Is my Yamaha RN-2000A underpowered?

[Mad Bill]

You guys gave me some great help once in the past, hope you can do so again:

I'm an American living in Taiwan, and I bought a Yamaha RN-2000A receiver. Which I like quite a bit, but I'm not using it to drive difficult speakers. My question: The power rating that I see everywhere online, including Yamaha's own site here, says 90W@8 ohms, 145W@4 ohms. But I downloaded an English manual, which says: Model for Asia: 90W@8 ohms, 110W@6 ohms; Model for other regions: 90W@8 ohms, 145W@4 ohms. It doesn't even list a 4-ohm rating for the Asian model. I feel like I've been ripped off and received a lower-power version. Based on these specs, is that the case? It sure as heck looks like it from here. The dealer won't be open until tomorrow and I'll discuss this with them, but would really like your opinions.

Thank you ever so much, Mad Bill

 

[Multicore]

I suspect the difference is that local standards require specifying power thus and that the electronics in the amp perform pretty much the same in both markets, if not identically.

 

[notsodeadlizard]

Yamaha has no conspiracy against Asian countries.
Many manufacturers stop listing specifications for different nominal load impedances because these 8 ohms or 4 ohms are a big abstraction, your speaker's impedance "walks" in a wide range, for good amplifiers this is not a problem for many years. And Yamaha makes good amps.

So, don't give yourself problems.
Forget those useless numbers, just listen to the music.
This is a wonderful device.
Just do not use it for other purposes, it is not intended for sounding of noisy parties in large rooms.

 

[Mad Bill]

Thanks very much to both of you. Maybe I'm actually looking too closely at the wording, which says model for Asia and model for other regions. That could be a problem of translation into English. On the local Taiwanese website, it gives the usual specs in Chinese, but without making any distinction about "models." It also restates the specs for Europe, using peak power figures, but again without mentioning different "models."

And I note with amusement that someone on "Audio Science Review" is telling me to forget "those useless numbers." How did you slip in?

So far I like it. It seems to be built around a good, transparent amp section, but as usual with integrateds, I think they are not trying to reach top-tier performance with the DAC. Best regards to all ...

 

[Multicore]

So far I like it.

That's good.

It seems to be built around a good, transparent amp section, but as usual with integrateds, I think they are not trying to reach top-tier performance with the DAC. Best regards to all ...

What makes you think so?

Why not use a computer with a know good DAC and measure it? Learning how to do that can be very instructive regarding all sorts of relevant engineering.

 

[Mad Bill]

That's good.


What makes you think so?

Why not use a computer with a know good DAC and measure it? Learning how to do that can be very instructive regarding all sorts of relevant engineering.

I'm not an engineer and wouldn't have a clue how to measure a DAC on my own -- which is why I come to you guys with these questions. I imagine that from the standpoint of measured performance, my Topping D90SE would be better than the ESS9026-based DAC in the receiver (?). And subjectively I hear, or think I hear, slightly more detail and resolution when using the Topping. I also know that this forum might rule my subjective impressions out of court. But from a technical standpoint anyway, I don't think the internal DAC is top-tier at this point, is it?

 

[bodhi]

But from a technical standpoint anyway, I don't think the internal DAC is top-tier at this point, is it?

No.

Does it matter? Also, no.

 

[Multicore]

I'm not an engineer and wouldn't have a clue how to measure a DAC on my own -- which is why I come to you guys with these questions. I imagine that from the standpoint of measured performance, my Topping D90SE would be better than the ESS9026-based DAC in the receiver (?). And subjectively I hear, or think I hear, slightly more detail and resolution when using the Topping. I also know that this forum might rule my subjective impressions out of court. But from a technical standpoint anyway, I don't think the internal DAC is top-tier at this point, is it?

[No disrespect intended. All in good humor. Please read on... ]

ASR is the home of the very special, indeed unique quiz game show called

Can you tell the difference? No! But the trained eye can see it under a microscope.​

In a reversal from many TV game show formats, the chit-chat phase follows the actual game part, scoring and adjudication. The game part is Amir and his amazingly powerful microscope versus the DUT (the device under test, i.e. audio electronics). The game, scoring and adjudication segment is strictly formalized (like any good quiz show) and an entertaining ritual for the well-prepared audience. Amir does the reveal, and the audience shouts "Hurrah!" or "Booo!" in chorus, which is measured using the clap-o-meter (forum poll). After that is the chit-chat phase in which the pros and cons of the DUT are hashed out to every last detail and every possible opinion, and sometimes well beyond.

This is all jolly good fun but it has led to the emergence of a couple of curious unintended consequences. One is that it has established the plainly obvious truth that if ASR is scoring and ranking DUTs by fractions of a dB SINAD and debating these microscopic measurements at length then clearly they must make a difference. Another is that these numbers make so much difference that some device manufacturers appear to be competing for the high score on this game show.

So what does it mean when @bodhi correctly said in the previous post: "Does it matter? Also, no." The numbers make a difference if you're interested in numbers, which is the name of the game here. But they don't matter when it comes to listening to music so long as we exclude the seriously bad performers. This condition in italics is critical to the question of what matters.

Amir has several times stated his threshold of DAC transparency at 100 dB SINAD, which has the advantages of being obviously arbitrary (since it is such a nice round decimal) and of being so high that you'd have to be a real devotee of the numbers game to insist on more. But to people like me who can't tell the difference between 128 kbps MP3 and FLAC, 100 dB SINAD is lots more than enough.

So my guess is: The chance that the difference you hear between the internal and external DACs is "really there" is remote. I have enough experience to be very cautious about trusting what I think I hear. Just a hint and/or some failure of blinding/randomizing can make you clearly and systematically hear something that "isn't there."

In other words, the chance that your Yamaha DAC is performing so badly that it is making any audible difference is at the forget-about-it level. Unless of course you like playing the numbers game and it makes you feel better to know you have a high-performing DAC and use the Yamaha's analog input instead, by all means do that and enjoy!

Does this go some way to elaborating @notsodeadlizard 's comment "Forget those useless numbers, just listen to the music."?

 

[Deleted member 48726]

[No disrespect intended. All in good humor. Please read on... ]

ASR is the home of the very special, indeed unique quiz game show called

Can you tell the difference? No! But the trained eye can see it under a microscope.​

In a reversal from many TV game show formats, the chit-chat phase follows the actual game part, scoring and adjudication. The game part is Amir and his amazingly powerful microscope versus the DUT (the device under test, i.e. audio electronics). The game, scoring and adjudication segment is strictly formalized (like any good quiz show) and an entertaining ritual for the well-prepared audience. Amir does the reveal, and the audience shouts "Hurrah!" or "Booo!" in chorus, which is measured using the clap-o-meter (forum poll). After that is the chit-chat phase in which the pros and cons of the DUT are hashed out to every last detail and every possible opinion, and sometimes well beyond.

This is all jolly good fun but it has led to the emergence of a couple of curious unintended consequences. One is that it has established the plainly obvious truth that if ASR is scoring and ranking DUTs by fractions of a dB SINAD and debating these microscopic measurements at length then clearly they must make a difference. Another is that these numbers make so much difference that some device manufacturers appear to be competing for the high score on this game show.

So what does it mean when @bodhi correctly said in the previous post: "Does it matter? Also, no." The numbers make a difference if you're interested in numbers, which is the name of the game here. But they don't matter when it comes to listening to music so long as we exclude the seriously bad performers. This condition in italics is critical to the question of what matters.

Amir has several times stated his threshold of DAC transparency at 100 dB SINAD, which has the advantages of being obviously arbitrary (since it is such a nice round decimal) and of being so high that you'd have to be a real devotee of the numbers game to insist on more. But to people like me who can't tell the difference between 128 kbps MP3 and FLAC, 100 dB SINAD is lots more than enough.

So my guess is: The chance that the difference you hear between the internal and external DACs is "really there" is remote. I have enough experience to be very cautious about trusting what I think I hear. Just a hint and/or some failure of blinding/randomizing can make you clearly and systematically hear something that "isn't there."

In other words, the chance that your Yamaha DAC is performing so badly that it is making any audible difference is at the forget-about-it level. Unless of course you like playing the numbers game and it makes you feel better to know you have a high-performing DAC and use the Yamaha's analog input instead, by all means do that and enjoy!

Does this go some way to elaborating @notsodeadlizard 's comment "Forget those useless numbers, just listen to the music."?

Nicely put.

 

[TonyJZX]

this is a $3,500-$4,000 device

i seriously do not doubt the engineering in this unit... i dont doubt the power it makes

yamaha do publish weird power figures but at this price level i dont think anyone thinks this is weird

90W@8 ohms,

110W@6 ohms

145W@4 ohms

this is a typical yamaha amp, should be more than ample power for just about anything outside of the super exotic

 

[Mad Bill]

"I have enough experience to be very cautious about trusting what I think I hear."

Caution is one thing. But it doesn't make sense to disregard your own sensory input, or to believe that only objective sources can tell you what you're "really" hearing. Before everyone unloads on me, let me explain something. I understand that there are things like "expectation bias," for example. But let me tell you about an experience I had. Quite a number of years ago, I had an amp with tone controls that could be disabled. I was listening casually in the nearfield while reading a book. I thought, "that could use a little more bass," so I reached over and turned the bass up a notch, and listened closely for a second or two. Satisfied that I was now getting the right amount of bass, I returned to my book. A minute or so later, I thought "hmm, still needs more bass. Guess I didn't turn it up enough." I did the same thing, then went back to my book. When a minute later it happened again, I suddenly realized, to my chagrin, that I was listening with "tone defeat" employed. What happened was that when (I thought) I had turned up the bass, I listened specifically for bass, to the exclusion of other parts of the music, and so I thought I heard more bass. But what's most important about this story is that the effect of this overly-narrow critical listening, or of this "expectation bias," if that's what it was, was obviously both weak and short-lived. As soon as I went back to listening casually with only half an ear, my ears told me very accurately, within a minute, what was actually happening: No bass had in fact been added, so it "still needed more bass." In other words, simple listening easily overcame whatever psychological effect or expectation was involved. Contrary to what people on this forum seem to think, such psychological effects are not the most powerful things in the human mind; they are not more powerful than common sense, or reason, or the simple desire to know what's going on. Subjectivists may need to be more aware of these things, but objectivists err too far in the other direction. In a hobby where listening pleasure is the end goal, listening should not be discounted in any way. But it should be listening that takes place over time, so as to discount short-lived psychological effects.

I may or may not argue this further. Don't be surprised if I don't. I've shown that I'm aware that those psychological effects exist, so don't slam me for that. My aim is simply to point out that the psychological effects people talk about are in fact not overwhelming, but sometimes actually quite negligible. Underestimated by some, and overestimated by others.

 

[VintageFlanker]

Instead of speculation, there are some AP measurements for this unit:

SoundStageNetwork.com | SoundStage.com - Yamaha R-N2000A Streaming Stereo Receiver Measurements

www.soundstagenetwork.com

 

[Mad Bill]

this is a $3,500-$4,000 device

i seriously do not doubt the engineering in this unit... i dont doubt the power it makes

yamaha do publish weird power figures but at this price level i dont think anyone thinks this is weird

90W@8 ohms,

110W@6 ohms

145W@4 ohms

this is a typical yamaha amp, should be more than ample power for just about anything outside of the super exotic

Thanks for the reply. After I thought about it some more, I realized it was probably just as you say.

 

[Mad Bill]

Instead of speculation, there are some AP measurements for this unit:

SoundStageNetwork.com | SoundStage.com - Yamaha R-N2000A Streaming Stereo Receiver Measurements

www.soundstagenetwork.com

View attachment 302231

Yes, thanks. I recently came across these measurements myself.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

this is a $3,500-$4,000 device

i seriously do not doubt the engineering in this unit... i dont doubt the power it makes

yamaha do publish weird power figures but at this price level i dont think anyone thinks this is weird

90W@8 ohms,

110W@6 ohms

145W@4 ohms

this is a typical yamaha amp, should be more than ample power for just about anything outside of the super exotic

Actually it's a bit atypical. Starting with the A-S series they haven't had as good dynamic power or dynamic headroom as their former amplifiers always were known for.

 

[Multicore]

Contrary to what people on this forum seem to think, such psychological effects are not the most powerful things in the human mind; they are not more powerful than common sense, or reason, or the simple desire to know what's going on

I'm unsure what people on this forum really think on this topic.

Fwiw, and as I have often here avowed, we are all subjectivists and to claim otherwise can make rhetorical sense, eg polemics, but not in real practice.

I was trying to say to OP that AB comparison of the type reported is difficult to do in a way that reliably informs you about difference in the acoustic signals you listened to.