Help me to choose between these MEGA MONSTERS!!!

Hi, what a fascinating and informative thread, I've really enjoyed getting a rapid and full orientation of the world of high end AVRs and their history.

The reason for my interest is that I stumbled across a 'sold as seen' Denon AVC A1D a few months ago for 60.

I figured if it only did stereo it represented a pretty damn good stereo amp. As far as i am aware it is in fact fully functioning, so I feel I have a bargain, even without the remote.

As this is the precursor to the 'Uber' group A receivers you mention I wonder how you feel it stacks up against those others you mention?

I hope to be able to use an Apple TV optical out to use Dolby Digital from Netflix. I hope this is viable. Obviously I realise the video side is essentially useless now. Any info gratefully received.
 
Hi, what a fascinating and informative thread, I've really enjoyed getting a rapid and full orientation of the world of high end AVRs and their history.

The reason for my interest is that I stumbled across a 'sold as seen' Denon AVC A1D a few months ago for 60.

I figured if it only did stereo it represented a pretty damn good stereo amp. As far as i am aware it is in fact fully functioning, so I feel I have a bargain, even without the remote.

As this is the precursor to the 'Uber' group A receivers you mention I wonder how you feel it stacks up against those others you mention?

I hope to be able to use an Apple TV optical out to use Dolby Digital from Netflix. I hope this is viable. Obviously I realise the video side is essentially useless now. Any info gratefully received.

Hello BoilingFrog, in short, get it.

Yes, it will accept Dolby Digital on optical input. It will also decode anything but the latest and greatest. I am sure you know what to expect from an AVR from that era.
 
I am new to forum. Gone thru the whole thread, it was an eye opener & one of the best thread I had ever gone thru.

I am always been a fan of old school stuff. Can any body help me in getting a yamaha Dsp z9 or Denon Avc A1sr/sra.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for posting so late. I was busy in lookout for a used quality Oppo BD player which supported 7.1 channels analog out as my current resources are pretty well exhausted in spending for an over budget 7.1 speaker setup for a new marantz avr last year. And then came the Yamaha z9 with it heavy cash burden. Luckily got hold of a 2 year old used oppo BD which is in great condition.

Spirovious I want to thank you for your efforts in guiding me, as oppo was a great idea. After spending some time with the setup I have sonically realised the Oppo + 7.1 channel analog out + yammy z9 is able to take my 7.1 setup into new heights which was never possible with marantz in the equation. The SR6009 in no slouch either with much better room corrections and user interface, but how much I try for the past few weeks by tweaking, it never ever reached the level of transparency and the liquid smooth feel that comes default with z9. The best part is audio over co axial reaches a new high in z9. I have quite a few BDs which come with DTS and DD at its highest level and frankly I am blown to smithereens with how much the z9 was able to wring out of these tracks. You have the feel you do not need DTS HD master as you ears cannot differentiate the audio quality difference which is their on paper between the two. I now feel the investment which I had previously made with my 7.1 speaker setup have met its match with z9 and money well spent. The z9 is able to at drive the big front floorstanders to its limit with a level of musical coherence which only my prized KI pearl stereo amp is able to reach. Which is amazing for any AVR as music sound as good as any top end stereo amp like my marantz pearl. So with z9 I have for the first time a true one box solution which as good in music as in movies. I have also tried to feed the front three channel preout of 6009 with z9 power amp section, but I dont know if it is the tuning between the z9 pre and power or simply a superior pre amp of z9 the marantz pre never sounded right. Even in stereo the z9 is a mile ahead in the pre amp section.

In the end I have realized you have own one of these mega AVRs in order to realize what they are capable of. Personally I had this doubt as of how this aging AVRs can match newcomers like sr6009. It is only when I got hold of a z9 is when I realized they never make these the way as they used to do 10 yrs back with z9.

You can sell marantzs surely in that case and get good BDp with 7.1 analog out which can be used for Bluray.

OR

Try marantz 5.1 preout connected to Z9 so that HD audio can be decoded.

Check which sounds appeals you and decide.:)

Denon is the most widely available brand in the used market of India. I have auditioned the avc a1sr as well as a1sra as these are most widely available mega avrs in India. You will find sellers in quikr and olx. And they do sound awesome and I was on the verge of owning a a1sra. But I dont know why after going through zillion times with this thread I was locked on z9 even though I have never preferred yamaha. Personally I feel z9 is better, but if you have not heard it then a1sra would still beat the pants of my 6009.

I am new to forum. Gone thru the whole thread, it was an eye opener & one of the best thread I had ever gone thru.

I am always been a fan of old school stuff. Can any body help me in getting a yamaha Dsp z9 or Denon Avc A1sr/sra.
 
Personally I had this doubt as of how this aging AVRs can match newcomers like sr6009. It is only when I got hold of a z9 is when I realized they never make these the way as they used to do 10 yrs back with z9.
Some main reasons are-
1.Better power per channel output
2.Better quality products inside
3.Better DAC section in it.
any many other reasons with no compromises.

The new AVRs are much lighter than Z9 that can tell how modern AVRs are constructed to reduce cost.:)
 
Last edited:
In the end I have realized you have own one of these mega AVRs in order to realize what they are capable of. Personally I had this doubt as of how this aging AVRs can match newcomers like sr6009. It is only when I got hold of a z9 is when I realized they never make these the way as they used to do 10 yrs back with z9.

Welcome to the club of high-end AVRs. With a Yamaha DSP-Z9/ RX-Z9 you must have by now realized the level of SQ that comes with it, blurring the line between AVR & high end stereo amplifiers. Lucky you. And yes the realization of its capabilities only comes in forefront when you start owning one. May you rejoice a long time with your DSP-Z9/ RX-Z9.

The issue here is availability of "Uber" AVRs. Very few people owns one and they do not let go as you can never have one like it. For over a year now a friend of mine was in lookout for a z9, but latter settled for a Yamaha DSP-AZ1. For the past month I have spent quite a few hours with it in my friends a place, frankly it was quite a surprise. The DSP-AZ1 sounds so much like the DSP-Z11. The same sharp zing in the sound signature of both (I love that) while the waistline is slight thin but not much compared to Z9. DSP-Z9 sound signature is completely different, like PA amps with a flat sound and in having a powerful feel in it. Very neutral type.
 
The z9 have reached a new level of sound quality previously I thought was never possible for an avr. This is insane as my beloved marantz pm ki pearl stereo amp is losing ground to z9. The ki pearl removes many layers of sonic glaze for better purity over my sr6009 no matter which genre I play. Now z9 seems to do the same a little bit better than ki pearl. For the past few weeks I am listening music on both z9 & ki pearl and have started enjoying z9 more. Before I never thought to use it for two channel audio. When you open up the volume quite high z9 paired with my front standing speakers does not loses composure, there seems to have endless power reserve while my ki pearl sound gets tight in the upper regions. But I have to be fair as I am comparing 90 watts per channel stereo amp with 170 watts per channel bemoth avr. I am so happy with my z9.

Moving on to the movie side, z9 is truly something astounding as the spl levels it is capable to reach cleanly at THX ultra2 reference level 0db. It is heart stopping and I am not used to it and not able to sustain in my middle sized room with that amount of power and have to lower the volume. Channel separation are spot on for DTS & DD with z9 and enjoy them more than bluray audio tracks with my sr6009.

Welcome to the club of high-end AVRs. With a Yamaha DSP-Z9/ RX-Z9 you must have by now realized the level of SQ that comes with it, blurring the line between AVR & high end stereo amplifiers.

Can you share your subjective and objective views regarding AZ1? You say AZ1 sound very much like Z11 so I am really interested. I read az1 was the predecessor of z9 while not of the same league of z9 or z11. Waiting for your response in anticipation.

For over a year now a friend of mine was in lookout for a z9, but latter settled for a Yamaha DSP-AZ1. For the past month I have spent quite a few hours with it in my friends a place, frankly it was quite a surprise. The DSP-AZ1 sounds so much like the DSP-Z11. The same sharp zing in the sound signature of both (I love that) while the waistline is slight thin but not much compared to Z9. DSP-Z9 sound signature is completely different, like PA amps with a flat sound and in having a powerful feel in it. Very neutral type.
 
Can you share your subjective and objective views regarding AZ1? You say AZ1 sound very much like Z11 so I am really interested. I read az1 was the predecessor of z9 while not of the same league of z9 or z11. Waiting for your response in anticipation.

Yamaha DSP-AZ1

2cftona.jpg


It is true Yamaha DSP-Z9 & DSP-Z11 are in another league in comparison to both their predecessors as well as successors. Something in the AV amplifier/ AVR category that we never saw before or followed after. This is the reason why I term them as Uber AV amplifiers where the rest are just TOTLs (Top Of The Line).

DSP-AZ1/ RX-Z1 was Yamahas TOTL released in 2001, retailing at US $2,800. Inflation adjusted the same would cost you US $3,750 today. What makes DSP-AZ1 so special was it happened to be the last iteration of a decade long TOTL series making its a very refined AV amplifier. The base technical design was laid down with DSP-A1000 released in 1990 and since updated with more refined iterations of the same technical design with DSP-A2070 in 1992, DSP-A3090 in 1995, DSP-A1 in 1997, DSP-AX1 in 1999 & finally ending with DSP-AZ1 in 2001. Some three years later Uber DSP-Z9 was born. The same can be said for Uber DSP-Z11 released in 2007 and it successors with the current RX-A30xx series. The RX-A30xx seems to follow the same base design of DSP-Z11 in a much cheaper form, but the technical design & orientation of its main components are more or less the same. This leaves DSP-Z9 to be a unique kind, never seen before or followed after model. I dont know why. But I do know it is Yamahas favorite AV amplifier as they identify DSP-Z9 as their landmark product at their 100th anniversary. May be a too expensive technical design or something else.

Yamaha DSP-AZ1

2ikuuci.jpg


Objective View

An AV amplifier/ receiver when looked upon from AV separates point-of-view happen to be an amalgamation of a separate AV processor with a multi-channel power amp on a single chassis. Hence from here onwards I have tried to put my views under similar headings for DSP-AZ1. Where possible I have compared it with DSP-Z9 & DSP-Z11 to provide a clear view of technological similarities/ differences between them.

Chassis: The chassis of DSP-AZ1 was an expensive affair, which simply looked gorgeous and had the feeling of high end separate audio components. Volume & selector knobs were finely polished solid billeted aluminum with the right feel while the front panel was oil dampened. Anti-resonant, heavy-gauge, reinforced-steel chassis was combined with rigid aluminum front, top and side panels to provide greater strength and maximize vibration damping. All these do more than provide long term elegance they enhance overall rigidity to dampen unwelcome resonations. Available in striking brushed Silver and Gold treatments while RX-Z1 came in Black. The internal electromagnetically shielded triple chambered chassis structure was built on solid 1.6mm thick metal base.

Yamaha DSP-AZ1

2hgviqe.jpg


o71rie.jpg


2qlcyvd.jpg


j0wpop.jpg


24ymxqd.jpg


These are distant dreams of current generation TOTL AVRs like RX-A3040. In comparison DSP-Z11 was quad chambered while DSP-Z9 was octa chambered (two for power amps, one for power amp power supply, one for power supply to AV processor part, three for AV processor part, one for dual fans under heatsinks to isolate noise). For DSP-AZ1 the left most chamber was dedicated to power supply while the right most hided the digital audio board containing the DSP decoders, DAC & ADCs from internal interference. The center chamber contained the power amp, the analog audio as well as video circuitry. It was a compromised placement of components in the center chamber when you compare with DSP-Z9 but lets not forget the difference of US $2,000 between the two.

Internal chassis of Yamaha DSP-AZ1

ddcqj8.jpg


AV Processor: On the DSP front Yamaha had always been the leaders and still is. Back then they always used to have their own exclusive decoders which were the most powerful at those times. For DSP-AZ1 a Yamaha YSS-938 [32-Bit] decoder was used to handle all Dolby and DTS decoding except for DTS-ES [a new 6.1 channel format then] which was handled by an unknown MB87J0470 decoding chip. For their own HiFi DSP and Quad-Field Cinema DSP, Silent Cinema & Virtual Cinema technologies they used two of their own Yamaha YSS-910 [44 Bit] decoders. Finally a sole YSS-938 was used as a Digital Audio Input Selector. Thus the above configuration being quite powerful made precise calculation of DTS & Dolby signal data and additionally supported adjustable lip sync feature from any digital inputs.

Yamaha DSP-AZ1

Yamaha Top-ART audio signal path (The info of 192 kHz DAC is wrong;))

2639dw4.jpg


Yamaha YSS-910 & Yamaha YSS-938 DSP chips can be seen on the digital audio board along with ten Burr-Brown PCM1704 DACs

ofvvhu.jpg


Chassis Chamber for the Digital Audio Board

1o5f1v.jpg


Supported formats where Dolby Digital, Dolby Pro Logic, Dolby Pro Logic II Music, Dolby Pro Logic II Movie, DTS Digital Surround, DTS 96/24, DTS Neo:6 Music and DTS Neo:6 Movies. Five new 6.1 channel digital audio formats namely Dolby Digital EX, DTS-ES, DTS-ES Matrix 6.1, DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 and DTS 96/24 ES were rave at those times (adding an additional center rear channel along with 5.1 configuration). Yamaha brought support to all these five with DSP-AZ1 in their TOTL model lineup. For their own proprietary HiFi DSP (18 variants) and Cinema DSP (12 variants) technologies they also introduced the support for two additional front effect audio channels. The point to note is the entire DSP audio processing was able to handle a maximum sampling rate of 24-bit, 48 kHz (CD & DVD quality). So if a 96 kHz signal arrives, it will first down sample to 48 kHz and then do the processing. Anything higher than 96 kHz the DSP circuitry will shut down and unprocessed stereo sound will only be available. DSP-Z9 & DSP-Z11 on the other hand did six times denser SACD and DVD-A quality processing at 24-bit, 96kHz sampling rates, which meant even if a 192 kHz signal is sent it will first down sample to 96 kHz and do then perform the processing. In other words all digital audio sampling rates were supported for DSP processing by DSP-Z9 & DSP-Z11.

Yamaha DSP-AZ1 Back Panel

2egbuip.jpg


Four co-axial (1 for Laser Disc) & seven optical (1 from front panel) inputs were providing for good flexibility for digital connections. Two optical digital outputs were also included. All optical in/out where capable of 24 bit, 96 khz max while the co-axials did handle 192 khz sampling rates. DSP-AZ1 supported only 5.1 channel analog inputs with no digital management (like bass management) which makes it unsuitable for any bluray player as of today, but at the same time very few people uses 7.1 configurations these days, 5.1 being the most favorite. DSP-Z11 also lacked digital management over 7.1 channel analog inputs (didnt care as it had HDMI inputs) while DSP-Z9 had full support for it over 7.1 multi channel analog inputs. For DSP-AZ1 the only way for analog to digital audio conversion was via stereo analog audio inputs. Thus a single 24-Bit, 96 kHz Stereo ADC, namely AKM AK5383 with 110dB dynamic range was used. THX Ultra certification was sorely missing (saves money for certification process) but that does not mean that it was not able to meet the THX Ultra certification requirements.

Burr-Brown PCM1704 DACs on Yamaha DSP-AZ1

6hqr8o.jpg


These ten digital audio channels (6.1 channel + 2 front effect channel + additional subwoofer channel) from above decoders were then fed to ten Mono 24-Bit, 96kHz Burr-Brown PCM1704 DACs delivering 112dB dynamic range, finally arriving to the power amp section. Released in 1998 these DACs were very expensive ($12.95 each in OEM quantities of 1000 or more) and were very well known for their performance and are still preferred by many audio enthusiasts. Even though DSPs supported a max 48 kHz sampling rate, during processor direct digital modes the input digital audio signal are fed directly to the internal power amplifier bypassing all types of processing or digital management at upto 24-bits, 96 kHz was possible. Anything higher like 192 kHz sampling rates was down sampled to 96 kHz and fed to the DACs. It is true DSP-Z9 have the best and most expensive DAC ever used in an AV amplifier aka Burr Brown PCM1792 with 132 dB dynamic range supporting full 192 kHz sampling rates but PCM1704 were no slough either (how many times do you hear 192 kHz resolution audio?) and this implementation on DSP-AZ1 was much better than its competitors like Denon AVC-A10SE. DSP-Z11 on the other hand used Burr-Brown PCM1796 supporting full 192 kHz sampling rates with 123dB dynamic range.

Being TOTLs there was complete support for (6.1 channel + 2 effect channel) pre amp out for DSP-AZ1, so to be used as a dedicated AV processor with external dedicated power amps. It had Zone2 support. The video section supported high bandwidth switching between composite, S-Video and component video with no video up-conversion. Three number of components inputs were available and the component monitor out was HDTV ready complaint @ 100MHz. Thus 720p/1080i were supported via components. DSP-Z9 had up-conversion feature included though limited to 720p/1080i via components outs while DSP-Z11 introduced HDMI 1.3 with full 1080p up-conversion. The internal electronic components used in DSP-AZ1 were of very high quality Japanese stuff as they were completely built in Japan. All AV input/output terminals were full gold plated as were the two way speaker binding posts.

Power-amp: The power supply section for DSP-AZ1 was further strengthened over previous DSP-AX1 even though it retained same eight number of powered audio channels. For a more powerful system a bigger transformer was necessary but the issue was the width of power supply chamber within the chassis resisting the use of a bigger unit. It was fixed from DSP-A1000 and DSP-AZ1 was the last iteration of this decade old technical design. With the aim to fit the fattest EI-Core transformer available within the width of the bay a new improved design transformer having new core material delivering 20% higher output was used in comparison to previous model. It was still massive at 9.8 kilos with almost two times more juice to spare than the RX-A3040 can currently muster. A slightly bigger 10 kilo EI-Core transformer (maybe by 5%) was later used in DSP-Z11, though DSP-Z9 used a more expensive and higher capacity toroidal transformer as it was the most powerful AV amplifier they ever made.

Yamaha DSP-AZ1

Main Power Transformer [Fan directly bolted above it for cooling]

346rvuv.jpg


Power Supply Bay

2ppmp3t.jpg


Power Capacitors [In blue]

erhglz.jpg


A pair of extremely high quality custom made Nichicon 27,000uF power capacitors were used in conjunction with this transformer for the main six audio channels. Identical capacity capacitors were used by DSP-Z11 for its main seven channels, while DSP-Z9 used a pair of slightly higher capacity (28,000 uF) for the same number of channels. Another pair of Nichicon 6,800uF did duty for the front two effect channels. In the end I find both DSP-AZ1 & DSP-Z11 uses almost identical power supply units with near identical output capacity while DSP-Z9 have a different type, more expensive & higher capacity unit.

DSP-AZ1 used a pair of Toshiba 2SA1987/ 2SC5359 power transistors in output stages for each of its six identically powered main channels. These are 180 watt devices, meaning 130 watts @ 8 ohms of ultra-wide bandwidth, clean power per channel with residual 50 watts of overhead. If we compare this to DSP-Z11, it used a pair of Toshiba 2SA2121/ 2SC5949 power transistors (220 watt devices) in output stages for each of its seven identically powered main channels being rated at 140 watts @ 8 ohms per channel with 80 watts of overhead. So without doubt the final power stages of DSP-Z11 was slightly superior to DSP-AZ1 as it had more overhead meaning cleaner distortion free sound when pushed at the extreme levels. At say 60% of the provided volume there will hardly be any noticeable difference between the two. DSP-AZ1 & DSP-Z11 used a common power voltage rail (DSP-AZ1 -> 61 VDC X 2 for the main six channels) for both output drivers and outputs power transistors, so when maxed out (a rare scenario) the driver stages will eventually get starved as there is less voltage/current available for them reducing the bandwidth of the driver stages which in turn affects the drive to power transistors, sounding constricted at high volume. This design is currently used by almost all AVRs as it is a cheaper implementation.

Yamaha DSP-AZ1 Internal Power Amp + Power supply (Look how big is the size of the transformer)

20fqcs5.jpg


DSP-Z9 on the other hand used a much more robust power amp stage, where two pairs of Sanken 2SA1492/ 2SC3856 power transistors did duty for the main seven channels. These are 130 watt devices in dual configuration (260 watts), meaning 170 watts @ 8 ohms of ultra-wide bandwidth, clean power per channel with residual 90 watts of overhead. For DSP-Z9, Yamaha cleverly opted for dual amplifier power supply topology where one voltage rail (65 VDC X 2) goes directly to feed the output power transistors while the other independent of the former to the output drivers. So when DSP-Z9 is operated at full power the driver stages are not at all affected and starved of voltage/current as it is independent and are able to adequately drive the power transistors retaining the full bandwidth even at full power. I have found this dual amplifier power supply topology to be used in other iconic AV amplifiers like Denon AVC-A1SRA, Onkyo TX-NR1000 & Harman Kardon AVR-8500.

For the front two effect channels DSP-AZ1 used a pair Sanken 2SA1694/ 2SC4467 for each delivering 45 watts of power. All 6 pairs of Toshibas & 2 pairs of Sankens were directly bolted to a pair of naturally cooled solid aluminum heatsinks which had gone black anodization process to ensure maximum heat dissipation. Increasing number of powered audio channels, higher capacity power transistors and more advanced AV processor on a decade old chassis meant heat built up. With more demand of power from the main transformer even after upgrading, it overheated under extreme high volumes for extended periods of listening. As such a fan was bolted over the transformer to throw air directly on it, and redirect the same air through vents to the middle chamber containing the power amp for cooling.

Yamaha DSP-AZ1 Internal components on display [Digital audio board, power transformer, power capacitors & Heatsink with power capacitors]

2eus9yw.jpg


Manufacturer Rated Power Output

[20 Hz to 20 kHz, 0.015%THD, 8 ohms, main channels]:
DSP-AZ1 (Main + Effect channels): [130 watts X 6 + 45 watts X 2]
DSP-Z9 (Main + Effect channels): [170 watts X 7 + 50 watts X 2]

[20 Hz to 20 kHz, 0.04%THD, 8 ohms, main channels]:
DSP-Z11 (Main + Effect channels): [140 watts X 7 + 50 watts X 4]

DSP-AZ1 being built in Japan is a very versatile device even today and can be used as a dedicated power amp for the front, center and effect audio channels from any external AV processor. In contrast DSP-Z9 (Made in Japan) supported fronts & center only while DSP-Z11 (Made in Malaysia) had no support to use it as power amp. DSP-AZ1 weighed 28 kilos.

Subjective View

I have been listening to DSP-AZ1 in my friends place for last few months. I own the DSP-Z9 and know it very well. I also auditioned DSP-Z11 for long hours. Picking the best among these three with regards to sound quality is a tough call. It all depends on personal preferences.

Yamaha DSP-AZ1

29trgw.jpg


Music: If music is where your heart and soul is, be it stereo or multi-channel then DSP-Z9 is the one I will choose. Simply because the sound is more flat than the others, the sound signature does not impels you to think it has been pre tuned with some extra high frequencies in the audible spectrum to appeal and have an immediate impression of added clarity. Its biggest advantage over DSP-AZ1 & DSP-Z11 is in vocals, it sounds much fuller in mid section which is a rare trait among AV amplifier/ AVRs. There is a powerful feel in the sound which I love and is always very well balanced. In other words DSP-Z9 has a neutral sound which is what Yamaha refers to as natural sound. With all three being Yamahas I can say DSP-Z9 is as natural as it can be.

The other factor of enjoying good music is how these AV-amplifiers handle the enormous dynamic range that todays quality SACD & DVD-A pose at high volumes. In this aspect DSP-Z9 again wins, especially under multi-channel audio playback. To unmask the DSP-Z9 and transform it from a nimble to monstrous AV amplifier you just have to turn up the volume. Cranking the volume up at say 80 percent and above in a 5.1 channel setup the first hit will be taken by DSP-AZ1 closely followed by DSP-Z11. You can hear DSP-AZ1 or DSP-Z11 getting taught with the dynamic range getting constricted (bass impact dramatically reduced) while DSP-Z9 still having an enveloping and fuller sound due to better power supply & power amp stages. Mind you this is not achievable under normal circumstances, you need to get exposed to a prohibitively expensive multi channel full range speaker setup all around that can suck the blood out of these mighty AV amplifiers. As a reference I can say in the aforementioned 5.1 channel setup when the recently released RX-A3040 is added and starts to distort due to very high volume levels is when the DSP-AZ1 will sing the same song at the same spl levels with ease!!!

Choosing between the DSP-AZ1 & DSP-Z11 is an even tougher call if audio quality is only concerned as the sound signature is more or less the same. The high frequencies are more pronounced over DSP-Z9, bass is less pronounced while the mids are airy and thinner. Still if I have to pick among these two it will be DSP-Z11 as it seemed more refined with bit more top end when pushed to the limit. That being said one have to understand DSP-AZ1 is available at half the price of DSP-Z11, and you get what you pay for. To me for its price DSP-AZ1 was an excellent AV amplifier of its day with a very refined sound quality and I can live my life around it with ease. My friend had it for INR 35K and for that price DSP-AZ1 is an excellent AV amplifier.

Yamaha DSP-AZ1

i1z5o6.jpg


Movies: For ease of use, setup and instant enjoyment of bluray movies DSP-Z11 is my pick. Hands down as it supports HDMI 1.3 with internal HD audio decoders. I can never measure the SQ of movie sound tracks quite well compared to music as my brain has to process both sound and vision. I can hear multi channel effects quite clearly and feel the depth of a bass impact in my heart. For multi channel effects DSP-Z11 is spot on and it has gobs of power being THX Ultra2 complaint. DSP-Z9 is also THX Ultra2 complaint even more power and when used with a high quality BD player with 7.1 channel analog outputs can produce pin point channel separation with heart stopping sound impact. Where it loses to DSP-Z11 is complicated analog connection setup with BD player. I felt DSP-Z11 in movies to have a little more sharp and focused imaging per channel over DSP-Z9. DSP-AZ1 being a distant third here having support for 5.1 channel setup only. For a 5.1 channel setup, both DSP-Z11 & DSP-AZ1 sounds more or less the same to me. I have noticed another difference which is very hard for me to jot down, as these are my subjective feelings. I can say DSP-Z9 in movies sounds more like Theatre Sound (soft highs, fat mids and bucket loads of bass) where as DSP-Z11 or DSP-AZ1 sounds more like Home Theatre Sound (colorful highs, healthy mids and good bass).

These are all my subjective feeling so take them with a grain of salt. ;)
 
Last edited:
Hi rishiguru,
as you wrote that team of Z9 later designed AS-2000.
So I thought of giving it a try for competing with some expensive amplifiers.

Last week there was a day long session of audiophiles in my city. It was actually high end shootout with cheapest amp being NAIM SUPERNAIT.
My AS-2000 was the cheapest but not a contestant as that grazing ground was for expensive gears.

After all combination of amps and speakers, day was nearing end, I attached YAM AS-2000 to Focal Diablo Utopia speakers, source was esoteric CDP (dont remember the model).

Suddenly there was silence, owner of supernait came to see the amp and said is this a new model from YAMAHA, I said it is not in production now.
One after another members started realising the neutral sound signature with extended frequencies and liquid midrange. Then show again started with side by side comparison with other amps.
Other amps were comparable and quiet superior to YAM but Supernait failed miserably and owner now is thinking of selling nait and buying AS-3000.
Everyone said such a performance is not expected by this little cheap beast.

So this was the impression left by AS-2000 in that shootout. Really it was remarkable job done by Engineers of Yamaha, who made Z9 too. So now I can understand why Z9 deserves a
place among best AVRs.
 
Last edited:
Hi rishiguru,
as you wrote that team of Z9 later designed AS-2000.
So I thought of giving it a try for competing with some expensive amplifiers.

Last week there was a day long session of audiophiles in my city. It was actually high end shootout with cheapest amp being NAIM SUPERNAIT.
My AS-2000 was the cheapest but not a contestant as that grazing ground was for expensive gears.

After all combination of amps and speakers, day was nearing end, I attached YAM AS-2000 to Focal Diablo Utopia speakers, source was esoteric CDP (dont remember the model).

Suddenly there was silence, owner of supernait came to see the amp and said is this a new model from YAMAHA, I said it is not in production now.
One after another members started realising the neutral sound signature with extended frequencies and liquid midrange. Then show again started with side by side comparison with other amps.

Other amps were comparable and quiet superior to YAM but Supernait failed miserably and owner now is thinking of selling nait and buying AS-3000.
Everyone said such a performance is not expected by this little cheap beast.

So this was the impression left by AS-2000 in that shootout. Really it was remarkable job done by Engineers of Yamaha, who made Z9 too. So now I can understand why Z9 deserves a place among best AVRs.

It is good to know Yamaha A-S2000 was able to make a place in the hearts of those who belong to high-end audiophile community. But this fact does not surprise me at all as A-S2000 had always been an excellent stereo integrated for its asking price. I have personally heard its cheaper sibling A-S1000 which has equal power of A-S2000 but sorely misses its exclusive Full Floating and Balanced Circuit Design.

During my Yamaha DSP-Z9 auditioning in 2-channel analog pure direct mode, A-S1000 was beaten fair and square which frankly is a very tall order for any A/V amplifier. The natural and unfiltered sound of both dragged me while the obnoxious un-distorted power output of DSP-Z9 (dynamic power of 580 + 580 watts under 2 ohms load) with those huge Axiom Audio M80 v3 floorstanders was awe inspiring. But I do feel the A-S2000 to be a step above DSP-Z9 as far as sound quality in stereo is concerned, may be not so in power department. I have not heard it so I cannot comment.

Many a times people forget what A/V mass market companies like Onkyo, Pioneer, Sony, Denon, Marantz & Yamaha are capable off. They may not cater to high end audiophile chain and do stay put to mass market products as there is where the money is. And everybody is out here to make money. But if they want to make an ultra high end audio gear at an exuberantly high price (which they did use to do sometimes in the past) and lets say their marketing department gives the nod, they can slay many a ultra high end boutique brands out there. This is because they have the money, an amount of budget that they can allot for development which standalone boutique brands can only dream off. Finally these huge firms have great engineering strength and if they want they can literally buy excellent engineers with big salary packages. So I respect all of them.
 
The Z9 is an excellent amplifier. Had heard it extensively in 2004 when I was toying with the idea of replacing my DSP A1, but somehow that didn't work out. Remember being very impressed by the power as well as the processing capabilities, though.

Cheers
 
Great writeup rishiguru. Every post of yours are so informative, I learn a great deal about avrs. I find the chambers with in the chassis concept completely missing current generation avrs, it is just a box now. Z9s chassis of 8 chambers are pretty extreme I believe, but is a purist view to isolate everything.

The internal electromagnetically shielded triple chambered chassis structure was built on solid 1.6mm thick metal base. These are distant dreams of current generation TOTL AVRs like RX-A3040. In comparison DSP-Z11 was quad chambered while DSP-Z9 was octa chambered (two for power amps, one for power amp power supply, one for power supply to AV processor part, three for AV processor part, one for dual fans under heatsinks to isolate noise). For DSP-AZ1 the left most chamber was dedicated to power supply while the right most hided the digital audio board containing the DSP decoders, DAC & ADCs from internal interference. The center chamber contained the power amp, the analog audio as well as video circuitry. It was a compromised placement of components in the center chamber when you compare with DSP-Z9 but lets not forget the difference of US $2,000 between the two.

But I also find from Yamaha website that az1 previous model supported 6.1 channel. Even though 6.1 channel are not much used today, I have a some movies in DD/DTS 6.1 and they are clearly superior than any 5.1 setup. I will always preffer 6.1 over 5.1 as the effects are more envoloping. Did you feel the difference watching movies in az1 in 6.1 channel in your friends place?

Five new 6.1 channel digital audio formats namely Dolby Digital EX, DTS-ES, DTS-ES Matrix 6.1, DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 and DTS 96/24 ES were rave at those times (adding an additional center rear channel along with 5.1 configuration). Yamaha brought support to all these five with DSP-AZ1 in their TOTL model lineup.

One of the primary reasons for me choosing z9 over other monsters is its dac section which implements the best in any avr. I had to wait long for z9 but finally when I had it and after listening I understood it is a special avr with a very special pre-amp and dac section which is why it sounds so good.

These ten digital audio channels (6.1 channel + 2 front effect channel + additional subwoofer channel) from above decoders were then fed to ten Mono 24-Bit, 96kHz Burr-Brown PCM1704 DACs delivering 112dB dynamic range, finally arriving to the power amp section. Released in 1998 these DACs were very expensive ($12.95 each in OEM quantities of 1000 or more) and were very well known for their performance and are still preferred by many audio enthusiasts. Even though DSPs supported a max 48 kHz sampling rate, during processor direct digital modes the input digital audio signal are fed directly to the internal power amplifier bypassing all types of processing or digital management at upto 24-bits, 96 kHz was possible. Anything higher like 192 kHz sampling rates was down sampled to 96 kHz and fed to the DACs. It is true DSP-Z9 have the best and most expensive DAC ever used in an AV amplifier aka Burr Brown PCM1792 with 132 dB dynamic range supporting full 192 kHz sampling rates but PCM1704 were no slough either (how many times do you hear 192 kHz resolution audio?) and this implementation on DSP-AZ1 was much better than its competitors like Denon AVC-A10SE. DSP-Z11 on the other hand used Burr-Brown PCM1796 supporting full 192 kHz sampling rates with 123dB dynamic range.

I had always wondered why this monster avrs are so heavy but frankly the main amp transformer at 9.8 kg that is the net weight of many current generation avrs. No wonder why they were so powerfull with true power ratings.

Power-amp: The power supply section for DSP-AZ1 was further strengthened over previous DSP-AX1 even though it retained same eight number of powered audio channels. For a more powerful system a bigger transformer was necessary but the issue was the width of power supply chamber within the chassis resisting the use of a bigger unit. It was fixed from DSP-A1000 and DSP-AZ1 was the last iteration of this decade old technical design. With the aim to fit the fattest EI-Core transformer available within the width of the bay a new improved design transformer having new core material delivering 20% higher output was used in comparison to previous model. It was still massive at 9.8 kilos with almost two times more juice to spare than the RX-A3040 can currently muster.

A very indepth & reveling subjective comparison of the the three monsters. Even though I loved your technical part, this is what really matters to me and it is good to know z9 is the king of the lot. But I have a question on the az1 or z11 getting distort a very high volumes. Are you able to sustain that amount of spl for sometime to figure out they are distorting? I for once was never able to max out the vol, as it is not possible in a typical Indian room of 400 sqft. I once did thx ultra 2 reference level, 0 db for a minute and have to back down, and the z9 still had +16.5 db in reserve. I will say -20 db is even too loud for me on z9.

On the movie part, I can confirm even though my sr6009 have many conveniences like HDMI, the pain of analog 7.1 channel connection is well worth from my oppo bd player. Z9 is way above in movies over sr6009, they are simply not worth comparing.

Subjective View

I have been listening to DSP-AZ1 in my friends place for last few months. I own the DSP-Z9 and know it very well. I also auditioned DSP-Z11 for long hours. Picking the best among these three with regards to sound quality is a tough call. It all depends on personal preferences.

Yamaha DSP-AZ1

29trgw.jpg


Music: If music is where your heart and soul is, be it stereo or multi-channel then DSP-Z9 is the one I will choose. Simply because the sound is more flat than the others, the sound signature does not impels you to think it has been pre tuned with some extra high frequencies in the audible spectrum to appeal and have an immediate impression of added clarity. Its biggest advantage over DSP-AZ1 & DSP-Z11 is in vocals, it sounds much fuller in mid section which is a rare trait among AV amplifier/ AVRs. There is a powerful feel in the sound which I love and is always very well balanced. In other words DSP-Z9 has a neutral sound which is what Yamaha refers to as natural sound. With all three being Yamahas I can say DSP-Z9 is as natural as it can be.

The other factor of enjoying good music is how these AV-amplifiers handle the enormous dynamic range that todays quality SACD & DVD-A pose at high volumes. In this aspect DSP-Z9 again wins, especially under multi-channel audio playback. To unmask the DSP-Z9 and transform it from a nimble to monstrous AV amplifier you just have to turn up the volume. Cranking the volume up at say 80 percent and above in a 5.1 channel setup the first hit will be taken by DSP-AZ1 closely followed by DSP-Z11. You can hear DSP-AZ1 or DSP-Z11 getting taught with the dynamic range getting constricted (bass impact dramatically reduced) while DSP-Z9 still having an enveloping and fuller sound due to better power supply & power amp stages. Mind you this is not achievable under normal circumstances, you need to get exposed to a prohibitively expensive multi channel full range speaker setup all around that can suck the blood out of these mighty AV amplifiers. As a reference I can say in the aforementioned 5.1 channel setup when the recently released RX-A3040 is added and starts to distort due to very high volume levels is when the DSP-AZ1 will sing the same song at the same spl levels with ease!!!

Choosing between the DSP-AZ1 & DSP-Z11 is an even tougher call if audio quality is only concerned as the sound signature is more or less the same. The high frequencies are more pronounced over DSP-Z9, bass is less pronounced while the mids are airy and thinner. Still if I have to pick among these two it will be DSP-Z11 as it seemed more refined with bit more top end when pushed to the limit. That being said one have to understand DSP-AZ1 is available at half the price of DSP-Z11, and you get what you pay for. To me for its price DSP-AZ1 was an excellent AV amplifier of its day with a very refined sound quality and I can live my life around it with ease. My friend had it for INR 35K and for that price DSP-AZ1 is an excellent AV amplifier.

Yamaha DSP-AZ1

i1z5o6.jpg


Movies: For ease of use, setup and instant enjoyment of bluray movies DSP-Z11 is my pick. Hands down as it supports HDMI 1.3 with internal HD audio decoders. I can never measure the SQ of movie sound tracks quite well compared to music as my brain has to process both sound and vision. I can hear multi channel effects quite clearly and feel the depth of a bass impact in my heart. For multi channel effects DSP-Z11 is spot on and it has gobs of power being THX Ultra2 complaint. DSP-Z9 is also THX Ultra2 complaint even more power and when used with a high quality BD player with 7.1 channel analog outputs can produce pin point channel separation with heart stopping sound impact. Where it loses to DSP-Z11 is complicated analog connection setup with BD player. I felt DSP-Z11 in movies to have a little more sharp and focused imaging per channel over DSP-Z9. DSP-AZ1 being a distant third here having support for 5.1 channel setup only. For a 5.1 channel setup, both DSP-Z11 & DSP-AZ1 sounds more or less the same to me. I have noticed another difference which is very hard for me to jot down, as these are my subjective feelings. I can say DSP-Z9 in movies sounds more like Theatre Sound (soft highs, fat mids and bucket loads of bass) where as DSP-Z11 or DSP-AZ1 sounds more like Home Theatre Sound (colorful highs, healthy mids and good bass).
 
Great writeup rishiguru. Every post of yours are so informative, I learn a great deal about avrs.

You are most welcome.:)

Z9s chassis of 8 chambers are pretty extreme I believe, but is a purist view to isolate everything.

Yamaha DSP-Z9

2ujjpqf.jpg


With DSP-Z9, Yamaha went for pure audio fidelity hence the complete abstraction/ isolation of every module with no cross interference. I have never seen an 8-chambered internal chassis construction in any AV amplifier so again DSP-Z9 becomes a unique implementation to me. Below is the diagram depicting its chassis construction & compartments:

Yamaha DSP-Z9: Internal Chassis Compartments

dcwhu1.jpg


As the above picture depicts the two grey chambers are for power amplifiers. One of them deals with right front, center, right surround & right back surround while the other is for left front, left surround, left back surround & two front presence audio channels. Total thirty two power transistors equally divided between these two sections which generates a hell lot of power and supplementary heat. The red chamber is the power supply for power amplifier consisting of a toroidal transformer measuring half foot in width and its rectifier circuitry containing a pair of RedBull can sized power capacitors with 56,000 uF of total capacitance. The orange section (part of red chamber) contained the power supply to its brain, the central CPU that controls and protects DSP-Z9 from indecent circumstances. Till now we have discussed about the three chambers that are located at the top portion of DSP-Z9 and are visible from above if you take off the top panel.

Yamaha DSP-Z9: Top Open View

2qtlfgj.jpg


The rest chambers are lurking under. The pre-amp section of DSP-Z9 is again divided in two sections, and if you look up at the diagram above (Yamaha DSP-Z9: Internal Chassis Compartments) they are denoted as "Preamp chamber" which deals with analog audio and "DSP chamber" which deals with anything digital. In between these two chambers is the "Video chamber" which as the name suggest deals with video and its up scaling. Three chambers here too which makes the total count to six uptill now.

Yamaha DSP-Z9: Back Internal Chambers View

02os.jpg


So the question arises where are the rest two chambers? Well it is there, if you look carefully at the diagram again (Yamaha DSP-Z9: Internal Chassis Compartments), you will find a flat sky blue colored rectangle just below the power amp chambers, and this is a separate chamber to contain dual fans for isolating there noise. These fans are placed directly under the power amp heat sinks and will blow cool air from below when situation becomes too hot. I have never seen an AV amplifier other than DSP-Z9 where designers have gone to this level as to build an additional chamber for the fans just to isolate their noise. So now we have seven chambers.

Finally the space left between the fan chamber and front panel is taken up by its last chamber dedicated to the power supply for pre-amp & video section boards. So the count now becomes eight. This weekend after inspecting my friend's DSP-AZ1, I thought to brush up the dust of my DSP-Z9 which I usually do every year. I took some images of its bottom three chambers which are very hard to find in any of its catalog or manuals.

My Yamaha DSP-Z9: Triple Bottom Chambers View

2dlne6g.jpg


Left to Right: Power Supply for PreAmp & Video Boards, Fan Chamber, Dual Layered Digital Audio Board

30saww6.jpg


My Yamaha DSP-Z9: Power Supply for PreAmp & Video Boards

2zxxqoz.jpg


So, as you said DSP-Z9 followed a purist approach where audio fidelity was taken to its extreme by AV amplifier standards.

Even though 6.1 channel are not much used today, I have a some movies in DD/DTS 6.1 and they are clearly superior than any 5.1 setup. I will always preffer 6.1 over 5.1 as the effects are more envoloping. Did you feel the difference watching movies in az1 in 6.1 channel in your friends place?

My friend after owning the DSP-AZ1 has started his Dolby Digital EX 6.1 & DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 collection of movies. He was very lucky as the original owner have kept it at pristine condition, even after eleven years of usage. As the built quality of these products are exemplary one can expect a minimum life of a quarter of a century for DSP-AZ1. I opened it up and found almost no dust accumulation inside the unit as he regularly serviced the unit on a yearly basis by his trusted technician. Anyway this was a new experience for me to watch Terminator 2: Judgement Day and Lord Of The Rings: The Return of the King in DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 on DSP-AZ1. Power was abundant, sound was crisp, as was the better localization of audio images at the back. The additional center back speaker over a 5.1 speaker setup made its presence felt. I will say a distinct improvement over 5.1 channel setup but unfortunately this format never caught up with home theater crowd.

I will try to provide rest answers to your questions, time permitting.:)
 
Last edited:
One of the primary reasons for me choosing z9 over other monsters is its dac section which implements the best in any avr. I had to wait long for z9 but finally when I had it and after listening I understood it is a special avr with a very special pre-amp and dac section which is why it sounds so good.

High quality digital audio reproduction isnt cheap and AV amplifiers like DSP-Z9 have eleven separate digital channels (7.1 + 2 front presence + 1 additional subwoofer) to deal with. I believe there are much more to Yamaha DSP-Z9 than just excellent DACs in the digital audio board. The sound quality which you are referring is primarily due to exemplary circuit designing of its digital audio boards by some of the most renowned experts in this field. Along with the combination of top quality electronic parts, advanced digital signal processors (DSP), top of the line digital to analog converters (DAC), analog to digital converters (ADC), operational amplifiers (op-amps) and volume controllers made it truly shine above the others.

The first generation of Uber AV amplifiers kicked off with Denons 90th anniversary celebration in 2000. Denon AVC-A1SE was born. Pioneer quickly followed next year with Pioneer VSA-AX10. Mighty as they were at US $4,000 price tag, on release knocked off many well known two times more expensive separates in terms of performance, sonic quality, industry leading video capabilities and groundbreaking new technologies like auto acoustic calibration (for Pioneer VSA-AX10 only). They literally got vanished the moment they arrived on dealers shelves. They sported some of the most advanced DSPs of those times using primarily the first generation of SHARC DSPs from Analog Devices. These 32-bit DSPs where powerful enough to perform DVD quality audio decoding/ processing of 24 bit depth and up to 48 kHz sampling frequency from THX, Dolby & DTS. Post-processing like auto acoustic calibration, acoustically simulated environments and digital audio management like bass management were also supported. But before we talk about DSPs and their processing capabilities lets have a walk through the meaning of audio sampling frequency and bit depth.

------------------------------------------------------

Sampling Frequency: As per theory you can accurately measure an audio wave up to half the sampling frequency. So if we consider DVD quality 48,000 samples per second (48 kHz), it is good enough for a 24 kHz audio wave covering the full audible frequency range. A DSP capable of handling 48 kHz sampling frequency is good enough for all we can ever hear. On the other hand if we consider higher quality DVD-A/ SACD/ Dolby TrueHD/ DTS-HD MA capable more is better DSPs then it must handle 96kHz sampling rates, thus processing 96,000 samples per second (96 kHz) and being good enough for a 48 kHz tone going well above the audible frequency range. I will not even talk about anything higher than 96 kHz DSPs, because to me it is pure overkill.

Bit depth: It denotes word length, i.e. how many ones and zeros in the digital "word" that records each measurement. 24 bit has 24 ones and zeros and can record 2 to the power 24 or about 16 million different volume levels between dead silent to the loudest note. 24 bit have been the de-facto standard in the audio industry for a long time.

------------------------------------------------------

A high quality BD player will decode Dolby TrueHD/ DTS-HD MA sound from BD disc into eight individual PCM digital audio channels, all at 96 kHz/24-bit. For analog transmission of this 7.1 channel signal it will then use 96 kHz/24-bit DACs to convert the 8 channel PCM digital signal to analog audio waveform over its 7.1 channel analog outs. An AV amplifier accepting this audio transmission over its 7.1 channel analog ins should ideally use 96 kHz/24-bit ADCs to regain the same nearest to original 8-channel PCM digital audio signal (as generated in the BD player) and then continue through its digital chain to DSPs which should also be capable to process 96 kHz/24-bit signals. In the end of the chain the DACs should also be capable of 96 kHz/24-bit. So the same bit depth and sampling audio frequency is maintained throughout, from BD player to the internal analog power amplifiers of the AV amplifier. Same goes for DVD-A.

Ubers: 1st Gen

Even though the first generation Ubers came laden with 96 kHz/24-bit ADCs and 192 kHz/24-bit DACs they were all bottlenecked by their DSPs, which were capable to process 48 kHz/24-bit max. The ADCs used in AV amplifier are required to feed the incoming analog audio signal to their digital domain. As their DSPs maxed out at 48 kHz so the ADCs were pre-configured to work at constant rate of 48 kHz, as any higher sampling frequency from ADC were not supported. At the end of the digital chain the DSPs fed the DACs at 48 kHz max. If only digital audio data were fed through optical/ coaxial inputs then these DSPs would process any sampling frequency up to 48 kHz untouched, but as 64 kHz, 88.2 kHz and 96 kHz signals were received it will under sample by half to 32 kHz, 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz respectively to perform any kind of processing. Any signal higher than 96 kHz, these DSPs will simply shut off as under sampling a 128 kHz, 176.4 kHz or 192 kHz by half would yield 64 kHz, 88.2 kHz or 96 kHz and are unsupported by 1st Gen SHARC DSPs. It is only when you use Direct-PCM/ DSD modes on these AV amplifiers did they by-pass the DSPs and you be able to retain up to 192 kHz signals from coaxial inputs, but as the DSPs are shut down you lose valuable setting like acoustic calibration that you performed by auto acoustic calibration (YPAO for Yamaha), bass management and DSP post-processing capabilities like Movie Theater Sc-Fi Enhanced effects.

Ubers: 2nd Gen

Enter Uber second generation AV amplifiers. Denon and Pioneer had a great base with their 1st Gen, so they just upgraded their entire digital audio boards to perform full blown 96 kHz/24-bit DSP processing. It was mainly possible due to release of second generation SHARC DSPs by Analog Devices which where more than three times powerful than 1st Gen SHARCs used in 1st Gen Ubers. The low cost variant was SHARC Hammerhead ADSP-21161 while the full blown version of the same with higher memory capacity, better core optimizations was SHARC Melody ULTRA ADSST-21161. Both where 32- bit floating point quantization microprocessors with cores running at 100 MHz having computing power up to 600 MFLOPS. A year later Texas Instruments introduced another DSP known as Aureus TMS320DA610 which took the crown of being most powerful, this time with core running at 225 MHz having computing power up to 1200 MFLOPS, it had two times more computing power than SHARC. These DSPs were mainly targeted for DVD-A/ SACD quality 96 kHz/24-bit DSP processing and the choice from AV amplifier manufactures where either to use two SHARCs in tandem or an Aureus, both yielding identical performance.

Denon AVC-A1SRA

30tryvp.jpg


Pioneer VSA-AX10Ai-S

29lk2ns.jpg


Onkyo TX-NR1000

2rco469.jpg


Yamaha DSP-Z9

ehzt5s.jpg


Retailing at US $4,500 minimum in 2004, these 2nd Gen Ubers bought new support for i.Link opening the door for multi-channel digital audio transport from SACD/ DVD-A players. They upgraded the DACs & ADCs in their digital audio boards to support full 192 kHz/24-bit with targeted minimum dynamic range of 110 dB, as it was deemed necessary to scale the enormous dynamic range these new formats had in offer.

So now in 2004 we had Denon AVC-A1SRA & Pioneer VSA-AX10Ai-S on offer. Yamaha finally entered the scene with DSP-Z9 while Onkyo following the year after with TX-NR1000. The benefit from all these upgrades was they performed analog to digital conversion at a constant rate of 96 kHz through their pre-configured 192 kHz/24-bit ADCs (192 kHz spec ADCs were used just for marketing reasons) from 7.1 channel analog inputs. Thus nearest to identical 8-channel PCM digital audio signal (as generated in the BD player) was maintained and continued digital audio processing through the 2nd Gen SHARC or Aureus DSPs capable to handle 96 kHz/24-bit signals. In the end of the chain DACs capable of 192 kHz/24-bit were applied to perform digital to analog conversion at 96 kHz sampling frequency. So the same bit depth and sampling audio frequency were maintained from the BD player to the internal analog power amplifiers of these AV amplifiers which are what it should be.

These SHARC/ Aureus DSPs were able to offer decoding & post-processing capabilities all up to 96 kHz with full auto acoustic calibration on a much denser level and bass management. If digital audio was fed through optical/ coaxial/ i.Link inputs then they would process any sampling frequency up to 96 kHz untouched, but as 128 kHz, 176.4 kHz or 192 kHz are received it will under sample by half to 64 kHz, 88.2 kHz or 96 kHz respectively and then perform processing. So these DSPs were able to handle any sampling frequencies you can throw at them without getting shut down. While using Direct-PCM/ DSD modes on these AV amplifiers will you be able to pass a 128 kHz, 176.4 kHz or 192 kHz digital audio signal from coaxial/ i.Link inputs directly to feed the DACs, untouched. For analog inputs, one way to feed the internal power amplifiers with untouched 2-channel/ multi-channel audio is to use Pure-Direct mode which bypasses the digital board.

The digital audio boards of these AV amplifiers also implemented the analog I/V converter for each channel that deals with raw current being generated by DACs at their very end of audio signal chain. The I/V (current to voltage) conversion stage is just one of several critical analog stages that can impact the performance of a DAC. Typical I/V-convertors are separated into two stages: one for current to voltage conversion, and another for the low pass filtering. Each of these analog stages uses high quality audio operational amplifiers (op-amps) that just contribute slight noise and distortion to the analog audio signal. With careful design, these artifacts are minimized to levels that are well below audibility having distortion less than 0.001%. Ubers used very well designed and robust analog stages for I/V conversion.

I also thought to mention and this often goes un-noticed, is the digitally regulated analog volume controllers in AV amplifiers. No matter how good or pure the analog audio signals are emanated after I/V conversion from these highly complex and expensive digital audio boards, they have to finally pass through these volume controllers to be send to power amplifier domain. As such the importance of high quality volume controllers become a necessity so to incur minimum total harmonic distortion (THD) on the outgoing analog signals to internal power amplifiers. Ubers used high quality stereo volume controllers which had THD of 0.001% while some went to extreme levels to use them in differential mode to obtain full channel separation and THD levels as low as 0.0003% on all channels. Today the 2nd Gen Ubers are most compatible with current generation BD players supporting 7.1 channel analog outs if we keep HDMI out of the equation.

Ubers: 3rd Gen

These HDMI capable Uber AV amplifiers like Yamaha DSP-Z11 or Denon AVC-A1HDA performed identical 96 kHz/24-bit DSP signal processing from the incoming HDMI signal as there was no need to go any higher with regards to Dolby TrueHD/ DTS-HD MA.

-----------------------------------------------------

Some light to the internal digital audio circuit boards as implemented by various 2nd Gen Ubers:

Denon AVC-A1SRA

73mhde.jpg


16ao8bo.jpg


2ebx0na.jpg


Digital Audio Chain

14kgylv.jpg


DSPs used are a pair of 32-bit SHARC Hammerhead ADSP-21161 from Analog Devices. These are low cost version of 2nd Gen SHARC DSPs, and sincerely Denon never needed any more computational power as they have the simplest implementation of this quad Uber AV amplifier shootout. One DSP is dedicated to Dolby/ DTS decoding sending the 8-channel decoded digital data to other SHARC which performs additional post processing like THX, AL24 Plus, bass management and some surround simulation effects. No auto acoustic calibrations are implemented even though DSPs have support for them. When operational through 7.1 channel analog inputs, four 192 kHz/24-bit Burr-Brown PCM1804 stereo ADCs in single-ended configuration are used to feed the SHARCs. In a single-ended configuration a single discrete stereo ADC/ DAC/ Volume Controller is used to handle two audio channels, which tends to be the simplest and cheapest implementation. These ADCs capable of delivering 112 dB dynamic range are pre-configured to work at a constant rate of 96 kHz to feed these DSPs.

Digital Audio Board

2q9e2yp.jpg


The 8-channel processed digital audio signal from DSPs is then sent to four 192 kHz/24-bit Burr-Brown PCM1738 stereo DACs in single-ended configuration delivering117 db dynamic range. For I/V conversion stages from these DACs, following op-amps are used: Analog Devices OP275 followed by JRC NJM5532 followed by JRC NJM2068. In the end the 8-channel analog audio signal from these I/V conversion stages are digitally regulated by eight individual Toshiba TC94A17 stereo volume controllers in differential configuration on all channels. In a differential configuration a single discrete stereo ADC/ DAC/ Volume Controller is configured to handle a single audio channel rather than two, which tends to produce better performance at the cost of design complexity and price.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pioneer VSA-AX10Ai-S

ix5lz7.jpg


2qjgd1j.jpg


Digital Audio Chain

156p8bn.jpg


DSPs used are a pair of 32-bit SHARC Melody ULTRA ADSST-21161 from Analog Devices along with a 44-bit Motorola DSP56367. These are high-end version of 2nd Gen SHARC DSPs, Pioneer needing them as their digital audio boards implemented much advanced technologies like auto acoustic calibration over Denon. One SHARC is dedicated to Dolby/ DTS decoding sending 8-channel decoded digital signal to the Motorola DSP to perform additional post-processing activities like THX and some surround simulation effects. Finally the 8-channel post processed digital signal from Motorola is fed to the other SHARC to perform Pioneers own auto acoustic calibration activity better known as Advanced MCACC. VSA-AX10Ai-S was able to perform much denser acoustic calibration over VSA-AX10, courtesy to its SHARCs being 3x powerful. When operational through 7.1 channel analog inputs, four 192 kHz/24-bit AKM AK5385 stereo ADCs in single-ended configuration are used to feed the SHARCs. These ADCs capable of delivering 114 dB dynamic range is pre-configured to work at a constant rate of 96 kHz to feed the DSPs.

15ccxeu.jpg


The 8-channel digital audio signal from DSPs is then passed to four discrete 192 kHz/24-bit Burr-Brown DF1706 stereo digital filters to perform oversampling and then be sent to eight 24-bit Burr-Brown PCM1704 mono DACs. These are renowned Burr-Brown DACs among audiophiles (other than the ominous PCM1792) which is capable of 112 dB dynamic range while supporting 8x oversampling at 96 kHz i.e. sampling frequencies up to 768 kHz. Generally DACs have digital filters built in like PCM1738 or PCM1792, but PCM1794 required discrete digital filters. Burr-Brown made two of them: 96 kHz/24-bit DF1704 and 192 kHz/24-bit DF1706 to complement a pair of mono PCM1704. Pioneer clearly stated VSA-AX10Ai-S had 192 kHz/24-bit DACs, it means DF1706 capable to accept up to 192 kHz sampling rates from any digital audio source (DSPs/ i.Link/ coaxial) is most probably set at 1x oversampling, literally sending digital data to the DACs at sampling frequencies identical to what is received with no oversampling. I presume they were just used as PCM1704 required discrete filters to operate. This is good in one way as with no oversampling there is no need to reduce the word length, either by truncating, rounding, or dithering. For I/V conversion stages from these DACs, following op-amps are used: JRC NJM5534 followed by JRC NJM2068. In the end the 8-channel analog audio signal from these I/V conversion stages are digitally regulated by four individual Toshiba TC94A07 stereo volume controllers in single-ended configuration on all channels. Without doubt Pioneers implementation for digital audio part in VSA-AX10Ai-S is superior as well as expensive compared to Denon AVC-A1SRA.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yamaha DSP-AZ1

13za8g3.jpg


6to5t4.jpg


v3ow89.jpg


Digital Audio Chain

2zhm539.jpg


Yamaha DSP-AZ1 do not fall under US $4,500+ Uber category we are discussing here, but I thought to include this US $2,800 TOTL as it has some uncanny internal structural design pattern similarities with 1st Gen Uber Pioneer VSA-AX10. Mind you both were released in 2001, and if you inspect their internals very closely in terms of placement of main components, VSA-AX10 seems to be a much refined version of DSP-AZ1 negating all known compromises of the Yamaha solution. Yamaha had to live with those compromises in DSP-AZ1 as it used a decade old internal structural design pattern from DSP-A1000. Even the digital audio boards of Pioneer VSA-AX10 and its upgraded versions VSA-AX10Ai and VSA-AX10Ai-S uses the same Digital ToP-ART DAC configuration that Yamaha introduced with DSP-AX1 in 1999, later to be followed by DSP-AZ1. Though it may be pure speculation from my side, it seems Pioneer was inspired by Yamahas proven base structural design principle and Digital ToP-ART design philosophy in their digital audio boards and thought to elevate this principle to higher levels with VSA-AX10. Fortunately this similarity ends at a much higher internal structural level. When you start comparing at circuit designing level they are vastly different, VSA-AX10 being superior is every which way you compare which is what it should be for an Uber. So full marks to Pioneer as I find nothing wrong to be inspired from some proven technical philosophy followed by their competitors like Yamaha.

Yamaha DSP-AZ1

291ixp1.jpg


Pioneer VSA-AX10Ai-S

2i6f4wi.jpg


1 -> Power Supply Chamber
2 -> Video Chamber
3 -> Analog Audio Chamber
4 -> Power Amplifier Chamber
5 -> Digital Audio Chamber

For DSP-AZ1, the 2, 3 & 4 chambers are merged, rest are same as VSA-AX10AiS

----------------------------------------------------

Yamaha used their own DSPs for decoding until DSP-AZ1, after which their decoding LSis lost steam in comparison to latest and greatest on offer from Analog Devices and Texas Instruments. For the future models they still retained their proprietary DSPs for their own renowned post-processing technology better known as Digital Sound Field Processing. In DSP-AZ1 a 32-bit Yamaha YSS-938 is the mother decoder dedicated to Dolby decoding and if it detects DTS signals a pass is made to child DSP named Fujitsu MB87J0470 which returned the data to YSS-938 after DTS decoding. Finally the 6.1 channel decoded digital audio signal [Dolby Digital EX, DTS ES] is fed to two 44-bit Yamaha YSS-910 Digital Sound Field Processing DSPs which combined have equal computing power of a 1st Gen SHARC. They performed many additional post-processing activities like actual sound-field generation, creation of additional font presence channels with their Digital Sound Field Processing. Many surround simulation effects are added like HiFi DSP, Cinema DSP, Silent Cinema & Virtual Cinema technologies. The DSP audio processing is able to handle a maximum sampling rate of 24-bit, 48 kHz (CD & DVD quality), that of Gen 1 Ubers.

Digital Audio Board

2rbynw2.jpg


DSP-AZ1 uses a similar DAC implementation like Pioneer VSA-AX10Ai-S in digital audio board where five discrete DF1704 stereo digital filters are used in tandem with ten PCM1704 mono DACs for its 10 digital audio channels (6.1 channel + 2 front presence channels + 1 additional subwoofer) from YSS-910. But as these digital filters are capable of accepting up to 96 kHz sampling rates from any digital audio source, it is preset to 2x oversampling. Thus incoming sampling frequencies like 32 kHz, 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz, 64 kHz, 88.2 kHz and 96 kHz are raised to 64 kHz, 88.2 kHz, 96 kHz, 128 kHz, 176.4 kHz & 192 kHz respectively by the digital filters and then fed to DACs. Even though DSP-AZ1 never really accepted anything higher than 96 kHz, it oversampled and fed the DACs at up to 192 kHz thus making the marketing team very happy to publicize the presence of 192 kHz/24-bit DACs. Personally I tend to stay away from oversampling as there may be a need to reduce the word length, either by truncating, rounding, or dithering. For I/V conversion stages from these DACs, following op-amps are used: NEC uPC45700 followed by NEC uPC45700. In the end the 10-channel analog audio signal from these I/V conversion stages are digitally regulated by five Cirrus Logic CS3310 stereo volume controllers in single-ended configuration on all channels. DSP-AZ1 has no support for digital processing from 5.1 channel analog inputs. DSP-AZ1 is an excellent AV amplifier for its price, being nearly there with VSA-AX10, though the Pioneer shined in every aspect due to a better engineered product.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Onkyo TX-NR1000

2vmh5dd.jpg


2mwbgyg.jpg


169nwoj.jpg


When Onkyo released their only Uber TX-NR1000 in 2005, the catch phrase was It would take a meteor to wipe this out. Such was the built quality which extends to all other Ubers. The TX-NR1000 is also known as TX-NA1000, TX-NR5000E and Integra DTR-10.5. To me it is also an example of Mother of flexibility as the entire AV processor part is a card-based system. You want HDMI with 4K capability? Just take out the HDMI card from the back and insert a new one with 4K capability available from Onkyo. Voila, now you have 4K!!! This bold move from Onkyo was a great concept, but backfired. More of it can be found in audioholics.com:

Onkyo/Integra Create Upgradable Receiver... Haha, Just Kidding!

In 2005 Onkyo/Integra released their new TX-NR1000 and DTR-10.5 AV Receivers. It was a card-based system that took the industry by storm. It touted HDMI functionality, Net-tune support for Internet radio and, most importantly, to be "The Future-Proof Anchor to Your Entertainment Needs" - a platform that could be updated simply by purchasing new cards from Onkyo/Integra. It seemed like a dream come true, and many folks flocked to the company to pick up this AV receiver with a base price of $3500.

All the latest encoding formatsTHX Surround EX, DTS 96/24, Dolby Pro Logic IIx, and moreare here along with the knowledge that youre ready for the future with upgradable flash memory

Of course, there was a problem, er... more than one, actually. You see, first off, the marketing person and product manager who thought that building a single product that was upgradable was a great business decision must have been on some heavy drugs that day... as were any persons responsible for giving them the green light. You see, while Onkyo was touting the genius of a receiver that never required replacement, some accountant up at headquarters was scratching his head saying "What?!?!" That's right, while Yamaha and Denon were on 9 month new product release cycles, Onkyo was about to trade in its product cycle for add-on or replacement "card" purchases. Not exactly what we'd call a smooth business decision - nor one that could be sustained for any length of time due to new formats and processing requirements (room EQ, anyone?).

At the same time, technology went through an incredible and fast expansion from HDMI 1.0 to HDMI 1.3 in just a short period of time. Silicon for HDMI 1.3 was particularly problematic - and Sony buying up every available piece for its overpriced, undersoftwared (is that a word?) PS3 didn't help. AV manufacturers were stuck in limbo and the new emerging technologies such as automatic room EQ systems, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD made mincemeat of existing platforms and their audio processing chipsets.

As for firmware upgrades? Well, the Onkyo TX-NR1000 and Integra DTR-10.5 could ONLY be upgraded at a service center. Users could not download firmware updates online from the Onkyo website. And within a year, iMerge, the Internet Radio service available through Net-Tune capable Onkyo brand products, announced that it discontinued the iMerge service and would no longer be supporting Internet radio streaming or the Internet Radio database. Internet Radio stations available through Net-Tune would decrease and eventually cease.

As the expected occurred, Onkyo apparently realized their mistake and scrambled to their next product... all the while product managers were left making empty promises that would later get pulled out from under their feet. Take the HDMI 1.2a card that was promised (though not officially) "in late summer" of 2006. Around mid-September it was finally leaked that there would indeed be no card, but that the company would release an HDMI 1.3 card sometime "next year".

After waiting until mid-2007, users were greeted with this emailed response:

Sorry, at this time we have no info on when the card will be out suggest contacting us at a later date for more info.

Soon after that the TX-NR1000 and DTR-10.5 were removed form the Onkyo and Integra websites... eliminating all hope for an HDMI upgrade of any kind. As it turns out, Onkyo was saved from being completely decimated with false advertising claims thanks to releasing a single new card after the product debuted... an HD-Radio/XM card.

To this day no other manufacturer has even hinted at the prospect of a card-based system.

Link: The Twelve Biggest Industry Mistakes of the Digital Age

In the end how much we thrash the TX-NR1000, it is still a great AV amplifier the best Onkyo ever built. Its flexibility also extended with two separate sets of 7.1 channel speaker outs for two separate zones. A 32-bit Aureus TMS320DA610 from Texas Instruments is used for Zone A. These are two times as powerful as SHARC Melody ULTRA, hence only one is used to perform both Dolby/ DTS decoding as well as post-processing like THX, surround simulation effects and bass management on Zone A. Consider a situation where out of seven powered channels of TX-NR1000, five are used in a 5.1 channel Zone A setup while the rest two channels are used up in Zone B stereo setup. Now if someone is watching a DTS encoded movie in Zone A, the above Aureus DSP gets busy at work. So what will happen if someone simultaneously wants to hear a DTS encoded CD on Zone B? Another DSP will be needed right? Thus another 32-bit Aureus TMS320DA610 handled the task of decoding the DTS encoded CD for Zone B simultaneously with Zone A. So TX-NR1000 came with true simultaneous multi-zone support, though it is a pity with the power of Aureus no auto acoustic calibrations are implemented even though DSPs have full support for them.

20u1urq.jpg


When operational through 7.1 channel analog inputs, two 96 kHz/24-bit AKM AK5384 quadraphonic ADCs in single-ended configuration are used to feed any one of the Aureus with pre-selected Zone. These ADCs are of very basic types having dynamic range of just 102 dB (DSP-Z9 did 114 dB) and are pre-configured to work at a constant rate of 96 kHz. Onkyo realizing these multi-channel ADCs being not good enough implemented a separate pair of higher quality 192 kHz/24-bit AKM AK5385 stereo ADCs with 114 dB dynamic range for stereo analog inputs and Zone B analog stereo inputs. The 8-channel digital audio signal from either of these DSPs (Zone A or Zone B) is then sent to four 192 kHz/24-bit Wolfson WM8719 stereo DACs in single-ended configuration delivering 109 dB dynamic range (DSP-Z9 did 129 dB). So the entire 7.1 channel chain fails to meet the minimum target of 110 dB dynamic range as set by other Ubers. For I/V conversion stages from these DACs, following op-amps are used: mPC4570 followed by mPC4570. These are unknown op-amps. In the end the 8-channel analog audio signal from I/V conversion stages are digitally regulated by eight individual Wolfson WM8816 stereo volume controllers in differential configuration on all channels.

ohqvqs.jpg


To me TX-NR1000 is a surplus of everything, multiple ADCs for the same audio channels with varying performance, three additional DACs along with the above four which should have been used in dual-differential configuration for fronts and center channels thus finally breaking 110 dB barrier, unknown op-amps and multiple DSPs for decoding with nothing exceptional other than real multi-zone support. The ADCs, DACs and op-amps are nothing to write about while the powerful DSPs are kept wanting with no acoustic calibration implemented. In the end it seems the tight coupling and optimized maximization of all its resources (electronic components) to gain maximum performance is missing as compared to other Ubers, and surplus of parts are used to do the same job. Sound quality is a different matter though, it should never be judged by hardware implementation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yamaha DSP-Z9

71u2ab.jpg


2vs2lbp.jpg


Digital Audio Board

wa6dzb.jpg


My DSP-Z9: Digital Audio Board

2ywu440.jpg


Digital Audio Chain

11glikh.jpg


The digital audio board of DSP-Z9 boasts the most powerful DSP section in comparison to above three Uber implementation. All DSP IC chips and related circuitry are located on this 4-layered digital audio board which makes dimensions smaller leading to lower digital interference and impedance. It is also implements the most exotic ADCs, DACs and other electronic components in this circuit board. But first you have to understand what Yamahas Digital Sound Field Processing actually means. AV amplifiers from other makes base their sound on Dolby/ DTS decoding, using matrix and steering technologies to create surround sound effects and then perform post processing to recreate simulated environments that are not obtained from real venues with real world data. Yamaha Digital Sound Field Processing on its first phase also does Dolby/ DTS decoding but then in post-processing phase draws a huge amount of digital data representing real-world data obtained by visiting, measuring and collecting from actual venues (say Rock Concert HiFI DSP mode was drawn from real rock concert venue). This valued propriety data is stored in internal banks of memory (ROM chips) adjacent to specially developed DSP microcomputers by Yamaha which process this data. DSP-Z9 then process this data and is able to recreate the actual acoustical characteristics of live performance environments by digitally reproducing the depth, imaging and spatial of those environments using recorded reverberation and echo patters. In order to make the sound-fields more realistic they not only post-processes the 7.1 channels with their processed data but also adds front presence speakers to create additional depth. Yamaha has a lot data that they collected from different venues, so it is a question of how powerful the Yamaha DSPs are, how many of them are used in tandem and how much they can bite on this data to perform a denser processing so that the effects are more realistic. With DSP-Z9 being their first Uber, the first thing they did was to throw away DSP-AZ1s refined digital audio board. With DSP-Z9s focus on pure audio fidelity they built from scratch a new Digital ToP-ART design worthy of HiFi pedigree. They also wanted to implement their own auto acoustic calibration technology (YPAO) for the first time with DSP-Z9.

Decoding DSP -> SHARC Melody ULTRA ADSST-21161 + "Sound-field" Processing -> YSS-930

o075gl.jpg


Eight Yamaha YSS-930 in tandem (Post Processing + YPAO)

2vw66uu.jpg


11i35eb.jpg


For decoding Dolby/ DTS/ THX the high-end version 32-bit SHARC Melody ULTRA ADSST-21161 from Analog Devices is used and sends 8-channel decoded data for post-processing, where it gets more interesting. Yamaha generally used a pair of latest available Yamaha LSis for their sound field processing in their TOTLs. But DSP-Z9 being their first Uber ended up with four of their latest 32-bit Yamaha YSS-930 capable of handling 96 kHz sampling frequencies. This YSS-930s in quad configuration have three times more computational power over dual YSS-910 implementation in DSP-AZ1. Also YSS-910 is able to handle only up to 48 kHz sampling frequencies. Thus with DSP-Z9, Yamaha is able to obtain three times more computational power at twice the sampling frequency which resulted in six times denser Digital Sound Field Processing as compared to DSP-AZ1. This was a very big jump for DSP-Z9 over previous DSP-AZ1. So the first owners of DSP-Z9 immediately reported how realistic and more natural the sound field effects are in comparison to previous DSP-AZ1. It was all due to six times denser sound-field processing of DSP-Z9 allowing it to gulp gobs of data stored in memory banks and process in real time.

Six times denser DSP Processing

1yojth.jpg


After post-processing this 11 channel digital audio signal (7.1 + 2 front presence + 1 additional subwoofer) arrive to their newest invention YPAO. For their proprietary auto acoustic calibration they included another four numbers of YSS-930 LSis in tandem after post-processing phase in the digital chain with complete bass management included. In doing so they ended up with the highest number of DSP processors ever used in any AV amplifier, nine in total, a SHARC followed by quad YSS-930 LSis for sound-field processing followed by quad YSS-930 LSis for their own auto acoustic calibration. When operational through 7.1 channel analog inputs, four high quality 192 kHz/24-bit Cirrus Logic CS5361 stereo ADCs in single-ended configuration are used to feed these DSPs. These ADCs capable of delivering 114 dB dynamic range is pre-configured to work at a constant rate of 96 kHz.

ADC -> Cirrus Logic CS5361

206brs8.jpg


DAC -> Burr-Brown PCM1792

34zkebp.jpg


Op-amps: Analog Devices OP275 and JRC NJM2068

j0hgf6.jpg


Finally the 11-channel digital audio signal from DSPs is then sent to six ultra-exotic 192 kHz/24-bit Burr-Brown PCM1792 stereo DACs. These are the highest performing DACs from Burr-Brown while being the most expensive implementation in any AV amplifier till date. 4x as expensive as Denon or Onkyo implementation and 2x as expensive as Pioneer implementation. Five of these PCM1792 are used for fronts, surrounds, surround backs, stereo subwoofers and front presence channels in single-ended configuration to obtain sky high 129 dB dynamic range while the center channel is in exotic dual-differential configuration obtaining 132 dB dynamic range. For I/V conversion stages from these DACs, following op-amps are used: Analog Devices OP275 followed by JRC NJM2068. To retain this level of analog signal purity from these DACs I/V conversion stages, Yamaha developed their own stereo volume controller Yamaha YAC-520. Nine in total, seven of those were used in dual-differential configuration for the main seven channels (fronts, center, surrounds, surround backs) to offer higher performance, the rest two being used in single ended configuration for two subwoofers and two front presence channels. It is also to note the very best and expensive Nichicon Gold Tune electrolytic capacitors were used all around along with military grade solid capacitors in this board.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary

With all these objective views of different digital audio board implementation on various Ubers the natural conclusion drawn will be DSP-Z9 is the best. DSP-Z9 is using the most expensive hardware while an AVC-A1SRA is using pretty modest ones which lead to clear conclusion, at least objectively: Yamaha is way better than Denon. In real world though, this is not the case. Sound quality I believe is a subjective element, and as such very simplest of audio implementations can sound very good in my ears. In reality when I was exposed to both these Ubers the Denon was just there with Yamaha DSP-Z9, the DSP-Z9 having a slight edge when it came to audio fidelity. So my point is, it is good to understand the technology that went behind making of these Uber AV amplifiers, but never to draw a conclusion as of which is best in terms of audio fidelity until you have heard and compared them with the same or various setups. This is what I have learnt.
 
Last edited:
You are truly the /GURU/ of avrs. By reading your posts not only do I come to know more about how avr works and sounds but i salute for the effort you pour in to write such aweome posts in a lucid way to teach novices like us. Because there are great many people who knows about all this but retaliate from the effort posting sharing this /RISHI/ gyaan to us. You posts have greatly inspired me with the determination to get a z9 and i enjoy every momoent with it. So a big thank you once more and keep posting.

High quality digital audio reproduction isnt cheap and AV amplifiers like DSP-Z9 have eleven separate digital channels (7.1 + 2 front presence + 1 additional subwoofer) to deal with. I believe there are much more to Yamaha DSP-Z9 than just excellent DACs in the digital audio board. The sound quality which you are referring is primarily due to exemplary circuit designing of its digital audio boards by some of the most renowned experts in this field. Along with the combination of top quality electronic parts, advanced digital signal processors (DSP), top of the line digital to analog converters (DAC), analog to digital converters (ADC), operational amplifiers (op-amps) and volume controllers made it truly shine above the others.
 
Last edited:
For excellent sound that won't break the bank, the 5 Star Award Winning Wharfedale Diamond 12.1 Bookshelf Speakers is the one to consider!
Back
Top