Yamaha R-S202 Receiver Review

[Tomtom]

The R-S202 is a perfect fit for my application. I have questions for owners:
1. Zero Fidelity's review on YT reported mechanical 'hum' from the transformer, has anyone here had this problem?
2. How is FM tuner performance (sensitivity, noise, audio quality) in comparison with other tuners you may have tried?
3. How is the Bluetooth audio quality (with high bit rate MP3) in comparison with other Bluetooth receivers you may have tried?
Thanks in advance!

I owned this receiver for approximately a year before selling it. In that time I never encountered any noise from the transformer, or any other electrical noise / interference.

The FM tuner performance was surprisingly good in regards to sensitivity and noise. The FM audio quality was at least as good, or better, as the tuner in any modern receiver I've heard, but that's not to say it was great. Compared to a good quality component tuner (my comparisons included Yamaha's T-80 & TX-950, and NAD's 4300) it falls well short. But the only component tuner currently produced that I'm aware of (NAD's C 427) is more than double the price of the R-S202, so the price/performance ratio of the Yamaha is very good.

As for Bluetooth, I only used it occasionally and briefly, but I can say that functionally it was easy to use and no problems arose. In regards to what another poster stated, there was no BT antenna installation on my unit. I assumed the antenna is internal. BT pairing could only be done via the remote. The model I owned was the R-S202 which I believe has been changed to R-S202BL, but I believe the two model numbers are for the exact same receiver.

As for the spring connections for the speakers, yes they're horrible in every way. I forget what gauge wire they accepted, but I do distinctly remember having to search my home for the thinnest speaker wire I could find. Perhaps it was just my unit, but it appeared that no matter how much or little I depressed the spring terminal it never produced an unobstructed opening to insert the wire, so even the thinnest gauge wire was difficult to insert. Truly awful.

 

[trevor_bartram]

You have to first install the antenna for the BlueTooth but only if you can figure out where that BT connector is (hint: don't bother looking, it does not exist).
Speaking of connectors, those spring-loaded speaker terminals sure don't inspire confidence but the bright side is that you don't have to spend any more $$ for quality speaker cables/connectors... the unit is designed for simple bare-wire lamp-cords.

The antenna is probably printed onto the perimeter of the Bluetooth card. It's shielded by the receiver casework, has there been problems with Bluetooth range?
If short large-gauge tinned multistrand wire is used on both A&B outputs simultaneously then transition to your cables of choice, I don't see a problem?

 

[Bob101]

As for the spring connections for the speakers, yes they're horrible in every way. I forget what gauge wire they accepted, but I do distinctly remember having to search my home for the thinnest speaker wire I could find. Perhaps it was just my unit, but it appeared that no matter how much or little I depressed the spring terminal it never produced an unobstructed opening to insert the wire, so even the thinnest gauge wire was difficult to insert. Truly awful.

They are truly awful; even for spring loaded speaker connectors in general these are some of the worst in history. It is a challenge to insert even the tiniest of stranded wire in there. On the other hand: a friend of mine owns this Yamaha, and uses some non-matching 30-year-old mightily thin 8 foot zip-cord to connect his speakers, and: they work! Loud! Deafening levels for hours? no problem. He doesn't care he can't hear the exact placement of the second cello part in a symphonic orchestra recording. Just plays his tunes at volume now and then, and background music the rest of the time.
It's a shame, but no disaster for the (ever shrinking) customer segment this is aimed at... plus: vintage zip-cord actually works just fine for 95% of people, who likely consider quality connectors as things that make you need to buy dedicated speaker cables. Grandad's zipcord works just fineon those too...

 

[trevor_bartram]

They are truly awful; even for spring loaded speaker connectors in general these are some of the worst in history. It is a challenge to insert even the tiniest of stranded wire in there. On the other hand: a friend of mine owns this Yamaha, and uses some non-matching 30-year-old mightily thin 8 foot zip-cord to connect his speakers, and: they work! Loud! Deafening levels for hours? no problem. He doesn't care he can't hear the exact placement of the second cello part in a symphonic orchestra recording. Just plays his tunes at volume now and then, and background music the rest of the time.
It's a shame, but no disaster for the (ever shrinking) customer segment this is aimed at... plus: vintage zip-cord actually works just fine for 95% of people, who likely consider quality connectors as things that make you need to buy dedicated speaker cables. Grandad's zipcord works just fineon those too...

Zip cord works fine for short lengths and 8 Ohm speakers but it must be tinned multi-strand, not bare copper, to avoid eventual oxidization & a high resistance contact.

 

[trevor_bartram]

This turned up in YT queue. Put on your best headphones & use a known good source, receiver, amplifier etc & check this out:

Let me know what you think?

 

[dr0ss]

2. How is FM tuner performance (sensitivity, noise, audio quality) in comparison with other tuners you may have tried?

It is OK; in the location where we have ours we need to move the antenna around to get the stations we like. We occasionally swap it out with a vintage B&O receiver, which will permanently replace it once we finish restoration; the B&O has a much better tuner, any antenna position works, but the B&O is also better than every other receiver or radio we own, so maybe not a fair comparison.

 

[DanTheMan]

It is OK; in the location where we have ours we need to move the antenna around to get the stations we like. We occasionally swap it out with a vintage B&O receiver, which will permanently replace it once we finish restoration; the B&O has a much better tuner, any antenna position works, but the B&O is also better than every other receiver or radio we own, so maybe not a fair comparison.

I have a similar experience except I can get all the stations I enjoy in 1 position. Unfortunately, I get about a half or a third of the total number of stations clearly in one position as I get from my old Bose Wave Music System. That Bose is actually the best tuner I’ve ever owned though (I understand I have lost all credibility now). Admittedly, I haven’t owned that many, but it is better than my old Marantz 7701 and Yamaha Aventage receiver as well. This Yamaha seems to have the worst tuner of the bunch. It’s still “good enough”, but maybe not if you live somewhere more challenging.

 

[Sal1950]

This Yamaha seems to have the worst tuner of the bunch. It’s still “good enough”, but maybe not if you live somewhere more challenging.

FM Tuner sections in modern Receivers and AVRs have been going downhill for quiet some time now.
They're mostly considered a afterthought that very few use any more...
YMMV

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

This is my amp actually, and I rate it as "just fine." Does exactly what I need and this review reveals basically exactly what my expectations would have been. I was able to get some slightly heavier than the thinnest-gauge speaker cable into the spring clips and since I'm only running about 6 feet per side I'm not ever in a million years hearing any audible issues from that lol...

 

[trevor_bartram]

I've studied the service manual & schematics & I am impressed with the simple & elegant design & layout of the R-S202. The A-S301/501 is overly complex with untidy layouts in comparison. I believe the capacitors in the signal path may be limiting R-S202 performance. Does anyone know of an audiophile upgrade kit for the R-S202?

 

[dr0ss]

FM Tuner [are] mostly considered a afterthought that very few use any more...
YMMV

Well, the question was asked by someone.

We have ours in a vacation house that gets used by extended family and friends; we don't have many records or CDs there for fear they will get ruined or walk away, and we have the non-BT version of this receiver so no streaming. FM is important part of the setup.

We bought ours in 2016, when we needed something urgently. If I was doing this now, and had more time to check the neighborhood, I would have bought something used/vintage. Receivers like the Denon DRA-600 pop up regularly for this kind of price and are better in every respect except age (and no bluetooth).

 

[Sal1950]

Well, the question was asked by someone.

We have ours in a vacation house that gets used by extended family and friends; we don't have many records or CDs there for fear they will get ruined or walk away, and we have the non-BT version of this receiver so no streaming. FM is important part of the setup.

We bought ours in 2016, when we needed something urgently. If I was doing this now, and had more time to check the neighborhood, I would have bought something used/vintage. Receivers like the Denon DRA-600 pop up regularly for this kind of price and are better in every respect except age (and no bluetooth).

If you were really interested in an upgrade, there are many stand-alone top shelf tuners available used for not TOO much money. Then you could just plug it into one of the analog inputs of your current AVR with little muss and fuss. The 80s-90s had many really great FM tuners available. I had a Mitsubishi DA-F20 for many years, what an incredible performer it was, with switchable bandwidth, etc; for the highest sound quality available from a good source.

It is OK; in the location where we have ours we need to move the antenna around to get the stations we like.

Have you considered putting up a rooftop outdoor antenna? You might be surprised what an improvement in sound quality great reception might bring you. Without getting too crazy, even a omni like this $25 Stellar Labs might really impress you. Or you can go whole hog with a high gain directional and a rotor ???
YMMV

 

[dr0ss]

If you were really interested in an upgrade, there are many stand-alone top shelf tuners available used for not TOO much money.


Have you considered putting up a rooftop outdoor antenna?

I think you must be confusing me with the person who asked about the tuner on the Yamaha. In my case we're solving the problem at our vacation house by (eventually) replacing the Yamaha with a vintage B&O that I haven't quite finished restoring; its tuner seems to be able to pull in everything we want with ease using a basic dipole.

Our regular (non-vacation) house is less fortunate, as it is a Faraday cage, but we have good internet for streaming.

 

[trevor_bartram]

This turned up in YT queue. Put on your best headphones & use a known good source, receiver, amplifier etc & check this out:

Let me know what you think?

I have listened to all YT Eproject R-S202 comparisons & concluded that only the Kef LS50 Meta speaker tests reveal significant differences between amplifiers. I assume because the Meta is known to be sonically revealing & a difficult load. I'm unsure why, because Amir's test show the R-S202 to be load insensitive?

 

[Arild04]

in my opinion this suits the needs of the general listener.
The one who doesn't have particular critical listening objectives, who perhaps already has speakers, a CD player, doesn't want to give up the radio, and takes a few steps with Bluetooth. The customer who doesn't want to use Apps, EQ, streamers, or even Wi-Fi.
Typically older couples, replacing a component of a system already in use, or some young people taking their first steps. as already mentioned,
I see these kind of devices with built-in radios very often in stores. These or some old AV always with radio.

I like external dacs and have connected a Topping E30 II lite to the R-S202D (DAB+)
Maybe a bit extravagant, but I am very pleased with how it sounds.