like your old one. And if Google is right the RX-V450 seems to be a low end model so I wouldn't expect the 667 to sound worse, but that's all theoretical.

If you liked the 3900 then older models that should sound similar are the 1700/1800/1900/2700/3800, if you can find any of them used. Much of the internals are the same (according to the service manuals). After the 1900/3900 (and Z7) there were more changes. I know that my RX-V1800 sounded better than my previous HTR-5760, and I plan on keeping it for a while yet.

At least Yamaha includes pre-outs starting with the 667 so you can try an external amp if you want to.

kriktsemaj99,

Thanks again.

I admit the 450 wasn't great shakes, but it seems the amplifier characteristics were not over-economized by Yamaha. From what I read, the 650 to 659's are legendary for audio performance, largely for quality of power. I guess I'm looking for the best of the next generation (x 2?) where HDMI is being properly implemented.

I understand you to say to begin looking at @1700 - 1900 for full audio HDMI capability and quality analog out. Would I find those characteristics down in the 663 or 863's? Something else?

As much as I like the feature set and basic spec's of the 667, buying a 667 and then a quality amplifier to "help", would most assuredly earn me some harsh from the boss.

So, I need to focus my search criteria on Audiogon or CL. Your help is appreciated.

Mike K

No date given when the public website will be updated, but the dealer site just got the information posted yesterday. The 700 and 800 are supposed to start shipping to market end of August - early September but we all know how projection dates work out.

I don't really know if you'll find the 1700-1900 sounding significantly different than the 667. Just that I like my 1800 and those older models represented the last of a line that was followed by the x65 series that seems to be generally perceived as a step backwards. With the x67 I thought Yamaha was reversing the trend, but I haven't heard those models and haven't even seen a service manual so I don't know what components they use.