Help me to choose between these MEGA MONSTERS!!!

To me it is much better to stick to a 5800 or a z9 which can truly reproduce almost all the sonic information sent to them via a digital connections like toslink or iLink at a very high level. ...

...Current avrs are a dying breed of its previous generation. Or may be I am accustomed in hearing a denon 5803 or a Yamaha z9 or a pioneer 59txi and old enough to accept this change in the HD era where avrs are optimized for mp3 listening while accepting HD audio. I do not know.

No one is denying the analog audio (power amp) capabilties of AVrs like the Z9. I dont think the Yamaha A3010/3020 or similar AVRs can compete with the Z9 in this area But Z9s (and their equivalents like the 5803) are rare to come buy. What do AVrs like these cost today anyway? 1L?

What about the lesser "audio centric" AVRs like NAD's 757 and Arcam's AVR400? I dont know the prices of AVRs here but I would assume the 757 and AVR400 would sell for under 1.5L each. They might not have the muscle of the Z9 or 5800 but with the right speakers (read as 90db+ sensitivity @ nominal 6 ohms) these more modern AVRs might offer both the convience of HDMI etc.. and the sound quality of yore.

The other option could be to get a realy good integrated (with power amp in) amp for stereo use and then get an AVR with pre amp outs for at least the front channels and use the AVR for video use. The CD player and other audio devices would then be connected to the Integrated and video devices would then be connected to the AVR. In video mode the AVR powers center and rears and the power amp in the integrated powers the front channels.

A third alternative is that given the current price and power supply capabilities of older AVRs like the Z9, 5803, etc.. you could use them as power amps and let a cheaper but more modern AVR (with pre outs) do the video processing.

Disclaimer:
I assume that top line models from "audio brands" like NAD, Arcam (NAD's T777 or Arcam AVR 600 for example) and 2 box solutions like Marantz 8801+8077 or Arcam's AV888+P777 would be much more expensive than any older 'flagship' AVR (Z9, Z11, 5803, etc..) to be considered as viable alterantes.
 
If the top end bdp is giving 1080p Video output then avr will just use it as is and passthrough if it is a 1080p avr. If it is a 4k upscalar chip in avr and you dislike it better turn upscaling off in avr and that's it. Why sacrifice hd audio for all this?

No need to sacrifice HD Audio bro. See this suggestion from Navin. "A third alternative is that given the current price and power supply capabilities of older AVRs like the Z9, 5803, etc.. you could use them as power amps and let a cheaper but more modern AVR (with pre outs) do the video processing."

And in any case, I am likely to hook the BDP to my display directly. Even if I am running an HDMI carrying HD Audio to my receiver. Why? Because the best signal path is the shortest signal path. No matter what the marketing dept wants you to think.

Here is a bit detailed reasoning. If you want to take the video signal to the AVR to take advantage of 4k upscaling, then I assume you have a 4k capable display as well?

If not, then do you want to upscale and downscale the signal before displaying? And even if you are bypassing upscaling in your AVR, are you sure the signal doesn't pickup interference going through the AVR circuitry? Why would I like my signal to go through "one-more-component", "one-more-wire" when I have the luxury of omitting that?

If your display is 4k, then perhaps it also has built-in upscaling? Must be! I haven't seen any display on the market that takes only one resolution input. Then why not use the built-in upscaling of the display unit (or BDP)? I don't think average AVRs will have better video upscaling than the display's built-in upscaler. And if it does, go ahead and upscale in the AVR. But for me, that's not a first or automatic choice. I would see which upscaler is the best. I will hook my equipments accordingly. Hooking the source to the AVR with HDMI blindly is the last thing I'd do. I'd always choose the best upscaler in my chain, not assuming the AVR to be the best of them all.

And better still, if any day, I were to start all over again, I will invest in a TOTL power amp and keep changing processors, to do justice to audio+video and still have convenience. Because, like it or not, they simply don't make the kind of stuff they used to. Current generation gets bought in marketing hype too easily. No wonder many great companies from the past (Sony, Harman Kardon, B&W, Naim) are taking it to the end-consumer. They need money. Audiophile philosophy can take a back seat. If there are 50 audiophiles there, there are 5000 MP3 generation users there. Which market they should cater to? They would not be money-smart if they catered to 50 people caring about the sound-quality. They would rather cater to 5000 who buys by spec-sheet.

Hey Bro !! I am not trying to defend HDMI here...

Almost all Blu Rays these days will have new formats but at the same time they can also send DTS / Dolby. So old TOTL having Coaxial Inputs are good to go.

I am not denying to the fact that old TOTL will sound better than modern AVR's. But everyones not lucky to find old TOTL at rock bottom prices.

There was an Ad of Z11 being sold in Mumbai for Rs.50,000/-. Day I called them it was already sold. Z11 would not sound as gr88 as Z9 but still I would had bought it @ 50k eyes closed. Coz I knew it would still beat modern AVR's at the same price range or even twice the cost.

Anyone getting one of these AVRs at that price is extremely lucky. If I were in the market for an AVR, I'd take deals like those first and breath later.

Current avrs are a dying breed of its previous generation. Or may be I am accustomed in hearing a denon 5803 or a Yamaha z9 or a pioneer 59txi and old enough to accept this change in the HD era where avrs are optimized for mp3 listening while accepting HD audio. I do not know.

Absolutely my sentiments. Few people have first had experience with good AVRs. But those who do would know the truth.
 
Last edited:
And better still, if any day, I were to start all over again, I will invest in a TOTL power amp and keep changing processors, to do justice to audio+video and still have convenience.

It all depends on the application. What I have found is that if the AVR was usable for music it lacked the bite required for movies and so vice versa. NAD/Arcam (and maybe a few others) suited music while Onkyo one was good for movies (there may be others).

If you do not need big SPL or your speakers are reasonably efficient a good "audio centric" AVR might just do the job - 50W rms per channel for speakers that are 90db/1W/1m would generate SPLs in the 100-105db range. This is what I have done for my bedroom's 2.0/4.1 system (the AVR is Arcam's baby 400 which uses 4 channels for the fronts). In a bedroom a small AVR like the 400 provides enough "slam" (alongside a subwoofer).

If you are really a "2 channel guy" who wants 5.1/9.2 video for the occasions when you are enjoying a movie with family and/or friends a combination of a good integrated and AVR would make sense (here I use a Yamaha S2000 integrated with an Onkyo 3010 for my 2.1/7.2 system - long story on "why the 3010").

often using a TOTL power amp with a AV processor would mean all the analog audio would go through more processing (even in direct mode) than is required (much depends on the AV processor's topology).

TOTL makes sense best when your budget permits the use a very very good AV processor with a clean direct mode (for 2 channels) and you need the oomph and chutzpah the big power amps provide. Some companies like Emotiva have made this their business. Remember going from a good regulated 50W rms amp to a good regulated 200W rms amp only raises SPLs by say 6db that too if the woofers (and other drivers) dont start compressing (read as linear Xmax limits).

just my 2 paise worth. Read the part about "want vs need" here.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/receivers-vs-separates-solving-the-audiophiles-dilemma/
 
Last edited:
50W rms per channel for speakers that are 90db/1W/1m would generate SPLs in the 100-105db range.

90db/1W/1m is the Spl measured at a distance of 1 meter
A formula called the "inverse square law" tells us that when the distance from the source is doubled, the sound pressure weakens by 6 dB. Among sound engineers, there's a common saying: "6 dB per distance double." So at a 6-ft. distance, your 90db spl goes down to 84 db and at10 to 12 feet which is the most common listening or viewing distance in home theaters or listening rooms the 84db goes down to 78db which not at all loud my friend and that should be around just 12bit resolution of your digital audio
apart from this
very efficient BUDGET speakers will play extremely loud using modest amplifiers, the trade-off being a very large degradation in tonal accuracy, a definite harshness, and a complete loss of off-axis performance that
accompanies horn-loaded designs. But in many situations, speakers will
be damaged and distorted sound will offend many ears.
so now recalculate and you will find that for 90db spl At 12 feet you will definitely need the emotiva
.
 
Last edited:
90db/1W/1m is the Spl measured at a distance of 1 meter
A formula called the "inverse square law" tells us that when the distance from the source is doubled, the sound pressure weakens by 6 dB. Among sound engineers, there's a common saying: "6 dB per distance double." So at a 6-ft. distance, your 90db spl goes down to 84 db and at10 to 12 feet which is the most common listening or viewing distance in home theaters or listening rooms the 84db goes down to 78db which not at all loud my friend and that should be around just 12bit resolution of your digital audio
apart from this
very efficient BUDGET speakers will play extremely loud using modest amplifiers, the trade-off being a very large degradation in tonal accuracy, a definite harshness, and a complete loss of off-axis performance that
accompanies horn-loaded designs. But in many situations, speakers will
be damaged and distorted sound will offend many ears.
so now recalculate and you will find that for 90db spl At 12 feet you will definitely need the emotiva
.

I hope you are kidding. If you were not then may be you should do the maths right.

To generate a SPL of 90db from a 90db at 1 meter rated speaker at a distance of 12 feet you will barely need 10 watts. Please do your math again.
 
90db/1W/1m is the Spl measured at a distance of 1 meter
A formula called the "inverse square law" tells us that when the distance from the source is doubled, the sound pressure weakens by 6 dB. Among sound engineers, there's a common saying: "6 dB per distance double." So at a 6-ft. distance, your 90db spl goes down to 84 db and at10 to 12 feet which is the most common listening or viewing distance in home theaters or listening rooms the 84db goes down to 78db which not at all loud my friend.


To generate a SPL of 90db from a 90db at 1 meter rated speaker at a distance of 12 feet you will barely need 10 watts. Please do your math again.

Let see...

90db/1w/1m (for one speaker in anechoic conditions)
84db/1w/2m (for one speaker in anechoic conditions)
78db/1w/4m (for one speaker in anechoic conditions)
88db/10W/4m (for one speaker in anechoic conditions)
add 4-6dfb for second speaker and surround channels (conservative numbers)
92-94db/10W/4m for system in anechoic conditions
add 4-6db for boundry reinforcement (again conservative numbers).
96-100db/10W/4m in room

So by my calculations with a good AVR (capable of delviering 50W per channel all 5-7 channels driven 20-20k at <0.1% distortion etc...) you should be unable to hear your self speak if the speakers are truly 90db/1w/1m (I can tell you that few speaker manufacturers really meet the specs they print and this includes the reputed brands like B&W, KEF, Focal, etc...).

For my application....
I can confirm a simple 90W rms integrated stereo amp (Yamaha S2000) pushed my speakers (dual SEAS 22m Excel cone woofers, 15cm Excel cone mid and Fountek Neo3.0 tweeter) louder than a larger Onkyo 3010 AVR (that is rated to produce 140W rms).

Granted the AVR was driving 7 channels while the Yamaha was only driving 2 (I did not disconnect the rear and center for this test) even so 90W > 140W! Ha ha ha obviously the 3010 was not putting 140W across all channels (besides surround channels do not have enough signal to push the AVR's power supply) and in any case neither amp was pushed beyond 12 o clock as in both cases by the time the volume control was at 12 o clock it was too loud (room size 9'H x 12'W x 30'L).
 
I assume that top line models from "audio brands" like NAD, Arcam (NAD's T777 or Arcam AVR 600 for example) and 2 box solutions like Marantz 8801+8077 or Arcam's AV888+P777 would be much more expensive than any older 'flagship' AVR (Z9, Z11, 5803, etc..) to be considered as viable alterantes.

Just when I left all hope to get a HD capable receiver youre suggestions compelled me to go for a second round of auditioning.

For the last week Nads range topper t787 avr is in my home for demo and the first impression are quite good. For a 4 grand receiver my grandson says it misses a lot of features, does no video processing over HDMI and do not pass many video tests done my magazines, but to me it is a fuss free avr which has decent sound and does hd audio. This Nad will cross-convert from an analog input such as component to an HDMI output which is quite important for me.

On the audio side it does a formidable job as an avr. The sound from the 7 channel internal amp when connected to cambridge audio bd player via hdmi is decent. My speakers are mainly connected to stereos, z9 and occasionally to 59txi via pcm, analog and iLink. Connecting the nad with these speakers and comparing with z9 I immediately felt something was missing from the sound. First was a little lack of few subtleties and vocal inflections which I cannot hear now, and the midrange seems too tamed for me. After two days it seems my ears are now in sync with the Nad specific sound and I am quite liking it.

I also did some two channel pre/power experiments connecting the nads front preouts to z9s power amp and the sound stage immediately opened up. The z9 for sure have much better power amp stage of the two and the sound is much better, fluid, open, crisp and clear. Upping the volume my BWs are getting what they need from the power side to open up properly.

Comparing the z9, 59txi and t787 purely in terms of audio quality the z9 is far superior followed by 59txi closely followed by nad. Even with hd audio t787 is nowhere close to the z9 or even 59txi. But still it is substantially better than the current experiences I had with recent yamaha, pioneer and marantz receivers. While avrs from these three manufacturers ticks all the boxes in the spec sheet and nad scores little, nads sound quality is far superior in analog, digital and HD.

It seems Nads pre even being of high quality are not as good as z9s and is masking some additional audio performance from the internal amps. In order to streamline my setup and sell the excess I organized a pre/ power receiver test some four years ago which included some top 8 receivers of its time, and the z9 stood out in terms of audio performance in both aspects. Sold the rest six and kept the best two.

I have almost decided to keep the nad, but it seems Cambridge audio has a new ace up its sleeve 751R. Never heard a CA amp but the dealer says these are for audiophiles though 200 watts per channel and 1700 watts power consumption figures seem farcical to me for an avr tipping just over 17 kilos.

http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/products/azur-751r-upsampling-home-cinema-receiver

Also how is the Marantz 8801+8077? Anybody having any first hand experiences?
 
Last edited:
I ended up selling the z11 after three weeks in order to buy the denon 5308CI and then sold that too after a week. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the z11/ 5308CI are more for tech geeks than audiophiles. The z11 had less inputs, less power, independent graphic equalizer for each channel removed, less Yamaha DSP Programs compared to the z9, no bass management over the multi channel analog inputs, no hifi dsp on the multi channel either. Although they did add HD decoding on z11 which is the only advantage over the Z9. And sadly more tools for compressed music and compressed video.

I never was able to get satisfactory audio performance from either z11 or 5308ci. And both these receivers cost me over five grand each!!! A lot of "cool features" seem kind of worthless to me. I sold both of them and continued with my Z9.

Good to know your personal experiences regarding these AVRs. Yes its true the DSP-Z9/ RX-Z9 have a very uncharacteristic or should I say un-avr like sound, if you know what I mean. It is capable to reveal even the tiniest micro-dynamics of a track in a very smooth and well-delineated manner and also the subtle vocal inflections which are generally the traits of high end AV separates costing twice or thrice its price. The sound signature is warm, textured and detailed with an incredible control over any musical track thrown to it, just defies the logic of being an AVR and intended for HT use. Amazingly it is equivalently good for movies too which is a bonus for me.

Recently I had the opportunity to choose between a Denon AVC-A1SRA, DSP-Z9 and DSP-Z11. All these are above US $4000 plus AV amplifiers. I was mentally determined to grab the DSP-Z11 before auditioning, reason being it had enough power for my home use, sounds excellent and most importantly supported HD audio which is no doubt the future. But it seems for music lovers like me or likeminded, practicality and features takes a back seat over sound quality.

Yamaha DSP-Z9 (Japanese Version)

02c4d6d8.jpg


yamaha01.jpg


The DSP-Z9 internal pre/power amplifiers are so good and so musically right, that unless you're willing to fork over some major dough one wouldn't look to separates if you can afford the DSP-Z9. I found the DSP-Z9's power on tap to be bountiful and robust, with overall audio performance not unlike what I heard from many high-end integrateds. In Pure Direct Mode it has a smooth, rich textured sound that is rife with air and possesses striking dynamics that bring songs to life. In Straight Mode a slightly warm midrange and solid bass impact make the DSP-Z9 one of the most musical solid-state A/V amplifier ever made. The bass on DSP-Z9 was the best; I mean low, fast and tight only start to describe the sound.

Yamaha DSP-Z9

Stereo 'Pure Direct' analog mode is denoted by Blue indicator cum On/Off button

puredirect.jpg


Multi-channel 'Pure Direct' analog mode is denoted by Green indicator cum On/Off button

a940z2.jpg


What hd audio? Feeding the DSP-Z9 via digital connections like PCM and iLink(multi-channel) with those expensive Burr-Brown 1792 DACs in action you do not need any. I tried the level best to justify my own self to have the DSP-Z11 feeding the same track with PCM/ HDMI and analog but no matter what I tried it never was able to create the same magic of DSP-Z9, sound-wise. From the video side DSP-Z11 was better, not by night and day but just by a step which justifies the upgradability from Z9 to Z11.

The other thing about z9 is its power.

Before auditioning these Uber AV amplifiers, I was not used to the idea of a receiver that has no fear of dynamic peaks, but these Ubers completely changed my view. While the DSP-Z11 was in the league of entry level separates the DSP-Z9 was definitely in the league of its own, I mean of much better AV separates. Yamaha did a stellar job with the Z9s brawny Class AB high current amplifiers and the difference wrt to other AV amps can be felt and heard.

Yamaha DSP-Z9 (Rear)

4167yamdspz9b.jpg


Yamaha DSP-Z9 (Under the front panel)

yamaha05.jpg


But I believe it is the pre-amp which makes the real difference rather than its power amp. With an amazing 90 analog input/outputs sockets and another 17 digital ones I cannot think of an AVR which have more, the Z9s pre-amp creates its signature warm & detailed sound, which you love to hear.

One question: Which speakers are you pairing with RX-Z9?

Although z11 or 5308CI are good avrs, the z9 is a modern classic that has the best amplifier of any receiver made in the last 20 years.

In the end it all boils down to the mindset of the user and his intended use, a HT guy will definitely choose the DSP-Z11 due to its practicality/ease of use it offers via a single HDMI cable carrying 1080p True HD video + HD audio for movies.

But for those who wants a one box solution, loves music and wants to hear stereo/ multi-channel music with occasional trip to movies, happy with 720p/1080i HD videos via component video and also additionally bear the pain to run other set of cables like analog/ iLink/ PCM for audio, then very few in the AV amplifier/AVR category is remotely capable of what DSP-Z9/RX-Z9 can deliver in terms of SQ and power output over analog/ digital audio. For those, DSP-Z9 is more like a box containing four high-end stereo integrateds singing the same song all at once.

yamaha07.jpg
 
Last edited:
One question: Which speakers are you pairing with RX-Z9?

Back after long days after spending some time on countryside. Refilled these old bones to last for a few more years.

Rishi I am using Bower and Wilkins 804S all around as my audio setup. I like full bodied sound and despise nowadays 7.1 systems where a huge subwoofer is supplemented by 7 tiny speakers. All you get is klang and boom and nothing in between.

Yamaha Z9 is almost always connected to these seven 804S, I do not care about the additional two front presence speakers. These speakers are rated at I believe 200 watts at 8 ohms and easily take a lot of abuse. I admit these floorstanders does not have the punch of a dedicated subwoofer (which I do not have) but anything from 50 Hz to 20 kHz are beautifully represented. The tweeter is a gem and those two 6.5 inch woofers produce adequate bass to keep me happy.

Anybody reading this must be thinking of why these floorstanders are connected to a receiver. Lets just say the owner is happy with it.

After all nothing else counts.
 
Rishi I am using Bower and Wilkins 804S all around as my audio setup. .... Yamaha Z9 is almost always connected to these seven 804S, I do not care about the additional two front presence speakers.

WOW!!!

Bowers and Wilkins 804S floorstanders and that too all seven of them connected to your Yamaha RX-Z9. This exotic combination is bound to produce reveling music. Now I do know why you love the sound of Z9 so much. These are the exact same loudspeakers used by Yamaha to fine tune the DSP-Z9/ RX-Z9 during its development phase. And they too had seven of them.

Bowers and Wilkins 804S

bw804s.jpg


There always remained a friction between Yamaha and THX back in late 90s. While almost all TOTL receiver models of other AV majors like Pioneer, Denon and Sony proudly sported "THX Ultra" logo, the badge of honor achieved by Ultimate Receiver from others after surviving near death internal amplifier tests that is bound to fry any mid priced receiver. And then there was the sound quality.

Yamaha always said their own DSP was superior and its because they "wanted to do things THX does not allow" to theirs. To me its an utter nonsense. THX require an AV amplifier/ receiver to perform to their spec or exceed it and that is what it is supposed to do when the THX mode is engaged. Manufacturers are free to offer exotic decoding schemes, try innovative things like room EQ (such as the YPAO system), or offer crossover options other than the standard THX (because not every customer is going to have THX speakers).

The truth I believe lied in the fact that Yamaha unlike other AV manufacturers never wanted to submit their product to THX for testing. It requires the manufacturer purchasing the really expensive and confidential THX Design Manual for the product in question, and Yamaha was reluctant to spend that amount of money when they had their own market established DSP programs. THX products are designed to be THX products. The manufacturer knows what they have to do from square one. Licensees then pay a small per-unit license fee for the manufactured product.

The top management must have understood the lack of THX certification in their first cost no object DSP-Z9/ RX-Z9 receiver may not be a good decision and may end up in marketing blunder. Customers may think of Yamaha not willing to make a competent product. So their Uber DSP-Z9/ RX-Z9 became the first ever AV amplifier/ receiver to adorn the revered THX Ultra 2 logo.

thxultra2lucasepe.jpg


Yamaha until 2002 was making US $2000 TOTL receivers like DSP-AZ1/ RX-Z1 and with Z9 was posed to create a US $4,500 bemoth to be released in 2004. In order to create a true legend of a receiver capable to create profoundly accurate sound with the full expressive power in music as well as in having the supreme culmination to sound as good in movies, the true nature of HiFi, they were in desperate need of a properly calibrated studio dedicated for Z9 to get a measure of its sound quality and fine tune the signature sound. Fortunately with the biggest budget ever sanctioned in Yamaha history for a single receiver model this was never going to be an issue and was quickly addressed.

Yamaha DSP-Z9/ RX-Z9

dspz9.jpg


Top dogs from Yamaha HiFi, Yamaha AV and Yamaha PA (Professional Audio) divisions were roped in for designing/ developing the Z9 from scratch. Project started from early 2000 and engineers like Hirochika Maegaki, Kunihiro Kumaga, and Izumi Ozeki took over to design the internal power amp, video, DSP modules along with many small and critical tit-bit modules of Z9.

Izumi Ozeki

izumiozeki.jpg


Left to Right: Kunihiro Kumaga, Hirochika Maegaki, Noriyuki Ohashi with their creation DSP-Z9

hirochikamaegakikunihir.jpg


Noriyuki Ohashi the head of Yamaha DSP Division along with Tomoko Ninomiya went on developing the software part and refine the DSP programs further as well as create a few of the world first like GUI display capability on receivers. Auto acoustic calibration known as YPAO was also part of this project.

Left to Right: Tomoko Ninomiya and Noriyuki Ohashi

noriyukiohashiandtomoko.jpg


But the icing on the cake was the gentle nod from the guru of Yamaha Audio, Dr. Masao Noro to be part of this project and help Yamaha to create their first quantum leap receiver. Dr. Masao Noro laid his golden hands in designing and developing the entire 11-channel audio pre-amplifier module from scratch which will later become the best sounding pre-amplifier to have ever adorned a Yamaha receiver. Dr. Noro san was responsible for creating many of the Yamahas first for the last half of the century and were generally roped in for their HiFi TOTL projects.

Dr. Masao Noro on the left

masaonoro.jpg


His pre-amplifier design for Z9 was nothing remotely close to what was found on their previous receiver designs as well as their competitors TOTL receivers; it was designed from scratch to be inside a separate floating structure supported by an independent inner frame, thoroughly eliminating the impact of vibration and preventing internal electromagnetic interference. The pre-amplifier used exotic electronic components like DACs, ADCs, gold plated relays, transistors, diodes, resistors, capacitors, etc normally found in discrete high end pre-amplifiers. This new no compromise balanced signal transmission design was to attain exceptional sonic purity and elimination of signal loss. Sadly it became Dr. Noro only venture to AV world but his legacy lives on like floating and balanced amplifier designs used in todays Yamaha A-S2000 and to be released A-S3000 HiFi stereo integrated amplifiers.

Dr. Masao Noro with his patent documents in hand describing the floating and balanced amplifier design

masaonoro1.jpg


Many says Z9 has the most brawny power amp section ever made for a receiver with its massive power amp section containing a 1500 VAC toroidal transformer but to me it is the exquisite pre-amplifier that being discretely configured results in a rich sound with pronounced musicality that separated it from other receivers. Its successor the Z11 released three years later failed miserably in front of Z9 where music was concerned, but was better in movies. Dr. Noro absence was dearly felt while the cost of the Z9s pre-amplifier prevented them to be used in Z11. Same goes for the power amp section. The large part of the money went in designing HD related circuits of Z11 limiting them to use a pre-amp and power amp closely related to AZ1. Maybe this is the reason why Yamaha choose DSP-Z9/ RX-Z9 over any other AV amplifier/ receiver in their 12 products list from their hundred years plus audio/ video history as being worthy enough to be considered a jewel while celebrating 125 years of their existence.

Link: Yamaha Commemorates 125 Years of Passion & Performance

While the top designers were busy developing the Z9 it was in the year 2002 that Z9 finally got its breathing room. Dedicated for Z9 project only the spanking new Yamaha B-Studio was made according to THX Studio specification.

Yamaha B-Studio

bstudio2.jpg


Testing of YPAO and GUI Display of DSP-Z9 on B-Studio

bstudioypaotestingwithg.jpg


The B-Studio sported seven B&W 804S floorstanders for seven channel audio tuning and calibration while a pair of gigantic JBL K2 S9800 costing US $25,000 a pair was thrown in to further refine analog/ digital stereo sound. Last but not the least Yamahas own NSX-10000 also adorned the studio. Never before such an elaborate setup and attention was provided for a receiver inside Yamaha which after two years of fine honing in the studio created a sound signature which we find so obsessive and meticulous detailed. The later receiver models like Z11 and current Aventage series got immensely benefited from the Z9s B-Studio setup.

Listening to DSP-Z11 in Yamaha's B-Studio

bstudio1.jpg


Yamaha NSX-10000

yamahansx10000.jpg


JBL K2 S9800

jblk2s9800.jpg


Anybody reading this must be thinking of why these floorstanders are connected to a receiver. Lets just say the owner is happy with it. After all nothing else counts.

And this is the reason why this odd looking combination of TOTL Yamaha receivers like Z9 paired with exquisite B&W go hand in hand. Their pairing is something that seems to be made in heaven. With seven B&W 804D connected to your Z9 you must be in seventh heaven.
 
Last edited:
@Rishiguru,
Your thread is really very informative, passionate and engrossing. I happen to read your thread today, although I log in to HFV almost twice/thrice a week.

I have a very modest HT in my 14'x11' bedroom. When I had purchased my AVR, I could not audition much and gone for Marantz SR 6004. The front and center speakers are from Epos book shelf M12i. The surrounds are Q Accoustics.

Few days ago, my AVR experienced some problem during running on our society DG Set Power and went to protection mode giving flashing red light.

Then I temporarily put my 2 channel integrated Leben taking analog input from my PC Asus Xonar Sound card and connected to the two front Epos speakers. I play my HT from both Oppo BDP as well as my Desktop PC through HDMI. But now I am using my Graphics card HDMI to my Panasonic Plasma and my sound card analog out to Leben 2 channel amp. Some stop gap method.

I find even the movie sounds are better from my Leben, although only 2 channel. Now, my question is among the current AVR models, are there any good or better sounding AVR at cost <1 La? I do not need 3D or that kind of features but HDMI is required.

Your Yamaha Z9 is a legend and not easy to find. I am at NCR, although originally from Kolkata. If you or any FMs come accross any such legendary AVRs of yesteryears currently on sale, please share or PM.
 
Last edited:
so why there aren't any current AVRs that can match these stars from yesteryears? If yamaha has the capability why has it stopped making a comparable but modern avr?
 
Just when I left all hope to get a HD capable receiver youre suggestions compelled me to go for a second round of auditioning.

I understand your dejection towards modern receivers (in terms of SQ and power output), but saying that I firmly believe there definitely be some modern US $5,000 plus AVRs which may come pretty darn close to the SQ levels of DSP-Z9/ RX-Z9. Of course some extensive search and auditioning is required with your B&W 804Ds. Recently I got the opportunity to audition the Yamaha RX-A3020, I am pretty impressed. Sounds so much like the DSP-Z11/ RX-Z11. What were your impressions?

For the last week Nads range topper t787 avr is in my home for demo and the first impression are quite good. For a 4 grand receiver my grandson says it misses a lot of features, does no video processing over HDMI and do not pass many video tests done my magazines, but to me it is a fuss free avr which has decent sound and does hd audio. This Nad will cross-convert from an analog input such as component to an HDMI output which is quite important for me.

On the audio side it does a formidable job as an avr. The sound from the 7 channel internal amp when connected to cambridge audio bd player via hdmi is decent. My speakers are mainly connected to stereos, z9 and occasionally to 59txi via pcm, analog and iLink. Connecting the nad with these speakers and comparing with z9 I immediately felt something was missing from the sound. First was a little lack of few subtleties and vocal inflections which I cannot hear now, and the midrange seems too tamed for me. After two days it seems my ears are now in sync with the Nad specific sound and I am quite liking it.

I also did some two channel pre/power experiments connecting the nads front preouts to z9s power amp and the sound stage immediately opened up. The z9 for sure have much better power amp stage of the two and the sound is much better, fluid, open, crisp and clear. Upping the volume my BWs are getting what they need from the power side to open up properly.

Comparing the z9, 59txi and t787 purely in terms of audio quality the z9 is far superior followed by 59txi closely followed by nad. Even with hd audio t787 is nowhere close to the z9 or even 59txi. But still it is substantially better than the current experiences I had with recent yamaha, pioneer and marantz receivers. While avrs from these three manufacturers ticks all the boxes in the spec sheet and nad scores little, nads sound quality is far superior in analog, digital and HD.

Great info about NADs range topping T787 receiver. It seems you are really impressed by the NADs SQ and at last may have something to savor with. I saw the T787 specs and my gills are currently full with it. Costing US $4,000 they are going to be prohibitively costly in India. I gathered some pics.:)

NAD T787 (Front)

nadt7871.jpg


NAD T787 (Rear)

nadt7872.jpg


NAD T787 (Internal)

nadt7873.jpg


You speak of Z9 having better SQ and power than NAD, can you kindly elaborate a little about their main differences in terms of sound signature and why you liked the Z9 over NAD? You must have tried it with other speakers? Your Z9 + B&W 804D form an impeccable bonding. The right balance between these speakers and your NAD may be missing here.

It seems Nads pre even being of high quality are not as good as z9s and is masking some additional audio performance from the internal amps.

I know Z9s internal pre-amplifier is something special. And its internal power-amplifier with muscles of Mike Tyson just amplifies its specialty or rather musicality to its fullest degree. While auditioning I heard this vast audible difference of Z9 & Z11. DSP-Z9 was miles ahead as far as music is concerned; bass had a proper tone and vocals where simply outstanding.

In order to streamline my setup and sell the excess I organized a pre/ power receiver test some four years ago which included some top 8 receivers of its time, and the z9 stood out in terms of audio performance in both aspects. Sold the rest six and kept the best two.

Would love to know about the rest six AVRs including your stereo gears? You are so rarely available in our forum so asking it all at once. Hope you wont mind.:licklips:

I have almost decided to keep the nad, but it seems Cambridge audio has a new ace up its sleeve 751R. Never heard a CA amp but the dealer says these are for audiophiles though 200 watts per channel and 1700 watts power consumption figures seem farcical to me for an avr tipping just over 17 kilos.

Azur 751R Upsampling Home Theater Receiver For Surround Sound

Also how is the Marantz 8801+8077? Anybody having any first hand experiences?

Did you have the chance to audition these beauties? I am head over heels on the Marantz 8801+8077 combo. This combo will surely have what it takes to make you happy and under all probability eclipse your beloved Z9.

I found another aspect of DSP-Z9 other than its performance. It is very beautiful to look at and perhaps the most beautiful looking AV amplifier from Yamaha stable in the last quarter of the century. Of course beauty is subjective and opinions may differ. To my eyes, sore with boxy AVR designs Z9 was a refresing change with beautiful curves on the front facia rather than being boxy designs of DSP-Z11, AVC-A1 SRA and of current generation. Z9s controls are minimalistic to keep the facia clean and in having an un-cluttered look.

Yamaha DSP-Z9

yamahadspz9beauty1024.jpg


Yamaha DSP-Z11

yamaharxz13603616684202.jpg


Yamaha DSP-Z9

sideviewu.jpg


Do update us when you have time. Thanks in advance!!!
 
Last edited:
I think it doesn't, but why isn't yamaha able to make something that has upgraded technology, but has basic amp/ preamp strcture same as z9 or z11?
 
I think it doesn't, but why isn't yamaha able to make something that has upgraded technology, but has basic amp/ preamp strcture same as z9 or z11?

Most of the AV receiver brands is moving towards cool features and loosing focus on the amp section. That's the trend now followed by most of the companies. A very good article on this related subject and you can see how the brands have made sacrifice on the amp part at the cost of having cool features.
Trading Amplifier Quality for Features in AV Receivers - A new Trend? | Audioholics
 
In Defense of the AVR

Link: HomeTheater.com ->In Defense of the AVR

Quite a nice article in hometheater.com!!! Mark Fleischmann speaks in defense of the AV amplifier/ AVR, a audio product category which is more misunderstood or maligned than any other category.

Below is the quote from the same article:

Perhaps no product category is more misunderstood or maligned than the audio/video receiver. Within the home theater community, some deem it a deal breaker or bottleneck, despite its true status as the heart of a home theater system. Outside the home theater community, two-channel puritans regard the AVR as a morally flawed cluster of features that is inherently hostile to good sound. Won't anyone (aside from AVR manufacturers) speak up for a product that tries so hard to give the consumer so much?

Before getting into the fine points of a home theater debate, let's define home theater. It is the union of big-screen television and surround sound. The goal of a home theater system is to present a big picture to the audience, a picture big enough to suspend disbelief and pull us into the story. Sound has to be equally immersive which is why home theater systems rely on surround sound to work their magic. The AVR's primary role in all this is to provide surround processing and multichannel amplification (not merely two-channel audio). It is also a switcher and adds a host of other features that expand the functionality of the system. By routing and sometimes even enhancing video signals, it also serves the other side of the home theater equation.

A two-channel system may be a fine musical companion (and I say this as the owner of a Jeff Rowland amp, preamp, and three turntables). It may the best choice for someone who loves music and cares nothing for movies. But without surround processing and multichannel amplification, it is not a home theater system. And if you really must choose one or the other, a home theater system is more versatile. A multichannel system can support two-channel listening, and I might add that 2.1 channels can be even better. But a stereo system can't support surround sound and therefore cannot support home theater.

Why invest in an AVR-based system when you could pay less for an HTIB or soundbar product? Hey, we review those, and they're great ways to improve over the terrible speakers built into TVs. But the best speakers you can buy (in any price range) are not those built into HTIBs. If you want great speakers, you need to buy them in a separate purchase, and then you need an AVR to power them. As for soundbars, they can be miraculous space savers, but their soundstage width is limited by the physical width of their enclosures, even with DSP magic. So these are bedroom a/v solutions, not the best ways to approach a primary home theater system.

Isn't an AVR just a bear? And not just a cute little honey bear, but a giant grizzly that wants to rip your throat out? I won't deny that first-time buyers have to ascend a learning curve. But most people are equal to the task whether they realize it or not. The learning curve for an AVR is much less steep than that of, say, a computer. It takes only a few minutes to step through all options in an AVR menu. See how long it takes you to plumb the depths of a computer control panelor even just Microsoft Word.

"Too much stuff" is arguably a universal disadvantage of AVRs. No one could possibly use all those features. But then again, no one has to. Again, the computer analogy holds. Computers and tablets have hundreds of uses but most people content themselves with web browsing, email, media playback, and a handful of others. Inside every AVR, there is a tiny subset of relevant functionsthink of it as the AVR-within-the-AVRthat you actually use. And if a feature you want isn't present, "too much stuff" becomes "not enough stuff."

While AVR designers haven't obliterated the complex nature of the beast, they've found many ways to ameliorate it. Pretty much every AVR has an auto setup routine that handles speaker types, speaker distances, and other setup parameters. While auto setups are rarely perfect, they usually make enough of the right decisions to get your system started. So you can begin using your system right away and worry about incremental performance tweaks later, if you worry about them at all.

Some AVRs strive to be user-friendlier in unique ways. For instance, Pioneer provides context-sensitive help in its graphic user interface, so as you navigate menus, the system explains things along the way. That's way easier than thumbing through a manual. Yamaha offers "scene" presets that group parameters for different uses, so you can choose one scene for movies and another for music. This saves a lot of button punching. Yamaha receivers ship with four default scenes which can be used immediately. And the user is free to add others.

Another knock on AVRs is that their room correction systems and other enhancers do more harm than good. In my experience, they vary. In any event you can avoid their shortcomings by not using them. I once told my doctor that I got agonizing abdomenal pain from eating bell peppers. "Don't eat bell peppers," he advised. If you think your receiver's room correction screws up the midrange, switch it off and leave it off.

Outside the home theater community, some people just don't get it. They claim an AVR can't deliver high performance because it prioritizes features over performance. This overgeneralization is so broad as to be obtuse. Some manufacturers offer higher performance toward the top end of their lines. They ladle on the features and build quality and make you pay for both (and it's often a great buy). Others make their high end aspirations known even in an entry-level product. Cambridge Audio, NAD, Rotel, and other high-end AVR brands must bristle at any suggestion that their products are anything less than great-sounding.

So much for the features/performance ratio. What about the price/performance ratio? The best AVRs compare well in this area. What I would call the best-performing receiver out there goes for $4995. What would $4995 buy in the loftier echelons of the two-channel sphere? A pair of wrist-thick cables? A wooden phono cartridge? Lest I be accused of making an apples-and-oranges comparison, please note that the comparison above compares the best to to the best, the bleeding edge to the bleeding edge. I could easily put together a dozen good-sounding two-channel or 5.1-channel systems for less than $1000 each. But only the 5.1 systems would qualify as home theater systems.

For music playback, nothing offers a bigger cornucopia of possibilities than an AVR. As the most eager-to-please component in the system, the AVR promotes a long list of waysincluding some fairly new ones to listen to music. Visualize, if you will, what it would take to add even a basic AVR feature roster to a stereo preamp. For wireless access you'd need an Apple AirPort Express and/or Bluetooth receiver kit. For iOS and Android devices, an outboard dock or a clumsy mini-jack-to-RCA adapter. For FM radio, an outboard tuner. For satellite radio, a Sirius/XM tuner. For a computer, a USB DAC (an up-and-coming AVR feature). How would you even go about adding DLNA, Pandora, or internet radio? Possibly through a Blu-ray player (another home theater product). Sure, an AVR makes you plug a bunch of stuff into its back panel, but one back panel may be simpler than several.

Perhaps the cruelest irony is that while a stereo audiophile struggles with his two-channel Frankensystem, the surround audiophile next door might be controlling his AVR with a smartphone or tablet. A tap here, a tap there, and then he's in home theater heaven. I might easily advance different arguments for a music system based on the direct contemplation and perfection of music in two channels, and in a different lifetime, I probably would. But as great as that can be, it is not a home theater system.

And let me be brutally frank when I say that 90-plus percent of the high-end two-channel exhibits I annually encounter at the Consumer Electronics Show don't sound as good as my 5.1-channel system at home, with an $1100 receiver and speakers costing $400/each.

So I would advise anyone interested in home theater not to be intimidated by the AVR's fearsome reputation and the often specious arguments advanced against it. Movies are fun, music is fun, and a home theater system lets you have the best of both. Buy an AVR and take the trouble to make friends with it. Like most of our readers, you won't regret it.
 
Last edited:
Rishiguru I find you in firm belief at modern receivers being good. And yes they are unless you have heard the late greats. I have had a lot of those and truly speaking none of current batch can match them. Sound quality and clean power are something these current receivers desperately lack.

Not being so pleased with nad t787 performance wrt four grand asking price I returned it after a weeks demo only to go for separate route. I had few separates before but at my age I prefer one box solution and have few selected components. Till now z9 was a perfect solution. Not being pleased with the audio quality of current avrs, I took marantz 8801 pre + 8077 power combo for home demo. These are going to cost me six thousand bucks which frankly speaking I was unwilling to pay. I had invested thousands of dollars to this money consuming hobby of mine and thus refrain. The good side is I have had good relation with these dealers hence the offer and acceptance from my side.

To my great surprise audio quality the marantz pre-amplifier sounded great. Timbral balance was just spot on, vocals danced. I am not a big fan of balanced xlr inputs/ outputs but it had more number of hdmi ports I will ever need. First disappointment was the lack of s-video ports. I do have some very old video components that supports s-video and at 3.6 grand I expected it to have atleast one or two.

I was almost fixed onto this unit but quite painfully found the phono pre amp not being as good as z9. One of the primary reasons to stick to z9 other than its profound sound quality is its amazing phono section, it sounds is so rich and vibrant without being overly fatiguing that I concede in keeping my turntable attached to z9 always. The pre-amp of z9 is very special and unique among all avrs I owned.

Connecting the same with the marantz pre-amplifier phono section the outcome was not so palpable. Frankly speaking to me it sounded quite harsh. May be my turnable + marantz combo was not at its best. Comparing the pre-amp of z9 with marantz 8801 both being powered by marantz 8077 they sounded different. And thats it. Marantz tad bright where as Z9 a little laid back and warm. Both had equal control on any music track I threw at them and I started liking the combination of z9 pre and marantz power amp combo. Why? Since it sounded just like the z9 with its own power amp. Which implies the marantz power amp is neutral and adds nothing to its line level input signal. The 8077 power amp costs a good 2.4 grand and I was amazed it did not even have the grunt to match the z9 pulling my seven B&W 804d floorstanders. It surprised me that nowadays separates are less powerful than last generation avrs.

So to sum up I found the marantz pre-amp to be very versatile with excellent audio quality to boot but with a botched phono section while the power amp being less powerful than my benchmark z9. It did not suite my current budget as well as my taste not to mention the requirement of s-video and component video inputs to hdmi out. So it went to back to the dealer.

Next came the Cambridge audio 751r. After being mildly impressed with the nad and marantz I was not expecting much at half the price of this Marantz. How wrong I was. I already owned their BD player but never thought of owning a Cambridge receiver. My objective from the beginning was to have a mid priced avr which performs decently in music and to watch the new hd movie audio formats contents. Until now only nad had it. But this 751 had even more.

The 751 is fuss free avr. Clean looking black box and being quite slim in that. Started listening music for first hour or two and it sounded great and powerful. My toes went tapping. It eclipsed my pioneer 59txi in power contents and sounds good while being a tad less bright. I remember when I used to compare the z9 with 59txi the pioneer always sounded very bright and you immediately have the perception of how clear the sound is. The next thing you knew was to reduce the treble because after some time it starts to cause ear fatigue. The z9 in comparison was a little laid back, warm and sweet sounding while preserving every detail and even some more than 59txi could ever muster. On long runs z9 always won. Then the Z9s phono is the best I have ever come across any avr in the last three decades.

Amazingly I found 751 have very pleasing sound quality for its price, better than the nad and far far superior than the current pedestrian avrs. It has enough slam to pull my seven B&Ws cleanly having airy highs and in having a solid bass representation. Having such a compact shape, with class ab power amps in stereo was as throaty as the z9. Which I believe is an achievement for any avr. Connecting my 4 ohm Tag mclaren calliope floorstanders the z9 had a little the edge in dynamics at near peak volume levels. In multi channel mode the z9 was capable to produce a bigger soundstage.

But by now my objective have changed, I do not want an HD ready avr having equivalent sound quality of z9, there is none and even six grand separates have less power and control than z9. I wanted an avr that can accept HD audio and produce reasonable sound on a high level. The 751 fit like a glove it has precedence of sound quality over features. This was my first requirement. It had plenty of power to play with. Thirdly the sound signature is not undue bright and has a warm inviting note. Timbral balance is really good in this receiver. From the connectivity side it had all I ever needed. 5 HDMI ins and 2 HDMI outs. Three s-video ins and one out. Three component video ins. It had complete 7.1 channel pre-amp out.

Comparing the z9 (pure direct) with the 751r (analog direct) on the pre-amp level the z9 again stood out. The common strengths of z9 like handling micro-dynamics, separation and detailing again got highlighted. Alas there was no phone pre-amp in 751r so could not compare with my LPs. Comparing the power amp sections z9 obviously had more muscle in multi-channel mode. I connected the 751 front & center pre-outs with z9s front & center power ins, and it seems in higher volume levels the z9 was more comfortable in handling dynamic peaks. Mind you my floorstanders require a lot of power to open up, coupling the 751 with now-a-days high sensitivity loudspeakers will provide enough SPL to keep all happy.

In the end I am quite happy, 751r ticked all the boxes I needed and most importantly have a solid audio base and budding audiophiles can buy this avr eyes closed. It has enough to challenge any 2 grand integrated in terms of sound quality alone. And yes, Cambridge audio produces truly value for money products.

A sophisticated flagship receiver to me is the core of a modern home theater system. To me they represent the pure, highly condensed state of the art. They are designed to bring the thrills and excitement of the theater to home, but are also created with equal obsession for pure, emotional enjoyment of music. A case in point is the Z9, Yamahas flagship receiver of 2004. Its one of the exceptional components on the market that did justice to both music and movies. I hope the 751r do the same magic to me.
 
A sophisticated flagship receiver to me is the core of a modern home theater system. To me they represent the pure, highly condensed state of the art. They are designed to bring the thrills and excitement of the theater to home, but are also created with equal obsession for pure, emotional enjoyment of music. A case in point is the Z9, Yamahas flagship receiver of 2004. Its one of the exceptional components on the market that did justice to both music and movies. I hope the 751r do the same magic to me.

Finally it's good to know you have obtained tranquility with Cambridge Audio Azur 751R. In hometheater.com website I find their review of 751R to be as positive as yours. Have you tested the cool USB feature where you can connect this receiver directly to PC and hear high resolution music files?

Also let me disturb your tranquility (:D) with some 'hot' news if you have not heard or gone through. Yamaha like Marantz are going to release a CX-A5000 + MX-A5000 AV separate combo having near US $6,000 list price. I believe it to be a direct competitor of Marantz AV8801 + MM8077 and in all probability to eclipse our beloved DSP-Z9 in SQ. But I am not sure until I hear it. All your necessities like HDMI, S-Video, component video and dedicated phono section can be found in the CX-A5000 pre-amp.

Have a look at the following thread: Yamaha CX-A5000 + MX-A5000
 
Last edited:
Order your Rega Turntables & Amplifiers from HiFiMART.com - India's reputed online dealer.
Back
Top