Is The YAMAHA MX1000 The Best AMP From YAMAHA?

Reading this thread, thinking about all my various Yamaha power amps over the years and I suddenly thought, has Yamaha ever made monoblock amps?

Kenwood made them, Marantz made them, Accuphase made them, most US high end companies made monoblocks- why didn't Yamaha?

Or did they- I can't think of a model... Did they actually ever provide a bridging switch on any consumer grade amps? It's always a testament to the engineering of an amp if it has a bridging option as the amp is driving into half the impedance of the load.

Personally, my opinion of all Yamaha power amps from the M80 onwards are "fresh air amps". Massively large ventilated light cases, lots of space inside to look great on the sales floor, piss weak transformers, huge dynamic power- poor long term real power, lots of PSU rail switching (M85/MX1000 etc), big red meters and overall dry, lifeless sound.

I sold a heap of them (MX-xxx, CX-xxx) and have several languishing in my storeroom, but they never excited me. Great for parties, but not for serious listening.
 
Reading this thread, thinking about all my various Yamaha power amps over the years and I suddenly thought, has Yamaha ever made monoblock amps?

Kenwood made them, Marantz made them, Accuphase made them, most US high end companies made monoblocks- why didn't Yamaha?

Or did they- I can't think of a model... Did they actually ever provide a bridging switch on any consumer grade amps? It's always a testament to the engineering of an amp if it has a bridging option as the amp is driving into half the impedance of the load.

Personally, my opinion of all Yamaha power amps from the M80 onwards are "fresh air amps". Massively large ventilated light cases, lots of space inside to look great on the sales floor, piss weak transformers, huge dynamic power- poor long term real power, lots of PSU rail switching (M85/MX1000 etc), big red meters and overall dry, lifeless sound.

I sold a heap of them (MX-xxx, CX-xxx) and have several languishing in my storeroom, but they never excited me. Great for parties, but not for serious listening.

Yes . Yamaha BX-1's are mono blocks.
 
Last edited:
Reading this thread, thinking about all my various Yamaha power amps over the years and I suddenly thought, has Yamaha ever made monoblock amps?

Kenwood made them, Marantz made them, Accuphase made them, most US high end companies made monoblocks- why didn't Yamaha?

Or did they- I can't think of a model... Did they actually ever provide a bridging switch on any consumer grade amps? It's always a testament to the engineering of an amp if it has a bridging option as the amp is driving into half the impedance of the load.

Personally, my opinion of all Yamaha power amps from the M80 onwards are "fresh air amps". Massively large ventilated light cases, lots of space inside to look great on the sales floor, piss weak transformers, huge dynamic power- poor long term real power, lots of PSU rail switching (M85/MX1000 etc), big red meters and overall dry, lifeless sound.

I sold a heap of them (MX-xxx, CX-xxx) and have several languishing in my storeroom, but they never excited me. Great for parties, but not for serious listening.
As avionic noted, the Yamaha BX-1 is a monoblock amp. I suspect that since Yamaha was in the pro-amp market that it made business sense to specialize in manufacturing stereo amps. A number of those amps are dual mono designs.

Yamaha's consumer totl line of amps (mass market) from the M-2 through the MX-1000U are high power amps (200+ wpc) intended to drive speakers with > 4 ohm loads. They work fine within those parameters, and sound as good as any amp within their price point. The later MX-1 can handle speaker loads of 2 ohms at full power.

Yamaha's pro-audio amps are intended to drive low ohm loads, and have equal or better sound quality to the consumer line.
 
Also class-D amps develop very low waste heat. The only amp that comes close in terms of sound quality is the A-S2000. I have heard it with several speakers and it was very impressive. It hasn´t got the virtually endless power of the MX-D1, but it sounds very good.
Kind regards
Oliver

100% agree. The A-S2000 is something special, indeed. It is by far the most powerful 2x90 Watts amplifier I have ever heard. No other amplifier is driving my new Magneplanar or my friends vintage AR90 (3.2 Ohms minimum) with such ease. My M-4 sounds light in comparison and is constantly seeking my attention with signals from the overload LED's. (With 6 or 8 Ohms speakers this is not so obvious.). I really want to try the A-S3000. But, it is still not available.
 
100% agree. The A-S2000 is something special, indeed. It is by far the most powerful 2x90 Watts amplifier I have ever heard. No other amplifier is driving my new Magneplanar or my friends vintage AR90 (3.2 Ohms minimum) with such ease. My M-4 sounds light in comparison and is constantly seeking my attention with signals from the overload LED's. (With 6 or 8 Ohms speakers this is not so obvious.). I really want to try the A-S3000. But, it is still not available.

yes, the A-S1000 + A-S2000 are real nice. Very good build quality and at 22kg no lightweight amps there. I had an A-S1000 that I really liked. I used the pre-outs into a B-2 that seemed to work pretty well. Rated at 90w but yes, seemed a lot more powerful.

A very composed and non-fatiguing delivery. I found I just kept turning it up and could listen long and loud without any problems.

I'd like to try an A-S3000, but stupid/silly/crazy pricing here currently.... AUD$8999......
 
this amplifier can better than pioneer m90a/m91 and sony n 80es,both of them seems have better transformer than this amplifier.
 
Toobzman; you are forgetting the connection between the B-6 and the MX-1000, If I remember correct the work with X-Power in the B-6 led to the Advanced Power Supply Circuitry (APS) used in the MX-1000.

So it is not entirely as simple as you put it, Yamaha had a series of statement amps as they are called here on the page. Those ware the higher end amps and development units from witch the knowledge tickled down into the more consumer units, it started with the legend B-1, then the M-2 (also known as B-5), B-6, B-2x. Except from the B-1 (V-FET) the later amps all had design features witch where "melted" together into one super design and spiced with the newest design and became the MX-10000 as a celebration of Yamahas 100 years of knowledge in sound. Then came the MX-1 and MX-D1, notice the names changed after the MX-10000. Then many years later the A-S2000 arrived out of nowhere and is the latest statement amp from Yamaha in the consumer line.

The reason for the end of the statement power amps, was due to the almost total shift into surround sound by Yamaha and an end to stereo - they thought.

To my knowledge the MX-D1 did not really tingle down into consumer gear, but I do not know that much about the DSP models to say for sure. They did/do how ever use the class D designs in there pro amps, so I think the MX-D1 was the platform for the Pro amps.

One amp witch is kind of forgotten is the amp made for the GF-1's (year 1991), named GFD-1, 100W + 100W class A @6 ohm. It seems it was also sold separately, now and then they show up.
http://audio-heritage.jp/YAMAHA/amp/gfd-1.html
http://www.hifido.co.jp/KW/G0104/J/0-10/C08-37436-21466-00/

b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Reading this thread, thinking about all my various Yamaha power amps over the years and I suddenly thought, has Yamaha ever made monoblock amps?

Kenwood made them, Marantz made them, Accuphase made them, most US high end companies made monoblocks- why didn't Yamaha?

Or did they- I can't think of a model... Did they actually ever provide a bridging switch on any consumer grade amps? It's always a testament to the engineering of an amp if it has a bridging option as the amp is driving into half the impedance of the load.

Personally, my opinion of all Yamaha power amps from the M80 onwards are "fresh air amps". Massively large ventilated light cases, lots of space inside to look great on the sales floor, piss weak transformers, huge dynamic power- poor long term real power, lots of PSU rail switching (M85/MX1000 etc), big red meters and overall dry, lifeless sound.

I sold a heap of them (MX-xxx, CX-xxx) and have several languishing in my storeroom, but they never excited me. Great for parties, but not for serious listening.
That is an odd comment. Every now and then it seems that we are enamored by the glowing presence and nuggets of "wisdom" brought forth by one who has "sold tons of X", and I admit that I'm often left wondering it this is some rudimentary justification to serve in building credibility where none otherwise exists. You see, anyone can say something bad about anything, and having never provided any reasoning behind their comments, those who come and read such are left to take it as truth. So, I am going to take a moment and give my experience, with honest qualifiers.

Your comment on the sound is relative to what media, source, preamp, speakers and room treatment was associated in the system. Any critical argument would make a mention of this before passing a baseless judgment. I have learned that every component in the audio chain is of utmost importance, and while none may be a weak link, so to speak, if it doesn't quite fit the balance and overall conjecture of the system, it can lead to negative impressions. Or, perhaps you simply did not like the sound. Some people like a fluffy transient response and the predominance of lower ordered harmonics - I know that I often do not. In this way, the MX-1000 have have a bit too much for your tastes by not offering enough tubby "musical" distortion. Fine and I suppose valid, but if one does not like the sound, they should explain why, rather than just how.

The comment on the transformers is a particular point of interest, as it seems to me that the MX-1000 had two very large transformers with copper faraday rings. It is often omitted from a discussion such as this, by E-cores, as used there, have a higher energy density than equivalent toroid. This does not imply that they are better overall, but were proper for the task. As Bob Carver and Nelson Pass noted, long term power is of little important in music programme, since the dynamic peaks are short term. Electro-pop crap will not be discussed because it doesn't constitute the demographic of audiophile repertoire. The 350W x2 Carver amp I once had, used a single transformer like something that we would see in a wall wart, and the Yamaha clearly shows better attention to design in my opinion with two large transformers - not that anyone should base their buying decisions on appearances or specifications. Audiophiles today are far to programmed into choosing gear based on brand, transformer size, chassis thickness, the prevalence of 20lbs aluminum face plates along with a host of things that they misinterpret. They should be using their ears, first and foremost. That brings us to the sound.
Your comments beg the question of if you have ever really used an MX-1000, or if there is something else at play here. I am quite familiar with its sound and several others in this thread, and your referral to it as dry and lifeless comes across as the complete opposite of the sound that it offered here. For the sake of full disclosure, I once believed that the amplifier had rolled down bass and recessed highs, only to come and find it was the preamplifier that I was running at the time. I later moved on to a Mark Levinson/John Curl design, and the sound and extension was superb, not only in my opinion. The sound was detailed, full, quite expansive for a sub-$2000 1990's power amp, and was enjoyable. It was among my favorites for the reason that it sounded great in the system that I was using it in. It was sensible and the money was clearly put where it mattered the most- much like anyone who builds electronics for a living would know. Could it be bettered - of course - but at what cost, and where you willing to spend more?

I can only vouch for what worked for me, but in my opinion, Yamaha is an unmitigated risk for some. The name is not associated with high-end on audio forums, so has no resale value in the vastness of the brand-fashion conscience public eye, and there is the chance of being treated lumped into the low-end crowd of yesteryear regardless of well it performed. It doesn't seem to matter; the amps can be of competitive design, as they were, but as soon as the name Yamaha is stamped on the faceplate the owners are treated like a second-rate citizen for not running one of the more fashionable audiophiles names. The problem is, that public opinion today around what high-end is has less and less each decade to do with sound or quality. I was always told that the Japanese made junk and nothing they made could drive less than 8 ohms, and I believed it at the time. The brand was never really on the radar, and the local megabuck crowd were pretty vague on anything other than American and (execrable) British made gear. It is a shame, because only after I learned that Yamaha made some higher end gear, would I come to also find it was among the most sensible built and best sounding amplifiers that I would use. There it is; I am no longer welcome among the high-end crowd. Not that I care...

Well that stands to reason, as HCA was real class A. Not that it would matter, they perform admirably.

The Titanium series MX-2000, and MX-10000 used advanced approaches for variable level fulltime Class A to maximum power. Bedini also did variable bias but it was rather simpler and more of a slow descending bias circuit. These yamahas are not push-pull like Pass' newer amps and Mark Levinson's gear, as upon closer inspection to the schematics we realize Yamaha's approach was with a mirror, two separate class A amps on each channel that could not become class AB.

Each amp employs two rows of Class A amps who's output was inverted to each other but with equal phase bias. One signal would then be inverted on one side, summed to the opposite, and the bias and distortions were current dumped and cancelled, not unlike balanced interconnects.

The input signal was referenced by the error correction amp, and used to further eliminate transient and harmonic distortion that may remain on its output.

The MX2000 and MX10000 will maintain a flat response into any load due to this servo, and was voltage biased in contrast to the current bias topology of other amps and this bias was modulated with the audio signal. I'm not sure about the MX1000, I know its Class A but to full power or not, I can't say having never owned one, but at its price what more could be expected? Word is, they sound super.

Think of the audio signal as acting Class A, but the class A being an active servo bias that itself was almost a transconductance (like tubes) Class C amplifier in character and followed the music, and an error correction amp to correct characteristics with temperature and load impedance variances.

And, that was one of the big considerations. Temperature coefficients would change the any class A amps specs wildly if the temp changed, again in the yamaha's its all servo controlled to correct this.

Intriguing technology hardly seen and easily mistaken as push-pull.

All of it had to be faster than the audio signal, which we know was fast and the amps stated bandwidth was 200kHz, but much higher. In the end the HCA allowed a small amp (well, they're actually pretty large) to provide bounties of power per channel into 1 Ohm without compounding constant bias as it reduced the duty cycle.

So what is it? Its two single ended quad class a amps on each side, with nulled distortion and music controlled bias. Nothing short of brilliant.
Great post, Mr. Jon Valin
 
Last edited:
As Bob Carver and Nelson Pass noted, long term power is of little important in music programme, since the dynamic peaks are short term.

This wise statement by Caver a Pass was done long before the loudness wars went digital and the brick wall or heavy compressed mix was implemented in 99% of all pop music.

As an example the record Les Paul & Friends: American Made World Played (2005), is so heavily compressed that if you look at the output meter when playing the record, the meter will be steady and not really moving - yet it still won 2 Grammy Awards.

The point here is, that in modern mastering there are no peaks of significance and there for the statement by Caver and Pass is at the moment not relevant in a modern real world setting (read early 90's to present) - it is sad, but a reality (it is even worse if you play mp3 and similar formats).

The music will suck out the juice of an amp if it does not have a really beefy power supply.

In this video one of the masters (Bob Katz) talk about and explain the Loudness war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Fb3rWNWDA

This video shows the development in U2's music; even the video is about the war against the loudness war. It still gives a picture why Caver and Pass at the moment is wrong (Notice the wav curves).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAB_SBioRI4
 
I jus obtained a pair of Infinity IRS Deltas from a hifi audio store in San Antonio. They obtained them from a guy who traded them in along with all his equipment. To my amazement, the guy was driving these monsters, known affectionately (or not so affectionately) as "amp killers", with what I consider a "lowly" MX-1000. After seeing what the Deltas were doing to the meters on a pair of MC601 Monos (which I also have at home) at MODERATE listening levels, I have new found respect for the MX-1000 if that's REALLY what the guy was driving those Infinitys with!

I haven't decided whether to take the amp because frankly, I find the design rather cheap and ugly by comparison to something like the MX-10000, but the performance certainly must speak for itself.
 
Albeit, not in the same league with the MX-10000, I agree, the MX-1000 is well under the radar. Could be because there are so many of them out there, which gives people the impression that they are "common" run of the mill amps. I personally love mine, and use it to drive anything from some party infinity speakers, to my beloved NS-1000M. You can throw anything at this thing. It replaced my Pioneer A-90 which needs re-caping. After using the MX.....I am no longer in a hurry to fix the A-90 :D
 
Back
Top Bottom