Early 90's Yamaha AVRs

I understand the early 1990's Yamaha AVR's like the RX-V870/V1070 were highly rated and very expensive for their time period. Was home theater audio/video technology back then costly for the manufacturer to incorporate in a receiver or were these units expensive because it cool to have and boast about a receiver with home theater/surround sound capabilities because it was so new?

For people who only used these AVR's as a 2 channel system, were their sound processors/DAC's superior to the 2 channel only Yamaha receivers of the same era that cost much less? These receivers seem to be in demand in the used market despite being over 20 years old. Assuming most people no longer use them in a 5.1 channel setup because of obsolete digital decoding, are these units as good or better than their modern equivalents for us a 2 channel receiver?

I'm trying to understand the reasons outside of the vintage Yamaha's of the 1970's, why these early 1990's units seem to be so coveted.

When I left the business we had the basically identical RX-V850/1050, the only difference I can see is the FM connector.

Adding the HT circuits certainly increased the price a fair amount but since they were going to end up as expensive units many companies made an effort to make sure they were good ones and these were quite good indeed. The 850/870 came in at about 32 pounds the 1050/1070 about 40. The power supplies were massive to drive 5 channels, all of the output stages were discrete components and they has serious heat sinks.

I don't think these units were better than their best 2 channel stuff but here is why they are interesting for 2 channel now: 1) they sold a lot more of the HT units as people who wanted top 2 channel sound usually went for higher end companies and consequently Yamaha did not sell that many high end 2 ch units but they sold a boatload of HT ones. 2) Since these units contain completely obsolete Dolby Pro Logic HT circuitry their resale value is way lower than if they were 2 ch units. Weird but true, you get more for less. The best example of this is the Proceed PAV. The Mark Levinson/Madrigal folks made this pre-amp/decoder and it sold for about $5k around here. They then made a pre-amp only version called the PRE that sold for about $3k. Today you can find a PAV for far less since it is considered an obsolete HT decoder while the PRE is considered an audiophile pre-amp. The pre-amp sections of both are of course identical!

Are they better than the best modern 2 ch gear? No, but they are way better than most stuff you can pick up for the prices they go for. I have had a couple in recent years and they are good sounding units. Not high end but solid and great bang for the buck.

I think the best deals are the decade later battleship flagships that do not have HDMI inputs. They are in the 48 to 70 pound range and besides having great amps and power supplies they have very nice DACs as well which come in handy these days for 2 ch use. I have two of the RX-V1 and just noticed a 48 pound RX-V3000 going for under $200 not too far from here.

yeah, in general pre-HDMI surround receivers go for peanuts. And if you can find one with analog surround inputs, and a BR player with analog outputs, you can have a high-end HT that does lossless audio for a fraction of a decent HDMI-equipped setup.

There was a guy in my area recently selling a Sherwood Newcastle flagship AVR from the mid-00s for $180. That thing had to be at least $1,500 new.

Moby2 said:

I understand the early 1990's Yamaha AVR's like the RX-V870/V1070 were highly rated and very expensive for their time period. Was home theater audio/video technology back then costly for the manufacturer to incorporate in a receiver or were these units expensive because it cool to have and boast about a receiver with home theater/surround sound capabilities because it was so new?

For people who only used these AVR's as a 2 channel system, were their sound processors/DAC's superior to the 2 channel only Yamaha receivers of the same era that cost much less? These receivers seem to be in demand in the used market despite being over 20 years old. Assuming most people no longer use them in a 5.1 channel setup because of obsolete digital decoding, are these units as good or better than their modern equivalents for us a 2 channel receiver?

I'm trying to understand the reasons outside of the vintage Yamaha's of the 1970's, why these early 1990's units seem to be so coveted.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure they are really all that "coveted" based on Ebay prices. Maybe "highly regarded," but demand doesn't seem all that high based on Ebay prices.

That said, they are supposed to be great. After doing some reading here I recently picked up a mint 41 pound, 110 wpc, 0.0015% thd v1050 (the v1070's predecessor) for $45 locally because the display light is out. The guy had it listed for a week and only got a couple of calls on it. Haven't fixed it or even used it yet, but I couldn't pass it up at that price. That thing is a hoss though. But I've been watching auctions on v1050's, and usually they don't even sell unless they are less than $100 shipped. There's a guy trying to sell his v1050 for $139 shipped, and his auction has ended at least 5 times now with no buyer. It's every bit as good as the v1070 per the specs, but no one seems to want one. v1070's don't seem to go for much either.

I also picked up a v2400 the other day. It's an early-mid 2000's model I believe, 120 wpc., 35 pounds. I'm buying these TOTL or near TOTL Yamaha AVRs when I see them cheap.

I have two good Yamaha AVRs - the RX-V995 and the RX-V2095. That 2095 is a beast!

They both use discrete output transistors. The 995 is capable of 100 wpc @ 8 ohms, can drive 4 ohm loads and has inputs for a separate decoder.

The 2095 is capable of driving all the way down to 2 ohm loads @ 320 wpc x 7 channels, discrete output transistors, input for an external decoder, pre/main coupling and preamp outputs for all other channels.

I gave $70 for the 995 and $90 for the 2095. I also have both remotes and the literature for the 2095 - this one will probably stay. I may look into an up to date decoder and an HDMI switch of some type. My wife will hate me, though - she is just now getting used to the remotes we have now.

Because of the obsolete video features, TOTL versions of ProLogic receivers sell at yard sales for the same prices as BOTL models. They are more on eBay, but still not in line with their sound quality IMO.

tensleep said:

.........The 2095 is capable of driving all the way down to 2 ohm loads @ 320 wpc x 7 channels..........

Click to expand...

How sure of this are you? I have a 2095 and also a couple of pairs of big Infinitys. I haven't thought of trying the 2095 with one of the pairs of Infinitys, but if you are correct.......hmmmmmm.

stereofanboy said:

How sure of this are you? I have a 2095 and also a couple of pairs of big Infinitys. I haven't thought of trying the 2095 with one of the pairs of Infinitys, but if you are correct.......hmmmmmm.

Click to expand...

I am going by the Yamaha website spec sheet. I haven't had the receiver that long, nor have I driven anything near that heavy a load - mine was basically loafing with a pair of JBL 4410 Studio Monitors, near field.

http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/hifi-components/stereo-receivers/rx-v2095_black__u/

BTW, are you using an external decoder per chance?

I am a huge fan of Yamaha flagship HT pieces but I doubt a 2095 is going to put out 7x320w simultaneously. Maybe one channel, briefly. As noted in the article below, the 2092/2095 were a couple of generations into playing fast and loose with the specs:

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/trading

Check this test of the far more massive RX-V1, it managed 235 watts at 1% distortion into 4 Ohms with only two channels driven.

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/yamaha-rx-v1-receiver-page-2

By all accounts the 2095 is a great unit but maybe not a Krell/ML killer.

I've got a few RXV-2090s- that was one my favs when selling the gear new. I regard that year as the last year where they still had the emphasis on the main amp performance, along with more than adequate other channel amplification and a great tuner (AM was crap though).

When the early DSP units were out several years earlier (DSP1/DSP100/DSP3000 etc), the DSP processors used 16/44 all around. When the prologic digital DSP add-on units came out (DSP-A700/DSPE700/DSP-E1000 etc) and the DSP-A1000 the 4 effects channels were handled by a single chip DSP with 14/32k A/Ds and D/As. Something Yamaha never really talked about, but it was the same time that AST was being pushed and the bandwidth of the surround channels was assumed to be not needed. I remember arguing black and blue with the Australian Sales Manager about the need for equal power and equal bandwidth. It wasn't that long before DD required more power from the surrounds than the measly 15 or 25 watts Yamaha was using then from chip based amp packs.

I was using standalone DSP processors and big MX series amps and creating giant cathedrals on the old DSP-1 and naming them silly names on the dot matrix lcd. Oh it was fun back then, especially as our source was laser disc and hifi video!

Bottom line vis this: Receivers/DSP amps to avoid are any that used the motorized input selector. It sure was a cool selling point, but it ultimately has put most things equipped with it into landfill- it is so touchy and very difficult to repair. NLA as a spare part too.

It rules out the classic DSP-A1000- the single box beast that started the big AV wars. It was a game changer.

The electronic input selector has proved completely reliable in the long term and an easy fix if the sanyo chips fail.

Bargains can also be had with gear in Titanium. Not sure how much made it to the US, but it was a spectacular failure here, with all of it dumped at half price when new. I picked up a pile of MX-55 four channel amps for peanuts back then, along with DSP units, preamps, cd players etc. It didn't match anything else and nobody wanted it. Black ruled back then.

Those motorized selector switches can be a real pain, a friend has one on the RX-550 I sold him and it acted up. On the other hand I have had several DSP-A1000 and A2070 through here and the only one that had problems with the input was very beat up and abused all around. The others were fine. I would not pass on one of those units if there was a chance to test it and the pot was still good. Worst case if you only have one source you can use the Tape 2 Monitor switch which I believe bypasses the input selector (please correct me if I am wrong on that one).


Around here the Yamaha reps actually boasted quite a bit about the Yamaha LSI, Large Scale Integration, which put all of those channels on one chip. They even had a really neat tie clip with the chip embedded in glass. Got mine ripped off, wish I still had it!

I think Ti units command a premium around here, folks see them as more vintage I suppose. You are right, back then they were unloved. I had to special order my KX-1200Ti.

I used to have an old Yamaha ProLogic receiver that was really big and heavy. I gave it to my nephew a long while back and can't recall the model number now. I do remember that it sounded great and had a decent phono section.

tensleep said:

.........BTW, are you using an external decoder per chance?

Click to expand...

No. What would an external decoder be decoding?

stereofanboy said:

No. What would an external decoder be decoding?

Click to expand...

Modern surround formats that weren't out when these receivers were built.

tensleep said:

Modern surround formats that weren't out when these receivers were built.

Click to expand...

Oh. I was unaware of post Dolby Digital and DTS formats.

Dolby True HD and DTS - HD Master Audio are great formats. They have a lot of lossless information.

Has technology allowed for modern Yamaha AVRs like the RX-V475, 675 etc. to have the similar power specs as the early 90's Yamahas but with half the weight or do the new Yamaha AVRs sacrifice something for half the weight?

Moby2 said:

Has technology allowed for modern Yamaha AVRs like the RX-V475, 675 etc. to have the similar power specs as the early 90's Yamahas but with half the weight or do the new Yamaha AVRs sacrifice something for half the weight?

Click to expand...

They just stretch the specs like taffy with AVR's. If you read them carefully, most of them bench test one channel and multiply that x7. If you have a HT receiver that claims 100x7 you're probably extremely lucky to get 70x7.

H/K and Denon probably are more conservative to real-life than anybody else. My Denon which is spec'ed at 75x5 bench tested at 67x5. H/K's typically exceed spec. Obviously as you get into the higher end stuff that's not an issue. Everything in the mass consumer lines gets marketed to the magic "100 watts" number.

I seem to recall one recent test of a 5 x 100 where that actual outcome all channels driven was around 20w.

The short answer is NO, they have not come up with any technological miracles. I am not knocking the new stuff, I have a HTR-6063 (RX-V667) in my main system though I have added external amplification for the L/C/R channels. I have also set up several friends and family members with recent 400 or 500 series Yamahas without added amps and everyone is very happy. But these 17 to 23 pound models do not even take on an older 37 pound RX-V1800 let alone the bigger older ones from a power point of view.

My guess is once you get to the RX-A10X0 level they start to get closer to the older big models.

I have a 38# rx-v1600@120w and a 33# htr-5490@80w. 7 and 6 ch. respectively. No beef with either. Also an 18# av-70@100w w/15w rears that is still kicking.