Yamaha or Onkyo Amp?

Discussion in 'New Gear - Performance' started by Madbugger, Feb 6, 2016.

  1. prighello

    prighello AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,185
    Location:
    Wherever I'm at.
    Yamaha house sound is precise but sterile. Someone coming from vintage likely will find it flat.
     
    SpicySammich likes this.
  2. ScooterMcTav

    ScooterMcTav AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    343
    Location:
    Manitoba
    Got to this party late - I would have recommended the Onkyo. Great pricing on the TX-8050 right now.

    I was going to go vintage stereo in a new living room setup, but enjoyed the Onkyo stereo receiver I used for a speaker demo so much, I bought it. Onkyo (like previous gen HK and Marantz) seem to have kept some warm sound in their pieces. I seriously looked at the Yamaha too, but like every other piece of Yamaha gear I've owned, I found it too neutral (ie sterile).

    Plenty of power above ratings, some modern conveniences, warm sound, and an inoffensive appearance. Plus a great value. What's not to like?
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2016
  3. gizmo124

    gizmo124 New Member

    Messages:
    13
    I know I am late to this discussion.The Onkyo a 9010 is a keeper for me. Having owned modern stuff Marantz pm5004, Music Hall a15.3, and a NAD 326bee. And a couple vintage ones: Marantz 1060 and 2220b The Onkyo is my favorite and happens to be the cheapest. Supposedly its better then the higher powered 9050 9030 and tx 8050 etc... cant comment on this or it in comparison to the Yamaha, so kind of a moot point.
     
    Tbomb25 likes this.
  4. Kranky

    Kranky Member

    Messages:
    65
    Location:
    Orange County, SoCal
    Yamaha can sound a little thin. "Natural Sound", at least based on the receivers I had, I'm not so sure. I have the Onkyo A-9010 integrated, and the sound is harmonically rich with plenty of pace, rhythm and timing. A fun, involving listen.
     
    Tbomb25 likes this.
  5. SuperLead100

    SuperLead100 "These go to 11"

    Messages:
    1,311
    Location:
    Rutland, Ma.
    Yes, I've heard that description. Although I have vintage and modern I'm still partial to the Yamaha "natural sound". I've had a very nice Pioneer SX-3900, Kenwood KA-7100, and Technics SA-500(?) among others. The difference between my modern Yamaha's and vintage Yamaha's, is the modern units are more forward in the midrange. Otherwise, they pretty much share the same sonic signature. All of this, or course, is just my opinion.;)
     
  6. mwchristo

    mwchristo Active Member

    Messages:
    103
    Location:
    Dayton, OH
    I recently purchased the Onkyo A9010 from Amazon and a week later I'm returning it. By no means is "bad" it just fails in comparison to the 16 year old Yamaha RXV995 that was previously using.

    I have opted to spend a little more and I just ordered the new Yamaha S501 from Crutchfield for $549. It will arrive tomorrow. I have high hopes that the Yamaha will perform better than the Onkyo. I like a punchier more powerful bass profile, the Onkyo did not have a subwoofer out so I couldn't go that route if I wanted to. The Yamaha has more power on paper and includes the subwoofer output that I will most likely need.
     
    SeattleHiFi and boza like this.
  7. boza

    boza Super Member

    Messages:
    1,103
    Location:
    uk
    Make sure to give the Yamaha plenty of time to run in. My as500 seemed to take an age to come on song. I was initially disappointed but give it a couple of weeks. Best money I spent. :thumbsup:
     
    mwchristo likes this.
  8. SuperLead100

    SuperLead100 "These go to 11"

    Messages:
    1,311
    Location:
    Rutland, Ma.
    It is a very impressive amplifier given its price point. I suspect you will be pleased with your purchase.:biggrin: Let us know your thoughts when you've spent some time with it.
     
  9. lini

    lini just me...

    Messages:
    5,252
    Location:
    Munich, Bavaria
    Actually that would only apply in combination with some entry-level models - whereas pretty much any of the better active/powered subwoofer models will not only sport a low-level input in mono, but also high-level inputs in stereo with loop-through and nowadays most usually also a low-level input in stereo, that can alternatively also be used mono only.

    So with such a subwoofer you can always go: amp/receiver speaker output -> sub high-level input (->) sub high-level output -> loudspeaker (per channel). Alternatively, if you don't like to loop the speakers through the sub, you can also hook the sub in parallel (if the amp/receiver sports a second pair of speaker outputs (plus speaker selector), you might even want to hook it there, to aviod cable clutter and to be additionally be able to conveniently activate/deactivate the sub via speaker selector...). However, in case the sub would sport a fixed or even an adjustable high-pass filter for the high-level outputs (in order to free the "satellites" from the bass duty taken over by the sub), you could of course only make use of that in the loop-through configuration.

    Well, and in case the sub would sport a low-level input in stereo and the amp/receiver would sport a stereo pre-amp output or a pre-out/main-in loop, you could also hook it up that way. So either: amp/receiver preamp output -> sub low-level input, or if it's a non-switchable pre-out/main-in loop with jumpers: amp/receiver pre-out -> Y-adaptor -> amp/receiver main-in (one end) and sub low-level input (other end).

    So unless you'd have/want to buy a subwoofer model with extremely spartanic feature-set, your stereo amp/receiver doesn't necessarily have to sport a dedicated sub-out. And I wouldn't recommend to buy such a subwoofer model anyway, 'cause if it's so limited in terms of inputs, it's not unlikely to also not sport proper controls for phase and takeover frequency, which will make it less easy to much harder to properly integrate the sub. So for hifi use I'd definitely recommend to spend a bit more to get a model with decent feature-sets in terms of inputs and controls - whereas for surround/home-theater use you could get away with less, because in that case the speakers and sub typically can rely on being managed via surround-receiver/amp/pre-amp...

    Greetings from Munich!

    Manfred / lini
     
  10. Madbugger

    Madbugger Member

    Messages:
    53
    Location:
    CT
    Since I posted this thread, I have acquired two late 80's NAD receivers a 25 watt and 50 watt of the same series. These are everything I have been searching for, big, fat and warm but also very articulate, I now know what music is supposed to sound like!
     
  11. johnda

    johnda AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,785
    Location:
    Southold, NY
    There lies the rub! "Big, fat & Warm" That is a personal judgement, and it may not the most accurate sound, but that is what pleases you. As Seinfeld would say "But, there's nothing wrong with that! :)

    To my personal taste Yamaha is not sterile sounding at all, it is totally neutral to me. If I have a warm sounding album it will reflect the warmth. It doesn't insert itself into the audio, but just gets it to you as untouched as possible. Isn't that the way it should work?:music:
     
  12. SuperLead100

    SuperLead100 "These go to 11"

    Messages:
    1,311
    Location:
    Rutland, Ma.
    @johnda, I echo this sentiment...
     
  13. savatage1973

    savatage1973 Super Member

    Messages:
    4,158
    Location:
    NW Pennsylvania snow belt
    ^^^ Me too. I don't own one of the new ones, but have listened to (quite extensively) a couple A-S501/801 models and was quite impressed--especially for the price point. Very "neutral" sounding with more than adequate power for most people. I still have one of the big old Yammies (a CR-2020), and not only is it gorgeous to look at, it does a great job of driving my vintage JBL speakers. Some of my other gear includes the likes of ARC, Krell and Aragon, so I like the "neutral" sound--not a fan of the "house sound" of the older Marantz and Sanaui gear--it is too "warm" for my tastes--but to each his own.
     
  14. jdub071

    jdub071 New Member

    Messages:
    15
    I am thinking about buying yamaha R-S500 as it costs the same as A-S301 and has better specs75wpc @8 ohms 20-20khertz as compared to 60wpc for A-S301. Their power ratings are measured the same. They are practically identical in weight--actually the R-S 500 and A-S 500 are nearly identical in weight. What am I missing here? I keep hearing buy the intrgrateds but this R-S 500 is highly regarded.
     
  15. arclight73

    arclight73 AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,949
    The wattage on the A-S301 is a little lower than the R-S500 but the build quality is a little more robust in the amp section of the A-S301. (dual heat sinks and slightly larger capacitors) According to Yamaha the circuit design is little more refined in the integrated amps in comparison to the receiver line.

    The A-S301 offers digital inputs as well. That feature alone makes it worth it IMO.
     
  16. jdub071

    jdub071 New Member

    Messages:
    15
    O.K. I didn't think there would be a free lunch--thanx for clearing that up. Between yamaha A-S301 and vintage Denon PMA 520 w/torroidal transformer and class A circuitry would you choose.
     
  17. ilusndweller

    ilusndweller Super Member

    Messages:
    4,882
    Glad you found something you like. Im a big fan of NAD as well as Yamaha. The NAD will surprise you with how loud and clean they will play for their ratings.
     

Share This Page