Review and Measurements of Yamaha RX-A1080 AVR

[openvista]

This is all a matter of good engineering and the dollars to deliver it. I would expect that the odds of delivering any full featured, multi channel AVR that measures well for under $3000 are slim to none.

You mean like this: Review and Measurements of Marantz AV8805 AV Processor? I'm not very hopeful.

Some of the "luxury" nameplates (Anthem, Classe) have been purchased in recent years and are now run by private equity and the like. They leverage the brand identity but strip it of all its meaning.

Fun anecdote. This past summer Gene DeSalla was evaluating Yamaha's top of the line pre pro (CX-A5200) and amp (MX-A5200) for review. Before publication he informed Yamaha he found what he considered to be a significant issue involving a large disparity in THD+N between the L and R channel balanced outputs (see EDIT below for clarification). They said they'd work on it. Then he found another problem this time on the companion amp. I have no idea whether Yamaha eventually addressed any of his concerns. It appears Gene spiked the (bad) review and instead posted about it in the AH forum (post #119 in an existing thread!). No link on their reviews landing page to that info, I can assure you!

This is why I appreciate what Amir does so much!! He puts everything out there for the world to see, warts, beauty marks and all.

EDIT: The THD+N issue with the CX-A5200 was actually with the L/R XLR outs (noisier) vs the RCAs (quieter). About a 15-20 dB spread.

 

[GrimSurfer]

This is not uncommon in Asian mass-market brands. Started with the power spec war between them when Pioneer started some really wild claims (before and after FCC regs) for multi-channel units such as multiplying that 1 channel rating by 5 or 7 to claim that it is a 700w amp or whatever. Some brands started to use 10% distortion numbers to make a higher number stick in a consumer’s head, especially if that was the only way to get it above 100W minimum marketing number.

The other common thing is to measure it for 6 ohms into 1% distortion to get that number up.

They all believe the highest number in that group sticks with the average consumer when making brand comparisons.

Yeah, I've seen the 6 ohm ratings enter the spec sheet... usually in amps that are not 4 ohm capable.

Multiplying 1 channel is a common error. A quick way to dispel that myth is to look at the power consumption. 7 x 200W is simply not possible in an AB amp on a 115V/15A circuit, assuming a rather liberal efficiency rating of 70%.

I can see how this might stick in some ppl' heads. Seeing this sort of thing has the opposite effect for me: the loss of credibility and strong avoidance impulses.

 

[Darwin]

As a Yamaha guy I read this with bated breath but I guess I wasn’t surprised to be disappointed.

 

[GrimSurfer]

You mean like this: Review and Measurements of Marantz AV8805 AV Processor? I'm not very hopeful.

Some of the "luxury" nameplates (Anthem, Classe) have been purchased in recent years and are now run by private equity and the like. They leverage the brand identity but strip it of all its meaning.

Fun anecdote. This past summer Gene DeSalla was evaluating Yamaha's top of the line pre pro (CX-A5200) and amp (MX-A5200) for review. Before publication he informed Yamaha he found what he considered to be a significant issue involving a large disparity in SNR between the L and R channel balanced outputs. They said they'd work on it. Then he found another problem this time on the companion amp. I have no idea whether Yamaha eventually addressed any of his concerns. It appears Gene spiked the (bad) review and instead posted about it in the AH forum (post #119 in an existing thread!). No link on their reviews landing page to that info, I can assure you!

This is why I appreciate what Amir does so much!! He gives us the straight dope.

I don't expect excellence in a full function AVR in the $1-2k price range but I do when the price tag reaches $3k and beyond. Whether or not that expectation is met is a function of many things other than excessively constrained resources.

The AV8805 was disappointing but not surprising. Just as it would be disappointing but not surprising if @amirm discovered that a $40k CH amp didn't live up to its pretences.

I would be truly surprised to read that @amirm found a $1-2k 7.x AVR testing in the 120 dB range with ruler-flat linearity and able to drive all of its channels to full power at 4 ohms. That sort of performance requires expert engineering and exceedingly good construction and QC... all of which cost more than a MSRP of $1-2k logically supports.

As for hoping, I've learned to suppress this impulse when it comes to audio. (There's an old New England saying that goes something like this: If wishes were fishes, we'd be having cod tonight.)

 

[starfly]

It's definitely looking like to get real high fidelity in the multi channel space, we'll need a separate pre-pro that measures excellently paired with a separate power amp that again measures excellently.

I know that Emotiva and Monolith are releasing some Dirac capable pre-pros soon in the $3k-$4k range. Really curious to see how those perform when tested by @amirm

Monolith has good and affordable power amps built by ATI. Now we just need a good pre pro.

Either way, an all-in-one AVR will not provide the highest level of performance (but you also don't have to pay for it, so there's that).

 

[Wombat]

Because AVR amps are intended to complement viewing of video, maybe they can offer lower but acceptable audio performance for this task as the brain is distracted some from acute hearing by the additional stimulation from the dynamic visuals?

 

[audimus]

This is pretty much the performance (even the published ones) of a “stereo” receiver or integrated amp in the 2000s decade except for more power and more channels. So, there has been no real innovation/improvement since then. They have just stopped publishing the numbers of the different sections like they used to.

Here is an example of specs from a mid 2000 AVR when good companies posted detailed, honest specs and magazines measured them more or less as published. These specs were great at that time and still look great compared to the current ones (except for outdated features) if not the high bar one expects these days.

 

[amirm]

You can bet they also had picky QA teams testing and verifying all of that. I don't even know if that function exists in modern mass volume companies.

 

[Dj7675]

Here is an example of specs from a mid 2000 AVR when good companies posted detailed, honest specs and magazines measured them more or less as published. These specs were great at that time and still look great compared to the current ones (except for outdated features) if not the high bar one expects these days.
View attachment 34089

If one was only interested in 5.1 or 7.1 for HT it seems in might be easier to get better performance from a good quality 4K Player or Bluray player. Run the HDMI to the display and the audio to the analog inputs on the AVR. I'm not really much into "the good old days", but it is sure looking like a difficult task to find something that measures well. It would be really interesting to get one of these AVR's or pre/pro's to Amir to measure. I would imagine many could be quite affordable in the used market.

 

[daftcombo]

Are there more examples of Toslink worse than HDMI or USB in DACs?

 

[restorer-john]

The only specs were:

--- 110 W per channel (8 ohms, 20 Hz-20 kHz, 0.06% THD, 2-ch driven)
--- 120 W per channel (8 ohms, 1 kHz, 0.9% THD, 2-ch driven)
--- 165 W per channel (8 ohms, 1 kHz, 10% THD, 1-ch driven)

Yamaha designers from the 70s must be turning in their graves with disgusting 'specs' like that. I shake my head. Again.

 

[amirm]

Are there more examples of Toslink worse than HDMI or USB in DACs?

This is the first instance of such large disparity. Harmonic distortion just doesn't change with input type. Jitter, sure. Noise level, sure. But harmonic distortion.

 

[Dimifoot]

I wonder if measurements at "0db volume" is the most appropriate approach to these AVRs, since the manufacturer might use the volume level display as an arbitrary setting for marketing (or whatever) purposes.

Looking at various specifications in AVRs printed manuals, it looks like for this family of devices the industry standard for preouts is 1V.

The Arcam 390

Yamaha 2080

and this one, Yamaha 1080

Pioneer 504

(Couldn't find specs for the Nad or the Anthem reviewed recently)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the issue here might not be the mediocre SINAD measurements, since they do improve at the industry standard 1V output.
Its just that this output level is low, compared to other devices (DACs etc).

Maybe for AVRs we should be looking at the SINADs at 1V, and if we are considering using these RCAs preouts for amps we should be targeting amps that can be fully driven by 1V (Crown?)

@amirm, please correct me if I am wrong at this approach.

 

[daftcombo]

This is the first instance of such large disparity. Harmonic distortion just doesn't change with input type. Jitter, sure. Noise level, sure. But harmonic distortion.

If there are other digital inputs on this device (coaxial, USB...) perhaps you could see how much distortion they give and localize more precisely where the problem lies.

 

[audio_tony]

The output impedance quoted in the specs above seem rather high at 560 ohm / 470 ohm, why not just use a lower impedance, and then there's less chance of interactions with high capacitance / poor quality cables?

Still, it'll keep the cable companies in business!

 

[maty]

An important parameter that I had in mind when buying the AVR Marantz SR4500 (second hand, to make my experiments and verify them)

AVR Marantz SR4500

Input Sensitivity/Impedance ............. 168 mV/ 47 Kohms
Signal to Noise Ratio (Analog Input / Source Direct)...105 dB
Frequency Response
(Analog Input / Source Direct)
.......................................... 8 Hz - 100 kHz ( ± 3 dB)
(Digital Input / 96 kHz PCM)
........................................... 8 Hz - 45 kHz ( ± 3 dB)


ODAC USB

Noise A-Weighted dBu 24/44: –102.8 dBu
Dynamic Range: > 110 dB A-Weighted -> without A-weighted must be 107-108 dB at 2 Vrms

Reason why I still continue with that old DAC. A more modern one, with better specifications but hardly audible would not imply better sound. Logic dictates that before I have to change the integrated one poweramp and after a DAC with a good / very good preamp, because the AVR has limited the SNR at 105 dB.

BTW, lowering JRiver MC volume to 99%, aka -0.5 dB, the sound is better in my second system.

 

[maty]

I was not surprised at all.

I had an old Yamaha RX-V2700. Very good preamp and with the films but music and good recordings pfff. The sound was much better with Pure Direct, music and TV. DSP to films with dolby or... very good.

[Polish] https://audio.com.pl/testy/kino-domowe/amplitunery-av/3036-yamaha-rx-a1080

 

[maty]

Polish site:

 

[peng]

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.

Whether SINAD is 76 dB or 96 dB likely makes no audible difference when you are watching an action movie. If you look at the THD+N %, it is well below what many experts considered not detectable by a lot of people. So yes, I believe your R3 can sound so good that you feel nothing's missing, even if you compare it to the Benchmark amp or any other amp near the top of Amir's chart ranked by SINAD.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Because AVR amps are intended to complement viewing of video, maybe they can offer lower but acceptable audio performance for this task as the brain is distracted some from acute hearing by the additional stimulation from the dynamic visuals?

There is certainly case to be made for this. Just as the film industry's painstaking work on getting the sound (action movies) and soundtrack (drama, musicals) presents an opposing view.

I was thinking last night (most unusual for me, especially on a Saturday night) that maybe "the market" has decided that sound reproduction has reached a point where "good enough" trumps excellence. This would explain why things other than SQ (form factor, convenience, price) appear to be higher on the list of priorities.

It would be a great shame if this were true. Consumer audio has spent the last 50 years improving SQ. We've reached a point where inaudible levels of distortion, full exploitation of formats, and room mitigation techniques fall within the broad capacity of mainstream manufacturers to deliver. Yet society appears comfortable with products of lesser performance.