Yamaha R-S202 Receiver Review

[peterp]

i have write sound bad ?

i write there is mesure here , same place , same material , before and after a change of opamp or condo

if there is change in listing , but not in data its religion

there is science : your brain , and your ear its not the same at 20 and 60 : its impossible / false to says what you hear in 1990 and 2030 is good or bad : not same source , same place , same brain

the proof : you change 100 time material because YOU change

You are vastly over-extrapolating the data from science. If you normally listen to sine waves, then science and data will be more accurate in reflecting what you hear from your system. Music is a gazillion times more complex than sine waves. It's like testing somebody's skill at checkers, and then extrapolating that to conclude they will excellent at 3-dimentional chess because they were good at checkers.

Since you are focused on controlled change, why do you think that performance measured with very simple test signals would be a reflection of how it handles music signals that are orders of mangitude different and more complex than test signals?

Out of hundreds of amps over decades, when you can only remember a small handful that sound bad -- they sound bad. Especially the Adcom, where I spent 6x and had far worse sound -- trust me I wanted it to sound good because it was a stretch for me to buy at the time. If I had bias, wouldn't it be toward the thing that just cost me a fortune? If you search around, you'll find plenty of people that say that (unmodified) Adcom from that era sounds bad -- plenty -- and those Adcoms measured very well. Data has it's purpose and I really appreciate this site as a resource for testing, but it's not a substitue for listening. Checker experts often aren't chess grand masters.

 

[peterp]

If I'm understanding the ASR overview video on amp testing, it sounds like the power measurements are only with a 1khz signal. It would be interesting to measure how amps perform over the full range (20-20khz). That would be especially interesting for this receiver, since Yamaha uses only a 1khz signal for power ratings on this low-power receiver, but uses 20-20khz for power ratings on all of the better models (301 and up). I would guess this receiver won't fair as well 20-20khz, or Yamaha would have used the same test conditions for this as its better amps (this is obviously a complete guess on my part, but seems logically likely).

 

[DanielT]

If I'm understanding the ASR overview video on amp testing, it sounds like the power measurements are only with a 1khz signal. It would be interesting to measure how amps perform over the full range (20-20khz). That would be especially interesting for this receiver, since Yamaha uses only a 1khz signal for power ratings on this low-power receiver, but uses 20-20khz for power ratings on all of the better models (301 and up). I would guess this receiver won't fair as well 20-20khz, or Yamaha would have used the same test conditions for this as its better amps (this is obviously a complete guess on my part, but seems logically likely).

But you can see that in Amir's test of the Yamaha R-S202 (up to 15 kHz).

First post in this thread:
Sweeping frequencies we get increased distortion at lower frequencies (and generally high noise level):

But predictable response due again the amplifier being class AB. Design was quite stable, not shutting down even though the amplifier went into clipping at all frequencies.

 

[peterp]

But you can see that in Amir's test of the Yamaha R-S202 (up to 15 kHz).

First post in this thread:
Sweeping frequencies we get increased distortion at lower frequencies (and generally high noise level):

But predictable response due again the amplifier being class AB. Design was quite stable, not shutting down even though the amplifier went into clipping at all frequencies.

Thanks. I'd like to see how flat the response is over the full audio spectrum from 20-20khz at rated power (or even half-power). I'm not sure the distortion curves show that.

 

[ZolaIII]

But you can see that in Amir's test of the Yamaha R-S202 (up to 15 kHz).

First post in this thread:
Sweeping frequencies we get increased distortion at lower frequencies (and generally high noise level):
View attachment 456144
But predictable response due again the amplifier being class AB. Design was quite stable, not shutting down even though the amplifier went into clipping at all frequencies.

And that's a school book performance for A-B class amplifier. All do it's not a high performer regarding SINAD it doesn't fall much shot across the spectrum to most overtones there are (10 KHz - 7 dB bias at 25 W output, otherwise less) and it keeps output steady (holds the W). Frequency response is load independent and extends up to 100 KHz. It's afrer all budget amplifier and Yamaha can do a lot better but you will have to pay for it and/or perhaps get lucky. Even this can people have hard time to kill. It's not typology but iron core transformer and good capacitors even at this price point. Preamp is the junk and works best offset to - 6~7 dB (from 2.2 V rated). Basically this is still fine by me.

 

[peterp]

And that's a school book performance for A-B class amplifier. All do it's not a high performer regarding SINAD it doesn't fall much shot across the spectrum to most overtones there are (10 KHz - 7 dB bias at 25 W output, otherwise less) and it keeps output steady (holds the W). Frequency response is load independent and extends up to 100 KHz. It's afrer all budget amplifier and Yamaha can do a lot better but you will have to pay for it and/or perhaps get lucky. Even this can people have hard time to kill. It's not typology but iron core transformer and good capacitors even at this price point. Preamp is the junk and works best offset to - 6~7 dB (from 2.2 V rated). Basically this is still fine by me.

Distortion at each frequency doesn't really tell you much since all of it is inaudible or on the fine edge of being inaudible. What would much more is how flat the response is at a non-trivial power level. I suspect it will fair poorly based upon what I heard with the unit I had briefly, and the fact that Yamaha uses only a 1khz signal on the power spec for this unit vs 20-20khz for their better amps). There are no specs for Crutchfield to put into their standard full-frequency-range power format (since Yamaha only has a 1khz number), so they've specified (40hz-20khz) instead of 20.

https://www.crutchfield.com/p_022RS202/Yamaha-R-S202.html

 

[ZolaIII]

And it's all in to data buddy. Maybe you should learn how to interpret data? THD + N or as we prefer hire SINAD is best at 1 to 3 KHz (over 90 dB) and so is our hearing. You won't get clean 100W for that you will need A-S70x or above but you get what specs promise and it doesn't fall much regarding performance even beyond 50 W. For mid sensitive home speakers still perfectly fine. Yes there is a a good reason why 1 KHz is chosen as performance metric and industry sticks to it. It's not pore autended cheap class D amp where such concerns are sometimes justified (really bad handling of high frequencies, load dependent and not eble to keep power in highs). All of that is not existing here.
I don't know what you encountered and if it whose broken but it shouldn't be there.
Edit: one more advice don't use paid promotional material here as it will be deleted.

 

[peterp]

... Yes there is a a good reason why 1 KHz is chosen as performance metric and industry sticks to it. It's not pore autended cheap class D amp where such concerns are sometimes justified (really bad handling of high frequencies, load dependent and not eble to keep power in highs) ...

I've never heard anywhere that 1Khz is, or ever has been, a preferred (or even reasonable) performance metric. I'm not sure why you are saying that it is. Yamaha uses 1khz on their low-end receiver only, but 20-20khz on all of their better amps. There's a reason they used a different spec for their low-end receiver.

The FTC's Amplifier Rule (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-432), even though it's been weakened a bit over the years from the original 1974 testing standards (largely to not require AVR's to simultaneously deliver full power to all channels). That rule requires testing to be 20 to 20khz sustained power. Anything less than full spectrum is not a meaningful reflection of performance.

 

[ZolaIII]

I've never heard anywhere that 1Khz is, or ever has been, a preferred (or even reasonable) performance metric. I'm not sure why you are saying that it is. Yamaha uses 1khz on their low-end receiver only, but 20-20khz on all of their better amps. There's a reason they used a different spec for their low-end receiver.

The FTC's Amplifier Rule (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-432), even though it's been weakened a bit over the years from the original 1974 testing standards (largely to not require AVR's to simultaneously deliver full power to all channels). That rule requires testing to be 20 to 20khz sustained power. Anything less than full spectrum is not a meaningful reflection of performance.

I am not surprised by you. So you never heard that humans hearing is best and most sensitive in mids? 1 KHz is a crossing between (most) female main tones and overtones (harmonics). It's used as remark as most common measurement to show performance where it's neaded the most hire and elsewhere. Seams you not only need to learn to interpret measurements but also basic music theory. Again R-S202 does it as test school book example of A-B class. If you want we can use DIN regarding W output. Yamaha not only dosent liy in specs but you usually even get more.

Regarding how too video watch host ones.

 

[peterp]

I am not surprised by you. So you never heard that humans hearing is best and most sensitive in mids? 1 KHz is a crossing between (most) female main tones and overtones (harmonics). It's used as remark as most common measurement to show performance where it's neaded the most hire and elsewhere. Seams you not only need to learn to interpret measurements but also basic music theory. Again R-S202 does it as test school book example of A-B class. If you want we can use DIN regarding W output. Yamaha not only dosent liy in specs but you usually even get more.
View attachment 456496
Regarding how too video watch host ones.

Yes, I am deeply familiar with all of those factors about human hearing, impact of aging (and other factors) on hearing limits, and the frequency range of instruments. None of that has anything whatsoever to do with objective analysis of equipment. The objective data should clearly show what the equipment is capable of under all circumstances. Specifically the most rigorous relevant circumstances.

Typical healthy young people can hear 20hz-20khz, that's the only valid basis for testing. The fact that human ears are most sensitive in the mids is irrelevant, and you don't subjectively bias objective data because some people can no longer hear 20-20khz.

The frequency range present in music varies wildly depending on music genre (e.g. techno, classical, jazz, rock, pipe organ, etc). Some genres routinely have sub 20-hz content, and then you also have massive variations of individual songs withing those genres. You don't subjectively bias what frequencies are "important" because a lot of music doesn't have extreme frequencies.

I swear I am not trying to give you a hard time, but ASR is the last place I expected somebody to push subjectively limited "objective" analysis.

 

[ZolaIII]

@peterp only subject is human kind. How would you like it then? Who skips objective facts like that we are subjects and hearing is psy and don't use only ever statificaly significant proven facts in it's advantage (how we hear and compensation for it ELC) won't be able to get very far in this. Sorry I don't want to sound naughty to you and I don't exclude one you had whose faulty. As you can see harmonics for almost everything (human made) stop at 16 KHz and you are interested into those that stand out mainly second one along with first and third, out of that you are not interested at all. That will get you to 5 KHz for most, 10 some things and rarely 15 KHz. There is also a hobby of spotting or analysing spectrum of recorded materials and you would be surprised how little is there behind 12~12.5 KHz. And you can perform double blind, double subjective ABX testing if you wish. You should focus on the mechanics of hearing (proper integration of ELC in ISO 226 2003 or later form to SPL and cut above the bass transition knee with crossovers) and getting THD of speakers down not the amplifier (that performs as it should and not clipping) if you ask me. That little picture is nice reality check for all so called "objectivists" and how that how some people like to call or consider them self dosent have anything to do with reality.

 

[DanielT]

A little bit OT but now in line with what is addressed in the thread:

The practical reality seems to be what those who set the FM radio standards proceeded from. As far as I know (I could be wrong) the standard for FM radio is that it does not go higher in frequency than 15 kHz. I suspect that it was considered unnecessary to broadcast up to 20 kHz because there is hardly any information that high up in the frequency range.

 

[ZolaIII]

A little bit OT but now in line with what is addressed in the thread:

The practical reality seems to be what those who set the FM radio standards proceeded from. As far as I know (I could be wrong) the standard for FM radio is that it does not go higher in frequency than 15 kHz. I suspect that it was considered unnecessary to broadcast up to 20 kHz because there is hardly any information that high up in the frequency range.

It's 16000, 22.400, 28000 Hz per chenel as basic sample rates to today. Radio had a evolution and last and best FM stereo is only one that got to 32 KHz in the end used to be 22050 stereo.

 

[billou5767]

Yes, I am deeply familiar with all of those factors about human hearing, impact of aging (and other factors) on hearing limits, and the frequency range of instruments. None of that has anything whatsoever to do with objective analysis of equipment. The objective data should clearly show what the equipment is capable of under all circumstances. Specifically the most rigorous relevant circumstances.

Typical healthy young people can hear 20hz-20khz, that's the only valid basis for testing. The fact that human ears are most sensitive in the mids is irrelevant, and you don't subjectively bias objective data because some people can no longer hear 20-20khz.

The frequency range present in music varies wildly depending on music genre (e.g. techno, classical, jazz, rock, pipe organ, etc). Some genres routinely have sub 20-hz content, and then you also have massive variations of individual songs withing those genres. You don't subjectively bias what frequencies are "important" because a lot of music doesn't have extreme frequencies.

I swear I am not trying to give you a hard time, but ASR is the last place I expected somebody to push subjectively limited "objective" analysis.

google : hearing frequence

on laboratory : feel up to 26 kz 28kz

but 20KZ its like hifi norme , other century

 

[Count Dacula]

What I can say about the 202 is it's a great purchase for a starter system. Advising people to spend more on speakers and less on an amp....this is the ticket.

Mine is currently powering old KEF Q350s for AV in a giant room. It sounds great for what those components cost, and I would advise the same for a starter system.

Someone could simply upgrade the amp later, if they were into it.

 

[billou5767]

What I can say about the 202 is it's a great purchase for a starter system. Advising people to spend more on speakers and less on an amp....this is the ticket.

Mine is currently powering old KEF Q350s for AV in a giant room. It sounds great for what those components cost, and I would advise the same for a starter system.

Someone could simply upgrade the amp later, if they were into it.

or those who dont like amp class d

for 230/250 e with dab its good

 

[DSJR]

Apologies if this has been answered before, but is the amp part here related to the 201 integrated amp?

 

[Count Dacula]

For it's faults, the 202 isn't underpowered for most applications. 202+cheap DAC and whatever speakers you fancy,

 

[ZolaIII]

Apologies if this has been answered before, but is the amp part here related to the 201 integrated amp?

Think it's same stages (transistors pairs) and preamp R-S/A-S 20x along with some R-N models which at least can control preamp.