Is The YAMAHA MX1000 The Best AMP From YAMAHA?

It's one of the best. The MX-10,000 is probably equal to the best amp ever made. It is a limited edition, 100th anniversery model. The MX1000 has a lot going for it. Some of them have a smaller PS than the MX-1000'u' version. I've owned both. My MX1000 had an 850 watt power consumption and my MX1000u has an 1100 watt/1300VA rating. Can I hear the difference? Not really. Both superb amplifiers. 1 ohm stable. EX. S/N and seemingly in-exhaustible power! I also use an M80 to power my woofers. Here are some pictures of my MX1000's and a link to the MX10,000

http://k-nisi.hp.infoseek.co.jp/mx-10000.html go here and paste the url into the proper box to translate it from Jap. to Eng.

http://babelfish.altavista.com/

BTW, that is a Yamaha M80 in your picture....
 

Attachments

  • ak mx1000.jpg
    ak mx1000.jpg
    45.9 KB · Views: 592
  • ak mx1000u.jpg
    ak mx1000u.jpg
    49.1 KB · Views: 564
  • MX-1000u specs.JPG
    MX-1000u specs.JPG
    34.7 KB · Views: 540
Thanks a lot for the info.................

There is that 10,000 model in E-bay right now and they are asking over 6,000 for it....It looks beautiful....
 
Last edited:
You're welcomed Nel. I would seriously think about investing in the MX10,000 if you've got the loot. Very limited edition. As you can see, it is a no compromise build. In an era of $50k- plus amplifiers, it is a comparative bargain. It will do what any other, more expensive will do, and better than 99.999% of all amps ever made IMHO. The 1700 watt rating is interesting. Being that the MX1000 I owned was a 240v capable american market unit, it has but a 850 watt rating, exactly half of 1700 watts, I tend to agree with your suspicion about the rating. The real difference would be in the VoltAMP-V.A.C rating, which directly correlates to power supply capacity, rather than consumption. Here are some pic's of the massive dual transformers.
 

Attachments

  • ak mx1000 inner.jpg
    ak mx1000 inner.jpg
    71 KB · Views: 1,035
  • ak mx1000 inner1.jpg
    ak mx1000 inner1.jpg
    78 KB · Views: 1,166
  • ak mx1000 inner2.jpg
    ak mx1000 inner2.jpg
    50.6 KB · Views: 1,134
Thanks!

That is a nicely made amp.......

I have received a great deal help from here, but you have just pointed me in the right direction.

Nel
 
Last edited:
Bolly,

there are many Yamaha M2 amps around here for sale, but someone here in this forum advised me to stay away from them, saying that there are no spare parts.
I have looked at the M2 and it is a very nice amp, but right now I do not have the resources to risk spending more money than I should have.
 
ok ADVH, I use one to drive x2 Adire Shiva subwoofers, for the last year, not a single problem. :thmbsp:
 
Thanks!
Pardon my ignorance but what is the output when only two channels are being used?
Nel

260 watts per channel, but much more than that in clean Dynamic Power. See the spec sheet I posted. They are rated the same. The MX1000 is a 2 channel amp. It will run 3 pairs, but it is still only 2 channels.
 
Thanks for the info....

I think Yamaha have always made quality equipment, and I do not doubth what you are saying.
I will keep an eye on them, you never know....
 
The back panel ratings don't mean a whole lot in comparison.

The M-80, for instance, has at least four different back panel ratings to satisfy the regulatory requirements of the market region. Regardless of the back panel rating and market region, all M-80 have the same output specs.

As far as the back panel rating itself, watts are watts all around the world. The input voltage has absolutely no forbearance on the watts a device consumes.
 
Hello to All....

Is the Yamaha MX1000 the best amp from Yamaha to get?

I mean, the one with the lights show. Here is a foto just to make sure. I am not so sure since there are so many older models outhere.


Thanks,

Nel

That's the model I tried bidding on Ebay 5 months ago. Snatched away by 1 stinking bidder above me. :tears: Same problem 1 stinking bidder outbid me on Spec2 too. Oh well.
 
The back panel ratings don't mean a whole lot in comparison.

The M-80, for instance, has at least four different back panel ratings to satisfy the regulatory requirements of the market region. Regardless of the back panel rating and market region, all M-80 have the same output specs.

As far as the back panel rating itself, watts are watts all around the world. The input voltage has absolutely no forbearance on the watts a device consumes.
If a different model has a different consumption, that is one thing. If the stated power supply is able to produce more Volt-Amps ( because it's bigger), that is another. That is why I posted what I did. Of course output watts are watts, no matter watt:D There is some speculation that the power supply is bigger in the U version, than the non-U version. If watts are watts, why does the non-U consume less watts than the U version, all other things being equal?
 
If a different model has a different consumption, that is one thing. If the stated power supply is able to produce more Volt-Amps ( because it's bigger), that is another. That is why I posted what I did. Of course output watts are watts, no matter watt:D There is some speculation that the power supply is bigger in the U version, than the non-U version. If watts are watts, why does the non-U consume less watts than the U version, all other things being equal?

Of course, a mixed-model comparison is meaningless. And, watts are watts regardless if they're input watts or output watts.

My example was merely to point out that the same model of amp will have different input power specs to fit the needs of the regulatory bodies in the market region.

The problem with trying to determine anything by the back panel rating is that we have no idea what the test conditions were.

So, there are at least three very plausible reasons why the back panel ratings could be different.

1. The amps may be from different regions, thus different requirements for listing power consumption.

2. The method of the test for the rating was different.

3. Efficiency of the amps could be different.

To further illustrate my example of the M-80, the various input power specs are 600W, 850W, 1100W/1300VA, and 1700W - all ratings for the same amp, just different marketing regions.

Another assumption often made is that the back panel rating is the maximum power consumption. Listing max input power may be the case in some regions/countries, but it's not in the USA - at least not for audio equipment, anyway.
 
What about watts? Which, Witch, is Which?

To further illustrate my example of the M-80, the various input power specs are 600W, 850W, 1100W/1300VA, and 1700W - all ratings for the same amp, just different marketing regions.

Another assumption often made is that the back panel rating is the maximum power consumption. Listing max input power may be the case in some regions/countries, but it's not in the USA - at least not for audio equipment, anyway.

True, an audio novice will mistake the power consumption for power output. In this case, that is not true, having prefaced and shown exactly what the true output ratings are via posted spec sheet. You wrote: "To further illustrate my example of the M-80, the various input power specs are 600W, 850W, 1100W/1300VA, and 1700W" . I believe that it is the MX1000/MX1000u that have those various ratings, with the exception of the 600 watts, although I've owned two different American market M80's that had 650watt and 850watt ratings.
Again, my point being, that there is some speculation that there is indeed a PS difference between the American market MX1000 and MX1000u. They do indeed have the same output ratings, but different PS/VAC ratings, the 'U' version having a significantly larger VAC rating, therefore, better capability under heavy loads.
I've been a long time fan of the 'M' series Yammies, having owned and used M35-65-70-80-MX1000-MX1000u's. Seems that Yamaha was all over the map wrt the back panel consumption ratings. Whatever the case, they are damn good amps, I think we all agree to that, and that's what really matters.
 
True, an audio novice will mistake the power consumption for power output. In this case, that is not true, having prefaced and shown exactly what the true output ratings are via posted spec sheet. You wrote: "To further illustrate my example of the M-80, the various input power specs are 600W, 850W, 1100W/1300VA, and 1700W" . I believe that it is the MX1000/MX1000u that have those various ratings, with the exception of the 600 watts, although I've owned two different American market M80's that had 650watt and 850watt ratings.
Again, my point being, that there is some speculation that there is indeed a PS difference between the American market MX1000 and MX1000u. They do indeed have the same output ratings, but different PS/VAC ratings, the 'U' version having a significantly larger VAC rating, therefore, better capability under heavy loads.
I've been a long time fan of the 'M' series Yammies, having owned and used M35-65-70-80-MX1000-MX1000u's. Seems that Yamaha was all over the map wrt the back panel consumption ratings. Whatever the case, they are damn good amps, I think we all agree to that, and that's what really matters.

The power consumption specs I listed were straight from M-80 service manual.

All I'm saying, without regard to the specifics, is that going by the back panel rating isn't a clear indication of a significant difference in the PS if you are comparing between non-identical models. Because, as you see, even for the same model there are wide differences.

The MX-1000u may well have a more capable PS than the MX-1000. I don't know one way or the other, but trying to determine that from the back panel ratings isn't a sure-fire way to say it's 100% true.

And yes, we agree they're fine amps. I have a pair each of the M-80 and M-40 amps. I had a MX-1000u that I was trying to fix, but it got thrown away by someone on a cleaning rampage in my absence. Grrrrrr.... that still ticks me off...
 
You're preaching to the choir. I never said that it was 100% true, nor has anyone stated evidence of it being fact. That is what "speculation" is. I prefaced my statements accordingly too. It appears from your posts that you do not understand what I've written, and are in turn, writing back information that seems to indicate that I've made a statement that is incorrect, and you are correcting me, unless you just like stating the obvious, over and over?
 
I've read them quite carefully.

This

The MX1000 has a lot going for it. Some of them have a smaller PS than the MX-1000'u' version. I've owned both. My MX1000 had an 850 watt power consumption and my MX1000u has an 1100 watt/1300VA rating

seems like a statement of fact. And, on it's own, the ratings may be facts - likely are.

But, in the context of MX-1000 vs MX-1000u power supplies, it tells absolutely nothing about their respective capabilities because we don't know they're comparable measurements.

And yeah, I like rehashing the same old thing until I'm convinced it's understood.

To the OP: Is the MX-1000 the finest Yamaha amp? I dunno, but doubt it. At any rate, it's a damn good one.
 
Bolly,

there are many Yamaha M2 amps around here for sale, but someone here in this forum advised me to stay away from them, saying that there are no spare parts.
I have looked at the M2 and it is a very nice amp, but right now I do not have the resources to risk spending more money than I should have.

What "spare parts" are hard to come by for the M-2? I've been thinking of picking up an M-2 myself, and wasn't aware that there was any problem finding parts for repairs for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom