Yamaha RX595 - opinions?

[George Earl]

I'd like to replace my trusty Toshiba receiver which has served me
well for 15 years. I have a set of Boston Acoustic Sub Sat 6 speakers.
The room I will set it up in is 12' by 36', with the speakers down at
one short end. We will spend most of our time down in the area by the
speakers, but we will also crank up the sound and mill around in the
rest of the room, so I want to be able to hear out there. I'm
particularly interested in good, clean sound. I'd like to run the VCR
into the new receiver, but I'm not hung up on a state of the art home
theater system. I'd rather put money into good, solid sound than into
buttons for all kinds of sound enhancement. I'm prepared to spend up
toward $1000. My forays out into the audio boutiques have all resulted
in the salespersons pointing me to the Yamaha RX595. To a person they
have all said that this is the receiver for anyone interested
primarily in sound. I find this very interesting given that the
receiver sells for $400 and they knew I was prepared to go double
that. They have all said to get the RX595 and if I decide I want home
theater and sound enhancement I should add a matching Yamaha home
theater processor/amplifier when I am ready.

Opinions? Other suggestions? Thanks!

ge...@jaguNet.com
Georg...@ssa.gov

[Liming M. Voo]

George Earl (ge...@jagunet.com) wrote:
: I'd like to replace my trusty Toshiba receiver which has served me

: Opinions? Other suggestions? Thanks!

RX-595 can only drive 8ohm speakers. I would get the RX-770 which a step up
of the RX-595. RX770 gives out 85W/ch into 8 ohms or 220W/ch into 4 ohms.
It can be used as a preamp if you decide to buy a better power amp later.
It has pre-out/main-in loops and source-direct mode for less tortion
reproduction of music. I think it is a better sounding receiver than the
RX595. I have not listened them though. It lists for $549 and is sold for
$499 retail. Then again, there are a lot of good or better receivers out
there for less than $1000.

[Samuel M LeBlanc]

I've had the RX595 for a year now and I am very pleased with it. Its 80
per ch are plenty potent and it has very good sound (relatively
speaking). I find it very veratile an it has very convenient features.
I don't think you'll be disapointed, and it won't cost you an arm and a
leg.

Try it out!

Sam

[wino]

On Sep 21, 1996 17:24:53 in article <Re: Yamaha RX595 - opinions?>,

'lv...@post.its.mcw.edu (Liming M. Voo)' wrote:

>RX-595 can only drive 8ohm speakers.

WRONG! Where do you get your information? Check the Yamaha web site, or
their brochures, or call their technical dept. The RX595 is rated for 200W
at 2 ohms (vs 220W for the 770).

> I would get the RX-770 which a step up
>of the RX-595. RX770 gives out 85W/ch into 8 ohms or 220W/ch into 4 ohms.

>It can be used as a preamp if you decide to buy a better power amp later.
>It has pre-out/main-in loops and source-direct mode for less tortion
>reproduction of music.

True, it does have pre-out/main in, but both have source direct, and only
the RX595 has CD Direct!

> I think it is a better sounding receiver than the
>RX595. I have not listened them though. It lists for $549 and is sold
for
>$499 retail. Then again, there are a lot of good or better receivers out
>there for less than $1000.
>

If you haven't heard the 595 and are obviously misinformed about its
features, how can you make any credible comments? The 595 is a newer
model, replacing the 570. The 595 and 770 both employ the same Yamaha
Top-ART (i.e. Yamaha high-end (!) ) design philosophy. Also, when you say
"them", does that mean you have NOT listened to either of them?

In the US, the 770 street price is about $400 and the 595 is about $300.

Why bother telling people your opinion if you have no facts to base it on?

The Yamaha RX595 and 770 are both excellent stereo only receivers. What is
a better stereo receiver under $1,000? (That you have heard.)

[Liming M. Voo]

wino (wi...@nyc.pipeline.com) wrote:
: On Sep 21, 1996 17:24:53 in article <Re: Yamaha RX595 - opinions?>,

: 'lv...@post.its.mcw.edu (Liming M. Voo)' wrote:
:
: >RX-595 can only drive 8ohm speakers.
: WRONG! Where do you get your information? Check the Yamaha web site, or
: their brochures, or call their technical dept. The RX595 is rated for 200W
: at 2 ohms (vs 220W for the 770).

I read it off the 1996 Stereo Review's product guide. RX 770 is rated 220W
at 4 ohms, not 2 ohms. The guide did not say about 4 ohms for 595. So I
assumed that it is not designed to drive 4 ohm speakers. I could be wrong
on that one.

: > I would get the RX-770 which a step up

: >of the RX-595. RX770 gives out 85W/ch into 8 ohms or 220W/ch into 4 ohms.
: >It can be used as a preamp if you decide to buy a better power amp later.
: >It has pre-out/main-in loops and source-direct mode for less tortion
: >reproduction of music.
: True, it does have pre-out/main in, but both have source direct, and only
: the RX595 has CD Direct!

What's the difference? If the source is CD, it becames CD direct. Am I
missing something here?

: > I think it is a better sounding receiver than the

: >RX595. I have not listened them though. It lists for $549 and is sold
: for
: >$499 retail. Then again, there are a lot of good or better receivers out
: >there for less than $1000.
: If you haven't heard the 595 and are obviously misinformed about its
: features, how can you make any credible comments? The 595 is a newer
: model, replacing the 570. The 595 and 770 both employ the same Yamaha
: Top-ART (i.e. Yamaha high-end (!) ) design philosophy. Also, when you say
: "them", does that mean you have NOT listened to either of them?

Well, I could be a little misinformed here. My comment was just an opinion
based on what I know and perceive. But what exactly is "Top-ART" design
philosophy, any way? How did you know that they are designed based on the
hi-end product philosophy? From Yamaha literature? Are we supposed to
believe that products designed based on the same design philosophy of the
best model will result in comparaive quality? That would be a great
marketing line. Any company claim: "All of our products are based on the
same design philosophy as our top of the line model. (But we won't tell you
that they use parts of lower quality, ....)"

: In the US, the 770 street price is about $400 and the 595 is about $300.

I noticed that you posted from New York City where street prices for audio
are probably the lowest. Here in Milwaukee, the street prices are not that
much lower that the list on those models.
:
: Why bother telling people your opinion if you have no facts to base it on?

: The Yamaha RX595 and 770 are both excellent stereo only receivers. What is
: a better stereo receiver under $1,000? (That you have heard.)

You sound like a Yamaha dealer. I am not trying to put down Yamaha if that
is what you perceived in my post. In fact, I am still trying to locate a
AX-700 or AX-570 int. amp after reading the result of Sunshine Amp Test. I
have got opinions from this group, Email, and dealers that there are
receivers and intigrated amps as good or better than the Yamaha in the
similar price range. Then again, all those are just opinions. I have
listened to Sony GX800ES and Yamaha RX770 in the same store, and found the
Sony a little smoother. The Sony is an A/V (5 ch) receiver while the Yamaha
is 2 chennel. Recievers from Rotel are certeinly with considering for their
audiophile sound.

[Peter Williams]

>
> The Yamaha RX595 and 770 are both excellent stereo only receivers. What is
> a better stereo receiver under $1,000? (That you have heard.)
>

Better than the Yamaha's:

Denon DRA-565 $350? (equal quality to the Yamaha's)

Denon DRA-635 $500 MILES better than the Yamaha. Considered by many
dealers (high-end, not superstores) to be one of the
best recievers ever. knocks on the door of separates.
Sounds better than a NAD 304. Downside: no longer
in production and becoming hard to find.

NAD Integrated amps $200-400 ALL are better than the Yamaha's even if you
do have to spend an extra $150 for a tuner.

Creek Integrated Amps $500 even better than Denon and NAD

Parasound Integrated Amps good alternavtive to Creek

Need I say more? Yamaha is NOT the best there is. I'm not saying Yamaha is
bad. I have been impressed with some of their stuff, but there is much
more available at the price. You can even get some separates. For $1000
you could get an lower line Adcom set-up. So please don't say Yamaha is
the solution for anything under $1000 (especially when recievers are
routinely embarassed by integrated amps costing the same or less).

PBW

[liao dongxiang]

Peter Williams wrote:
>
> >
> > The Yamaha RX595 and 770 are both excellent stereo only receivers. What is
> > a better stereo receiver under $1,000? (That you have heard.)
> >
>
> Better than the Yamaha's:
>
> Denon DRA-565 $350? (equal quality to the Yamaha's)
>
> Denon DRA-635 $500 MILES better than the Yamaha. Considered by many
> dealers (high-end, not superstores) to be one of the
> best recievers ever. knocks on the door of separates.
> Sounds better than a NAD 304. Downside: no longer
> in production and becoming hard to find.
>
> NAD Integrated amps $200-400 ALL are better than the Yamaha's even if you
> do have to spend an extra $150 for a tuner.

How about NAD's receivers? Has anyone compare RX595 with NAD712 side by
side? From the specification, the RX595 is better, although I don't know
if those specifactions really count. The local saleperson told me that
NAD712 are actually 312 + 412, is it true?

Thanks,

--
Dong

d-l...@uiuc.edu
244-1310 (o)

[wino]

On Sep 23, 1996 04:45:02 in article <Re: Yamaha RX595 - opinions?>,

Yes. Source Direct (770 and 595) bypasses tone controls, variable loudness
and balance. CD Direct (595 only) bypasses the input selector as well,
taking the input directly from the CD input.

>
>: > I think it is a better sounding receiver than the
>: >RX595. I have not listened them though. It lists for $549 and is sold

>: for
>: >$499 retail. Then again, there are a lot of good or better receivers
out
>: >there for less than $1000.
>: If you haven't heard the 595 and are obviously misinformed about its
>: features, how can you make any credible comments? The 595 is a newer
>: model, replacing the 570. The 595 and 770 both employ the same Yamaha
>: Top-ART (i.e. Yamaha high-end (!) ) design philosophy. Also, when you
say
>: "them", does that mean you have NOT listened to either of them?
>
>Well, I could be a little misinformed here. My comment was just an
opinion
>based on what I know and perceive. But what exactly is "Top-ART" design
>philosophy, any way?

Top-ART is Yamaha's way of denoting their premium line product - they use
better quality components, symmetrical circuit design, and some other
improvements.

>How did you know that they are designed based on the
>hi-end product philosophy?

If you noted the exclamation mark after "Yamaha high-end" (i.e. !), you
should have inferred a degree of sarcasm/cynicism/irony associated with my
use of "Yamaha" in conjunction with "high-end".

> From Yamaha literature? Are we supposed to
>believe that products designed based on the same design philosophy of the
>best model will result in comparaive quality? That would be a great
>marketing line. Any company claim: "All of our products are based on the

>same design philosophy as our top of the line model. (But we won't tell
you
>that they use parts of lower quality, ....)"

Yamaha makes 4 stereo receivers - the 770 and 595, which use the
symmetrical Top-ART design, and the 495 and 395, which DO NOT MAKE THIS
CLAIM. So it appears that not "Any company claim : All of our
products..."

>
>: In the US, the 770 street price is about $400 and the 595 is about $300.

>
>I noticed that you posted from New York City where street prices for audio

>are probably the lowest. Here in Milwaukee, the street prices are not
that
>much lower that the list on those models.
>:
>: Why bother telling people your opinion if you have no facts to base it
on?

>: The Yamaha RX595 and 770 are both excellent stereo only receivers. What

is
>: a better stereo receiver under $1,000? (That you have heard.)
>

>You sound like a Yamaha dealer.

Wrong again - I am not a Yamaha dealer. Just don't want people getting the
wrong impression on the basis of your "information"

> I am not trying to put down Yamaha if that
>is what you perceived in my post. In fact, I am still trying to locate a
>AX-700 or AX-570 int. amp after reading the result of Sunshine Amp Test.
I
>have got opinions from this group, Email, and dealers that there are
>receivers and intigrated amps as good or better than the Yamaha in the
>similar price range. Then again, all those are just opinions. I have
>listened to Sony GX800ES and Yamaha RX770 in the same store, and found the

>Sony a little smoother. The Sony is an A/V (5 ch) receiver while the
Yamaha
>is 2 chennel. Recievers from Rotel are certeinly with considering for
their
>audiophile sound.

I agree with you about Rotel.

[Bill McNew]

Because of my special circumstances I was privileged to audition several
of these receivers on my own system. From a strictly audio standpoint, the
Yamaha 595 and 770, and the Nakamichi receivers were far better than
anything else under a grand.

The Sony ES and the other AV models were soft and strained when the going
got tough. I thought of what I told one of my friends about his expensive
AV set up when we checked it out with some music.

³Well,² the best I could come up with was, ³it sounds like a really good
car stereo.²

The big disappointment was Rotel. IMO, their sound has deteriorated. Have
they changed hands?

BTW, I ended up with the 770, thanks to some good advice from this group
and several weeks of great listening!

Bill McNew
Vencor Hospital "Do not go gentle ..."
Louisville, Ky. Dylan Thomas

By...@IgLou.com