Yamaha RX-596 Receiver Review

[Doodski]

@petebone I just rechecked the RX-596 review and ASR did a review on the RX-596 and the power output is so high that there will be zero difference between the RX-596 and the AS-301. Check the review.

Yamaha RX-596 Receiver Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the vintage (?) Yamaha RX-596 Receiver (stereo amplifier with tuner and video switcher). It was purchased by a member from local charity (Goodwill) for US $10 plus $18 shipping. No, that is not a typo. He did buy it for just $10. It was sold...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[petebone]

@petebone I just rechecked the RX-596 review and ASR did a review on the RX-596 and the power output is so high that there will be zero difference between the RX-596 and the AS-301. Check the review.

Yamaha RX-596 Receiver Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the vintage (?) Yamaha RX-596 Receiver (stereo amplifier with tuner and video switcher). It was purchased by a member from local charity (Goodwill) for US $10 plus $18 shipping. No, that is not a typo. He did buy it for just $10. It was sold...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Excellent. I was about to be impulsive and grab that AS-301 but no need anymore. Thanks.

 

[Doodski]

Excellent. I was about to be impulsive and grab that AS-301 but no need anymore. Thanks.

CooL!

 

[mhardy6647]

I am glad this thread still has legs!
I just can't remember which receiver I actually have Mind you, it's not more than (EDIT) 5 or 6 meters from where I sit typing this.
Guess I should check.

Oh, it's an RX-570.


Yamaha has a good track record (with a few exceptions) of making nice, good sounding, and generally reasonably priced hifi. Much of it has been quite attractive, as well -- but I am quite biased, as many of all y'all know.

I've always wondered how their very first (at least in the US) hifi components were. I've yet to see any of the "blackout dial" Yamahas of ca. 1973 or 74 in the... umm... flesh.

(random eBAY auction photo of one of the blackout dial Yamaha receivers -- also sporting a built in flip-style "digital" clock & timer!)
EDIT: Whoa. Dude. The Yamaha CS-70 pictured above is quad. I hadn't noticed that before!

Every thread I've ever seen on any example of those early Yamaha models posted in recent years has detailed a pretty extensive teardown & rehab.

 

[petebone]

Not that it's a big deal but I wanted to post an update on my RX-596. Now, mind you, I have always leaned towards more vintage cheaper equipment and of all of the ones I have used over the last few years, this 596 is my favorite. It is just a clean sound and it cranks. Whether I am streaming, playing vinyl, or CDs, this thing is handling it like a champ. If you ever find one for cheap, grab it without hesitation.

 

[petebone]

I am glad this thread still has legs!
I just can't remember which receiver I actually have Mind you, it's not more than (EDIT) 5 or 6 meters from where I sit typing this.
Guess I should check.

Oh, it's an RX-570.


Yamaha has a good track record (with a few exceptions) of making nice, good sounding, and generally reasonably priced hifi. Much of it has been quite attractive, as well -- but I am quite biased, as many of all y'all know.

I've always wondered how their very first (at least in the US) hifi components were. I've yet to see any of the "blackout dial" Yamahas of ca. 1973 or 74 in the... umm... flesh.
View attachment 381158
(random eBAY auction photo of one of the blackout dial Yamaha receivers -- also sporting a built in flip-style "digital" clock & timer!)
EDIT: Whoa. Dude. The Yamaha CS-70 pictured above is quad. I hadn't noticed that before!

Every thread I've ever seen on any example of those early Yamaha models posted in recent years has detailed a pretty extensive teardown & rehab.

That 570 looks really clean on the inside. Geez.

 

[Surprisetech]

The results of the RX-596 review did not surprise me at all. I happily lived with one in the main system for 5 years. I had done my homework and it ticked all the boxes for me at the time and I never regretted the choice. We had young kids and a limited budget and this receiver gave us the simplicity & convenience without sacrificing the features or performance that we wanted.
When circumstances allowed me to go back to separate integrated & tuner, the RX-596 went into the living room system for another 2 years.

What also set this Receiver apart from the pack at the time was the FM performance. The tuner is on a large, dedicated PCB and well laid out. The front-end module (Mitsumi?) is excellent and is the same one used in the Yamaha Tuners of that period (e.g. TX-497 etc.). The IF and MPX circuits are built around well-regarded Sanyo LA series chips. We lived in a fringe reception area at the time, but I was always impressed with the tuner performance and sound, even on the lower powered community stations.
Sadly, these were the last series of Yamaha Receivers to offer that level of FM performance. Subsequent models were still fine in most circumstances, but no longer had that extra level of performance required for difficult reception areas.

The RX-596 was eventually moved on, but based on its performance, I have since picked up an AX-596 Integrated Amp and paired it with a T-80 Tuner for one of my other systems!

 

[petebone]

Service (and User) manuals here:

Includes the factory specifications.

Yamaha - Hifi Manuals

View attachment 42250

Excuse my ignorance but do these specs, especially the 'Dynamic Power per Channel" portion, indicate that you can use a pair of 4 ohm speakers with this receiver?

 

[Doodski]

The dynamic power spec is for speaker loads that drop down to a low impedance for a small fraction of a second. The receiver is rated to 6 Ohms although there are people using them with 4 Ohms. That is at your own risk. What speakers do you want to operate with the RX-596?

 

[petebone]

The dynamic power spec is for speaker loads that drop down to a low impedance for a small fraction of a second. The receiver is rated to 6 Ohms although there are people using them with 4 Ohms. That is at your own risk. What speakers do you want to operate with the RX-596?
View attachment 419933
View attachment 419934

You and I were actually going back and forth about this before but it was before I saw these specs. I have a pair of Emotiva T-Zeros.

 

[Doodski]

You and I were actually going back and forth about this before

Did that go well?

I saw these specs. I have a pair of Emotiva T-Zeros.

I Googled for specifications of the impedance and a test review and found none so the only known is that they are nominal 4 Ohms and have efficiency @ 87dB (2.83V/1m). Not super efficient and not super inefficient; they are somewhere in the middle for efficiency. Have you been operating the RX-596 with the T-Zero speakers?

 

[petebone]

Did that go well?

I Googled for specifications of the impedance and a test review and found none so the only known is that they are nominal 4 Ohms and have efficiency @ 87dB (2.83V/1m). Not super efficient and not super inefficient; they are somewhere in the middle for efficiency. Have you been operating the RX-596 with the T-Zero speakers?

I have been using the RX-596 with the T-Zeros and so far, I haven't had any issues.

 

[Doodski]

I have been using the RX-596 with the T-Zeros and so far, I haven't had any issues.

That's about what I figured. Keep the ventilation cool air flow going over the RX-596 and have fun.

 

[petebone]

That's about what I figured. Keep the ventilation cool air flow going over the RX-596 and have fun.

Oh yeah. I never stack equipment.

 

[ranrt]

Just got from a friend of mine an RX 397 50W*2 Stereo receiver, I can say it is very nice 2 channel stereo , sound is very good and it is barely gets warm even when pushed.
Better to find RX model than an RX-V AVR's ones.

Only one issue I have with it is a little dim vfd display.

 

[EngineerNate]

My primary receiver for years was a Yamaha RX-V995 I got when my dad upgraded to a system needing HDMI. I thought it sounded fantastic.

I replaced it with a Pioneer Elite of some variety (can’t remember the model offhand) when I needed HDMI and tbh, subjectively, I thought it was a downgrade sound wise.

 

[petebone]

Just an update here and although I loved the RX-596 a ton, I swapped it out for an RX-777, which I like even more.

 

[Doodski]

My primary receiver for years was a Yamaha RX-V995 I got when my dad upgraded to a system needing HDMI. I thought it sounded fantastic.

I replaced it with a Pioneer Elite of some variety (can’t remember the model offhand) when I needed HDMI and tbh, subjectively, I thought it was a downgrade sound wise.

I sold tons and I literally mean many semi-truck load tons of Yamaha home audio gear when I sold gear before I studied and became a tech. I also sold Pioneer and my heart just wasn't into Pioneer. At that time for a bunch of years Pioneer was being used as a lost leader in newspaper ads to bring customers into the stores all across Canada and so Pioneer was just a dog product to me because of that. Pioneer used the 6 CD cartridge CD player and that was not the preferred format by most people at that time. But the car audio department was fully into Pioneer, and had great sales and success with Pioneer. Then I became a tech and was seeing the gear from a new perspective and viewpoint. Pioneer was built very very well. One needed to in their mind prepare for servicing Pioneer gear because it required strategic planning and physical safety consideration due to the tightness of the screws and assemblies. It was actually more physically demanding to service Pioneer gear as was Alpine too. One could sense very well the intention in the assembly to be a good product and the engineering was superb and the breakdowns where not of the same causes as most all of the other manufacturers because Pioneer was doing stuff differently. I never serviced Pioneer gear in quantity like I did all day everyday on Sony, Denon, NAD, Alpine, Clarion etc and a bunch of other more rare product but when a Pioneer unit came in I was sure to prepare, plan ahead and make time and room for servicing the stuff.