Yamaha

[browe1967]

My new Yami 665 has 90 watts at 1khz, my old Yami has 80 watts from 20-20. It seems my older one has more balls with 80w than the new one with 90w. Granted I have gone from Klipsch CF-1 www.klipsch.com/na-en/products/cf-1-overview floor standers to the on-wall RVX42's
www.klipsch.com/na-en/products/rvx-42-overview/

but shouldn't the new Yami be able to push the new speakers as well, They just don't any oomph. I mean they are on wall LCRs, not big ole floorstanders. I am also running a Deftech super cube for as a sub. Am I just expecting to much from my LCR's?

Help with lack of understanding. Thanks

[Deleted]

Browe1967, welcome to the Emotiva Lounge.

Granted is the key word in your post. You are comparing apples and oranges here. Looks like you are going for the smaller speakers with the narrow on wall speakers and the smaller cube sub.

Your Klipsch CF-1's were heavy (70 lbs) floor speakers with a sensitivity rating of 96dB's (also called efficiency). The 14 lb RVX-42 have a sensitivity rating of 94dB. I think Klipsch might be over specifying the sensitivity on the wall speakers a little. Anyway you need about twice as much power to play the RVX-42's at the same loudness as the CF-1's. Also the CF-1 has a much higher power handling, meaning they will play much louder.

Even though your receivers probably have about the same power (you didn't give a model number for the older receiver, they are in fact about equal in power). You just changed to a speakers that doesn't play as loudly or nearly as deep. With the RVX-42 which is flat down to only about 90-95 Hz, you should be crossing over to the DT sub at about 100Hz in your receiver sub crossover setting. The RVX-4 must be set to "small." The CF-1 were flat down to about 35-40 Hz (big difference and should have been crossed over to the sub at about 70Hz).

Your 665 is rated at 90 watts but that is not the same way that Emo rates their amps, which is with all channels operating simultaneously. The 665, for example, probably puts out about 60 watts with 5 channels driven. The 663 in tests measured 60 watts with 5 channels and 47 watts with 7 channels driven.

Also note that the CF-1 is rated to handle twice as much continuous power as the RVX-42. Obviously the CF-1 was on a higher level as far as putting out higher volume and lower bass. This is why you are hearing the big difference.

The Emo amps like the UPA-7 or XPA-5 will give you significantly more power for the RVX-42's. You will immediately hear the difference. However, just remember the CF-1's were designed to play much louder.

Hope this helps you. ;D

[scottl]

chuckienut pretty much nailed this one. I'll just point out that "oomph" is not something a speaker like the RVX-42 is going to have, whatever else their virtues may be. They are too small to move that much air; those big CF-1's were big for a reason. Even crossing over to a subwoofer below 100 Hz, smaller speakers are at a disadvantage in producing "oomph", which is usually the perception of upper bass & lower midrange power.

You could try swapping the receivers to see what you think - Yamaha has built some very beefy "80 watt" receivers in the past (the DSP-A3090, for instance), and your old one might be better than the 665. However, the speakers should make a much bigger difference.

[browe1967]

Thanks for th words. The older one was a RXV-992. Originally their flagship at the time at $995 bucks in 98. This 665 retailed at half that. I got the 665 for the HT set up. Multiple hdmi inputs for Hd dvd, Fios HD tv and Blue ray eventually.

It sounds great for HT but for listening to regular music it is a bit lame. I am looking at moving the CF1s out of the family room in the basemsnt and getting an Adcom speaker selector. That way I can switch to play music when I want.

I was thinking about starting with UPA-2 and then in the futer adding a XPA-3 for total 5 channel amplification, but, I just saw that the UPA-5 will be coming shortly so I may want to hold out a bit.

In the past I ran an Adcom GFA5500 only for the mains and I miss it, but that was with the CF1s. I think the UPA-5 should work very well with the on wall 42s. Would I be correct on that assumption?

[cgolf]

Nov 6, 2009 23:14:51 GMT -5 browe1967 said:

My new Yami 665 has 90 watts at 1khz, my old Yami has 80 watts from 20-20. It seems my older one has more balls with 80w than the new one with 90w. Granted I have gone from Klipsch CF-1 www.klipsch.com/na-en/products/cf-1-overview floor standers to the on-wall RVX42's
www.klipsch.com/na-en/products/rvx-42-overview/

but shouldn't the new Yami be able to push the new speakers as well, They just don't any oomph. I mean they are on wall LCRs, not big ole floorstanders. I am also running a Deftech super cube for as a sub. Am I just expecting to much from my LCR's?

Help with lack of understanding. Thanks

I'm using the 665 as a pre-pro and really like the sound. It has lots of HDMI inputs and processes most or all of the latest codecs. I use it with an XPA-5 so I don't use the amp.

[browe1967]

So, if I get a dedicated amp for the RXVs, can I expect a big improvement in HT or will it be more subtle?

I don't want to spend 5 plus hundred on ans amp if the difference is negligible.

[scottl]

Nov 13, 2009 13:59:32 GMT -5 browe1967 said:

So, if I get a dedicated amp for the RXVs, can I expect a big improvement in HT or will it be more subtle?

I don't want to spend 5 plus hundred on ans amp if the difference is negligible.

You will probably notice an increase in clarity, lower noise, more dynamic pop, and lower distortion when you turn the system up, but the difference the amp makes will be nowhere close to switching back to the CF1's - you will not get back the "oomph".

You would appreciate the improvement for both music and HT, most likely. I think it'd be money well spent.

[browe1967]

Well, I borrowed a friends NAD 2600A to try in my swystem. Hooked it up R/sp amp L/sp receiver to do a side by side test. And then flipped it the other way. The channel that was amped had a lot more detail and clearity in the music, it was less muddy and bunched up together sounding. Volume levels were only slightly louder than the recieiver but sound quality was much better. Used only one channel from the amp to run my center and watched the new star trek. So THAT is what a center should sound like, big difference. Looks like I see a UPA5 for Christmas

[slbenz]

Nov 16, 2009 1:47:05 GMT -5 scottl said:

Nov 13, 2009 13:59:32 GMT -5 browe1967 said:

So, if I get a dedicated amp for the RXVs, can I expect a big improvement in HT or will it be more subtle?

I don't want to spend 5 plus hundred on ans amp if the difference is negligible.

You will probably notice an increase in clarity, lower noise, more dynamic pop, and lower distortion when you turn the system up, but the difference the amp makes will be nowhere close to switching back to the CF1's - you will not get back the "oomph".

You would appreciate the improvement for both music and HT, most likely. I think it'd be money well spent.

I would totally concur. Having used Sherwood, Yamaha and now a Pioneer Elite receiver, every time I hook up the receiver to a separate multi-channel amp, the sound quality goes up over the receiver's internal amps. And after seeing the "true" specs of my Pioneer Elite in multi-channel, it is disconcerting when manufacturers say 140 watts/channel in one channel when in reality using all channels only generate 63 watts/channel with my Pioneer Elite.

[stillearning]

I have seen/heard many people remark on the lack luster SQ on the "lower" end Yammy AVR's When used as pre/pro they are great as they have a buttload of in's/out's and process just about everything out there

I noticed a HUGE improvement in SQ when i added my xpa5, a TOTAL improvement ;D

[browe1967]

Thanks for the replies. Now I am just trying to decide between the XPA-3 or the UPA-5. I know that more pewer form the 3 would be better than the 5 but do I really need to oower the rears with anything more than the Yami?

[taoggniklat]

Dec 23, 2009 8:24:29 GMT -5 browe1967 said:

Thanks for the replies. Now I am just trying to decide between the XPA-3 or the UPA-5. I know that more pewer form the 3 would be better than the 5 but do I really need to oower the rears with anything more than the Yami?

Personally I think every system should have more "pewer" for some major pew-pew!

;D

[browe1967]

Yeah, I wondered if someone would catch that. I was using my cell phone and the keypad is very small.

[scottl]

Dec 23, 2009 8:24:29 GMT -5 browe1967 said:

Thanks for the replies. Now I am just trying to decide between the XPA-3 or the UPA-5. I know that more pewer form the 3 would be better than the 5 but do I really need to oower the rears with anything more than the Yami?

You don't really need it, but it would be a good thing to have uniform power all the way around.
1) It keeps the sound of the system more consistent, which makes the illusion of surround more believable.
2) If you ever want to watch/listen to something that has really active, full range surrounds (like some multichannel music recordings), you will be happy you have the extra headroom.
3) It makes level calibration just a little bit easier.

The XPA-3 would be awesome, but I'd go for the UPA-5 for the reasons above, and because your Klipsch are so sensitive.