Review and Measurements of Yamaha RX-A1080 AVR

[3dbinCanada]

I have to make a comment on that graph... Note the NAD T758 on the graph....So many 758 users say it is the best sounding unit they have ever heard... around 25dB worse than the SR7015 and around 45dB worse than the benchmark... These would be great examples amps for a double blind test...

Anecdotal evidence Im sure. I wonder too if blind listening tests would reveal poor measurements on AVRs as well.

 

[RichB]

Just for argument sake then, if you looked at the graphs below you can do better with a Denon, but not too bad with a Marantz SR7015 either:
At 0.25 W, 4 Ohms, you still can get almost -80 dB THD+N, so listening at 77 dB probably means you the THD+N won't bother you because the harmonics/noise would be below the 0 dB inaudible territory. Obviously you have above average hearing so I would guess that's why you can benefit from the AHB2 because the Denon's 80 dB SINAD at 0.25 W will bother you during the peaks when the spl of the harmonics/noise will be above the 0 dB point, unless you room ambient noise is 20 dB or more. Even then, you still have to rely on how much get masked by the masking effect that Benchmark's article explained quite clearly.

That's where even 5 dB difference in SINAD may matter, take a look of the SR7015's, about 7 dB worse than Denon's and in you case it may be just a make or break when listening at low level even with the not so sensitive 4 ohm nominal Revel speakers.

The other obvious factor is, Amir's measurements were made using 1 kHz. The same curves for 5 and 10 kHz would push THD+N quite a bit higher and we will for sure be at the mercy of masking by the music signal, especially at higher output levels.


View attachment 96484

View attachment 96483

These are not measurements into load. I own a 3700 and it's ok but I wonder about the DSP processing implementation.
I am not sure why but the RMC-1 seems to implement Dolby surround much better. 2.0 up-mixed is amazing. On the 3700, it is meh.

The 3700 is used as a preamp hooked to an aging Sunfire Cinema amp. I'll be replacing it with an ATI AT525NC amp in the spring and re-evaluate.

- Rich

 

[Oniiz86]

These are not measurements into load. I own a 3700 and it's ok but I wonder about the DSP processing implementation.
I am not sure why but the RMC-1 seems to implement Dolby surround much better. 2.0 up-mixed is amazing. On the 3700, it is meh.

The 3700 is used as a preamp hooked to an aging Sunfire Cinema amp. I'll be replacing it with an ATI AT525NC amp in the spring and re-evaluate.

- Rich

I wouldn't judge DSU at the moment with 1.0 Mono/2.0 Dual Mono & 2ch stereo content as there's been a long standing bug, it's referred as a "Dialog Bleed" issue into the surrounds and/or height channels with 2019 D+M models since August 2019 when they implemented Dolby's Home Audio 1.6.2 SDK update which brought the Dolby Atmos height Virtualizer carried over to the 2020 lineup & most recently the D+M 2018 AVR/AVP X8500H/AV8805 & Denon 110th Anniversary A110 models, it's been confirmed that Sound United have now officially acknowledged a fix is in the works, “We are aware there is a Dolby Surround related bug. Sound United is in contact with Dolby and the two companies are working together to provide a fix for currently affected AVRs, we will provide a further update once the timeline is better outlined. We apologize for the inconvenience.”

 

[Dj7675]

These are not measurements into load. I own a 3700 and it's ok but I wonder about the DSP processing implementation.
I am not sure why but the RMC-1 seems to implement Dolby surround much better. 2.0 up-mixed is amazing. On the 3700, it is meh.

The 3700 is used as a preamp hooked to an aging Sunfire Cinema amp. I'll be replacing it with an ATI AT525NC amp in the spring and re-evaluate.

- Rich

Interesting. Anyone know if different hardware is used to decode/upmix dolby between say the x3700/x8500/Emotiva ? I would have assumed (maybe incorrectly) they may all use the same hardware.

 

[peng]

These are not measurements into load.

True, but into a real load may get more difficult in the phase angle is bad, but that in most cases that would be a heat issue and should not be an issue as we are talking about below 1 watt here. Also, testing with a continuous sine wave is a tougher case that a real world music signal, again we are talking at very low output power level.

 

[peng]

Interesting. Anyone know if different hardware is used to decode/upmix dolby between say the x3700/x8500/Emotiva ? I would have assumed (maybe incorrectly) they may all use the same hardware.

In my opinion, we are back in the subjective territory as soon as we are talking about which one "sound better" with DSP engaged. For example, some D+M users have no use for Auro3D while some can't do without it.

 

[RichB]

True, but into a real load may get more difficult in the phase angle is bad, but that in most cases that would be a heat issue and should not be an issue as we are talking about below 1 watt here. Also, testing with a continuous sine wave is a tougher case that a real world music signal, again we are talking at very low output power level.

There has been very little testing of AVR amplifiers into load.
The behavior of the protection circuitry into reactive loads has not be well measured.
AVR design goals appear to be reduced cost and weight while minimizing failures or shutdowns.

There is a particularly vocal group of AVR evangelists on Audioholics, many of which keep a firm grip on their outboard amplifiers.

As for DSP implementation, the Yamaha 820 model number was absolutely horrid sounding with any DSP functions engaged.
Anyone with decent hearing could pass a blind comparing the pure-direct and stereo modes.

- Rich

 

[RichB]

Interesting. Anyone know if different hardware is used to decode/upmix dolby between say the x3700/x8500/Emotiva ? I would have assumed (maybe incorrectly) they may all use the same hardware.

Most processors and AVRs I have heard sound different with flat processing engaged. I suspect many would prefer the sound of some since they were a bit brighter.

- Rich

 

[3dbinCanada]

There has been very little testing of AVR amplifiers into load.
The behavior of the protection circuitry into reactive loads has not be well measured.
AVR design goals appear to be reduced cost and weight while minimizing failures or shutdowns.

There is a particularly vocal group of AVR evangelists on Audioholics, many of which keep a firm grip on their outboard amplifiers.

As for DSP implementation, the Yamaha 820 model number was absolutely horrid sounding with any DSP functions engaged.
Anyone with decent hearing could pass a blind comparing the pure-direct and stereo modes.

- Rich

Please define DSP? Are you referring to the artificial sound fields like stadium, music hall etc? If so, Yamaha does a better job than most in this regard but I agree, they do sound bad. The only one I use is Sports when watching NHL hockey. Having been to many a NHL game, it does a fairly good job of filling the room with ambience.

 

[RichB]

Please define DSP? Are you referring to the artificial sound fields like stadium, music hall etc? If so, Yamaha does a better job than most in this regard but I agree, they do sound bad. The only one I use is Sports when watching NHL hockey. Having been to many a NHL game, it does a fairly good job of filling the room with ambience.

DSPs on AVR/AVPs are used for bass management, delays, PEQ, and REQ. Basically, all processing except trims.

- Rich

 

[3dbinCanada]

DSPs on AVR/AVPs are used for bass management, delays, PEQ, and REQ. Basically, all processing except trims.

- Rich

I have owned many a Yamaha.. RX-V1500, 1800, 1900, 1075, and an RX-A3060 and my experience differs substantially from yours. I still have the last 3 in play and there is no sound difference between Pure Direct and using bass management only except for more weight in the bottom end because of the sub in play. Thats it. It would appear that the A820 wasn't properly configured. The only receiver I could not setup like this and make an instantaneous comparison was with the RX-V1500 which only had memory setting.

 

[peng]

There has been very little testing of AVR amplifiers into load.
The behavior of the protection circuitry into reactive loads has not be well measured.
AVR design goals appear to be reduced cost and weight while minimizing failures or shutdowns.

There is a particularly vocal group of AVR evangelists on Audioholics, many of which keep a firm grip on their outboard amplifiers.

As for DSP implementation, the Yamaha 820 model number was absolutely horrid sounding with any DSP functions engaged.
Anyone with decent hearing could pass a blind comparing the pure-direct and stereo modes.

- Rich

Agreed, that's why I keep referring to below 1 Watt, when the reactive load part has little influence. Now if we are talking about at higher output level, for sure then AVRs may not do well with certain reactive (especially capacitive) speaker load. I would say, however, the a lot of popular speakers such as Dennis Murphy's 4 ohm speakers, KEF, Monitor Audio, and Klipsch obviously etc., the "reactive" nature of those speakers are not going to make much of an issue as long as the AVRs/Amps are adequately cooled, such as by using external fans. Like the 4 Ohm thing, this "reactive load/phase angle" thing, imo, while both are real concerns, are also not always an issue as it depends.. Case in point, I am sure you know ADTG over at AH, who had (claimed anyway) used his AVR-3311 (or 3312 may be?) to drive his B&W 802 diamond (4 ohms and quite reactive, i.e. with some large phase angles) with no issues.

 

[RichB]

I have owned many a Yamaha.. RX-V1500, 1800, 1900, 1075, and an RX-A3060 and my experience differs substantially from yours. I still have the last 3 in play and there is no sound difference between Pure Direct and using bass management only except for more weight in the bottom end because of the sub in play. Thats it. It would appear that the A820 wasn't properly configured. The only receiver I could not setup like this and make an instantaneous comparison was with the RX-V1500 which only had memory setting.

It was configured from a factory reset comparing the Oppo 205 and compared HDMI and RCA analog inputs and easily distinguished Stereo from pure.

- Rich

 

[3dbinCanada]

It was configured from a factory reset comparing the Oppo 205 and compared HDMI and RCA analog inputs and easily distinguished Stereo from pure.

- Rich

Something isnt configured properly. I did it with three of my AVRs and its indestinguishable using an Oppo (RCA), Yamaha (RCA) and Sony 4K (HDMI) player.

 

[3dbinCanada]

I wired in a pair of Image T65s into my main system the other day, ran YPAO:flat setting all speakers to small even though the T65s are capable of solid 30 Hz performance, so that any and all bass gets routed to by sub. I saved that to speaker configuration 2, my HT configuration. I left speaker configuration 1 alone as I have set the signal to through with no room correction facility at play but setting all speakers to small again so I could use the sub. Speaker config 2 and or pure direct is what I use to listen to music. The only difference in sound is that config 2 offers a better bottom end because of the sub. Other than that, they sound identical.

 

[Wol-shiver]

This is a review and detailed measurements of Yamaha RX-A1080 Home Theater Audio/Video Receiver (AVR). I purchased this solely for the purpose of testing through my company (Madrona Digital is a dealer for Yamaha among many other brands). The RX-A1080 is part of the upper tier of Yamaha AVRs consisting of RX-A1080, RX-A2080 and RX-A3080. It costs US $1,300 and is price protected so you won't find it discounted for less online.

The front panel of the RX-A1080 resembles other AVRs such as Pioneer:

View attachment 34025​

I watched a review of the Yamaha online and the person praised the feel of the volume control. Good thing I don't eat cereal or I would have thrown up all of it after hear that! The control is plastic, and stiff and in no way makes you feel good playing with it. Fortunately you won't be using it much and instead, resort to remote control so practically doesn't matter other than longing for great volume control of 1970s and 1980s audio gear.

The front panel opens up and gives a bunch of direct access buttons, again much like Pioneer. And as with Pioneer, we have a "Pure Direct" button.

The back panel is what you expect to see in an AVR:

View attachment 34026​

Hopefully the money spent on analog component video input and all of those composite inputs (in yellow) did not take away from expense elsewhere to produce great performance. I imagine they put these on the back just for show as to make it look like they do a lot. I mean who needs 7 analog inputs plus Phono? Speaking of phono, I will test that in a future installment.

Anyway, you are here to see measurements rather than read my rants so let's get into that.

AVR DAC Audio Measurements
I tried to save myself work and not test this but you all wouldn't let me. After all, the most common application is HDMI In, speakers out. But let's see how digital input and pre-amp output performs. I started with testing HDMI and took a lot of messing with menus to get the darn thing to output 2 channels and no folding of other channels into Left and Right. Disabling processing, etc. Here is that output with volume level set to 0 dB:

View attachment 34027

As noted, enabling Pure Direct made no difference with this setup. As is typical of these AVRs, nominal output falls short of 2 volts we like to see out of stand-alone DACs. To get there, I turned up the volume a couple of dBs:

View attachment 34028

Distortion increased but so did the output level so SINAD (signal over noise and distortion) did not change.

The unit though was at the verge of shutting down despite me leaving speaker terminals disconnected. If I just dialed up the volume 0.5 to 1 dB, it would shut down. So for the rest of the measurements I went with 0 dB volume level.

With a SINAD of 85 dB, you are not going to brag to your neighbors about RX-A1080 in this regard:
View attachment 34030

Forth and bottom quarter performance. Within the much smaller subset of AVRs, we get somewhat better news:

View attachment 34031

Mostly because we have much worse measuring AVR DAC subsystem measurements.

I had request to measure with S/PDIF so I choose to use Toslink to avoid any chance of ground loops and got this:

View attachment 34029

What??? Noise floor goes way down but harmonic distortion -- especially third harmonic -- shoots up resulting in much lower SINAD of 78 dB.

Let me spell this out: there is only one DAC which converts digital to analog. Whether you feed it with audio samples extracted from HDMI or Toslink, the final output should be very similar, sans noise and jitter which could be source specific. What we are seeing is radically different analog distortion profile. I don't understand how this is possible.

To rule out any changes, I immediately retested HDMI and got the same better performance as I have shown above.

Maybe there is some processing going on here but why would it be specific to Toslink and how would it add non-linearities this way and nothing else? Notice how the levels are almost identical to HDMI input.

I plan to investigate this more. If you have some ideas, let me know.

This I think is the first AVR we are measuring with ESS DAC chip. I think it uses an obscure ES9007S. The ES9007 came out back in 2007 I think and has far better performance. Here is the performance of the ES9008 from back then (can't find ES9007):

View attachment 34037

The SINAD is 114 dB which is far, far higher than our 86 dB number we got in our first dashboard view let alone what the Toslink did. The third harmonic distortion is highest at just below 120 dB.

Back to HDMI input, this is the dynamic range we have:
View attachment 34032

No better than what a 16 bit audio input could produce. Forget about any high-res audio aspirations with regards to 24-bits and such.

Jitter and noise performance was reasonable actually:
View attachment 34033

The higher noise floor than state-of-the-art stand-alone DACs hides some sins here but still, it is clean and definitely inaudible tones.

Intermodulation distortion relative to level was revealing:
View attachment 34036

We see the classic ESS IMD Hump in all of its glory in this graph, showing this problem has existed for more than a decade before we discovered it!

Despite having the RX-A1080 at 0 dB volume, it still shut down before reaching max level. That is why distortion shot up through the roof.

Linearity was decent:
View attachment 34040

Multitone at 192 kHz sampling was a head scratcher as well:

View attachment 34041

Can't figure out why the response drops between 50 and 300 Hz. Tested a single tone at a time but did not see it there. So there is some kind of inverted distortion product from the rest of the tones that is interfering. As may be the case with the risen noise floor in low frequencies. For now, don't run with this.

AVR Amplifier Measurements
Per our recent discussions, I am standardizing the AVR dashboard with HDMI input and 5 watt output:

View attachment 34042

0 dB was fed the the AVR and volume adjusted to produce 5 watt. I also did it for 1 watt as noted above the SINAD in red.

Distortion products are actually not material here: what defines the SINAD/THD+N is the rise spike at 120 Hz or double the mains frequency. This is NOT ground look or mains leakage. Nothing changes it with respect grounding. Instead, 120 Hz is from the power supply rectifier which doubles the incoming frequency (by flipping the negative wave into positive). This is usually smoothed with capacitors and good grounding. One, the other, or both are not done here causing that large spike at -78 dB or so which sets SINAD to the same value. Without it, the SINAD could have been as good as 90 dB. We have to run with what we have and this is where the RX-A1080 ranks:

View attachment 34044

So slightly below average for all amps tested (in AVRs or otherwise). Among AVRs alone, it is actually decent ranking:

View attachment 34045

For the rest of the tests, I switched to using the analog input.

Frequency with and without pure mode shows the difference:

View attachment 34046

Even when the input is being digitized, the bandwidth is pretty good, stretching to 48 kHz or so indicating ADC sampling rate is 192 kHz or thereabouts.

Re-running our dashboard with analog input we get:

View attachment 34048

We lost 5 dB of SINAD. Switching on Pure Direct gets us that back:

View attachment 34049

In other words, allowing analog inputs to be digitized to allow bass management, DSP and Room EQ, costs you 5 dB of noise and distortion. This is on top of lackluster value to begin with.

There is just no excuse here for not having a transparent ADC given how low the performance bar of the amplifier is. CD's 16 bits demands 96 dB of signal to noise ratio. If we had that in the ADC, there would be no impact on these measurements with or without ADC.

Notice all the junk in the spectrum of the FFT. We put in 1 kHz, and we get all that noise and garbage. Why or why?

Here is our signal to noise ratio:
View attachment 34052

At 5 watts, we only have 86 dB or so blended SNR. Watch out for noise with sensitive horn speakers and such. Max power improves fair bit, exceeding CD's spec a bit.

By now you may be asking why the decapitated pink panther is not adorning this AVR. This is why. Power versus distortion at noise at 4 ohm:

View attachment 34053

Seems like Yamaha does not participating in "AVR mediocracy cartel" when it comes to Amplifier performance. We pure-direct mode enabled in Blue, we see much lower noise floor than its competitors. You can see what happens when we allow ADC to get in the way though (in red) with significantly higher noise floor. But even then, it is still better than other AVRs.

Same thing repeats with 8 ohm:
View attachment 34054

Give that amp designer a carrot!

Peak power as expected is much higher:

View attachment 34055

Power versus level and frequency shows almost no frequency dependence which is unusual:

View attachment 34056

It could be that the noise/power supply spikes are so high that mask the distortions.

Conclusions
Almost any hope we had of the Yamaha RX-A1080 being a stand-out among other AVRs is dashed. We are still in the red when it comes to DAC performance. We still have strangeness in audio pipeline. We still have ADCs that are not transparent to analog inputs.

The one highlight was better noise/distortion at levels below max power. Here, there is a rather wide gap against other AVRs recently tested. Nothing remotely coming close to state-of-the-art amplifiers but at least better than the competition.

As I mentioned, as time permits, I will perform more tests on this.

------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Halloween is just around the corner and the panthers are demanding cool outfits for that. So please be generous with your donations using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Hi Amir, I hope you are well. I have a question.

I have an rxa2070 and these figures on the 1080 dissapoint me.

Yesterday I was double checking my ypao volume settings and noticed I get different results per speaker on my db meter when hot vs cold.

Do you run your tests after some sort of runtime ?

 

[beagleman]

If I've learned anything on ASR it is that there is often a wide margin between what we think we hear and what is actually going on in an audio circuit.

There is a broad range between what some people hear and other people don't. Some of this is a matter of conditioning (becoming used to a certain fidelity) or a matter of training (knowing what to listen for) or a matter of material (audio masking, dynamic range) or use (playback levels below audibility thresholds or high enough to saturate hearing).

A spectrum analyzer sees all. It is a calibrated instrument capable of precisely measuring all sorts of things, regardless of whether they are discernible to golden ears or overlooked by lesser mortals.

OR, maybe the average to mediocre measurements are simply not all that much a detriment as you are imagining?

YOU, may see mediocre measurements and make the wrong assumption, that in actual listening, it impacts the sound in a very negative way, when in reality it does not.

Your posts almost comes off as condescending to me.

You make an assumption that less than stellar measurements MUST mean mediocre sound.

 

[beagleman]

I don't get it. I'm new to this but my A2080 sounds extremely good paired to my KEF R3's in 2 channel mode (2.2) after YPAO or in Pure Direct running Tidal Hi-Fi or FLAC from the front USB port. Great sound stage, channel separation, imaging.... Excellent vocals and strings. Easily distinguishable between good and mediocre recording quality.. Gotta be at least upper mid-fi. What am I missing? Splain me please.

I have heard one of the Aventage line receivers also, And Yamaha's most entry level receiver.

Neither sound less than very good in any way.

We may be caught in the expectations that measurements are more important than they are, linked directly to sound quality, in all regards.

 

[BN1]

Yeah, I have conflicting opinions as well. I certainly understand that good designs/components are directionally correct and should measure well and result in good audio performance. But when I see comments such as "blew me away ..." or "jaw dropping ..." I typically tune out the commenter. We mostly are aware that audio performance is a matter of diminishing returns at today's level of technology and the incremental differences are either non-existent or impossible to discern to the average (or above) listener. I value the contributions of measurements but I certainly wouldn't base my purchasing decisions on measurements alone.

 

[3dbinCanada]

OR, maybe the average to mediocre measurements are simply not all that much a detriment as you are imagining?

YOU, may see mediocre measurements and make the wrong assumption, that in actual listening, it impacts the sound in a very negative way, when in reality it does not.

Your posts almost comes off as condescending to me.

You make an assumption that less than stellar measurements MUST mean mediocre sound.

I find this sight the polar opposite of audiophiles. Audiophiles are ruled by their ears, many here are ruled by spec sheets alone and as a result "claim" to hear things. Both groups shun controlled listening tests. Dr Toole mentioned that the only difference between seasoned or trained over untrained listeners during his research is that untrained listsners took a little longer to arrive to the same conclusion as a trained listener. What this thread fails to recognize is that Yamaha's has had the lowest return rates for defects of any other AVR manufacturer. I will take mediocre specs that produce no audible differences in operation with a solid QC over a product whose specs shine like the sun but their QC sucks.