Yamaha Receiver VS Rotel preampTest...

[46minaudio]

After reading Mr Peabody findings on seperates Vs Receivers ,and the constant rants on how bright Yamahas are I thought I would post my findings...The system is a Acurus a200x3 amp,Yamaha RXV 1400 Receiver,Rotel 1070 2ch preamp,Denon DCM 380 cd player,Paradigm Studio 100 v2s.In this system I run the L/R front preouts from the Yamaha to an aux input on the Rotel.For HDTV ,and DVD I select the aux input calibrate the volume (to 12 oclock).For CD and TT I turn the volume down and use either input as needed..The Denon CD player has a digital and a analog output.I run the analog to the Rotel and the Digital to the Yamaha..Testing is only using direct on the Yamaha.Setting a volume level on the rotel to about 70 dbs then change inputs and set the Yam to about 70dbs..At this point it is a matter of going to and from the AUX input to CD input on the 2ch pre..I have had 9 people that I did this with and not one could say the Rotel was better than the Yamaha..And when done blind no one came close ..I am not an EE but if there is a flaw in this test it would seem to be on the Yamaha...

[woodman]

After reading Mr Peabody findings on seperates Vs Receivers ,and the constant rants on how bright Yamahas are I thought I would post my findings...The system is a Acurus a200x3 amp,Yamaha RXV 1400 Receiver,Rotel 1070 2ch preamp,Denon DCM 380 cd player,Paradigm Studio 100 v2s.In this system I run the L/R front preouts from the Yamaha to an aux input on the Rotel.For HDTV ,and DVD I select the aux input calibrate the volume (to 12 oclock).For CD and TT I turn the volume down and use either input as needed..The Denon CD player has a digital and a analog output.I run the analog to the Rotel and the Digital to the Yamaha..Testing is only using direct on the Yamaha.Setting a volume level on the rotel to about 70 dbs then change inputs and set the Yam to about 70dbs..At this point it is a matter of going to and from the AUX input to CD input on the 2ch pre..I have had 9 people that I did this with and not one could say the Rotel was better than the Yamaha..And when done blind no one came close ..I am not an EE but if there is a flaw in this test it would seem to be on the Yamaha...

46min.:
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to PROVE (at least partially) what I've been trying to tell people for years now. That is, that whenever performance differences do exist (which is most certainly not always) - those differences are gonna be small, subtle, tiny, minuscule ... in other words, not really very meaningful. I've been working with audio all of my life and have blown away by the technological progress that's been made. Today, most any audio design engineer that's worth his salt can design an audio product that's merely a few pubic hairs less in performance than a similar product that costs 5-10 times as much! There's simply no such thing as "blows away" or "kills" or "a night & day difference" or "waaaay better" or "a HUGE difference" or any other outrageous claim made by people who've been victimized by their own ABEs (Attitudes, Beliefs, and Expectations). Mr.Peabody is a classic case. He stated in a post on another board here that some amplifier was "light years ahead" in performance over a Yamaha. Obviously, he doesn't actually know anything at all about audio ... only what his ears (and his ABEs) lead him to believe is true.

Another prize-winning example is the myth that Yamaha receivers and amplifiers are "bright" - which they're not. They're simply accurate, with a very flat frequency response - that's all. To anyone that's accustomed to hearing amplifiers that have a rolled off response, of course something with an accurate response curve will sound "bright". That hardly makes it so.

What did you mean by your last line ... ..I am not an EE but if there is a flaw in this test it would seem to be on the Yamaha. ? There IS a flaw in your test since you're not comparing the Rotel and the Yamaha on equal terms ... the Rotel is getting an analog signal (where the DAC in the Denon player was used) and the Yamaha is using its own built-in DAC - using the digital output from the CD player. In order to test the two on a level playing field, they would both have to get the same signal from the CD player (either analog or digital) and their outputs would then have to be switched before the input to the power amp. This would require the use of some external switch, and level matching would be a bit difficult. But the test that you did run - flawed or not - simply proved my contentions as stated above. That the differences in performance are in actuality much too small to be the subject for endless debate that they've become.

[mtrycraft]

After reading Mr Peabody findings on seperates Vs Receivers ,and the constant rants on how bright Yamahas are I thought I would post my findings...The system is a Acurus a200x3 amp,Yamaha RXV 1400 Receiver,Rotel 1070 2ch preamp,Denon DCM 380 cd player,Paradigm Studio 100 v2s.In this system I run the L/R front preouts from the Yamaha to an aux input on the Rotel.For HDTV ,and DVD I select the aux input calibrate the volume (to 12 oclock).For CD and TT I turn the volume down and use either input as needed..The Denon CD player has a digital and a analog output.I run the analog to the Rotel and the Digital to the Yamaha..Testing is only using direct on the Yamaha.Setting a volume level on the rotel to about 70 dbs then change inputs and set the Yam to about 70dbs..At this point it is a matter of going to and from the AUX input to CD input on the 2ch pre..I have had 9 people that I did this with and not one could say the Rotel was better than the Yamaha..And when done blind no one came close ..I am not an EE but if there is a flaw in this test it would seem to be on the Yamaha...


Yep, just shows you that many people are wrong when claiming without supporting evidence:) Nothing new:) Their sighted listening is unreliable for such claims. The Yam is as flat as the other amp, no reason to sound different.

[RGA]

46min.:
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to PROVE (at least partially) what I've been trying to tell people for years now. That is, that whenever performance differences do exist (which is most certainly not always) - those differences are gonna be small, subtle, tiny, minuscule ... in other words, not really very meaningful. I've been working with audio all of my life and have blown away by the technological progress that's been made. Today, most any audio design engineer that's worth his salt can design an audio product that's merely a few pubic hairs less in performance than a similar product that costs 5-10 times as much! There's simply no such thing as "blows away" or "kills" or "a night & day difference" or "waaaay better" or "a HUGE difference" or any other outrageous claim made by people who've been victimized by their own ABEs (Attitudes, Beliefs, and Expectations). Mr.Peabody is a classic case. He stated in a post on another board here that some amplifier was "light years ahead" in performance over a Yamaha. Obviously, he doesn't actually know anything at all about audio ... only what his ears (and his ABEs) lead him to believe is true.

Another prize-winning example is the myth that Yamaha receivers and amplifiers are "bright" - which they're not. They're simply accurate, with a very flat frequency response - that's all. To anyone that's accustomed to hearing amplifiers that have a rolled off response, of course something with an accurate response curve will sound "bright". That hardly makes it so.

What did you mean by your last line ... ..I am not an EE but if there is a flaw in this test it would seem to be on the Yamaha. ?

You want to know if there is a difference BORROW a Bryston 3B ST. Listen to music through FULL RANGE or close to full range speakers...one that really will produce 40hz at level. Great. Then connect the 3BST to the receiver(you need one with preouts) - and at any volume level you wish - if you can't tell an immediate difference I would be surprized.

I's interesting when someone listens and agrees with what you hear they must of course be right, but people with different experiences must of course be wrong or deluded.

Most amps do sound the same most receivers especially - but certainly not in all cases and certainly not are all small differences...but then most people have crappy speakers and wouldn't hear it anyway.

And interestingly I have used the Studio 100V2 listening to both the Sugden A48b and Musical Fidelity A300 integrted amplifiers. Admittedly 2 entirely different preamp sections as well as power amps sections. I can't tell you which one YOU or anyone else on the forum would like better...I preferred the Sugden...but the person who owned the Sugden before me traded it in for the A300.

A small difference can be more important than a big difference over time if the big differences have no annoyances and the small difference does. Small differences are almost impossible detect in short A/B listening sessions or DBT's ---as of course anyone with the slightest knowledge of psychology understands the adverse affects of the test on the results...engineers are not up on the research but brain researchers are...but engineers are too chicken **** to study up.

[Woochifer]

You want to know if there is a difference BORROW a Bryston 3B ST. Listen to music through FULL RANGE or close to full range speakers...one that really will produce 40hz at level. Great. Then connect the 3BST to the receiver(you need one with preouts) - and at any volume level you wish - if you can't tell an immediate difference I would be surprized.

Surprise, surprise, not everybody is you! Did you READ the posts before going into copy and paste mode about how engineers don't know what they're talking about, how DBT is invalid because observations are valid only after living with equipment long-term, how you (and only you) can instantly tell the superiority of Sudgens on first listen, etc. This was about the PREAMP section!


I's interesting when someone listens and agrees with what you hear they must of course be right, but people with different experiences must of course be wrong or deluded.

And how's this any different from how from anybody else on the board?


Most amps do sound the same most receivers especially - but certainly not in all cases and certainly not are all small differences...but then most people have crappy speakers and wouldn't hear it anyway.

Wait a minute, didn't you on another thread note how different your new Marantz sounds from other receivers you've tried? Oh, I get it ... it's because you don't have crappy speakers, and most of us do!


A small difference can be more important than a big difference over time if the big differences have no annoyances and the small difference does. Small differences are almost impossible detect in short A/B listening sessions or DBT's ---as of course anyone with the slightest knowledge of psychology understands the adverse affects of the test on the results...engineers are not up on the research but brain researchers are...but engineers are too chicken **** to study up.

Huh? Big differences, small differences, annoyances? WTF are you talking about? You can either detect differences, or you can't; those differences either mean something to you, or they don't. All this parsing of words just to try and discredit the validity of DBT comes across as nothing more than trying to assert that you're somehow exempt from the conclusions of what a test would say. You make the claims that you can tell these huge differences between components, yet since none of these observations were done under controlled conditions, you attack the science. What are you afraid of?

And what do you have against engineers? Aren't they in fact the ones who design the Sudgen and Audio Note components that you wax poetic about? There are a helluva lot more engineers who design audio components than brain researchers who do so.

[spacedeckman]

big 5 channel Rotel with a Yamaha 3300, pre'ed the Rotel from the Yamaha and used a high powered amp switcher. Very close indeed. I was impressed, since the amp cost far more than the receiver. That is why I cannot recommend Rotel, nor many entry level separates over some of the bigger Yammy receivers out there.

The Bryston thing? I had a 3B-ST in my system for a very short time. You wanna talk about bright. DANG...oh, I forgot, they all sound the same...sorry.

[Debbi]

...have to agree with the Woodman...and below the surface(with the RGA post) is yet another universal myth that it is axiomatic that any separate amp must somehow be better than a receiver....from what I understand,in the far east there is a small cadre of manufacturers of internal components for amps etal, so that the specs should be relatively similar.I cant see why putting a tuner or a preamp in the same box would make an otherwise solid buiIt amp any worse.I do believe that it is possible that various manufacturers choose to bias their tone controls a bit differently which is easily corrected by the owner.Turning off all effects, I cant tell the difference between my Denon and Yamaha, given the same setup and listening area...

[RGA]

And what do you have against engineers? Aren't they in fact the ones who design the Sudgen and Audio Note components that you wax poetic about? There are a helluva lot more engineers who design audio components than brain researchers who do so.


Well hi fi choice listens blind and level matched - the difference is it's not a test for differences because the differences are assumed so they are looking for preferences.

I read the post wrong - but at least now I know why I have never liked Rotel Preamps - because they don't sound much different if at all from Receivers.

My Marantz is not at issue - it's hardly good for 2 channel audio but better than I thought.

Some engineers like Martin Colloms doesn't tout the same stuff as others...and there is no one any more qualified - on paper - than him though there is no doubt argument - which means finding the right is going to be difficult. I'm not against controlled testing...if the controls are right - they aren't and brain researchers involved with testing human subjects are more important and more RELEVANT than hackneyed engineers interpreting what a DBT is supposed to indicate. I'm not attacking DBTs/SBTs I'm attacking the generalizations made about them. But hey if it saves you money great if you can't here it great if you have decided that the DBT is the end all and only aspect of scientific experimentation that matters is reliabiltiy and not validity that's great too.