Yamaha 2010 Receiver Lineup? - Page 10

MichaelJ,

Thanks. I am pushing back at dealer a bit. I acknowledge to him that Y is not most powerful, but should certainly get a significant percentage of performance out of Paradigm Studio's. That performance should only get better when I buy a 2 or 3-channel Amp next year.

As long as I'll not risk damaging the speakers due to shortcomings of Yamaha, I'll stick to my guns.

Back to my earlier, does bi-amping (assuming 43wpc) actually significantly improve power available to drive speaker? By splitting between mid/tweet and woofer does the speaker total see twice (or so) of the power of single amplifier channel?

Supposedly no one can hear the difference as long as power source is not clipping (but then again, that is the whole point isn't it?), but a given AVR with a given total power supply can make a larger number of watts/channel available to a specific speaker by bi-amping? Yes or No?

Or, is it a good thing to buy stock in Parasound/Emotiva/etc.??

Thanks all.

Mike K

Your bi-amp from any Yamaha AVR is going to come from a single power supply. There are no independent transformers for the bi-amp sections, thus each section is still fed off the main PSU. The only difference is that you have an internal crossover active on each section (that part of the bi-amp is a good thing), but less overall power, especially to the bass section. And if you're running 5.1, forget about any punch from the front speakers in bi-amp mode. The power just isn't there. You want bi-amp? Get an external amp (Emotivas are just fine, and have XLR connections if you ever get a prepro with those connections).

What I would like to know is if you set bi-amp to active, if the pre-outs are also independently crossed over for the bi-amp assignable sections. If they are then definitely get an external amp and go that route. You will not be disappointed.

The question is, how do we find out if the pre-outs are independently crossed over in bi-amp mode.

Squishy Tia,

Ok. I understand that all amplifier sections are sharing the same unit power supply, even discrete amplifiers on a channel.

What I am still not personally clear on is this:
Bi-amping from an AVR, as per Yamaha assigning the Sback Channels to the fronts, and wiring to front speakers appropriately, provides TWICE the real power to the speakers for any given channel?

My limited understanding has it that full frequency is sent out of both fronts and Sbacks, at whatever is possible for the AVR as far as watts per channel. The speaker filters divvy things appropriately and the drivers become more or less happy.

I am hoping for some benefit from bi-amping here as the surround L/R's are highly undemanding Paradigm Atoms. Also, from what I've gathered, surround channels "never" get much for power as material doesn't seem to require it.

Your question about independent pre-amps when bi-amped is interesting. Could you explain to me the benefit to that?

Thank you,
Mike K

Biamping with the Yammie AVR will be most beneficial in 2-ch listening. With all channels driven, you are draining 7 ch worth of power from a limited power supply instead of 5, so the actual available power per channel is diminished. True, more of it will go to the fronts but all channels could be starved. IMHO it's not worth the trouble except for 2-ch listening, and even in the best case scenario it's no better than just getting a bigger amp.

rdgrimes,

That is pretty clear, thanks. Getting a bigger amp is for sure in my plans, when some extra scratch shows up next year.

Thank you all. I will now return your thread to its regularly scheduled programming.

Mike K

One more thing to consider when bi-amping: Not all speakers are 8 ohm nominal loads when the buss bars are separated from the binding post terminals. My RTi-A9s are 8 ohms on each block, with and without the bars connecting them because each array has its own crossover network to ensure 8 ohm nominal loads at all times, even when bi-amping. Many speakers do not have separate crossover networks designe in this manner. I would highly recommend asking Paradigm if these speakers are in fact 8 ohm loads for each array when separated. If not, you cannot bi-amp on the Yamaha due to power restrictions and a severe risk of clipping (thus damaging the speakers that are worth way more than the AVR itself).

Figure that in stereo mode, you'll get the regular amount of RMS power to the front L/R channels when bi-amping, but likely only get half that via the surround back, because they just weren't designed to transfer that much power. So knowing that, and the fact that a 2 channel power amp with independent supplies for the L/R channel (such as in the Adcom GFA-555/555 II that I have) you'll get the full benefit of max power to each array on each bi-amped speaker. And if the pre-outs are indeed independently crossed over, you then have the best possible method of bi-amping, as the crossover happens before the amplification (thus no lost energy as in my bi-amp setup that uses the speakers' own internal crossovers to do the job since my AVR cannot assign individual crossovers).

So bi-amp is worthwhile only if you go stereo only. If you go surround, get a real amp and bi-amp with that. Otherwise, your sound won't even be able to reach reference level without severe clipping, and if the Paradigms aren't 8 ohms each array when separated, you shouldn't be bi-amping at all with the Yamaha.

There's no crossover at all performed inside the receiver when you bi-amp, it's just relying on the speaker's internal crossover. The schematics show the entire front L/R pre-out signals are simply duplicated and also sent to the surround back L/R amps (I'm looking at the RX-V1800 service manual, but I'm sure all recent Yamahas are the same). With the shorting bars removed on the speakers, each amp won't have to work as hard, but I've never been tempted to try it as I wouldn't expect to notice any improvement.

There are three methods to bi-amping. Going from worst to best:

1) Two amplifiers, no crossover management: You get the power to both arrays, but a completely unfiltered signal resulting in damaging frequencies for each speaker component, especially the tweeter.

2) Two amplifiers, same gain, internal crossovers at the speaker level for each array (independent crossovers): You get power to both arrays, no risk of damaging frequencies going to the speaker components, but still lose some power due to thermal inversion (energy loss in the form of heat dissipation) at the crossover network. Sonically the signal is unchanged from what would be occuring in the next method, other than loss of power and a modest loss to the upper ceiling in terms of volume before clipping occurs.

3) Two amplifiers, crossover internally at the AVR/preamp OR in-line electronic XO converter box between the AVR/preamp. This one's the best option as you cross the signal over before amplification, that way all the amplifier deals with is the material sent to it. You get more power to the fewer frequencies sent. No energy loss due to thermal inversion.

#1 should be avoided at all costs. #2 is perfectly sound, and sonically identical to #3, only with some power loss. #3 is your best bet, and many preamps that offer bi-amp capability independently cross the frequencies over for the bi-amp assignments (though sadly they too also use the surround back L/R channels for bi-amp mode, something I never understood since a preamp has no amp to deal with).

Short Bus version: AVR bi-amp gets you "ok" results in stereo mode, but in surround mode loses enough power to each section to make the configuration not worthwhile. External amps = no matter what mode you use (stereo/5.1/7.1/9.x/11.x), power is uncompromised by PSU limitations.

OK, I lied...

I just want to note to all, MichaelJHuman, Squishy Tia, and kriktsemaj99 a big "Thank you".

I 've looked at speaker, amplifier, and specific general audio discussions that didn't come close to you guys in simply and thoroughly examining the notorious "bi-amp or buy-amp" questions for any given piece of equipment.

I have flagged and created crib-notes of this departure discussion beginning at post #250 for future reference. I'll likely inflict the link upon some unsuspecting talk-much-know-little type if needed. Not that I'll say anything authoritative , but I'll send them to that post to start reading and get back to me.

Again, very well done. And thank you.

Semper Fi
Mike K

I would not expect the high side of a biampable receiver to present the same impedance as the low side. After all, if you run a frequency vs impedance, you should see impedance go up with frequency. I would expect the high side to present a higher average impedance for this reason.

Just a guess...

I nagged the Polk Audio folks tech department (went up three tiers to get the info) and they stated that the "nominal" load for each arrah is indeed 8 ohms, non-shorted or shorted. Apparently they've designed the internal crossovers to also impedance match as well. This would be in line with just how power hungry these speakers are (even driven by themselves, my Yamaha HTR-5860 just can't make these speakers put out any appreciable bass).

Using the most simplistic (and logical) thinking, a speaker that is nominally 8 ohms when shorted (connected via the buss bars between the terminals) would when separated be in actuality 16 ohms nominal, since together they are connected in parallel as far as the arrays go. That doesn't mean that internally the individual speakers are in parallel though - they may well also be in series within each array to maintain impedance loads.

But I can't say for certain what setup my internals are in the A9s as I've not taken them apart (nor will I ever). Assuming the Polk Folk (gg puns) weren't lying, then the impedance matching is done at the crossover networks. Otherwise, just by simple physics, both the upper and lower arrays when separated would have to be 16 ohm nominal loads (16 + 16 in parallel = 8 ohms). These speakers have a fairly good sensitivity (though they're still power hungry, what with having SIX drivers to feed), so it may be that the crossovers are incurring some extra power loss when matching impedance loads.

Just goes to show that speaker design isn't exactly simple stuff. And what I know doesn't even sratch the surface of this rather huge iceberg.

hi
i noticed radio shack is selling yamaha recievers..its the htr-6230 5.1 channel 500w a/v.how does this measure up to other models?

coonsanders

So If I let go the bi-amp, my set-up will do without worries ?

By material I think you are referring to movies. If you are listening to 7-ch stereo it becomes a completely different story...


Have a look at the yamaha site. It is definitely one of the lowest models on the totem pole in terms of features...it only has pass through for video, not a feature most people want these days. OTOH, if it meets your needs, it might be a great receiver . Here it is compared to a model 2 steps up (the one I have[6250 = 565]). 6230 vs 6250

Assuming you remain within the rated impedance requirements, yes. Just keep in mind that activating the low impedance mode of the Yamaha AVRs cuts the available power by 50% to all channels, not just the front L/R. It also increases the risk of entering clipping because with less power to the speakers, you're more likely to hit your "hard ceiling" for volume much, much sooner.

You can drive the low impedance speakers, yes. But you can't really drive them, if you get what I mean. If you're not in a huge listening room, it may work just fine, but you won't be able to hit Relative 0db (Reference Level for THX listening modes).

It's a tradeoff. You're giving up power for flexibility.

One thing I will mention. Most folks will tell you it's better to run the amp in 8 ohm mode and not turn up the volume to clipping. Generally speaking this works, but the risk on that side is that the current draw could be significant enough to blow the capacitors in the main drive section, so basically with low impedance speakers and AVRs outside the flagship range, you're playing Russian Roulette if you like to listen at anything above roughly 75db. That's the reason for the need for external amps. You'd only need the amps for your main speakers - the rest should be well enough off to where you're not going to blow anything, especially considering that each discrete amplifier section only allows a certain amount of power regardless of whether or not the mains are connected (front L/R).

While you'll be losing some of the power (about 15%) to thermal inversion at the speaker's crossover, using method #2 would work best for you if you intend to bi-amp. Get two identical amplifiers use those to bi-amp the speakers. You could go one step further to actually increase the soundstage and channel separation (and eliminate ANY crosstalk between the L/R channels) by using external amp #1's L/R channels to amplify the Left speaker's lower and upper arrays respectively, and doing the same thing for amplifier #2 and the Right speaker's arrays. If your speakers are properly designed, their crossovers are separate (they'd have to be for speaker to have bi-amp capability without external modification/line level electronic XOs before the amplifier stage). The separated sections might present below nominal loads (4-6 ohms once the connections are separated at the speaker terminals), but external amps generally can handle them. The method I just described is called Vertical Bi-Amping, and you'd be amazed at just how much crosstalk you hear with regular amplifying and with horizontal bi-amping (using two amps; one amp for bass array for both speakers, amp #2 for high array on both speakers). When you lose the crosstalk, you'll definitely hear more of what you've been missing. An apt analogy is this: Rip a CD track to WAV (or AIFF if you're on a Mac - they're the exact same format, just different headers). Create two MP3s from the ripped track. Make the first MP3 using "joint stereo", and make the second MP3 using just "stereo". Joint stereo is what you hear when there's crosstalk. Stereo is what you hear with no crosstalk.

If you want fairly decent, and (relatively) cheap amps, two Emotiva XPA-2 amps will do very well. And you get the added benefit of having XLR connections on them for when/if you get a real prepro. You'd be amazed at just how much line noise you lose going from unbalanced to balanced (XLR) connections at both the preamp and amp ends. Only problem there is...well, finding a good prepro for less than the top end AVRs. That's my problem right now. Well that and I hate, loathe, and despise Audyssey's current implementation and the fact that my tweeters literally disappear with room correction activated via Audyssey.

One BIG limitation of the 6230 is it can't play audio from an HDMI connection (none at all, not even PCM). These days that's pretty important. I would stay away from the 6230.

The lack of adjustments to the target curve would stop me buying an Audyssey receiver too, even though I like some of the Denons. But there is a solution if you want to throw even more money at the problem, because you can buy an Audyssey Pro kit for the higher end models. That should let you stop it rolling off the highs, or make other adjustments to the target curve. But it's a pity that's an extra (not sure how much, but it's a few hundred dollars).

I'm also interested to know how the improved YPAO in the A2000 and 3000 stacks up.

Yeah, I may end up having to do just that in all honesty. I want a prepro (but will settle for the A3000 if it passes muster). Prepros are Audyssey Central, so in the long run it'd behoove me to get the AP kit. I just need funds for that first.

I'm not sure if this has been posted or not, but I just stumbled across this while doing some googling 1067-2067-3067 info

I thought other users might find this interesting if it has not been posted yet.

Cheers

Thanks, I hadn't seen that particular announcement. It's not 100% clear whether the A1000/2000/3000 are identical internally to the 1067/2067/3067, so I don't know if the info on the DACs etc. applies to those models, but it probably does.

those are modeled off the z11 platform. 9.2 for the 1067 & 2067 and 11.2 for the 3067 a1000 and above use the same or similar specs, it's just a birthday presentation of the older receivers..

Not quite sure what you were trying to say, but they are a new design that's not really based on the Z11. The only similarity to the Z11 is that some models support more than 7 channels (but only with an external amp, not with internal amps like the Z11).

OK Yamaha fans, I need a point in the right direction as I have been in the muddy waters of Onkyo over the past month and the long and the short of it is...I am all done with them.

Please allow me to explain my needs and I am hopeful to get some recommendations on which Yamaha suites my needs best.

This is for a secondary room that really get more work then our dedicated theater room.The set-up consists of the following.

A sherbourn external amp will be used so the receiver must have pre-outs. I have a family of paradigm studio 20's for the mains and rears with a paradigm center with a velodyne sub. It is a 5.1 system and will stay that way.

I was attracted to the Onkyo line as they are high on features but very low on QC trust me. After 3 bad out od the box units I am moving on.

I listen to allot of SACD's and DVD-A's and I have an OPPO 83 universal player.

My needs are fairly simple. Needs to handle the new lossless formats and have 4 HDMI ins 1 out. I am not at all familiar with Yamaha's room correction but I would need that as well. I really liked the THX listening options on the Onkyo they sounded ver nice. The other hall, rock, unplugged all the rest of the garbage I have never used nor will I. If it does a good job with DD and DTS master and pure mode two channel I am a happy guy. Oh and it would be nice if it worked as advertised out of the box..

Budget 1000.00 or so.

I know you can more then likely name 10 units in the Yamaha line that fit the bill. Can you give me your favorites.

Thanks!!!!

Yeah that's why I thought I would put it in here rather than the thread on the Aventage line.

This was the info I was looking for, we already knew the DAC's and other info for the 3067 and presumably the A3000, but it also good to see the 2067 and the 1067 return to higher quality 2ch DAC's, dumping the 8ch DAC used in the 2065.

The x67 and Aventage lines from Yamaha look pretty good after what was a disappointing x65 series.

Do you know if they are releasing the 1067, 2067 & 3067 in the US?

It appears as though they will be releasing both the x067 and the Aventage line in Australia, Yamaha have announced the x67 series up to the 1067 so far, and Hi-Fi retailers are taking pre-orders for the Aventage models.


The RX-A1000 would be the obvious choice, you will get that one for under $1000, if you want the improved YPAO calibration system look at the A2000, or the A3000 if you want the better pre-amp section(DAC's etc) as well.

By some accounts you can get the A2000 for $1K if you ask. The 2000 offers quite a lot more than the 1000, so if it's within the budget I would step up to that.

I can also get the RX-V2065 at unbelievable close out/ blow out pricing. I mean give it away...I know one big knock on this receiver was lack of video processing but I do not care about that at all as I always just bypass the video circuitry anyway. How is this unit sonically? I would be using it as a pre-pro with an outboard Sherbourn amp.

It's passable, but if you were to compare the 2065 to even the A1000 you'd likely get a night and day difference. You'd be better off getting an RX-V3900 at blowout prices than the 2065, and I doubt there's a soul around here that'd argue otherwise. I'm a Yamaha fan from the good ol' days when Yamaha meant less power, but better sound because things were actually built better. The x65 line, and the 2065 included, just can't hold a candle to the x67 or Ax000 line.

And unless you're not using HDMI, you're not bypassing the video circuitry if this is being used as a prepro, since DTS-HD and TrueHD require HDMI directly into the AVR.

If you're on a budget, get the A1000. It'll hand the 2065 its own DACs on a silver platter.

Hey guys could you provide some insight on the HTR-8063
http://www.yamaha.ca/av/Receivers/HTR8063.jsp
I'm wondering what is the equivalent model # in the states.
Also how does this receiver stack up against lets say a Denon AVR-991?

Thanks

The HTR-9063 looks similar to the A2000 (because it supports 9.2 with an external amp), and the 8063 looks similar to the A1000.

BUT, there's something funny going on with those HTR models. The power specs are for 1kHz 0.7% THD, rather than 20Hz-20kHz 0.06%, and the manuals are missing a lot of pages. I didn't look at the manuals closely, but I would not buy one thinking you're actually getting something equivalent to an A series.

The funny thing is that even the A series manuals shows a total power consumption of 400W for the Canadian model vs 490W for the USA version. That needs explaining too before I would buy one in Canada.

Five or six years ago, Yamaha used to have a statement on their USA website saying that the RX-V and HTR- product lines were rated to different standards to reflect the different industry "preferences" of the two different marketing chains at which they were targeted (big box stores for the HTR- models and specialty stereo stores for the RX-V models). There were also significant cosmetic difference between the two lines at that time, but typically only minor function/feature differences (most commonly the omission of 2nd Zone, and trigger capability). Nonetheless, Yamaha was clear that the different models were assembled from the same parts on the same assembly lines.

It's also clear that CEMs must declare power consumption, etc, in compliance with [differing] national standards . . . so I'm guessing they send one demo unit of each model to an approved lab for a bench power test . . . and if two lab techs run tests with minor variations on near identical models, you'll get differing results!