Which is "Best" - Yamaha B-2 or MX-2000?

The M-2 has a tad more bass and is smoother overall compared to my Kenwood KR-9050 (200wpc). 9050 has more 'air' and slightly forward upper mid. Could be happy with either...

Will try the refurbed PC-2002 then a set of M-4's run as fake monos next. M2/4 not recapped but bias/offset is fine. Caps orig, but tested not far off spec.

Off topic? yeah...:scratch2:

with: NS-1000, C-4 pre, PX-3, AQ MC cart, AQ slate wires. Cardas dimensioned room.

It will be interesting to hear you opinion of bridged M-4's. I'll refrain from commenting on my experience with them until you post your results (in a new thread?).

brutal said:

It will be interesting to hear you opinion of bridged M-4's. I'll refrain from commenting on my experience with them until you post your results (in a new thread?).

Click to expand...

I'm not bridging them. I'm faking it.

With bi-ampable speakers and two stereo amps, I can use either one amp per speaker, or one amp for high F and one for low F inputs.

Or the half-assed fake--using only one channel of each amp to non-biampable speakers.

.

Both are nice amps.
The MX-2000 gets my vote.
1. Parts are readily available.
2. More power available
3. Looks much better..IMO.
4. I really like MOSFET's

avionic said:

Both are nice amps.
The MX-2000 gets my vote.
1. Parts are readily available.
2. More power available
3. Looks much better..IMO.
4. I really like MOSFET's

Click to expand...

Agree on everything but sonics. Of all the silver amps, the MX-2000 is the best looking. Just the right size/dimensions.
Have you benched an MX-2000? When EW recapped/upgraded a B-2 for me quite a few years ago, it made 150wpc+ with THD+N at the resolution of his meter (<0.005%).

avionic said:

Both are nice amps.
The MX-2000 gets my vote.
1. Parts are readily available.
2. More power available
3. Looks much better..IMO.
4. I really like MOSFET's

Click to expand...

I've called the MX-2000 the 'Grace Kelly' of power amps. :smlove:

The B-2(though I loved mine for over 4 years)was better described as 'homely'.An Ugly Duckling that grew-up to be an uglier duck.

Given that Yamaha had a track record of making some very nicely styled gear,the styling of the B-2 and UCB as facades for their amazing V-Fets was ****ing stupid.The styling for the MX-2000 shows how understated elegant uncluttered lines could really carry !WOW! visual impact.

The B-2 could sing sweetly(I've never heard 'Grace Kelly' sing ).

Okay.Okay.

It just occurred to me that I have seen Grace Kelly sing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAO8vlvPS88

Okay so the B-2 looks like him:
But he did win a Grammy at age 92. :yes:



Maybe he looked great back in 1917...but never as good as Gracie Allen, his wife ("Goodnight Gracie").

I have an MX-2000 pushin Yamaha NS-1000m's and I don't find it harsh or bright at all I quite like the sound, seems smoother than my B-2x.

I have never heard a B-2 so I can't comment on it. Sounds like a great amp.

pete05 said:

I have an MX-2000 pushin Yamaha NS-1000m's and I don't find it harsh or bright at all I quite like the sound, seems smoother than my B-2x.

I have never heard a B-2 so I can't comment on it. Sounds like a great amp.

Click to expand...

I run JBL L112's on both the MX-2000 and B-2x. Even though the B-2x setup has a better pre-amp, a C-2a, sounds great and has a thick bottom end, I prefer the MX-2000 silkiness. Regrettably, I haven't had the pleasure of hearing a B-2 or any other VFET amp for that matter.

MX117.MC7150 said:

...

BTW - has your B-2 been recapped? Adds a bit more 'smoothness' to its sound.

Click to expand...

Both amps are stock. No desire at this time to recap given that my limited experience with recapping has resulted in very marginal improvement (YMMV). Will use the $ saved from not recapping and eventually get a TAN 8550 and stage a VFET Steel Cage Match.

avionic said:

Both are nice amps.
The MX-2000 gets my vote.
1. Parts are readily available.
2. More power available
3. Looks much better..IMO.
4. I really like MOSFET's

Click to expand...

Regarding # 2 - in real world speaker driving the power difference is not a factor.

Nailer said:

Both amps are stock. No desire at this time to recap given that my limited experience with recapping has resulted in very marginal improvement (YMMV). Will use the $ saved from not recapping and eventually get a TAN 8550 and stage a VFET Steel Cage Match.

Click to expand...

Did that a few years back. Also compared the TA-N7 (the uber-Sony VFET amp) with the B-2. All had been recapped, so was a fair comparison. Three most excellent amps.

Regarding looks -

"Don't you draw the queen of diamonds boy. She'll beat you if she's able. You know the queen of hearts is always your best bet." :thmbsp:

Nice pics thanks.

pete05 said:

I have an MX-2000 pushin Yamaha NS-1000m's and I don't find it harsh or bright at all I quite like the sound, seems smoother than my B-2x.

brutal said:

I run JBL L112's on both the MX-2000 and B-2x. Even though the B-2x setup has a better pre-amp, a C-2a, sounds great and has a thick bottom end, I prefer the MX-2000 silkiness.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I did find the MX-2000 forward on the very very top because the low treble is softened a bit, but I'd have to agree that I can't say its remotely bright, I'd have to say its the opposite of many amplifiers. For me, bright on the ears is a Bryston 4B ST or british fidelity in my listening experience. The MX-2000 was clear, no hash but very revealing of recordings, dynamic and sublime bass definition. I consider that a good trait set. There are two major different camps; the guys and gals who want a warm, fluffy sounding amp, and on the other side are those who want detail and accuracy and flat response. The people who seem to prefer accuracy might deal more with voice and real sounds rather than just music alone. I know for music I tend to like softer warm sound at times, but its a real nice breath of fresh air when I get to hear the same music or other media on something so precise. This amp has the articulate bass and treble yet warmer mids while sacrificing no detail to obtain it. Regardless, its impossible to please everyone, everybody wants something different, and everyone has a different room.

If I had been a tester or listener when the legendary MX-2000 was being initiated, my opinion to the designers would have been to lift the deep bass a hair, maybe drop the highest treble a tad, and change nothing else in the sound.

Someone on Ebay from Pennsylvania is selling the Yamaha MX2000 amp and the CX 2000 preamp
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Yamaha-MX-2...124560?hash=item3f56148350:g:poIAAOSwl9BWLV7s

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Yamaha-CX-2...119734?hash=item3f56147076:g:ohoAAOSw9mFWLVav

Someone will be happy. Though I'm not a fan of the MX-2000 sound, many are. However, they are beautiful pieces and of the highest build quality.

Looking at the listing of the CX-2000 and seeing the missing buttons....It just drives me crazy.

OK, so would someone who has a CX-1000/CX-2000 for a longer period, please explain this to me.....

If one of the buttons from your preamp fell off, would you just toss it away? you probably would do anything possible to reattach it, right?

Then what the hell is going on? Very rarely I see one of these preamps that has all buttons. I get that the buttons are the weak link. I bought my CX-1000 with one missing..

I can not understand how is it possible that after the buttons fall off or however it happens...ppl would just miss place them or toss them away. If it was just one or two cases...but most preamps from this series that I see for sale are missing buttons

Even without buttons that CX-2000 sold for more than I was willing to pay for it. Let's see how much that MX-2000 will go for. I was a little surprised that it was over 1,400 this morning.

Hope an AK person wins the amp. I'm staying out of that one.