|
Unregistered guest | It would be an injustice to discount the ability of the new Yamahas to drive 4 ohm speaker loads.Have taken the liberty of quoting previous posts from Don Allen and RalphB plus my personal subjective impressions (not to bore anybody). In review, I ran the Yam 1400 with my power hungry, much like Dynaudio, Snell E.5's; the 1400/Snell combo was impressive and convincing while producing a robust, punchy sound quality which I would not characterize as overly thin. Yes, as many have noted, most of the previous brightness bane has been drained off the new Yamahas. To note, the 1400 did not balk at driving the 4 ohm Snells. On a side note, the E.5's and Dynaudio models are reviewed at the Hi Fi Choice website along with NAD - all received 5*'s ratings. You will pay more for Dynaudio (and Snells) but they are terrific speakers; the Danes famously retain their resale value but I fell in love with the Snells. Broad, divergent opinions on this board fill the information pipeline for newbies and all to audition a representative array of audio options; the new Yamaha's abilities should not be ruled out; there is much to like depending on individual tastes. Also, consider Yamaha's reputation asthe "Quality Control King" in audio electronics, an important factor for those demanding economic value-the receiver won't drop dead after 2 year warranty expiration-and the lack of hassles with service incidents. On a relative basis, the same cannot be said for NAD. I own both NAD and Yamaha A/V receivers. Please note the following reposts: Don Allen 3-5-04 "For what it's worth, here is some recent information on the Yamaha RX-V1400 output into 5-channels continuously driven. Hi-Fi Choice magazine, a respected U.K. magazine which conducts thorough hardware reviews, had an interesting Group Test & Lab Report in its March 2004 issue. The test included: Two-Channel Amps, Arcam Diva A80, Creek A50IR, Roksan Kandy KA-1 MKIII, and Rotel RA-1062; Six-Channel A/V Receivers, Denon AVR-2803, Pioneer VSX-AX3, Sony STR-DB790 (same as USA STR-DA1000ES), and Yamaha RX-V1400RDS . Interestingly, here is what the objective lab test analysis determined for the RX-V1400: Continuous Power Output Two-Channel, 175W/8 ohms; Continuous Power Output Five-Channels driven simultanteously, 107W/8 ohms at 0.015% distortion. In dynamic conditions, the Five-Channel readings were: 210W/8 ohms, 330W/4 ohms, and 380W/2 ohms. The test stated that loads as low as 1 ohm were detected by the Yamaha's protection circuit as a "short" and the protection circuit acted accordingly by shutting down the outputs. The only difference between the U.S.-marketed version and the European versions are the following: European versions have the RDS tuning, configuration for the difference AC mains voltage, and have a captive AC line cord. Otherwise, the preamp, amplifier, and the power supplies are the same. Thus, it appears that the RX-V1400's power supply is up to the task, and certainly better than that of Yamaha's previous models. BTW . . . Denon's AVR-2803's Five-Channel output with all 5-channels driven simultaneously dropped from its Two-Channel level of 130W/8 ohms to only 36W/8 ohms. Its Dynamic power output was very good however. I don't often buy one of the European magazines due to their cost here in the States (in this case $9.00), but I found this one interesting, so I bought it for all of the lab test data. Plus, I'm seriously considering the Rotel integrated amp for my audio system." RalphB 3-1-04 "According to the Yamaha tech info on the RX-V1400, the power supply has been significantly improved over earlier versions. The power transformer weighs in at 11.9 lb. and the electrolytic filter caps (2 each) are 10,000uf. This does improve the dynamics of the supply, and hence the "short burst" output capability. And, the tech info also specs the dynamic output power vs. speaker impedance as follows (Note: This is not RMS output, but rather dynamic power or "headroom" as NAD typically specs): 8 ohms, 145 watts; 6 ohms, 185 watts, 4 ohms, 240 watts; and 2 ohms, 320 watts. The unit does not have the typical +3dB to +6dB headroom as seen in earlier NAD amps rated at 8 ohms however. Nevertheless, it appears from the above mentioned data the unit will work into 4 ohms without too much of a problem. Good installation practices regarding clearance for proper cooling should be adhered to, of course. Certainly, the RX-V1400 is no NAD when it comes to dynamic headroom at 8 ohms, but it is no slouch either. And, this comes from a long-time NAD fan, who happens to own both - NAD and Yamaha." JW 3-1-04 "The Snell E.5's are a heavy 4 Ohms; Hi Fi Choice reported their mean (not angry but statistical sense)load tested at 8.7 Ohms! Much like Dynaudio, they demand alot of juice to come alive. Point here is the Snell's were mated with a H/K 525; their promo billing is "enough power to handle all your needs"for this model and it could not drive the Snell's to anything approaching dynamic. It also heated up immediately, not inside the stereo cabinet but on top of it. Rechecked the manual and it also only refers to 8 ohms. Strange, but at 44 lbs. their has to be more than a couple of squirrels inside the unit and it was still not adequate in my experience. The Yammie 1400 sonics were impressive with the 4 Ohm Snells; a vast improvement over my 3 year old Yamaha, maybe there is something to their new "TopART" high current design, maybe BS but it did not overheat; the balance became strained at high volume as the treble brightened up. The NAD 752 maintained full composure and balance; it effortlessly drove the Snells to high volume.Only driving 5 channels, the 4 ohm fronts and 6 ohm rears did the fan kick in at high volume and it was virtually undetectable. Another example of NADs' driving 4 ohm loads (and probably capable of 2 Ohm as advertised)." |
|
Bronze Member Username: E1kad2Post Number: 34 Registered: Dec-03 | Good point... |
|
VCody Unregistered guest | One thing that confuses me--the power consumption for the 1400 is 500 watts--how do they achieve 107wx5 continuous according to the review, as well as spec out at 110wx7? |
|
Silver Member Username: Elitefan1Post Number: 350 Registered: Dec-03 | VCody, Simple answer is it doesn't.The 1400 and 2400 are much improved over past models but their multchannel power is still below other brands. The 2400 is capable of only 43.5 watts @8 ohms with .1% distortion with 5 channels driven. This is from the test report in Home Theater mag. In the real world this receiver probably has enough power for most any medium or smaller sized room. Yamaha has made some nice improvement with this receiver but they still overinflate it's multichannel output. They do the same even on the RX-V9 when they claim 170 x 7 when it clips at 138 with all channels driven. That's a very minor quibble IMO but I wish all manufacturers where as honest as NAD, Rotel, H/K and even Elite. If you are considering the 1400 or 2400 and have the right speakers and a medium sized room I would not let this power issue bother you. When I heard the 2400 and the Paradigm 7's together I was glad to hear the past brightness of the Yamaha gone although it is still a bit thinsounding. With the Paradigms it's a good combination. |
|
VCody Unregistered guest | Thanks Elitefan1. In this case my speakers are inefficient (NHT, 86 db efficiency) and the room medium to large(16x23x8) thus the concern. |
|
Unregistered guest | tref- VCody specifically adresses the 1400 specs as reported in Hi Fi Choice -"Continuous Power Output Five-Channels driven simultanteously, 107W/8 ohms at 0.015% distortion." My thread topic also specified the 1400. Your counter info source was Home Theater spec out on the 2400 disengaged from the 1400 central topic plus addtional info on the rx-v9, a minor quibble, I agree, it is also irrelevant to the topic (so is the 5 channel drop). I have not auditioned the rx-v9 so I won't drop an overall opinion on what others have reported is a terrific unit(for what it costs it should be). If you are disputing the credibility of the Hi Fi Choice report one also might claim the same versus Home Theatre. The point here is the 1400 with some credible info as stated in the thread faced with your trite repsonse , "simple answer is it doesn't". VCody, My only suggestion as an enthusiast, not an expert, is do only what makes sense: audition the yamaha 1400 (or any other Yamaha) in your listening room, your room acoustics and speakers - not at the dealer. Draw your conclusions based on that vs. other receivers. Again, my experience was that the Yamahas have alot to offer sonically and drove 4 ohm Snells. Others may disagree with the sound architecture of a Yamaha but it still did an admirable job with the speaker load. |
|
Anonymous | If you have good speakers like nht+ etc. I think it only makes sense to use the best sounding receiver.The yamaha's sound pretty good but i think from a hifi perspective at least the best receivers are nad,denon,marantz-denon $250,marantz $300,NAD $400-$550. |
|
Anonymous | New pioneers are also supposed to sound pretty good-if you prefer your sound a little more lively pioneer might be better than denon or marantz--nad is still probably the best but I don't like the complaints I hear about nad quality control, or the higher price---from what I read it seems denon,pioneer,and marantz MAY have better quality control,but if you buy your nad from a dealer where you can easily return it the issue is moot(I order by mail so I am concerned)---it's impossible to actually judge reliability since no official numbers are given by manufacturers but since i order by mail i am more likely to order a brand that seems as reliable and is cheaper like denon,marantz etc. |
|
Silver Member Username: GeekboyNewport, RI United States Post Number: 247 Registered: Dec-03 | JW: is there a link to that HiFi Choice article somewhere? I too wonder how different magazines come up with different numbers. If they used the "F.C.C." test standards, then I can see where that number came from. |
|
Unregistered guest | gb, No, none that I'm aware of; it all started with Don Allen's post quote directly from the magazine only. Obviously, some pretty sharp people have also broached the subject on the "Yamaha continuous power" thread. Yes, a conflict in magazine reports on the numbers. Who knows if methodology in obtaining quantitive info is uniform? Or, if it exists. This writer certainly can't comment. Again, those other guys have some sound insights. I pitched in my 2 cents because it was directly related to the subject matter: hands on audition with the 1400 driving a bonafide 4 ohm Snell speaker load. Felt the info was of interest to share with others, accordingly. It still comes down, geekboy (I love saying that, aren't we all?), to the same old scenario: your ears, your room acoustics and speaks plus the budget and enough required features to avoid upgraditis/blowing more money. But, you already knew that. All, enjoy the music and don't get too involved criticizing your equipment if it all works together. If it's not working, draw from the opinions that make sense to your situation and go through the effort of dragging the components back and forth to your listening room. Typically, you'll be satisfied with your decision. |
|
Silver Member Username: GeekboyNewport, RI United States Post Number: 248 Registered: Dec-03 | JW et al: yeah, Hi Fi Choice is on-line... at http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/. They are more detailed on some reviews than others. We are in total agreement on all the other issues. I'm impressed that the Yamaha x400 Series can handle 4Ohm loads without problem. This has been a major contention with mass-market receivers as there are quite a few folks out there with Snells and Maggies (and others) which present a nominal 4Ohm load to the receiver. Until this thread, I would have only said HK (with conditions), NAD, and then power amplifiers (and integrated amplifiers like Parasound, Rotel, Krell, NAD, etc). |