More p
“More produced today”. What do you mean? That you cannot get quality like that today?
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Yamaha C-2 Review (Vintage Preamplifier)
- Thread starter NTTY
- Start date
“The best hifi has been made in the 70s and The 80’s”. You can’t be serious …
If we take into account non-sonic factors like build quality and ergonomics I think the 1980s can't be beaten. High end Japanese. It was overkill but I like overkill
And let's face it the sonics were already better than they needed to be even if what's possible has been extended since.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #64
Note that the Yen was still under valued in the early 70s, making Japanese devices affordable outside Japan. This is why Japanese engineers could please themselves and still find a market, ie people who could afford what they were designing.
But with the rise of the Yen, during that decade, some of that over engineering had to stop, quality inevitably decreased. Only a few brands continued to deliver similarly designed devices at a much higher price.
But with the rise of the Yen, during that decade, some of that over engineering had to stop, quality inevitably decreased. Only a few brands continued to deliver similarly designed devices at a much higher price.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2019
- Messages
- 1,726
- Likes
- 2,715
The circuitry of the 40-50 years has certainly has been been thoroughly matched and surpassed during the current century. It's just that all the innovations and measurable/audible design improvements are happening at the silicon and module companies rather than the audio gear OEMs. As repeated "rolling" attempts have demonstrated, it is extremely difficult to improve upon the performance of even a decades-old op-amp IC when it comes to small signal audio applications -- and the same is true of output stages, where even the "high-end" audio vendors rely on Class D module suppliers because they lack the knowhow to improve upon what they can buy off the shelf from suppliers that have the required specialized expertise on-staff. There's a reason the designs of the previous century have never been copied and rendered in silicon -- that reason is the fact that the on-staff talent at TI, Infineon, Hypex, and Purifi is on a whole other level compared to those who were considered audio legends back in the day, e.g. Stu Hegeman, Bob Carver, or Nelson Pass.
I for one don't buy gear to admire schematics and teardown photos -- I buy stuff that delivers the performance I want, fits in the space I have available, and sells for price that allows to put together the system I want in the context of what it costs to live nowadays. Neither my early 1970s Kenwood power amp nor the Adcom that replaced it performed any better than the Class D amps -- some of them are in the active speakers and sub that comprise my front line and some of them are little "chip amps" that drive my passive ambience/surround speakers -- that I've been able to afford in my limited-income retirement.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2021
- Messages
- 184
- Likes
- 236
I’ve owned several C-2 preamps over the years and can confirm a healthy one is very clean and transparent. Their weak point is probably their mechanical switching which can loose solid contact over the years and cause problems. Cleaning helps but issues come back.
I have also owned a couple of C-2x preamps which looked near the same but were a huge upgrade by several measures. They were very rare as they were quite expensive and not real impressive to look at compared to something like a big McIntosh which were actually cheaper. Can’t help but wonder how one of those would measure?
I have also owned a couple of C-2x preamps which looked near the same but were a huge upgrade by several measures. They were very rare as they were quite expensive and not real impressive to look at compared to something like a big McIntosh which were actually cheaper. Can’t help but wonder how one of those would measure?
Last edited:
I'm happy you tested this, and about it's great resultsHello Everyone,
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Yamaha C-2 preamplifier.
View attachment 522131
Yamaha C-2 - Presentation
The Yamaha C-2 is a vintage preamplifier that was available from 1976 to 1978. It was the little brother of the crazy expensive C-1 which I encourage you to lookup on the web.
Anyways, this more modest C-2 was not cheap as it would reach $3'000 is today's money! Despite the slim look, this is a relatively heavy one, at near 7.8kg (17.2lbs)
As you can see from the front face, it offers the essential:
Yamaha published the below specifications:
- MM and MC phono inputs
- Tone controls (no defeat button)
- A subsonic filter (too often forgotten in modern preamps)
- A mute button that reduces the output gain by 20dB
- Several modes of operation (mono, stereo, inverted polarity)
View attachment 522134
From the above, we can suspect a good performer, from 50 years ago!
And, as I'd love to see every time, Yamaha also published the below measurements:
View attachment 522135
It will be my pleasure to go check if I find the same!
On the front panel, the words “Natural Sound” are printed, and I guess it is an elegant way of saying “transparent.” Based on the specifications and the limited measurements we get, this holds true. Notably, Yamaha still uses the “Natural Sound” branding on its current products.
Let's have a quick look at the back:
View attachment 522136
Yeah, we have 3 phono inputs... and two pre-out, and possibility to connect two tape deck.
User experience
Not much to say, honestly, except that it is easy to use. The balance is a ring around the volume knob, not practical if you ask me.
The finish of this Yamaha is quite good, and the thick aluminum front and top panels provide the happy owner with a luxury touch. As opposed to the Accuphase preamps I previously reviewed, the volume knob does not have that silky touch, but it is more than ok. All buttons are aluminum made, and that again says a lot about the quality.
And sorry, no pictures of the inside, I simply did not find the time. I'll correct that in the future but they are easy to find on the web.
Yamaha C-2 - Measurements (Line)
All measurements performed with an E1DA Cosmos ADCiso (grade 0), and the Cosmos Scaler (100kohms from unbalanced input). I used a SMSL PS200 as the generator of the test tones.
I previously reviewed the Accuphase C-200X, released couple of years later. I encourage you to compare the measurements since I kept them aligned for that purpose.
The channel imbalance of the Yamaha is a small 0.1dB and the phase is almost flat (+-8°).
Let's start with the standard 1kHz at max gain (roughly 15.3dB), from a 0.5Vrms input, meaning 2.9Vrms output:
View attachment 522152
This is much less gain than the Accuphase C-200X, but we get a SINAD of 104.5dB, and that is more than 17bits of resolution. The distortion is very low and so the limit is only the low level noise. I was honestly not expecting that good.
Let's try the same at unity gain, with 2.2Vrms input/output:
View attachment 522153
Wow, this time it's even better than the Accuphase. I am impressed. That typically means that the CD Audio signal is preserved, well done for a device that was born way before the CDA.
----
Note that there is a small PS leakage as we can see on the zoomed view below:
View attachment 522154
You can see a spike at 50Hz (Europe), but @-120dBr, it will remain hidden into music.
----
Let's continue with the famous Multitone, from the AudioPrecision file that Amir shared a while ago:
View attachment 522156
The Yamaha has less distortion than the Accuphase C-200X so I had to increase the scale to go down to -140dB. Besides few spikes, we see more than 20bits of distortion-free range!
----
Next, bandwidth and phase:
View attachment 522158
This is very flat, no suprises.
----
The below is a measurement of THD+N ratio vs frequency, with an extended bandwidth to capture all distortion and noise components up to 90kHz:
View attachment 522159
The trace is nearly the same as with the Accuphase C-200X, and no increase of distortion at high frequencies. Seeing that type of performance from a 50 years old device, well... no comments.
----
Let's move on to intermodulation test, with the IDM SMPTE (60Hz & 7kHz 4:1) sweep vs input level:
View attachment 522160
Again, the Yamaha beats the Accuphase C-200X, and gets very close to the C-280. Nice.
----
Other measurements (not shown):
The above are very good results.
- Input voltage clipping: above 4Vrsm (I can't go higher more with unbalanced).
- Output voltage clipping: above 10Vrms (I can't measure more).
- Dynamic Range (CCIR 2k weighted): from 101dB at unity gain to 117dB at max gain.
- IMD AES (18kHz + 20kHz 1:1) : below -119dB from unity gain and above!
----
Oh, and I will add a view of the tones influence at maximum:
View attachment 522162
There's no "Defeat" button for the tones, and the green line is when set at 0. The others are at -10/+10. This is nicely done.
----
Last, and since Yamaha showed it in their measurements, this is a view of the subsonic filter:
View attachment 522165
It's the same as documented.
----
With all the above, I state that the line stage of this preamplifier offered staggering performances in 1976. And so, that is the "Natural Sound" of Yamaha. I'm ok with that!
Yamaha C-2 - Measurement (Phono MM)
This is a thoughtfully designed line‑stage amplifier, and as usual, I’m particularly looking forward to the phono stage, where vintage equipment has always shone.
Let's start with the standard SINAD, with an input of 40mVrms and 40dB gain:
View attachment 522169
This is the signal as it comes out from the Phono preamp, meaning I did not compensated the RIAA curve. The results are very good, nearly identical to that of the Accuphase C-200X, I am again impressed.
Now, let's correct the RIAA curve, with the software, to simulate how a record would be created, with the opposite curve:
View attachment 522170
With that view, the Yamaha C-2 does even better than the amazing Accuphase C-280.
Note: I use a 40mVrms input for that test because some dynamic cartridges (eg: Shure M44-7 - 9mVrms for 5cm/sec), together with over-cut records, would be reaching a speed velocity of 30cm/sec, meaning they'd reach or go beyond 60mVrms. And to add to that, I'm using a 40dB gain amplification, as this is very common, and so with 40mVrms at the input, we get 4Vrms at the output, for the above test.
----
Next set of measurements for a phono preamp is related to the above. It is important to know at what point it will clip, depending on the frequency. We need a good headroom, and all vintage phono preamps were known to excel on that perspective.
This is measured with a sweep of THD vs input level, at different frequencies:
View attachment 522172
As opposed to the measurements of Yamaha, the first sine I used is 100Hz instead of 20Hz, this is to align with my other reviews.
One more time, the headroom we get from this phono stage is nothing else than crazy, although a little less that with the previously mentioned Accuphase. That said, 300mVrms at 1kHz before clipping, wow...
Please appreciate also the very low level of distortion on these tets. No record player needs that good.
----
Ok, bandwidth, as we need to check the respect of the RIAA curve:
View attachment 522173
A +0.1 dB bump at 50 Hz is hardly enough to make the sound warm, yet one has to wonder whether Yamaha did this deliberately. Considering the rest of the stellar performance (in 1976), I think it is plausible.
----
Oh, yes, for the fun, as @amirm likes the below measurement. It is a sweep of THD only (no noise) with an extended bandwidth up to 90kHz to capture distortion at high frequencies too:
View attachment 522176
The left channel exhibits more distortion below 1 kHz, though it’s easily hidden with a turntable as the source. At 1 kHz, the Yamaha once again narrowly outperforms the Accuphase C‑200X by a hair.
Conclusion
Very low distortion, low noise, high headroom, and a flat frequency response, this is what Yamaha refers to as “Natural Sound.”
It is always a great pleasure to test these vintage devices, especially when they perform at such a high level. The C‑2 outperformed every source available at the time, which is arguably the best definition of transparency. So much so, in fact, that even the Compact Disc pairs effortlessly with this preamp.
Yamaha has long been one of my favorite brands, and testing this unit has only strengthened that appreciation. i wish I still had my C-6 to run the same tests!
I hope you enjoyed this review and I wish you a lovely weekend.
Flo
I have this one (in storage) AND it's folow up model the C-2x which i currently use as my pre-amp.
the C-2x is supposed to be even better, but transparent is transparent, built quality of the C-2x is undeniably even better though
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2021
- Messages
- 184
- Likes
- 236
If quantity of internal components are an indication of quality then the C-2x would win. I always felt the phono stage was noticeably better than the C-2 which was quite good. It had a dual PS for both preamp and phono stage. The C-2x added a headphone jack which was handy. I'm not sure how Yamaha packed all this up in such a small package but it is impressive to look at.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #69
If someone wants to send me a C-2x for review, I’ll happily measure it 
Prana Ferox
Addicted to Fun and Learning
I have one of these. I run a Yamaha stack in the bedroom but usually a C-4 + M-4 combo; I got the C-2 for its fancier phono capabilities but the occasion doesn't come up much.
The legacy continues... (with the right cables of course 
)
It's the Yamaha C-5000. Balanced phono input. I added the arrow sticker to see the volume from across the room. Rubber phones plug to prevent oxidation there. Weighs 42 lbs!
)It's the Yamaha C-5000. Balanced phono input. I added the arrow sticker to see the volume from across the room. Rubber phones plug to prevent oxidation there. Weighs 42 lbs!
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2019
- Messages
- 1,726
- Likes
- 2,715
OP
- Thread Starter
- #74
If you have enough output voltage for the amplifier, try to lower the gain (I see the knob -6 or -12dB). This is likely to increase the dynamic range and therefore the resolution (as you will have to ramp up the volume). Maybe that is documented in the user guide.The legacy continues... (with the right cables of course
View attachment 523762
It's the Yamaha C-5000. Balanced phono input. I added the arrow sticker to see the volume from across the room. Rubber phones plug to prevent oxidation there. Weighs 42 lbs!
Thanks! It does have more than enough output voltage for the amplifier (a Yamaha M-5000, and sometimes the Neumann KH 750 powered subwoofer), I'll try that.
The manual does not mention the possible benefits of reducing the gain.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #76
We would need to measure it anyways to ensure there are any benefits.
I remember that I did a test with the C-2, using the attenuation button (-20dB) and pushing the volume to get the same output voltage as without muting. And the effective resolution was higher. If I kept those measurements, I’ll report.
Nice combo that you have, by the way
I remember that I did a test with the C-2, using the attenuation button (-20dB) and pushing the volume to get the same output voltage as without muting. And the effective resolution was higher. If I kept those measurements, I’ll report.
Nice combo that you have, by the way
I would add a cx-1
This is the way I usually use my cx-1We would need to measure it anyways to ensure there are any benefits.
I remember that I did a test with the C-2, using the attenuation button (-20dB) and pushing the volume to get the same output voltage as without muting. And the effective resolution was higher. If I kept those measurements, I’ll report.
Nice combo that you have, by the way
Indeed. Or a CX-2, almost identical as far as the basic audio circuitry is concerned.I would add a cx-1
SirPaulGerman
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2021
- Messages
- 102
- Likes
- 36
What is the difference between the C-2 and C-2A ?
Similar threads
