|
Unregistered guest | http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/YamahaRXV-2400Receiver-p1.h tml Please note above link regarding Subject. This detailed and thorough review is impressive by the reviewer's candid spin on analyzing all aspects of this of excellent unit. Other professional reviews are to the contrary; however, individuals have praised the 2400 in audioreview.com under the Reviews section. To those that own this receiver, hearty congratulations on your purchase. Yamaha's famous quality control reputation is also a blessing. A stellar two thumbs up from Audioholics.com |
|
Bronze Member Username: MartiniPost Number: 14 Registered: May-04 | I have this receiver and its wonderful. This is my first receiver I have ever bought and I went all out and got the best on the market. Can't beat THX either baby! I have this attached nicely to my tiny Polk RM6700 speakers that are placed on stands so they barely show in my living room |
|
Silver Member Username: JohnnyMissouri Post Number: 347 Registered: Dec-03 | I especially liked the section where the reviewer discussed the power supply of the Yamaha. I quote "However, be cautioned that this receiver will NOT deliver anywhere near its rated power with all channels driven (nor is it specified too) which is not a realistic operational condition in any real world listening environment anyway. I would venture to say based on the 640VA power supply rating and 71V caps, the RX-V2400 would easily deliver 120wpc X 2 and about: 80 wpc (ref 1kHz) X 5 all channels driven 60 wpc (ref 1kHz) X 7 all channels driven (assuming line voltage held constant, 8 ohm loads)" I am sure that this Yamaha receiver sounds wonderful, but how in the h*ll is this type of behavior excusable? I guess if the receiver works for you and you like it...so be it. I just know I wouldn't want to buy from a company that won't even be honest in its power ratings. It just amazes me that a receiver advertised as 120w x 7 can only make half of that when rated with all channels driven at the same time. And whether the reviewer wants to admit it or not...this IS a "real world listening environment". Anyone who watches movies a lot knows that there are MANY instances when all channels are going at the same time. I guess that is the way the industry goes though. Yamaha is by no means the only one to do this. |
|
Bronze Member Username: JblizPost Number: 17 Registered: Mar-04 | I agree that it is ridiculous how much all the mainstream receiver manufacturers exaggerate their power ratings. However, there is more to a receiver than the strength its amp. The Yamaha 2400 is a great receiver. Plenty of power for most setups and nearly every feature you could need (an i.link would be nice). If you have 4 ohm speakers or a really large HT room, then this receiver is not for you. Otherwise, I agree with audioholics, it's got plenty of power for real world listening. Yeah, 7 speakers will sometimes be driven at once during a movie, but the tough stuff to drive is being handled by a powered subwoofer in most HT's, and the 4 surround speakers are usually handling ambient sounds which doesn't required 120W. just my 2 cents John |
|
Silver Member Username: JohnnyMissouri Post Number: 349 Registered: Dec-03 | John, For the most part, I would tend to agree with you. I mean, for the vast majority of people out there, this receiver will work just fine. I lived with a crappy 55w x 5 (or so it said...)Onkyo for 3 years, and I didn't know the difference. I guess for me, it is just the principle of it all. As a consumer, I don't like the fact that these companies are artificially inflating their power ratings just to sell more units. Being that I am relatively educated in the world of receivers, I understand (as you say) that "not all of the receiver is its power supply". However, for the average Joe Schmo on the street, that is all they look at. In many big name audio stores (I won't name any names), the power specs is just about all they list on the "info card". It just really ticks me off that these companies can do this. If you know about things like this going into your purchase, and you decide to purchase anyway, then so be it...at least you knew. But how many people have unknowingly bought receivers thinking they were powerful when in fact, they were not? I realize that most audio companies do have inflated power specs to some degree...but some are much worse than others. All other things being equal, I know that I am going to stick with companies who do not resort to such tactics to sell their product. Ahhh....I feel better now. :-) |
|
Bronze Member Username: JblizPost Number: 18 Registered: Mar-04 | I hear you man, inflated power ratings have got way out of hand. I wonder who started it. It's one of those things that once one company starts, then other companies are almost forced into inflating their numbers to keep up. Because as you said, power ratings are practically the only thing on info cards, and consumers will buy a receiver based on a power rating. Someone needs to come up with a stardard for measuring an reporting power ratings. |
|
Bronze Member Username: MartiniPost Number: 43 Registered: May-04 | I just noticed that on the back of the RXV1400 and RXV2400, there is a RS-232C terminal that looks like a 15 pin port. Its located right next to the component jacks. I was wondering if this is what I would use in the future if I decided to get a HD-TV and an HD tuner. Please help |
|
Silver Member Username: Elitefan1Post Number: 465 Registered: Dec-03 | The 2400 is the best receiver Yamaha has produced in many years. The extreme brightness is gone, although it is still on the thin side. Paired with Paradigm's or PSB or similar speakers it's the first Yamaha I can feel ok about recommneding in a long,long time. In this case THX has helped if for no other reason that it forced Yamaha to offer variable crossovers instead of their stupid 90db fixed setting. These two models offer good sound and tons of inputs and the great feature of a rec out selector that everone should include. |
|
Bronze Member Username: MartiniPost Number: 46 Registered: May-04 | But can I use it when I get a DLP tv in the near future? I think I can |
|
Anon Unregistered guest | elitefan, it has a built in equalizer to compensate on the thin side you are mentioning. You should still tinker on its features to know it better. |
|
Silver Member Username: Elitefan1Post Number: 470 Registered: Dec-03 | Anon, When I say the 2400 is thin that's just a comparisson to other brands like H/K and Elite. No eq is going to change that. As I said the 2400 is the best Yamaha in years. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 706 Registered: Dec-03 | i have heard simular things said about the 1400 also. which is a much better reciever than they have made in the past few years. and maybe they are on the road to recovery. but i don't think they could overnight change their power ratings. if they continue to make better products and these things last. maybe they change their image enough to feel comfortable to display actual power ratings. as h/k,marrantz,pioneer elite and nad amung a few others seem to rate their products at or under what they can actually do. which in turn gives you dynamic head room for the times when all channels are driven. |
|
New member Username: Hifi247Post Number: 2 Registered: Jul-04 | Hi marty could you please explain how did you choose these Polk RM6700 speakers. Have you tried any other speaker packages for this Yamaha 2400, coz I am currently shortlisting some speakers for this receivers. Please let me know which is the best matching speakers for this receivers or any magazine or web sites has the information about the same . ThanX |
|
Silver Member Username: Elitefan1Post Number: 472 Registered: Dec-03 | hifi, Check out the Paradigm Titan and Atom to match with the 2400 for budget speakers. They are a better match than the Polk's as they are laid-back and have a fuller and smoother sound. What is your budget for speakers anyway and why buy a nice receiver like the 2400 and not spend enough on speakers to have a really nice mid-priced system. For a unit in the price class of the 2400 I think you need to spend around $2000 to have a first class mid-priced system. A good receiver with cheap speakers is not the way to go. |
|
Bronze Member Username: MartiniPost Number: 51 Registered: May-04 | hifi online, well I got the Polk speakers cause they are way better than Infinity or Bose and I only wanted tiny satellite speakers for my living room cause they simply look better than massive floor speakers. I've played lots of movies on them and I love them. Good price for them too on Crutchfield, with a decent receiver and free shipping for only $700. Spending an extra $1300 for huge speakers are only gonna give you alittle bit extra in sound and give you alot of noise violations from the cops. |
|
Silver Member Username: LandrovalPost Number: 341 Registered: Feb-04 | "I've played lots of movies on them and I love them." Didn't you have problems about hearing speech and other noises from the center? We discussed it in some other thread. "...huge speakers are only gonna give you alittle bit extra in sound and give you alot of noise violations from the cops." Are you serious? |
|
Bronze Member Username: MartiniPost Number: 54 Registered: May-04 | Yes I am serious. Are you? Give both a good listen to and their practically the same. I'm hearing the same stuff coming out from each speaker. Only difference is the loudness, pretty much. You can argue bass but I can live without my walls shaking. As for the center speaker giving me trouble, I accidentally stopped the auto-configure thing early on my Yamaha receiver. Plus, when dealing with receivers, its hard to know which surround sound you want to use with movies (THX, DTS, Dolby PLII, etc) |
|
Silver Member Username: LandrovalPost Number: 342 Registered: Feb-04 | "Give both a good listen to and their practically the same." They really really are not. Good that you're happy with those, but I must say you still have worlds of music undiscovered with those speakers. You're rigth about the many different sound systems available. Just try everything to see wich you like the most. |
|
Bronze Member Username: MarkuspToronto, ON Canada Post Number: 88 Registered: Apr-04 | Marty - I think you need to listen to some more "big" speakers before you draw that conclusion. If that were truly the case, this forum is filled with "fools" who wasted their money. |
|
New member Username: Hifi247Post Number: 3 Registered: Jul-04 | ThanX Folks . Let me listen to both Polk and Paradigm this weekend to decide . |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 735 Registered: Dec-03 | for movies the little speakers with a sub work fine. but if your going to play sacd/dvd audio multi channel. (or 2 channel for that matter) the benefits of full range speaker's will shine through quite easily. but if all you want is movie surround it's fine. i'm not saying movies don't benefit from larger speakers they most certainly do. but it's more of a nessesity with surround music. |
|
Bronze Member Username: MartiniPost Number: 61 Registered: May-04 | exactly! Thank you Kegger. And I just don't see the point in playing music on surround sound. Its movies that make these speakers so much fun. You get surround sound at the movie theater, not at a concert. See my point |
|
Silver Member Username: Elitefan1Post Number: 481 Registered: Dec-03 | Marty, I guess you have never heard a concert dvd in dolby digital or dts. If you have then you would not have made your last statement. What do you think sacd and dvd-audio are? |
|
Bronze Member Username: MartiniPost Number: 62 Registered: May-04 | such an attitude.....its clear that we both just disagree what a surround sound is good for. I like movies, you like music. Yea I do have a concert DVD but I've only listened to it once and that was enough. Things like that get old to me. Movies are timeless and are more exciting |
|
Bronze Member Username: MartiniPost Number: 63 Registered: May-04 | and I do know what sacd are and dvd-audio. Just doesn't interest me entirely and I am a huge music fan. Just don't care for surround sound with music. what music are you exactly listening to elitefan? I'm dying to know |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 753 Registered: Dec-03 | marty i think you may have taken therealelitefans point wrong. i actually did not like surround music either. but as i upgraded my equipment and finally got to hear well recorded music on full size speakers i started to appreciate it much more. now with sacd and dvd-audio the music is so clear and envolving on a well laid out system it's absolutly stunning on a good recording. but you can't get that on the satalite speakers with a sub. please don't be putoff by what you have previously heard or hard feelings about something. do yourself a big favor and hear sacd or dvd audio on a system setup for it. i think you will truly understand where some people are coming from. |
|
Bronze Member Username: MartiniPost Number: 65 Registered: May-04 | ok ok, mabye I will in the near future....but can you guys please give me some feedback as to what exactly you are listening? I think that really matters and to see if its really worth it. I'd take a good movie DVD over a good concert DVD any day. |
|
Bronze Member Username: MartiniPost Number: 67 Registered: May-04 | My deal with big speakers is they belittle your tv. Unless you have a 60+ inch tv, they look ridiculous next to a normal size television. The best thing about technology is to conseal what you have that is so great. Smaller the better but better quality. It works in so many catagories. Also a big problem with massive speakers is they look terrible and most women (if you live with one) hate to have them in the living room. Not to mention, I don't know where you live but my next door neighbors would easily be able to hear a beyond loud system, and they live far away! This is just my rant against big speakers and just my own two cents. Thats all and I know you too have your opinion. Good day! |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 754 Registered: Dec-03 | i can understand the large speaker wife thing. but my front main speaker's are jbl s-312 (modded) in beach color and have many a comment on how beautiful they are. i also do have a 56" wide screen tv. i listen to just about anything from heavy metal to classical the only thing i don't listen to is country. and the big speaker thing is not just volume. in sacd and dvd-audio they send a full range signal to all the speakers. and the satalite speakers just don't work. also most of the dvd-a's don't have videos it's just music and sacd's don't have videos. some of the disks i have purchased lately are. doobie brothers police queen steely dan nora jones dianna krall fleetwod mac bunch of classical james taylor beck pretty much any music you want is now available on sacd and dvd-audio. |
|
Silver Member Username: Elitefan1Post Number: 484 Registered: Dec-03 | As far as speaker size goes it all boils down to proportionality. In a large room small speakers just don't cut it if you are trying to fill the whole room with sound. In a small room large floorstanders are often overkill. Room acoustics also play a very important role, probably the most important. As for music dvds'the ones I've gotten into lately include: U2-"Coming Home" REM-"Perfect Square" The Cure- "Trilogy" Mostly Autumn- "At the Grand Opera House" Older favorites include: Moody Blues- "At the Royal Albert Hall" Neil Finn- "7 Worlds Collide" and Sessions at 54th" James Taylor- "At the Beacon Theatre" The great thing about concert dvd's is that if it's a artist you love you never get tired of listening to their music in such a clean format as a well produced dvd. Try the U2 show in dolby digital or dts and it will blow you away. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Bleu_allenPensacola, Florida Post Number: 11 Registered: Jun-04 | I think for average room sizes, small speakers make the music sound small. Larger speakers make the music come alive. My latest disc are: Barry Manilow Glen Campbell Bay City Rollers Melissa Manchester Air Supply Phoebe Snow Olivia Newton John These all sound tremendous on large speakers. Check out Englebert Humperdink for a real mind blowing dvd! Ps. My neighbors love me |
|
Bronze Member Username: MartiniPost Number: 68 Registered: May-04 | yuck, U2 blows. Some of your other selections aren't bad. Maybe I'll give them a try but I would just get bored at sitting there and listening to music. I can do just one thing at a time (guess reading could go hand in hand). But I prefer to listen to my CDs in the car or on my computer. Now I know we are all WAYYYYY off topic but we'll keep it going here....what size rooms is everyone talking about? Because I've seen a Bose demo at their store in a room that was about 20'x15' with the ceiling at about 12 feet and those tiny speakers were amazing. And I love the fact that you can't see them whatsoever. You don't go into a movie theater and try to see the speakers, now do you? |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 774 Registered: Dec-03 | MARTY YES THE LITTLE SPEAKERS CAN SOUND PRETTY DARN GOOD. but if you heard it on a quaility reciever with plenty of power running larger full range speakers it's a night and day difference. i have actually ran both not to mention went and demoed several high end systems and the full range speakers make such a difference on surround music that it can take someone who didn't like surround and transform them. but hey if you don't like listening to good music at home on a nice system, then no surround music played with the proper setup is not going to be for you. but some people have purchased their systems just for surround music with no intention of really using it for movies. so you get it both ways. but the new music formats of sacd and dvd-audio are starting to turn some audiofiles on to surround music. where they never would of considered it in the past. it's because of the new high rez formats and many have realized that the full range speakers all the way around change the way it sounds completly. so yah if your not interested in listening to the music at home. then your right you probably don't need the bigger speakers.but if someone did want to listen they really need to check it out. peace! |
|
Bronze Member Username: MartiniPost Number: 71 Registered: May-04 | I would just hate to have to buy all new CDs for the music I have. Plus there isn't alot of great music out there today to get. I prefer downloading mp3s anyway. As for great movies, glad I got small speakers. I think we were able to agree to disagree. |
|
Bronze Member Username: MartiniPost Number: 87 Registered: May-04 | another question about this receiver.... How do I know if it is HD ready? Like if I get an HDTV, will this receiver be good enough for it or will I have to upgrade to get high quality |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 797 Registered: Dec-03 | look at the specs on the component switching. it should be 75 or higher to not affect your hd signal. |
|
Bronze Member Username: MgkaplanCalabasas, CA USA Post Number: 68 Registered: Mar-04 | Are you referring to Bandwidth? |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 799 Registered: Dec-03 | YES 75 or higher will not affect hd. some of the newer recievers are 100 and higher but 75 is fine. |
|
Silver Member Username: LandrovalPost Number: 366 Registered: Feb-04 | And how do you justify that? ~35MHz will be enough for current HD-signals. Additional bandwidth will give no gain on image quality, it either works or not. At least I think so. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 800 Registered: Dec-03 | i've done quite a bit of research on it and have read a few reviews that even at 50 you can see a difference. so if you don't believe what i'm saying then do your own research and see what you come up with. but if you notice like i said most of your newer recievers come 75 or higher even the arcam av300 is 150. so if it did not matter then i don't understand why the newer units come that way. so to be on the safe side use 75 as a guideline. |
|
Bronze Member Username: MartiniPost Number: 90 Registered: May-04 | so I should look for how many Hz my receiver runs at? I'm sure a brand new RVX-2400 should be capable of this |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 808 Registered: Dec-03 | you need to look for the component Bandwidth! it should be listed on your spec sheet. and yes i would imagine the new yanaha is high enough. from a quick check i could find. it looks like that unit is 60mhz so it will probably be fine or very close to where you will not see a difference. |
|
ALS Unregistered guest | I just purchased the 2400 and am having some difficulty setting it up with my HD Tuner. My goal was to use the Yamaha as a switch with a single set of component cables to my TV. My cable box is a Motorola DCT6200. When connected directly to the TV all works great HD and Digital channels. When I connect through the 2400, I do not get the HD channels. I still get all other channels. I am just wondering if anyone else has had a similar experience. I am assuming it is a setting on one of the devices, but I am not sure. Thanks |