Just purchased a CR-2040...
- Thread starter zunde
- Start date
My favorite of the Yamaha CR receivers . Does it work .
LOL it works like a charm! The seller let me demo it before purchasing.
I mentioned in another thread about possibly flipping it, another poster said if I listened to it I would keep it, I think he might be right. This may be the best sounding source unit I've heard in my setup
Fairlane, I have it hooked up to my Soundwave Model Three speakers:
And I have to say, after almost a week of listening... I am not as enthusiastic about the sound as I was upon my first listen. It certainly has that "vintage" WARM receiver sound, with an extensive mid/upper low end, but it seems to "overequalize" the sound in that direction at the expense of midrange (vocals, piano, guitar string plucks, etc.) And these Soundwaves are no slouch when it comes to mids!
All the upper mid/high stuff is just "veiled." It's cliche but it really does sound like someone hung a curtain over those frequencies. Here is the EQ setting I fianlly wound up with for the best overall sound:
And it sounds pretty decent now, but that's kind of my point-- to have to adjust the tone controls this far out of flat to get decent sound should not happen on a receiver that touts itself as "natural sound." And no matter what I cannot get rid of that mid-bass emphasis. I've been comparing the settings to the Sony ES receiver I had hooked up to these Soundwaves before, going back and looking at my notes on that combo, and it's startling really- I barely had to tweak the Sony's tone controls at all-- just like the Yamaha it also had bass, midrange (called "presence" on the Yamaha) and treble controls that could be set incrementally in half-decibel steps. On the Sony, I actually had to LOWER the midrange 1.5 db, boost the treble .5 db, and lower the bass .5 db. Piano key strikes, guitar plucks, vocals (especially female) and things of that nature were very articulate, sounded absolutely stellar and they weren't "smoothed over" and overshadowed by low end "huskiness" like on the Yamaha. BTW adjusting the bass all the way down on the Yamaha does nothing to compensate for that "huskiness" in the midbass region- it just diminishes the rest of the low end field.
I really wanted to like this receiver, based on all the hoopla surrounding it on this board. My posts earlier about how great sounding it is were made in haste and I think as a result of the accentuated "warm" sound, but over the past several days I have come to realize it's at the expense of other things I enjoy more. I am not sure whether the hi-resolution output of modern receivers has anything to do with this or not- perhaps, if the Sony EQ was sampling everything in the digital domain (even straight analog input which is how I was running my turntable) and then converting to analog? Someone more knowledgeable than I about these things may be able to confirm. All I know is that I almost immediately had great sound out of the Sony that accentuated what I like, just by tweaking the tone controls ever so slightly... but even with those settings pictured above on the Yamaha there's still a "veiled" thinner sound in the mid/upper ranges. (Look how much the presence control on the Yamaha had to be raised when it was actually LOWERED on the Sony-- I even made a comment about how forward the midrange was in my comments on the Soundwaves!)
And I have to say, after almost a week of listening... I am not as enthusiastic about the sound as I was upon my first listen. It certainly has that "vintage" WARM receiver sound, with an extensive mid/upper low end, but it seems to "overequalize" the sound in that direction at the expense of midrange (vocals, piano, guitar string plucks, etc.) And these Soundwaves are no slouch when it comes to mids!
All the upper mid/high stuff is just "veiled." It's cliche but it really does sound like someone hung a curtain over those frequencies. Here is the EQ setting I fianlly wound up with for the best overall sound:
And it sounds pretty decent now, but that's kind of my point-- to have to adjust the tone controls this far out of flat to get decent sound should not happen on a receiver that touts itself as "natural sound." And no matter what I cannot get rid of that mid-bass emphasis. I've been comparing the settings to the Sony ES receiver I had hooked up to these Soundwaves before, going back and looking at my notes on that combo, and it's startling really- I barely had to tweak the Sony's tone controls at all-- just like the Yamaha it also had bass, midrange (called "presence" on the Yamaha) and treble controls that could be set incrementally in half-decibel steps. On the Sony, I actually had to LOWER the midrange 1.5 db, boost the treble .5 db, and lower the bass .5 db. Piano key strikes, guitar plucks, vocals (especially female) and things of that nature were very articulate, sounded absolutely stellar and they weren't "smoothed over" and overshadowed by low end "huskiness" like on the Yamaha. BTW adjusting the bass all the way down on the Yamaha does nothing to compensate for that "huskiness" in the midbass region- it just diminishes the rest of the low end field.
I really wanted to like this receiver, based on all the hoopla surrounding it on this board. My posts earlier about how great sounding it is were made in haste and I think as a result of the accentuated "warm" sound, but over the past several days I have come to realize it's at the expense of other things I enjoy more. I am not sure whether the hi-resolution output of modern receivers has anything to do with this or not- perhaps, if the Sony EQ was sampling everything in the digital domain (even straight analog input which is how I was running my turntable) and then converting to analog? Someone more knowledgeable than I about these things may be able to confirm. All I know is that I almost immediately had great sound out of the Sony that accentuated what I like, just by tweaking the tone controls ever so slightly... but even with those settings pictured above on the Yamaha there's still a "veiled" thinner sound in the mid/upper ranges. (Look how much the presence control on the Yamaha had to be raised when it was actually LOWERED on the Sony-- I even made a comment about how forward the midrange was in my comments on the Soundwaves!)
Last edited:
SoCal Sam
Lunatic Member
What you are hearing is characteristic of most Yamah silver receivers and could be from a mis-match with your personal preference (likely) or with your speakers (less likely but possible if they are 4 Ohm rated). I've heard or owned most of the silver Yammies including the CR-3020 and the CR-2040 beats them all. The sound does not begin to clear the throat until the R-2000, which is let down by a finicky tuner than never works. You scored nicely so I would send it back to the wild and get what you really want.
Well you really cant give an honest review of sonics. You are hearing sound out of a almost 40yr piece of gear that has not been recapped. Are you only listening to phono section? Are other inputs Aux or tuner any different?? If you get a unrestored vintage Sony receiver you might come to the same conclusion. Vintage isnt for everyone. You might be happier with a Yamaha newer integrated! I love when people talk about sound signature regarding vintage receivers from different manufacturers that havent been recapped or tuners aligned. What one is hearing is sound coming out of a tired old machine. NOT A CLEAN/CLEAN AUDIO SIGNAL!!!
I have the same issue regardless of which input I am using. Switching to tuner and hearing the already over-equalized FM stations in my area makes it worse.
Your thought had crossed my mind as well- wondering if it would open up with new internals (recapping, etc) Who knows? I'm not about to risk lots more funds to try to get that done just to find out. I'd rather go with something that I know works for me. And to be honest, I think lots of people on here have been fooled by thinking the "vintage" sound is accurate because it suits their listening tastes (much the same as different speakers' sonic signatures please different people.) If you like low end emphasis, you're going to love this type of equipment. If you'd rather clearly hear an articulate guitar string pluck, or a piano key strike, or background female singers, this isn't going to get the job done.
Agreed with most everything posted here- it's definitely a mismatch, but IMO it's a mismatch between an unnatural sounding receiver (despite Yahama's tag line) and speakers that are accurate enough that they are going to let you know it.
Some stuff still sounds pretty good on this- the Fleetwood Mac Mirage album I have sounds nice. But the overprocessed studio recordings (like the Toto IV album I have) that still sound pretty decent on the Sony sound terrible on this. Imagine a smiley-face EQ curve employed in the studio mastering process, then imagine it doubled when played through the 2040. It's like a loudness control that's constantly on. Ugh.
Last edited:
SoCal Sam
Lunatic Member
Most receivers are punished badly by transparent speakers and Yamaha receivers are no exception. No doubt, Yamaha hoped that the CR receivers would be paired with in house speakers such as the 690 line and even the 1000M. These are revealing speakers that demand and thrive with top amplification. While the 690 is more forgiving, the 1000M does not suffer fools. With the 1000M, most receivers are badly exposed for the slow and ropey sound they give. IMO and IME, Yamaha receivers were some of the slowest and ropiest of all the Monster receivers that have come through the door. I have always wondered how a company that made the NS-1000M as early as it did (it was introduced in 1974!) missed so badly with the CR line.
Last edited:
jbailey930
AK Member
I got a super deal on a working and non-working 2040 from a local Ak'er. I found the sound was somewhat as you described when paired with older BW's 220s and new 683s. When I played the receiver through JBL L110s, L20s and DCMs the sound was fantastic. I keep loudness off but boost the bass a bit on the JBLs, fwiw. Crisp, bright, good soundstage and depth. I'd say double your money by posting on BT.
BTW, I searched your speakers but didn't hit on anything but Bose sound wave ads.
BTW, I searched your speakers but didn't hit on anything but Bose sound wave ads.
I won't dismiss the possibility that the synergy just doesn't work. I'm not really a JBL guy, never owned much of their stuff (the best from them I ever had was a pair of L7's, but MAN that titanium "sizzle" tweeter was just too much after a while.)
I would find it REALLY surprising that DCM's (at least their CX series which I have owned) would sound good with this Yamaha- just about any review concerning the CX-17 or CX-27 points out their surprisingly strong low end emphasis- I would think that would make them an even worse pairing with the Yamaha. I have never owned or heard the TimeFrames.
Here is my thread concerning the Soundwaves, some pretty good info in there, along with my comments concerning their pairing with the Sony ES receiver:
http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/need-a-speaker-id-please.812366/
Likely needs some work. It sounded " Natural Sound " back when it was still 100%..
Respectfully disagree. Recapping (an all too common one-size-fits-all fix around here BTW) will not fix its overly warm sound.
Regardless, as I said earlier I'm not going to risk putting more money toward it just to find out. There are other receivers out there I know I would be happy with.
Lots of fusibles in there. They tend to drift high over time. It only takes one bad cap to degrade the sound.
