avidyarthy
Well-Known Member
Use this beauty for 2 channel stereo ........ now, start saving up for 'top of the line' 4 ohm speakers.
Yamaha DSP-A2070
- Thread starter rishiguru
- Start date
rishiguru
Well-Known Member
Found some beautiful & elaborate piece of articles regarding the audio amplifier technology as written by the renowned Gene DellaSala, the founder and owner of Audioholics which happens to be the audio industry's largest audited A/V review publication.
The Beginning
Yamaha DSP-1
Gene : In 1986 Yamaha introduced the DSP-1 Digital Soundfield Processor which just happened to have the original 3-channel Dolby Surround on-board. This Stereo Review Product of the Year was showcased in the (first) Yamaha Home Theater at the 1987 Consumer Electronics Show and caused a sensation which shifted the gears for an entire industry for many years to come."
My Note: Yamaha DSP-1 was the sensation of digital sound in 1987, because for the first time in audio industry a company had mainly focused on spatial realism & sonic fidelity, the two major elements of superior sound reproduction.
But then exceptional sonic fidelity had been realized through the digital recording technology used in compact disc players. Now Yamaha had achieved a comparable breakthrough in audio spatial realism by developing one of the significant innovations since stereo, the DSP-1 Digital Sound Field Processor. The DSP-1 was able to recreate the actual acoustical characteristics of 13 live performance environments by digitally reproducing the depth, imaging and spatial of those environments using recorded reverberation and echo patters.
To maintain the superior sound of digital audio, a newly developed Yamaha VLSI, which included a high-speed 24-bit X 13-bit multiplier and a 24-bit adder/substarctor, was used to process sonic reflections in real time, while digital signals were processed at a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz by 16-bit linear quantization A/D and D/A converters.
Phew, and all of this back in 1986.
By digitally reproducing the reverberations and echo patters of 13 separate "live performance" environments, the DSP-1 was able to recreate their actual depth, imaging and spatial realism to transform any listening room into a exciting and amazingly dynamic sound field of listening enjoyment.
The original DSP-1 used to process only six channels instead of standard seven since it lacked the center channel. Center channel was later added in the next DSP models. At that time DSP units like DSP-1 did not even had a volume controller or a integrated amp module, so separate 6 channel master volume controller plus stereo power amp for the main stereo outputs plus a four channel amplifier for the four effect speakers had to be used with it.
Gene : "The stereo-only receiver gave way to surround receivers and continued to gain momentum as better surround technologies like Dolby Pro-Logic took hold. Other receiver manufacturers were quick to add their own versions of enhanced listening environments like Jazz Club and Stadium, all of which required more than the traditional three left, right & front channels to reproduce.
The 'race', as it were, was on. But without guidance from any quarter as to what exactly constituted good or even adequate surround the question of how much power to allocate to how many surround channels was left up to the product management and bean counters of the individual companies. All that was available was Dolby's recommendation that the surround speaker have a low end frequency response down to 100Hz with its high end frequency response rolled off after 7kHz. To most designers at the time this said that we were free to put any cheap little 4" full range speaker in a box and it would meet the surround requirement.
The 100 watts per channel ideal was still found in at least the top-of-the-line receivers of this time. Even though the surround and center channel power ratings were lower as the engineers did whatever they could to still hit long established (stereo receiver) price points with multi-channel products.
Through the late eighties and into the early nineties of Dolby Pro Logic era, receivers always had at least the left and right stereo channels touting the most power. One hundred watts seemed to have been the magic number back in the stereo-only era and that 100 watt RMS per channel figure held its cache in the transitional receivers of this period. Whatever price-point receiver had the magic 100 watts per channel was, if not the biggest seller in a manufacturer's line, then the most sought after.
Just prior to Dolby Digital it had become "uncool" to have less power for the center channel since it was promoted as being vital for movie dialog. So the new paradigm became 100 watts x 3 for left, center and right front speakers. But it was still okay to have less power and lower quality speakers for the surround channels because the Dolby Pro Logic then available was used mainly to produce ambient sounds like crowd noise and rain."
My Note: It was in 1990 that Yamaha realized the separate route of DSP unit + master volume controller + stereo power amp for main stereo speakers + 5 channel power amp for effect speakers were just too cumbersome to market and hence amalgamated all these units into a single piece of sonic brilliance, which came to be known as the Yamaha DSP-A1000 weighing a monstrous 20 kg and costing a whopping $2000.
Yamaha DSP-A2070 [7 channel amplifier]
After a great success of DSP-A1000, in 1993 Yamaha released the second iteration of DSP-A1000 namely the DSP-A2070. The DSP-A2070 was actually the identical twin brother of DSP-A1000 in both looks and hardware used, but had more audio input options and at the same time the DSP module was more powerful having even more computing power than before. Weight also increased by 1 kg to 21kg while thankfully the price remained the same. Back in 1993, the $2000 Yamaha DSP-A2070 was their venerable flagship.
DSP-A2070 total minimum power(RMS) [General Model]
i ) [20Hz-20kHz @ 0.015% THD, 8 ohms] : 80 (Main Left) + 80 (Main Right) + 80 (Center) + 25(Front Left) + 25(Front Right) + 25(Rear Left) + 25(Rear Right) = 340 watts
ii) [20Hz-20kHz @ 0.015% THD, 6 ohms] : 100 (Main Left) + 100 (Main Right) + 100 (Center) + 30(Front Left) + 30(Front Right) + 30(Rear Left) + 30(Rear Right) = 420 watts
iii) [20Hz-20kHz @ 0.015% THD, 4 ohms] : 125 (Main Left) + 125 (Main Right) + 125 (Center) + 38(Front Left) + 38(Front Right) + 38(Rear Left) + 38(Rear Right) = 527 watts
Dynamic Headroom : 2.1db @ 8 ohms
Weight : 21 kg
Gene : "We're in the late nineties now and Dolby Digital, AC-3 as it was known back then, becomes available. The configuration is 5.1 and it is "recommended" that all channels in receivers be of the same power. THX recommends the same equal power for all channels so for the first time since the mid-eighties there is actually some direction given to receiver manufacturers. And as usual, the burden went back to the product managers and engineers who now were faced with producing 5-channel (at the minimum) receivers with wattages and at price points that ten years earlier had been stereo-only product. AC-3 changed the receiver category which saw for the first time examples of "statement" integrated amplifiers like the Yamaha DSP-A3090 which retailed for $2500(!) in 1996."
Yamaha DSP-A3090 [7 channel amplifier]
My Note: Yamaha DSP-A3090 was perhaps the best seven channel amplifier Yamaha had ever made. It was only the third model in DSP series after DSP-A2070 & DSP-A1000.
A3090 had the best balance of feature set/DSP/integreated amplifer of all the DSP models. And the above three models had the trademark clean undistorted dynamics & amplification of sound through the seven channels.
DSP-A3090 total minimum power(RMS) [20Hz-20kHz @ 0.015% THD, 8 ohms] [General Model]:
80 (Main Left) + 80 (Main Right) + 80 (Center) + 25(Front Left) + 25(Front Right) + 80(Rear Left) + 80(Rear Right) = 450 watts
Dynamic Headroom : 0.97db @ 8 ohms
Weight : 21 kg
If today I am told to pick one from these three for watching movies, I will definitely choose the A3090. The A3090 may not have the uncompromising & pure nature of DSP-A2070/ DSP-A1000 units, atleast from a technical point of view, but none the less represents the best balance of the feature set available.
For music listening in pure stereo mode I will still prefer the A2070 over A3090 since it produces the same power as A3090 from the main stereo channels while having two times the dynamic headroom of A3090. From audio amplification point of view A2070 is the better amp.
Gene : "Why back to the integrated amp configuration? Quantities. Even at $2500 the all-channels-equally-powered A3090 was seen as somewhat of less than a fully acceptable statement piece in America because it had "only" 80 watts @ 8 ohms per channel x 5. Europe and Japan had also embraced 5.1 surround and to these buyers with generally smaller living spaces the 80 watts @ 8 ohms per channel was quite acceptable. So the DSP-A3090 went on to sell in the thousands while paving the way for equal high power receivers at the lower and more traditional price points."
Trading Amplifier Quality for Features A New Trend with A/V Receivers?
The Good Ole Days
Gene: Lets flip the clocks back 10-15 years ago to one of my favorite Pro Logic receivers from Onkyo, the TX-DS828. It was a THX rated five channel receiver that had a very meaty amp section for the main channels. Back in that day it wasnt a requirement to have equal power for all channels since Dolby Digital wasnt implemented in consumer gear yet. I recall speaking to a tech at Onkyo about some operational questions I had relating to this receiver. He told me dont get rid of that baby, the replacement models coming dont have the same punch. I didnt think much of that until a few generations later where a similarly priced Onkyo receiver was not only lighter in weight, but had a reduced power rating for the front channels but equal power for all five channels.
Sure it sported new Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1 decoders but for listening to two channel sources, it just didnt sound the same to me or my brother when we ran some comparisons. On a positive note, getting DD/DTS decoders built in was certainly a worthy trade off. It is costly for manufacturers to not only integrate the parts for these features, but to license the technologies as well. Only your listening habits could govern your decision based on these trade offs. Being a two channel enthusiast like me, my brother kept what he had and waited. The features in this case werent worth trading for amplifier quality.
A similar example I recall was with one of the industrys first fully integrated 5.1 Dolby Digital receiver, the venerable flagship from Yamaha, the DSP-A3090. It was actually an integrated amp as it lacked a tuner. This beast weighed a whopping 21 kg (46lbs), had dual rows of heat sinks, a large E-core transformer and generous capacitive power bank reserves. It was also the first equal power (5 x 80wpc @ 8 ohms) 5.1 channel A/V product on the market. The sound quality was fabulous. The amps were sonically very warm and rich and had no problems driving 4 ohm loads on all channels simultaneously. I owned this unit before I started Audioholics. A few months after I bought it, the RX-V2092 came out. Its rated power was 20wpc higher than the older DSP-A3090 but it also weighed a few pounds less. Did Yamaha somehow change the laws of physics? Not likely.
What I discovered in my listening comparisons between the two amplifiers was that the less powerful DSP-A3090 sounded much smoother and more natural, especially when driven at high power levels. Despite it didnt put out as much rated power, the sonic differences between the two to my ears was night and day. Years later I discovered why this was the case. Yamaha was biasing the rails higher (using a higher voltage rail with less available current) to yield a more impressive power spec for marketing purposes.
For a receiver with an analog amplifier the highest percentage cost is for the transformer and filter caps which make up the power supply. Add to this the cost of the chassis, the packaging, a couple hundred other electronic parts, faceplates and knobs, lighting displays, owners manuals and the requisite remote control and you've got yourself a fairly narrow range of options from which to work at any given price point.
In addition, they used lower quality output devices and cut costs in other components as well. Hey you cant blame them. The RX-V2092 retailed for almost $900 less than the DSP-A3090 and had a lot more features. It was really a win/win scenario for most consumers, especially those that wanted a more up to date receiver for less money with more perceived power. The balance between performance and features that Yamaha struck with these units were all aces.
During this time period, it was easy for manufacturers to churn out newer models for roughly the same price as the predecessor that not only performed better but gave the consumers more features to boot. The industry wasnt moving at the rapid pace as it is today, so replacement models came less frequently and most were modest enhancements with no funny business in trading off amplifier performance. We watched flagship models from many manufacturers steadily increase in size, power and price. The market welcomed this as did consumers wallets.
Back in early 90s at the $2500 price point, we could get 5 channels of balls to the walls high performance 23 kg (50lb) A/V receivers with good ole fashion linear A/B amplifiers. Today for that same coin we get a state of the art networking A/V control center with all the latest decoding and processing in a more compact form factor. Are the amps as robust or as powerful as yesteryear? I think not. Do most people care? Probably not! This is especially true when considering the trend towards compact speaker packages for aesthetic purposes over hulking towers and the MP3 / iPod craze over uncompressed formats.
The majority of end users dont need the extra power. Those that do, tend to go the separates route anyways. In most cases, trading a bit of amplifier performance for the latest feature implementation is a good compromise. The bottom line is if you want bleeding edge technology on the cheap, something has to give, excluding flagship models, usually. The receiver companies that dont make these compromises in their budget, high volume line of product are typically light-years behind in processing and the latest features that you the consumer demand from them. Those that take the calculated risk that features will sell over basic performance are still the top dogs at in this business. They give the consumers what they asked for."
So Watts the Problem?
Gene : "I totally understand and respect the tradeoffs between amplifier power and features in budget A/V receivers. Heck just a few years ago, you couldnt get a 7.1 A/V receiver with HDMI 1.3a A/V processing and decoding for under $2k, now you can get them for under $500 with OSD support via HDMI no less. Thats progress!
What I do take issue with however is when a receiver company releases their next generation of receivers at the same price points with virtually the same operational features, but costs reduces the power supply in attempts to increase profit margins.
Lets take a look at the differences between two $549 Yamaha receivers as an example. Yamaha isnt the only brand Ive noticed this trend with mind you.
Yamaha RX-V663
Yamaha RX-V665
Yamaha RX-V663 | Yamaha RX-V665
Retail : $549 | $549
Power Spec : 95wpc x 7 full bandwidth | 90wpc x 7 at 1kHz
HDMI (I/O) : (2/1) | (4/1)
Component Video (I/O) : (3/1) | (2/1)
A/V inputs : 5 with s-video | 4 (composite only)
Digital inputs : 3 opt / 2 coax | 2 opt / 2 coax
HDMI Up conversion : Yes | to 1080p
HDMI Pass thru : No | Yes
Speaker a/b : A + B | A only
Dimensions (W x H X D) : 17 1/8 x 6 3/4 x 15 1/2 | 17 1/8 x 6 x 14 3/8
Weight : 26.2 lbs | 18.7 lbs
The upgrades for the new model (RX-V665) includes HDMI up-scaling to 1080p, HDMI pass thru to enable video when your receiver is turned off, and 2 more HDMI inputs. The downside is no s-video, one less optical input and a significantly reduction in power. When a receiver company rates their amp at 1kHz, this usually means a full bandwidth(20Hz-20kHz) measurement will be about 10-15% lower. Thus I suspect if we were comparing apples to apples, the RX-V665 would only output around 70wpc compared to the 95wpc rating of its predecessor. Of course with nearly an 8lb weight reduction and considering both receivers use linear A/B amplification, this also likely means the RX-V665 doesnt have the power reserves to drive multiple channels with as much poise and finesse as the RX-V663.
For the above example, the consumer must decide whether or not the upgraded features of the new receiver are worth the sacrifice in amplifier quality. I suppose it depends if the end user leans more towards emphasis of video features than audio. If they desire both and one day have intentions of adding external amplification, than doesnt this become a moot point?
Not always. From my testing of A/V receivers from various manufacturers, most of them simply slap preamp outputs on the back of their receivers for a marketing feature. It is a very inexpensive way to impress the unsophisticated user into being awed. They usually dont put decent op-amps that have enough output to drive external power amplification to its full potential without the internal preamp of the receiver first clipping and going into gross distortion. Remember these receivers are designed as a closed loop system to work optimally with their own internal components. If the manufacturer is cutting costs in the power supply of their product to offer you more features, its a safe bet they arent giving you a higher quality preamplification section to power an external amplifier.
Conclusion
Having done this job for some time now, Ive noticed this trend with many of the major brands over the years. Companies go through up and down cycles and as a result lose market share. As long as technology keeps evolving, manufacturers will do their best to cram in features of next generation products that were only previously found in their flagship models. While IC integration will trickle down technology, reducing production costs making it easier to achieve this, there will usually be other compromises in the lower end models to realize the feature count.
Finding that balance of basic performance compromises vs. relevant features is the equation that receiver manufacturers must figure out when launching their new platforms. It seems Yamaha has upset this delicate balance with their latest RX-Vxx5 series of receivers. We will be paying careful attention to this trend for all manufacturers during our product evaluations to recommend whether or not these new dream machines have the audio chops of their predecessors or if theyve got the tools to adequately drive external amplification for those looking for more power in their next home theater experience. Dont just run out and buy the latest model because its newer.
Stop and think if the model you currently have meets the performance vs feature balance that is right for your needs and how the newer so called improved model fits into that equation. All the features in the world cant replace clean undistorted dynamics which we believe makes up most of the WOW and magic in the newer HD audio formats."
Gene DellaSala Biography
The above content belongs to two of the Gene's articles as below:
Product Managing Receiver Platforms & Power Ratings
Trading Amplifier Quality for Features A New Trend with A/V Receivers?
The Beginning
Yamaha DSP-1
Gene : In 1986 Yamaha introduced the DSP-1 Digital Soundfield Processor which just happened to have the original 3-channel Dolby Surround on-board. This Stereo Review Product of the Year was showcased in the (first) Yamaha Home Theater at the 1987 Consumer Electronics Show and caused a sensation which shifted the gears for an entire industry for many years to come."
My Note: Yamaha DSP-1 was the sensation of digital sound in 1987, because for the first time in audio industry a company had mainly focused on spatial realism & sonic fidelity, the two major elements of superior sound reproduction.
But then exceptional sonic fidelity had been realized through the digital recording technology used in compact disc players. Now Yamaha had achieved a comparable breakthrough in audio spatial realism by developing one of the significant innovations since stereo, the DSP-1 Digital Sound Field Processor. The DSP-1 was able to recreate the actual acoustical characteristics of 13 live performance environments by digitally reproducing the depth, imaging and spatial of those environments using recorded reverberation and echo patters.
To maintain the superior sound of digital audio, a newly developed Yamaha VLSI, which included a high-speed 24-bit X 13-bit multiplier and a 24-bit adder/substarctor, was used to process sonic reflections in real time, while digital signals were processed at a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz by 16-bit linear quantization A/D and D/A converters.
Phew, and all of this back in 1986.
By digitally reproducing the reverberations and echo patters of 13 separate "live performance" environments, the DSP-1 was able to recreate their actual depth, imaging and spatial realism to transform any listening room into a exciting and amazingly dynamic sound field of listening enjoyment.
The original DSP-1 used to process only six channels instead of standard seven since it lacked the center channel. Center channel was later added in the next DSP models. At that time DSP units like DSP-1 did not even had a volume controller or a integrated amp module, so separate 6 channel master volume controller plus stereo power amp for the main stereo outputs plus a four channel amplifier for the four effect speakers had to be used with it.
Gene : "The stereo-only receiver gave way to surround receivers and continued to gain momentum as better surround technologies like Dolby Pro-Logic took hold. Other receiver manufacturers were quick to add their own versions of enhanced listening environments like Jazz Club and Stadium, all of which required more than the traditional three left, right & front channels to reproduce.
The 'race', as it were, was on. But without guidance from any quarter as to what exactly constituted good or even adequate surround the question of how much power to allocate to how many surround channels was left up to the product management and bean counters of the individual companies. All that was available was Dolby's recommendation that the surround speaker have a low end frequency response down to 100Hz with its high end frequency response rolled off after 7kHz. To most designers at the time this said that we were free to put any cheap little 4" full range speaker in a box and it would meet the surround requirement.
The 100 watts per channel ideal was still found in at least the top-of-the-line receivers of this time. Even though the surround and center channel power ratings were lower as the engineers did whatever they could to still hit long established (stereo receiver) price points with multi-channel products.
Through the late eighties and into the early nineties of Dolby Pro Logic era, receivers always had at least the left and right stereo channels touting the most power. One hundred watts seemed to have been the magic number back in the stereo-only era and that 100 watt RMS per channel figure held its cache in the transitional receivers of this period. Whatever price-point receiver had the magic 100 watts per channel was, if not the biggest seller in a manufacturer's line, then the most sought after.
Just prior to Dolby Digital it had become "uncool" to have less power for the center channel since it was promoted as being vital for movie dialog. So the new paradigm became 100 watts x 3 for left, center and right front speakers. But it was still okay to have less power and lower quality speakers for the surround channels because the Dolby Pro Logic then available was used mainly to produce ambient sounds like crowd noise and rain."
My Note: It was in 1990 that Yamaha realized the separate route of DSP unit + master volume controller + stereo power amp for main stereo speakers + 5 channel power amp for effect speakers were just too cumbersome to market and hence amalgamated all these units into a single piece of sonic brilliance, which came to be known as the Yamaha DSP-A1000 weighing a monstrous 20 kg and costing a whopping $2000.
Yamaha DSP-A2070 [7 channel amplifier]
After a great success of DSP-A1000, in 1993 Yamaha released the second iteration of DSP-A1000 namely the DSP-A2070. The DSP-A2070 was actually the identical twin brother of DSP-A1000 in both looks and hardware used, but had more audio input options and at the same time the DSP module was more powerful having even more computing power than before. Weight also increased by 1 kg to 21kg while thankfully the price remained the same. Back in 1993, the $2000 Yamaha DSP-A2070 was their venerable flagship.
DSP-A2070 total minimum power(RMS) [General Model]
i ) [20Hz-20kHz @ 0.015% THD, 8 ohms] : 80 (Main Left) + 80 (Main Right) + 80 (Center) + 25(Front Left) + 25(Front Right) + 25(Rear Left) + 25(Rear Right) = 340 watts
ii) [20Hz-20kHz @ 0.015% THD, 6 ohms] : 100 (Main Left) + 100 (Main Right) + 100 (Center) + 30(Front Left) + 30(Front Right) + 30(Rear Left) + 30(Rear Right) = 420 watts
iii) [20Hz-20kHz @ 0.015% THD, 4 ohms] : 125 (Main Left) + 125 (Main Right) + 125 (Center) + 38(Front Left) + 38(Front Right) + 38(Rear Left) + 38(Rear Right) = 527 watts
Dynamic Headroom : 2.1db @ 8 ohms
Weight : 21 kg
Gene : "We're in the late nineties now and Dolby Digital, AC-3 as it was known back then, becomes available. The configuration is 5.1 and it is "recommended" that all channels in receivers be of the same power. THX recommends the same equal power for all channels so for the first time since the mid-eighties there is actually some direction given to receiver manufacturers. And as usual, the burden went back to the product managers and engineers who now were faced with producing 5-channel (at the minimum) receivers with wattages and at price points that ten years earlier had been stereo-only product. AC-3 changed the receiver category which saw for the first time examples of "statement" integrated amplifiers like the Yamaha DSP-A3090 which retailed for $2500(!) in 1996."
Yamaha DSP-A3090 [7 channel amplifier]
My Note: Yamaha DSP-A3090 was perhaps the best seven channel amplifier Yamaha had ever made. It was only the third model in DSP series after DSP-A2070 & DSP-A1000.
A3090 had the best balance of feature set/DSP/integreated amplifer of all the DSP models. And the above three models had the trademark clean undistorted dynamics & amplification of sound through the seven channels.
DSP-A3090 total minimum power(RMS) [20Hz-20kHz @ 0.015% THD, 8 ohms] [General Model]:
80 (Main Left) + 80 (Main Right) + 80 (Center) + 25(Front Left) + 25(Front Right) + 80(Rear Left) + 80(Rear Right) = 450 watts
Dynamic Headroom : 0.97db @ 8 ohms
Weight : 21 kg
If today I am told to pick one from these three for watching movies, I will definitely choose the A3090. The A3090 may not have the uncompromising & pure nature of DSP-A2070/ DSP-A1000 units, atleast from a technical point of view, but none the less represents the best balance of the feature set available.
For music listening in pure stereo mode I will still prefer the A2070 over A3090 since it produces the same power as A3090 from the main stereo channels while having two times the dynamic headroom of A3090. From audio amplification point of view A2070 is the better amp.
Gene : "Why back to the integrated amp configuration? Quantities. Even at $2500 the all-channels-equally-powered A3090 was seen as somewhat of less than a fully acceptable statement piece in America because it had "only" 80 watts @ 8 ohms per channel x 5. Europe and Japan had also embraced 5.1 surround and to these buyers with generally smaller living spaces the 80 watts @ 8 ohms per channel was quite acceptable. So the DSP-A3090 went on to sell in the thousands while paving the way for equal high power receivers at the lower and more traditional price points."
Trading Amplifier Quality for Features A New Trend with A/V Receivers?
The Good Ole Days
Gene: Lets flip the clocks back 10-15 years ago to one of my favorite Pro Logic receivers from Onkyo, the TX-DS828. It was a THX rated five channel receiver that had a very meaty amp section for the main channels. Back in that day it wasnt a requirement to have equal power for all channels since Dolby Digital wasnt implemented in consumer gear yet. I recall speaking to a tech at Onkyo about some operational questions I had relating to this receiver. He told me dont get rid of that baby, the replacement models coming dont have the same punch. I didnt think much of that until a few generations later where a similarly priced Onkyo receiver was not only lighter in weight, but had a reduced power rating for the front channels but equal power for all five channels.
Sure it sported new Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1 decoders but for listening to two channel sources, it just didnt sound the same to me or my brother when we ran some comparisons. On a positive note, getting DD/DTS decoders built in was certainly a worthy trade off. It is costly for manufacturers to not only integrate the parts for these features, but to license the technologies as well. Only your listening habits could govern your decision based on these trade offs. Being a two channel enthusiast like me, my brother kept what he had and waited. The features in this case werent worth trading for amplifier quality.
A similar example I recall was with one of the industrys first fully integrated 5.1 Dolby Digital receiver, the venerable flagship from Yamaha, the DSP-A3090. It was actually an integrated amp as it lacked a tuner. This beast weighed a whopping 21 kg (46lbs), had dual rows of heat sinks, a large E-core transformer and generous capacitive power bank reserves. It was also the first equal power (5 x 80wpc @ 8 ohms) 5.1 channel A/V product on the market. The sound quality was fabulous. The amps were sonically very warm and rich and had no problems driving 4 ohm loads on all channels simultaneously. I owned this unit before I started Audioholics. A few months after I bought it, the RX-V2092 came out. Its rated power was 20wpc higher than the older DSP-A3090 but it also weighed a few pounds less. Did Yamaha somehow change the laws of physics? Not likely.
What I discovered in my listening comparisons between the two amplifiers was that the less powerful DSP-A3090 sounded much smoother and more natural, especially when driven at high power levels. Despite it didnt put out as much rated power, the sonic differences between the two to my ears was night and day. Years later I discovered why this was the case. Yamaha was biasing the rails higher (using a higher voltage rail with less available current) to yield a more impressive power spec for marketing purposes.
For a receiver with an analog amplifier the highest percentage cost is for the transformer and filter caps which make up the power supply. Add to this the cost of the chassis, the packaging, a couple hundred other electronic parts, faceplates and knobs, lighting displays, owners manuals and the requisite remote control and you've got yourself a fairly narrow range of options from which to work at any given price point.
In addition, they used lower quality output devices and cut costs in other components as well. Hey you cant blame them. The RX-V2092 retailed for almost $900 less than the DSP-A3090 and had a lot more features. It was really a win/win scenario for most consumers, especially those that wanted a more up to date receiver for less money with more perceived power. The balance between performance and features that Yamaha struck with these units were all aces.
During this time period, it was easy for manufacturers to churn out newer models for roughly the same price as the predecessor that not only performed better but gave the consumers more features to boot. The industry wasnt moving at the rapid pace as it is today, so replacement models came less frequently and most were modest enhancements with no funny business in trading off amplifier performance. We watched flagship models from many manufacturers steadily increase in size, power and price. The market welcomed this as did consumers wallets.
Back in early 90s at the $2500 price point, we could get 5 channels of balls to the walls high performance 23 kg (50lb) A/V receivers with good ole fashion linear A/B amplifiers. Today for that same coin we get a state of the art networking A/V control center with all the latest decoding and processing in a more compact form factor. Are the amps as robust or as powerful as yesteryear? I think not. Do most people care? Probably not! This is especially true when considering the trend towards compact speaker packages for aesthetic purposes over hulking towers and the MP3 / iPod craze over uncompressed formats.
The majority of end users dont need the extra power. Those that do, tend to go the separates route anyways. In most cases, trading a bit of amplifier performance for the latest feature implementation is a good compromise. The bottom line is if you want bleeding edge technology on the cheap, something has to give, excluding flagship models, usually. The receiver companies that dont make these compromises in their budget, high volume line of product are typically light-years behind in processing and the latest features that you the consumer demand from them. Those that take the calculated risk that features will sell over basic performance are still the top dogs at in this business. They give the consumers what they asked for."
So Watts the Problem?
Gene : "I totally understand and respect the tradeoffs between amplifier power and features in budget A/V receivers. Heck just a few years ago, you couldnt get a 7.1 A/V receiver with HDMI 1.3a A/V processing and decoding for under $2k, now you can get them for under $500 with OSD support via HDMI no less. Thats progress!
What I do take issue with however is when a receiver company releases their next generation of receivers at the same price points with virtually the same operational features, but costs reduces the power supply in attempts to increase profit margins.
Lets take a look at the differences between two $549 Yamaha receivers as an example. Yamaha isnt the only brand Ive noticed this trend with mind you.
Yamaha RX-V663
Yamaha RX-V665
Yamaha RX-V663 | Yamaha RX-V665
Retail : $549 | $549
Power Spec : 95wpc x 7 full bandwidth | 90wpc x 7 at 1kHz
HDMI (I/O) : (2/1) | (4/1)
Component Video (I/O) : (3/1) | (2/1)
A/V inputs : 5 with s-video | 4 (composite only)
Digital inputs : 3 opt / 2 coax | 2 opt / 2 coax
HDMI Up conversion : Yes | to 1080p
HDMI Pass thru : No | Yes
Speaker a/b : A + B | A only
Dimensions (W x H X D) : 17 1/8 x 6 3/4 x 15 1/2 | 17 1/8 x 6 x 14 3/8
Weight : 26.2 lbs | 18.7 lbs
The upgrades for the new model (RX-V665) includes HDMI up-scaling to 1080p, HDMI pass thru to enable video when your receiver is turned off, and 2 more HDMI inputs. The downside is no s-video, one less optical input and a significantly reduction in power. When a receiver company rates their amp at 1kHz, this usually means a full bandwidth(20Hz-20kHz) measurement will be about 10-15% lower. Thus I suspect if we were comparing apples to apples, the RX-V665 would only output around 70wpc compared to the 95wpc rating of its predecessor. Of course with nearly an 8lb weight reduction and considering both receivers use linear A/B amplification, this also likely means the RX-V665 doesnt have the power reserves to drive multiple channels with as much poise and finesse as the RX-V663.
For the above example, the consumer must decide whether or not the upgraded features of the new receiver are worth the sacrifice in amplifier quality. I suppose it depends if the end user leans more towards emphasis of video features than audio. If they desire both and one day have intentions of adding external amplification, than doesnt this become a moot point?
Not always. From my testing of A/V receivers from various manufacturers, most of them simply slap preamp outputs on the back of their receivers for a marketing feature. It is a very inexpensive way to impress the unsophisticated user into being awed. They usually dont put decent op-amps that have enough output to drive external power amplification to its full potential without the internal preamp of the receiver first clipping and going into gross distortion. Remember these receivers are designed as a closed loop system to work optimally with their own internal components. If the manufacturer is cutting costs in the power supply of their product to offer you more features, its a safe bet they arent giving you a higher quality preamplification section to power an external amplifier.
Conclusion
Having done this job for some time now, Ive noticed this trend with many of the major brands over the years. Companies go through up and down cycles and as a result lose market share. As long as technology keeps evolving, manufacturers will do their best to cram in features of next generation products that were only previously found in their flagship models. While IC integration will trickle down technology, reducing production costs making it easier to achieve this, there will usually be other compromises in the lower end models to realize the feature count.
Finding that balance of basic performance compromises vs. relevant features is the equation that receiver manufacturers must figure out when launching their new platforms. It seems Yamaha has upset this delicate balance with their latest RX-Vxx5 series of receivers. We will be paying careful attention to this trend for all manufacturers during our product evaluations to recommend whether or not these new dream machines have the audio chops of their predecessors or if theyve got the tools to adequately drive external amplification for those looking for more power in their next home theater experience. Dont just run out and buy the latest model because its newer.
Stop and think if the model you currently have meets the performance vs feature balance that is right for your needs and how the newer so called improved model fits into that equation. All the features in the world cant replace clean undistorted dynamics which we believe makes up most of the WOW and magic in the newer HD audio formats."
Gene DellaSala Biography
The above content belongs to two of the Gene's articles as below:
Product Managing Receiver Platforms & Power Ratings
Trading Amplifier Quality for Features A New Trend with A/V Receivers?
Last edited:
rishiguru
Well-Known Member
The S-300i is Krell's least-expensive integrated stereo amplifier but it's still a killer, with 150 watts per channel, a beefy power supply, practically perfect measured performance and the sound quality that has made Krell a fave of audiophiles for 30+ years.
Krell S-300i
In my audition this was the only amplifier of Rajiv's (audiophile) collection that stood against the Yamaha DSP-A2070.
Pairing this brawn with the B&W beauties was the best match, and the sound they produces is perhaps the best i have ever heard.
The difference between the A2070 & 300i is that 300i had more texture in sound & it seemed the music is more fluid through the floorstanders.
Both A2070 & 300i have this brutal, vigorous, powerful, invigorating & raw sound that you will fall in love with. Also both of them are capable to produce stupendous balls to the walls tight bass, but at the same time not masking the mids & the highs.
Although I do admit, if you turn the bass knob to max in DSP-A2070 and then the Bass Extension switch, the amp turns itself into a Bass Machine & have the ability to annihilate my Sony bookshelves which are rated at 150 watts X 2.
Krell S-300i
In my audition this was the only amplifier of Rajiv's (audiophile) collection that stood against the Yamaha DSP-A2070.
Pairing this brawn with the B&W beauties was the best match, and the sound they produces is perhaps the best i have ever heard.
The difference between the A2070 & 300i is that 300i had more texture in sound & it seemed the music is more fluid through the floorstanders.
Both A2070 & 300i have this brutal, vigorous, powerful, invigorating & raw sound that you will fall in love with. Also both of them are capable to produce stupendous balls to the walls tight bass, but at the same time not masking the mids & the highs.
Although I do admit, if you turn the bass knob to max in DSP-A2070 and then the Bass Extension switch, the amp turns itself into a Bass Machine & have the ability to annihilate my Sony bookshelves which are rated at 150 watts X 2.
heliumflight
Well-Known Member
Rishi your on Cloud9, on the one side you have penned down your unbiased praise for the worthy Yamaha 2070 and on the other had you have clobbered the Bryston.
--
helium
SB Classic> Lyrita DIY DAC Philips TDA1543 > Lyrita SET GM70 + PMC TB2/ Vintage highly modified B&W DM4 > Lyrita ICs + Cables => MUSIC
--
helium
SB Classic> Lyrita DIY DAC Philips TDA1543 > Lyrita SET GM70 + PMC TB2/ Vintage highly modified B&W DM4 > Lyrita ICs + Cables => MUSIC
rishiguru
Well-Known Member
Rishi your on Cloud9, on the one side you have penned down your unbiased praise for the worthy Yamaha 2070 and on the other had you have clobbered the Bryston.
Don't get me wrong heliumflight, I have nothing against those Bryston power amps. They are great power amps for sure & have very good sound quality, and also they are nearly 7 times more powerful than the DSP-A2070 in stereo mode.
I just said that the sound characteristics of DSP-A2070 & 300i are much more brutal, vigorous, powerful & invigorating than the Bryston's.
When you hear the DSP-A2070, 300i, Bryston's, Marantz's & NAD's all paired with the same floorstanders you will immediately feel that A2070 & 300i produces this "in your face" type of sound with powerful bass. And this characteristics is because both these amps are using high current power supplies which are rare now a days.
Last edited:
rishiguru
Well-Known Member
Some more images of Yamaha DSP-A2070
Last edited:
rishiguru
Well-Known Member
I know!!!
The problem is when you have heard the sound of music from one of those rare Bowers & Wilkins floorstanders paired with this Yamaha, you simply want them and are not satisfied with any other.
I got this pic from web as reference. Rajiv's floorstander is the one on the left.
The pairing of DSP-A2070 with these B&W floorstanders is like a marriage made in Valhalla which is going to last forever.
Last edited:
rishiguru
Well-Known Member
After being exposed to the daily dose of room shaking, earth rattling, brain crunching, 'smack it in your face' hooligan levels of balls to the walls tight bass from my Yamaha DSP-A2070 paired with mediocre Sony SS-GN88D speakers, I was wondering whether this amp can be used for any other purpose other than listening music or watching movies. (pun intented):lol:
Amazingly I just found one, why not just use the gut busting & brutal power of this amp as a 'BODY SHAKER' for a virtual cockpit simulator.hyeah:
Harnessing the stupendous bass output capabilities of DSP-A2070, this person paired the Rockwood Body Shaker rated at 4 ? 300 watts, 22-55Hz weighing 1.25 kg each with it.
Hats off to this guy :Bodyshaker : Fasten Your Seat Belt...!!!
Take it lite. Good for your heart.
Amazingly I just found one, why not just use the gut busting & brutal power of this amp as a 'BODY SHAKER' for a virtual cockpit simulator.
hyeah:Harnessing the stupendous bass output capabilities of DSP-A2070, this person paired the Rockwood Body Shaker rated at 4 ? 300 watts, 22-55Hz weighing 1.25 kg each with it.
Hats off to this guy :Bodyshaker : Fasten Your Seat Belt...!!!
Take it lite. Good for your heart.
Last edited:
rishiguru
Well-Known Member
I know man, I have an EISA award winning, Yamaha DSP-A2070 gem of an amplifier.
Remember that EISA is the most prestigious award in whole of Europe. EISA is the unique association of 50 special interest magazines from 19 European countries. Internationally known for the European EISA Awards.
Winning this award as the best home theater at any time frame means, that amp is something special and deserves respect.
Interestingly, EISA critically measure the stereo mode i.e 2 channel performance of a home theater amp/reciever very very seriously and this performance have huge effect on their ultimate selection of the best home theater of a respective year. Also A2070 is not a receiver since it lacks the tuner, it is basically a high power 7 channel integrated audio amplifier with Yamaha's DSP feature.
Sometimes I wonder, being a noob do I deserve this amp, or should it be better placed in a true blue auidiophile's room with central airconditioning & all the fancy.
I am a middle class family man who do not even have an AC in his flat.
The way its previous owner use to care for this DSP-A2070, man I have seen it, he treated it more or less like his own child.
When I came for audition in Rajiv's villa, he took me in this special completely sealed audio room, very well furnished & centrally air conditioned, amps, receivers, bookshelves, floorstanders everywhere & there is a giant Plasma TV. I think that room may alone cost INR 30 lakh plus with all these equipments.
He straight away took me into this room & not a word while he took a big velvet cloth & wiped his A2070 gently although there was no dust & then started talking.
This is when I learnt that audiophiles takes so much care of their precious audio equipment's.
I looked at those beautiful Marantz amps & said to him they must be exceptional in performance and sonically better than the Yamaha DSP-A2070 (after all the hype & hoopla from hifivision
), oh my ignorance i should never have said that since he just smiled and said he will let me hear songs from all his amps paired with those beautiful B&W floorstanders.He later told me he always preferred listening to music through his A2070 rather than Marantz PM7004 or even NAD T 755. Later when the Krell arrived, it changed the scenario.
Yeah I admit, I need to get some decent floorstanders.
I am working on it. But it will take some time.
Last edited:
avidyarthy
Well-Known Member
Get an A.C for the audio room, at least....
Calcutta heat gives me the creeps. Can manage a Calcutta visit only once a year during my kids' summer time off ... and with the usual heat disspation from a giant of an amplifier coupled with the sweaty environs of Calcutta during summers ....... it would be difficult for me to sit for music too .......... :indifferent14:
Calcutta heat gives me the creeps. Can manage a Calcutta visit only once a year during my kids' summer time off ... and with the usual heat disspation from a giant of an amplifier coupled with the sweaty environs of Calcutta during summers ....... it would be difficult for me to sit for music too .......... :indifferent14:
rishiguru
Well-Known Member
Well said avidyarthy. The Yamaha DSP-A2070 have huge heat dissipation & becomes quite an oven standing still.
DSP-A2070 is a very powerful 7 channel Class-AB amplifier having a meaty power supply module producing a lot of current & power. When this amount of power passes through the power transistors, nearly 40% of it is converted into heat while the rest is available to the speakers. This heat is absorbed by the dual rows of giant heatsinks and is dissipated into the air as shown below:
Yamaha's top the range amps are generally over engineered, and this DSP-A2070 is no exception. This amp is built like a tank, weigh like a tank and have the power to grind & blast walls. The heat dissipation & thermal issue is well taken care-off but I was still worried with the non-AC atmosphere & the blistering heat of Kolkata some measures need to be taken to cool of this giant.:indifferent14:
I opened the cabinet and fitted four 80mm CoolerMaster silent fans on it. Mind you these fans can be fitted either to push air into the system or pull out of it.
Pulling air out of the system internal dust accumulation will be less while the cooling will be much less efficient than pushing air into it. On the other hand pushing air into the system a lot of dust in the air will be flown inside & get accumulated while cooling will be two to three times better than former. This is the reason why ceiling fans push air below and not pull air like exhaust fans of kitchens.
I decided the high efficiency cooling mode i.e to push air into the system, since I am completely capable (and have done) internal dusting of this amp. I have opened every compartment & know every nook & corner of this amp. But I advice people who do not know how to do a little bit of DIY to better use the pull mode.
These four fans are positioned in such a way that they remain right over the four banks of power transistors i.e the area which gets heated the most. 60% of the fan area is covered the heatsink fins while the rest is above the transistors for optimum heat dissipation.
Since DSP-A2070 is vented from both top & below, cool air is sucked into the amp from top by these four fans, and 60% of it is passed though the heatsink fin area absorbing the heat and going out from below the amp. The rest 40% is blown directly over the power transistors bolted to the heatsinks in order to cool their hot heads
hyeah: and get circulated inside the amp.The amazing thing is, before the top of the amp used to get hot (hot air having less density always rises up), now there is a hot breeze from below while the top remains cool. This means effective cooling is taking place. :thumbsup:
Here is some pictures of my DIY:
ENJOY!!!:clapping:
Last edited:
rishiguru
Well-Known Member
avidyarthy
Well-Known Member
"The amazing thing is, before the top of the amp used to get hot (hot air having less density always rises up), now there is a hot breeze from below while the top remains cool. This means effective cooling is taking place".
Tend to disagree with you here ........
In a still atmosphere, where there is no air movement, whenever there is a heat source (in your case, the heat sinks and few transistors) natural air convection currents set in. 'Heat transfer' makes the heat source transmit the heat to the immediate surrounding air, which gets hot and naturally rise above. The ampflier is so designed that the air vents are placed on top of it, whose role is to throw out the 'lighter' hot air from the amplifier top, thus creating a negative draft within the amplifier, which inturn invites the surrounding ambient cooler air to enter the equipment from whatever 'other' inlet ports given. You say, such ports are there on the bottom of the amp .... right? It is for this reason your amp used to get hot on the top .... as all amps do. But, thats how is has been designed !
What you have now done is to force outside cool air inside. You have made this into a 'forced' blow-thru unit ..... which might prove counter-productive. Why so, since many components which may not be attuned to ever get heated would now continuously get a stream of warm ... maybe, hot forced air .... might be detrimental in the long run.
What I would suggest, is that you reverse the fans and make it into a draw-thru operation. In other words, pull the hot air from the unit top. This would create a strong negative draft inside the unit ..... which would bring in outside cool air continuously .... and keep the unit in its original format. You would now find a steady stream .... sorry, blast of hot air blow from your amp top. Coooool ... thats how the Japos have designed it.
Obviously, the Calcutta heat (air) would also get carried in and end up getting hotter than usual blast from the top outlet..... which would make matters bad in a non-airconditioned listening room ...
Tend to disagree with you here ........
In a still atmosphere, where there is no air movement, whenever there is a heat source (in your case, the heat sinks and few transistors) natural air convection currents set in. 'Heat transfer' makes the heat source transmit the heat to the immediate surrounding air, which gets hot and naturally rise above. The ampflier is so designed that the air vents are placed on top of it, whose role is to throw out the 'lighter' hot air from the amplifier top, thus creating a negative draft within the amplifier, which inturn invites the surrounding ambient cooler air to enter the equipment from whatever 'other' inlet ports given. You say, such ports are there on the bottom of the amp .... right? It is for this reason your amp used to get hot on the top .... as all amps do. But, thats how is has been designed !
What you have now done is to force outside cool air inside. You have made this into a 'forced' blow-thru unit ..... which might prove counter-productive. Why so, since many components which may not be attuned to ever get heated would now continuously get a stream of warm ... maybe, hot forced air .... might be detrimental in the long run.
What I would suggest, is that you reverse the fans and make it into a draw-thru operation. In other words, pull the hot air from the unit top. This would create a strong negative draft inside the unit ..... which would bring in outside cool air continuously .... and keep the unit in its original format. You would now find a steady stream .... sorry, blast of hot air blow from your amp top. Coooool ... thats how the Japos have designed it.
Obviously, the Calcutta heat (air) would also get carried in and end up getting hotter than usual blast from the top outlet..... which would make matters bad in a non-airconditioned listening room ...
Last edited:
jaudere
Well-Known Member
wow,
This thread has very long posts. Have lost the habit for reading so long. On top of that i usually access the forum on my mobile. With no engineering background, things start becoming tangent when i am halfway through.
This thread has very long posts. Have lost the habit for reading so long. On top of that i usually access the forum on my mobile. With no engineering background, things start becoming tangent when i am halfway through.
avidyarthy
Well-Known Member
@ jaudere ....
:lol: ..... reckoned I made use of layman's language .......
:lol: ..... reckoned I made use of layman's language .......
darshanjoshi
Active Member
On the back of AVR i see Coupler section. What are these ? Pre In / Pre Out?
rishiguru
Well-Known Member
"The amazing thing is, before the top of the amp used to get hot (hot air having less density always rises up), now there is a hot breeze from below while the top remains cool. This means effective cooling is taking place".
Tend to disagree with you here ........
In a still atmosphere, where there is no air movement, whenever there is a heat source (in your case, the heat sinks and few transistors) natural air convection currents set in. 'Heat transfer' makes the heat source transmit the heat to the immediate surrounding air, which gets hot and naturally rise above. The ampflier is so designed that the air vents are placed on top of it, whose role is to throw out the 'lighter' hot air from the amplifier top, thus creating a negative draft within the amplifier, which inturn invites the surrounding ambient cooler air to enter the equipment from whatever 'other' inlet ports given. You say, such ports are there on the bottom of the amp .... right? It is for this reason your amp used to get hot on the top .... as all amps do. But, thats how is has been designed !
What you have now done is to force outside cool air inside. You have made this into a 'forced' blow-thru unit ..... which might prove counter-productive. Why so, since many components which may not be attuned to ever get heated would now continuously get a stream of warm ... maybe, hot forced air .... might be detrimental in the long run.
What I would suggest, is that you reverse the fans and make it into a draw-thru operation. In other words, pull the hot air from the unit top. This would create a strong negative draft inside the unit ..... which would bring in outside cool air continuously .... and keep the unit in its original format. You would now find a steady stream .... sorry, blast of hot air blow from your amp top. Coooool ... thats how the Japos have designed it.
Obviously, the Calcutta heat (air) would also get carried in and end up getting hotter than usual blast from the top outlet..... which would make matters bad in a non-airconditioned listening room ...
I completely agree with you on this part avidyarthy. Actually I also thought on the same line before changing my decision and going for the 'forced' blow through push mode.
My change of decision came after minutely observing the great great great great grand daughter of this DSP-A2070 known as DSP-Z11.
Yamaha DSP-Z11
As time went on these DSP units became more powerful, fat & heavy. In 1998 when DSP-11 was introduced it has achived in producing the level of power that can even make a dinosaur dance.:lol:
Also these units weighed 34 kg which means you needed an elephant to carry it.
hyeah:But this amount of power came at a price i.e heat generation inside the amp.
Just look at the size of the heatsink on the right of the picture.
Even after fitting those huge heatsinks, heat definitely started to build-up inside the system & Yamaha needed to find some solution.
Voila came the fans.
These fans are fitted below the DSP-Z11 unit, the configuration I even tried & failed since there is no space there for DSP-A2070.
These fans of DSP-Z11 work on push mode, ie they draw fresh air from below & push it through the heatsink fins & at the same time circulates some amount of air inside the amp be it hot or not.
In order to let the pull mode of a fan work effectively, it's placement needs to be precise & pre-designed in the cabinet. A very common example is where ever one fits a celing fan working in push mode it is always guaranteed to provide cool air to the person sitting below it, but just by fitting a kitchen exhaust fan working in pull mode does not guarantee it will pull the hot air out effectively.
Pull mode requires design consideration and needs to be properly placed in order to work effectively. Also seeing that Yamaha had gone for push mode for DSP-Z11 which can be upto three times more efficient than pull mode, I was convinced that the push mode was the best solution for my DSP-A2070.
Yamaha DSP-A2070
If you carefully look inside the DSP-A2070, you will find there is a thick cardboard like element guarding the control & DSP units from the heat generated by the left heatsink fins. I placed the fan in such a manner that they blow cool air over the fins & always being inside the cardboard area so that the hot air is pushed & blown out from the air vents situated just below these fins.
The right heatsink also gets the same treatment. This heatsink do not have this cardboard, since there is a transformer which gets heated itself but yes one can say it would have been better to guard those huge clamped power capacitors.
I have periodically checked the internal temparature by running the amp at high volumes and then opening the cabinet to feel the heat with my hand (I admit it is quite a crude method
) and my observations where:1) When there was no fan it used it gets really got inside the amp.
2) When the fans work on pull mode the amp is a little cooler than before.
3) When the fans work on push mode the amp is substantially cooler inside
These are all my personal assumptions, thoughts & experiments. I hope this works for my amp.
Thanks avidyarthy for your insight.
Last edited:
avidyarthy
Well-Known Member
Ok .....
Now check carefully, the pic you shared of the new amp. The fans on blow-thru mode are placed at the bottom of the amp ... drawing in cool air from the teeny weeny space available between the small legs of the amp (when grounded). Draw-in of ambient air through the small air path is easy and the blow thru is happening on the heat sink area .... blow going up. That means, it is NOT working against the 'hot air going up' natural phenomenon. Here too, you would have a hot air blast from the top of the amp.
Whereas, you have executed the fans on blow-thru on the top of your amp ... working against nature ... thinking the hot air blow out would happen easily from the below slot. Is it possible ??????
First, there would be air turbulence created due to the counter force as the natural tendency of hot air would be to rise up.
Second, since, now the volume of air has considerably increased due to increased temperature leading to the reduction in air density .... would it be possible for the increased volume of hot air to make an easy path from the bottom of the amp ???? Don't think so..... since the pressure drop now would be further increased due to lack of free space at the amp bottom. It might force a large amount of hot air to find a lesser pressure drop route available ... that is, through the other areas of the amp which design-wise need not be engulfed with hot air ever.
Just putting the logics straight .... I, kind of indulge in this on a daily basis at work, so have the patience to put it in here, in black and white ....
Rest, if you are satisfied with your execution ...... abso fine ... it is always the end result that matters.
Now check carefully, the pic you shared of the new amp. The fans on blow-thru mode are placed at the bottom of the amp ... drawing in cool air from the teeny weeny space available between the small legs of the amp (when grounded). Draw-in of ambient air through the small air path is easy and the blow thru is happening on the heat sink area .... blow going up. That means, it is NOT working against the 'hot air going up' natural phenomenon. Here too, you would have a hot air blast from the top of the amp.
Whereas, you have executed the fans on blow-thru on the top of your amp ... working against nature ... thinking the hot air blow out would happen easily from the below slot. Is it possible ??????
First, there would be air turbulence created due to the counter force as the natural tendency of hot air would be to rise up.
Second, since, now the volume of air has considerably increased due to increased temperature leading to the reduction in air density .... would it be possible for the increased volume of hot air to make an easy path from the bottom of the amp ???? Don't think so..... since the pressure drop now would be further increased due to lack of free space at the amp bottom. It might force a large amount of hot air to find a lesser pressure drop route available ... that is, through the other areas of the amp which design-wise need not be engulfed with hot air ever.
Just putting the logics straight .... I, kind of indulge in this on a daily basis at work, so have the patience to put it in here, in black and white ....
Rest, if you are satisfied with your execution ...... abso fine ... it is always the end result that matters.
Last edited:
Purchase the Audiolab 6000A Integrated Amplifier at a special offer price.
Similar threads
