Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
can anyone tell me where to find specs or an owner's manual for a:
YAMAHA NATURAL SOUND STEREO POWER AMP (M-50) thanks |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"rumble" wrote in message ups.com... can anyone tell me where to find specs or an owner's manual for a: YAMAHA NATURAL SOUND STEREO POWER AMP (M-50) Ever hear of Google? http://www.vintageaudiomanuals.com/-XYZ-.htm |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
can anyone tell me where to find specs or an owner's manual for a:
YAMAHA NATURAL SOUND STEREO POWER AMP (M-50) I'll summarize for you: It's not worth summarizing. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"rumble" wrote can anyone tell me where to find specs or an owner's manual for a: YAMAHA NATURAL SOUND STEREO POWER AMP (M-50) 1984 Yamaha M-50: 120 W/ch, 0.01% THD, S/N 122 dB. MSRP $650. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"rumble" wrote in message ups.com... can anyone tell me where to find specs or an owner's manual for a: YAMAHA NATURAL SOUND STEREO POWER AMP (M-50) thanks Yamaha is decent sound reinforcement stuff, amp power is usually underrated, they put out more than the specs say, but it isn't studio quality, if that's what you're looking for. . |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Mike Rieves wrote:
"rumble" wrote in message ups.com... can anyone tell me where to find specs or an owner's manual for a: YAMAHA NATURAL SOUND STEREO POWER AMP (M-50) thanks Yamaha is decent sound reinforcement stuff, amp power is usually underrated, they put out more than the specs say, but it isn't studio quality, if that's what you're looking for. . OK, I'll bite. Just what exactly makes a stereo amp of "studio quality" better than an otherwise excellent stereo amp? I would concede the Yamaha consumer power amp is not "professional" in terms of ruggedness etc, also in studio applications I can see that balanced inputs might be necessary, but for the purpose of reproducing stereo sound, as opposed to reinforcing it, I cannot think of any qualities that would make a "studio" amp preferable in terms of sound quality. Mark Z. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Mark D. Zacharias spake thus:
Mike Rieves wrote: "rumble" wrote in message roups.com... can anyone tell me where to find specs or an owner's manual for a: YAMAHA NATURAL SOUND STEREO POWER AMP (M-50) Yamaha is decent sound reinforcement stuff, amp power is usually underrated, they put out more than the specs say, but it isn't studio quality, if that's what you're looking for. . OK, I'll bite. Just what exactly makes a stereo amp of "studio quality" better than an otherwise excellent stereo amp? I would concede the Yamaha consumer power amp is not "professional" in terms of ruggedness etc, also in studio applications I can see that balanced inputs might be necessary, but for the purpose of reproducing stereo sound, as opposed to reinforcing it, I cannot think of any qualities that would make a "studio" amp preferable in terms of sound quality. Gold-plated connectors? "Digital-ready"? Rack-mounting? Power supplies that can supply 1000% of the maximum overload current? -- I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all. - Horst Prillinger (see http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html) |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:43:04 -0700, David Nebenzahl wrote:
Gold-plated connectors? "Digital-ready"? Rack-mounting? Power supplies that can supply 1000% of the maximum overload current? gold-plated connectors which wear off on the twenties reconnection; I'd rather have nickel if I was reconnecting them a lot. digital ready? BFD: that's a phrase slapped on everything down to crappy sony headphones over the last 25 years. rack mounting? OK. 1 difference. PS that can handle 10x their overload current? I'd rather have an amp that didn't blow out it's output stages in a heartbeat. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
AZ Nomad spake thus:
On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:43:04 -0700, David Nebenzahl wrote: Gold-plated connectors? "Digital-ready"? Rack-mounting? Power supplies that can supply 1000% of the maximum overload current? gold-plated connectors which wear off on the twenties reconnection; I'd rather have nickel if I was reconnecting them a lot. digital ready? BFD: that's a phrase slapped on everything down to crappy sony headphones over the last 25 years. rack mounting? OK. 1 difference. PS that can handle 10x their overload current? I'd rather have an amp that didn't blow out it's output stages in a heartbeat. I was being sarcastic, if you didn't catch that. D "I don't use smileys" N -- I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all. - Horst Prillinger (see http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html) |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Mike Rieves spake thus:
"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message . com... Mike Rieves wrote: "rumble" wrote in message groups.com... can anyone tell me where to find specs or an owner's manual for a: YAMAHA NATURAL SOUND STEREO POWER AMP (M-50) Yamaha is decent sound reinforcement stuff, amp power is usually underrated, they put out more than the specs say, but it isn't studio quality, if that's what you're looking for. . OK, I'll bite. Just what exactly makes a stereo amp of "studio quality" better than an otherwise excellent stereo amp? I would concede the Yamaha consumer power amp is not "professional" in terms of ruggedness etc, also in studio applications I can see that balanced inputs might be necessary, but for the purpose of reproducing stereo sound, as opposed to reinforcing it, I cannot think of any qualities that would make a "studio" amp preferable in terms of sound quality. Nope, the differences would be in flat response, slew rate, THD, IMD, damping, etc, along with other differences not shown in the published specs. Maybe you missed the earlier post where someone gave some of the published specs for this amp. One of them was 0.01% THD. If true, I would think that would be plenty good enough for studio use, assuming the other specs are on par with it. -- I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all. - Horst Prillinger (see http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html) |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message .com... Mike Rieves spake thus: "Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message . com... Mike Rieves wrote: "rumble" wrote in message egroups.com... can anyone tell me where to find specs or an owner's manual for a: YAMAHA NATURAL SOUND STEREO POWER AMP (M-50) Yamaha is decent sound reinforcement stuff, amp power is usually underrated, they put out more than the specs say, but it isn't studio quality, if that's what you're looking for. . OK, I'll bite. Just what exactly makes a stereo amp of "studio quality" better than an otherwise excellent stereo amp? I would concede the Yamaha consumer power amp is not "professional" in terms of ruggedness etc, also in studio applications I can see that balanced inputs might be necessary, but for the purpose of reproducing stereo sound, as opposed to reinforcing it, I cannot think of any qualities that would make a "studio" amp preferable in terms of sound quality. Nope, the differences would be in flat response, slew rate, THD, IMD, damping, etc, along with other differences not shown in the published specs. Maybe you missed the earlier post where someone gave some of the published specs for this amp. One of them was 0.01% THD. If true, I would think that would be plenty good enough for studio use, assuming the other specs are on par with it. Unfortunately, the published specs have little to do with the sound of an amp, and THD alone is virtually meaningless unless it is very high. The Yamaha Natural Sound line was a consumer/home line of products.Yamaha doesn't claim this amp as being a studio amp, why would you? Would you use home Hifi speakers as studio monitor speakers? If not then why would you use a hime hifi amp to power your studio monitors? I'm not saying the M-50 wouldn't sound okay with some monitor speakers, I'm just saying I wouldn't buy an M-50 to power my studio monitors and I wouldn't recommend that anyone else do it. If you just happen to have an M-50 laying around and you need something to power your monitors until you can afford something better, then go ahead and use it. :-) |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Mike Rieves wrote:
"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message . com... Mike Rieves wrote: "rumble" wrote in message ups.com... can anyone tell me where to find specs or an owner's manual for a: YAMAHA NATURAL SOUND STEREO POWER AMP (M-50) thanks Yamaha is decent sound reinforcement stuff, amp power is usually underrated, they put out more than the specs say, but it isn't studio quality, if that's what you're looking for. . OK, I'll bite. Just what exactly makes a stereo amp of "studio quality" better than an otherwise excellent stereo amp? I would concede the Yamaha consumer power amp is not "professional" in terms of ruggedness etc, also in studio applications I can see that balanced inputs might be necessary, but for the purpose of reproducing stereo sound, as opposed to reinforcing it, I cannot think of any qualities that would make a "studio" amp preferable in terms of sound quality. Nope, the differences would be in flat response, slew rate, THD, IMD, damping, etc, along with other differences not shown in the published specs. Just like studio monitor speakers, studio monitor amps have different requirements than do sound reinforcement systems, or even living room stereo systems. I've used Yamaha sound reinforcement equipment will good results in the past, and I have nothing against them in this respect. However, Yamaha sound reinforcement and consumer home equipment isn't designed for the studio, any more than any other company's SR or home equipment is. You've not really answered the question. THD, IM, slew, etc are ordinary specs which were quoted for consumer stuff as well. "other differences not shown in the published specs." Doesn't make it on a technical group. If someone else used that line on you, you'd probably hammer them, yes? I'm not disagreeing about the desirability of a studio monitoring amp for studio monitoring applications, I'm just not sold on the sonic reasons, except possibly the exceedingly minor sonic differences from using balanced inputs, etc. I'm thinking that in a studio environment the primary reason for balanced inputs is mainly for hum rejection, not sound quality as such. Then there are issues of reliability. Many of Yamaha's consumer amps were somewhat flammable. I think it's reasonable to assume that a professional amp would tend to be more reliable, since the internal parts used , the construction and (hopefully) electrical design are done in a much less cost-conscious manner than consumer gear. Once again - not necessarily any sound-quality related reasons, just practical stuff for the professionals. Mark Z. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
David Nebenzahl wrote:
Maybe you missed the earlier post where someone gave some of the published specs for this amp. One of them was 0.01% THD. If true, I would think that would be plenty good enough for studio use, assuming the other specs are on par with it. These actually aren't such bad amplifiers, and they are better than a lot of the stuff sold today as (ahem) monitor amps. But full power THD specs don't tell you anything useful these days. In fact, if you compare something like the Yamaha to a something like the Aragon or Levinson amp with the same power rating, you'll find they sound different and that a lot of this has to do with the lower output impedance of the better amp as well as the coloration in the electronics. On the other end of the scale, the Yamaha probably sounds a lot better than an Alesis RA-100 for the same reasons. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"Mike Rieves" wrote in message
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message .com... Mike Rieves spake thus: "Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message . com... Mike Rieves wrote: Yamaha is decent sound reinforcement stuff, amp power is usually underrated, they put out more than the specs say, but it isn't studio quality, if that's what you're looking for. . I've heard stuff like this from Guitar Center sales persons, so the words don't impress me unless they are backed up. OK, I'll bite. Just what exactly makes a stereo amp of "studio quality" better than an otherwise excellent stereo amp? Good question. I would concede the Yamaha consumer power amp is not "professional" in terms of ruggedness etc, also in studio applications I can see that balanced inputs might be necessary, but for the purpose of reproducing stereo sound, as opposed to reinforcing it, I cannot think of any qualities that would make a "studio" amp preferable in terms of sound quality. Good attack on a sweeping generalization. Nope, the differences would be in flat response, slew rate, THD, IMD, damping, etc, along with other differences not shown in the published specs. Many good home amps do well in these regards. Maybe you missed the earlier post where someone gave some of the published specs for this amp. One of them was 0.01% THD. If true, I would think that would be plenty good enough for studio use, assuming the other specs are on par with it. Power amp THD specs are often just a matter of choice of power levels. For esample, if you want 1% THD out of a typical midrange QSC power amp, just run it a little way into clipping. If you want 0.01% THD out of it, run it just below clipping. Unfortunately, the published specs have little to do with the sound of an amp, and THD alone is virtually meaningless unless it is very high. Note that in order to appear to have a leg to stand on, our correspondent ignores the big caveat above: "assuming the other specs are on par with it." You can tell when someone is cornered: They stop answering the questions that are asked, and instead answer questions that agree with their agenda. The Yamaha Natural Sound line was a consumer/home line of products.Yamaha doesn't claim this amp as being a studio amp, why would you? In fact Yamaha does specifically claim that some members of their "natural sound" product line is suitable for both home and studio use. Would you use home Hifi speakers as studio monitor speakers? Depends on the home hifi speakers in question. Using appropriate home hifi speakers for studio monitors is a time-honored practice. I believe that at least one well-known and widely-respected poster here uses Magnepans as studio monitors. If not then why would you use a hime hifi amp to power your studio monitors? These words transport me back to Guitar Center, again. :-( I'm not saying the M-50 wouldn't sound okay with some monitor speakers, I'm just saying I wouldn't buy an M-50 to power my studio monitors and I wouldn't recommend that anyone else do it. Given the obvious demonstrated biases against using equipment that has the slightest odor of home audio on it, this statement is hardly surprising. What's missing is any actual substance. If you just happen to have an M-50 laying around and you need something to power your monitors until you can afford something better, then go ahead and use it. :-) Can we all say "Damn with faint praise"? |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"Mike Rieves" wrote Would you use home Hifi speakers as studio monitor speakers? Depends on the speakers and the application, no? Ever hear of B&W 800 or 801 in studio use, for example? Plenty of Paradigm Studio 20s, for example, being used at the low end (low cost), too. If not then why would you use a hime hifi amp to power your studio monitors? Huh? There are several hi-fi amp manufacturers with superior (specs, performance & sound) to the studio amps. And my count there are 61 manufacturers of Hi-Fi power amps using XLR connections, so that can't be a limitation either. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Scott Dorsey wrote: On the other end of the scale, the Yamaha probably sounds a lot better than an Alesis RA-100 for the same reasons. --scott But, but, but,, The Alesis is a "studio amp". (..) |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"Dr. Dolittle" wrote in message
Scott Dorsey wrote: On the other end of the scale, the Yamaha probably sounds a lot better than an Alesis RA-100 for the same reasons. --scott But, but, but,, The Alesis is a "studio amp". (..) ;-) Arguably, in name and chassis format only. For openers - unbalanced inputs. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Scott Dorsey spake thus:
David Nebenzahl wrote: Maybe you missed the earlier post where someone gave some of the published specs for this amp. One of them was 0.01% THD. If true, I would think that would be plenty good enough for studio use, assuming the other specs are on par with it. These actually aren't such bad amplifiers, and they are better than a lot of the stuff sold today as (ahem) monitor amps. But full power THD specs don't tell you anything useful these days. In fact, if you compare something like the Yamaha to a something like the Aragon or Levinson amp with the same power rating, you'll find they sound different and that a lot of this has to do with the lower output impedance of the better amp as well as the coloration in the electronics. On the other end of the scale, the Yamaha probably sounds a lot better than an Alesis RA-100 for the same reasons. Again with the "may sound different from other [studio] amps". I've got to take exception to that as a sort-of audiophool belief. By definition, if two amplifiers both have extremely low distortion, they should "sound" approximately the same, right? Again, this is *assuming* (see disclaimer below) that other relevant specs (probably most importantly things like transient response) are in the same ballpark; I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't be in what appears to be a high-quality amplifier like this. DISCLAIMER: Yes, I understand that I do not know what the other specs for the amplifier under discussion are; and neither do you. This is Usenet, remember? not a peer-reviewed engineering paper. So sue me. -- I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all. - Horst Prillinger (see http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html) |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
David Nebenzahl wrote:
Again with the "may sound different from other [studio] amps". I've got to take exception to that as a sort-of audiophool belief. Go out and listen to some amps. They sound different. The differences aren't anywhere near as big as the differences between speakers, but they are clearly audible in an A/B comparison between amps of varying topologies. By definition, if two amplifiers both have extremely low distortion, they should "sound" approximately the same, right? Again, this is *assuming* (see disclaimer below) that other relevant specs (probably most importantly things like transient response) are in the same ballpark; I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't be in what appears to be a high-quality amplifier like this. Sure, but that just shows that the THD measurement is useless as a measure of distortion today. Take a look at some of those 1970s amps that relied on huge amounts of feeback to get linearity. The Dyna ST-120, for instance, has a really low THD number, but the 1 KHz square wave response into an 8 ohm load is so bad that it looks visibly screwed up on a scope. It's really good at reproducing sine waves, but not so good with anything else. Yes, I understand that I do not know what the other specs for the amplifier under discussion are; and neither do you. This is Usenet, remember? not a peer-reviewed engineering paper. So sue me. I don't know what the actual specifications of the amp are... I have never done a full distortion spectrum on it, nor have I actually measured the output impedance or checked out impulse response. Because of that, I have to rely on my ears. There are plenty of useful specifications that will tell you a lot about an amplifier. You will not, however, find them on the manufacturer's data sheet because the LAST thing the manufacturer wants you to know is how the product actually performs. Data sheets are marketing information and not technical information. THD into a fixed resistive load was useful information back in the 1940s, when you could assume that all amps had the same basic topology and that the load would be transformer-matched to the output stage. Today you cannot make any of these assumptions. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
In article , David Nebenzahl wrote:
Scott Dorsey spake thus: David Nebenzahl wrote: Maybe you missed the earlier post where someone gave some of the published specs for this amp. One of them was 0.01% THD. If true, I would think that would be plenty good enough for studio use, assuming the other specs are on par with it. These actually aren't such bad amplifiers, and they are better than a lot of the stuff sold today as (ahem) monitor amps. But full power THD specs don't tell you anything useful these days. In fact, if you compare something like the Yamaha to a something like the Aragon or Levinson amp with the same power rating, you'll find they sound different and that a lot of this has to do with the lower output impedance of the better amp as well as the coloration in the electronics. On the other end of the scale, the Yamaha probably sounds a lot better than an Alesis RA-100 for the same reasons. Again with the "may sound different from other [studio] amps". I've got to take exception to that as a sort-of audiophool belief. By definition, if two amplifiers both have extremely low distortion, they should "sound" approximately the same, right? Right. And of course, amps do not sound all by themselves. Well sometimes they make funny noises. gs |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Anyone know about these other amps?
GregS spake thus:
Oh I bought a Yamaha int.amp on Ebay and fixed it up. I used it for a year. Had a switch to throw it into class A at 15 watts. It may have made a difference. There was more problems in the switches than anything else making an effect. Very neat amp otherwise. Speaking of other amps, I wonder if anyone here can tell me anything about two high-end home audio amps I have, one of which was given to me, the other purchased cheap at a secondhand store, both running perfectly (the Kyocera required a trip to the repair shop to replace some small electrolytics, and I replaced the big ones myself): 1. Technics Stereo Integrated D.C. Amplifier SU-V6X (preamp/amp) 2. Kyocera R-851 Quartz Synthesized AM/FM Stereo Tuner/Amplifier -- I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all. - Horst Prillinger (see http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html) |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message
. net... | Mike Rieves wrote: | "Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message | . com... | Mike Rieves wrote: | "rumble" wrote in message | ups.com... | can anyone tell me where to find specs or an owner's manual for a: | | YAMAHA NATURAL SOUND STEREO POWER AMP (M-50) | | thanks | | Yamaha is decent sound reinforcement stuff, amp power is usually | underrated, they put out more than the specs say, but it isn't | studio quality, if that's what you're looking for. . | | | OK, I'll bite. Just what exactly makes a stereo amp of "studio | quality" better than an otherwise excellent stereo amp? | | I would concede the Yamaha consumer power amp is not "professional" | in terms of ruggedness etc, also in studio applications I can see | that balanced inputs might be necessary, but for the purpose of | reproducing stereo sound, as opposed to reinforcing it, I cannot | think of any qualities that would make a "studio" amp preferable in | terms of sound quality. | | | | Nope, the differences would be in flat response, slew rate, THD, IMD, | damping, etc, along with other differences not shown in the published | specs. Just like studio monitor speakers, studio monitor amps have | different requirements than do sound reinforcement systems, or even | living room stereo systems. I've used Yamaha sound reinforcement | equipment will good results in the past, and I have nothing against | them in this respect. However, Yamaha sound reinforcement and | consumer home equipment isn't designed for the studio, any more than | any other company's SR or home equipment is. | | | You've not really answered the question. THD, IM, slew, etc are ordinary | specs which were quoted for consumer stuff as well. | | "other differences not shown in the published specs." | | Doesn't make it on a technical group. If someone else used that line on you, | you'd probably hammer them, yes? | | I'm not disagreeing about the desirability of a studio monitoring amp for | studio monitoring applications, I'm just not sold on the sonic reasons, | except possibly the exceedingly minor sonic differences from using balanced | inputs, etc. I'm thinking that in a studio environment the primary reason | for balanced inputs is mainly for hum rejection, not sound quality as such. | | Then there are issues of reliability. Many of Yamaha's consumer amps were | somewhat flammable. I think it's reasonable to assume that a professional | amp would tend to be more reliable, since the internal parts used , the | construction and (hopefully) electrical design are done in a much less | cost-conscious manner than consumer gear. | | Once again - not necessarily any sound-quality related reasons, just | practical stuff for the professionals. | If the frequency response at 20khz is reasonably flat (preferably +-0db, but no more than say 2db down), then the slew rate is perfectly adequate for quality sound. THD and IM are typically measured at a small percentage of the amps output ... but then reasonable listening volumes are also at a small percentage of rated output. As long as they are below 3% at your intended listening levels, you probably will never be able to hear any effect. The IM and THD specs of your speakers will entirely dwarf the specs of your amp, so your choice of speakers and the quality of your room will have more effect on the quality of sound reproduction than the specs of your amplifier. Peak current is probably far more important than the typical (often stellar) specs of a good home amplifier, but chances are very good that you'll never tax your amps current abilities unless you intend to listen VERY loud. Driving moderately efficient speakers at 5 watts will fill your environment with enough sound that you'll have to yell at someone sitting next to you in order for them to unserstand what you're saying. Assuming your amp is capable of 50W continuous per channel this gives you over 9 db of headroom before you reach the continuous limits. Some amps are ready to handle transients beyond continuous rating for those rare circumstances. So the question of peak current really comes down to how loud you intend to monitor, the louder, the more wattage you'll want for headroom. If you're worried about your amp bursting into flames, you'll want more continuous headroom, since higher wattage implies heftier heat sinking ability. If you get a high enough wattage amp with vents in the top, you may be able to make toast for snacking during those long sessions. You'll probably want to make sure that your speaker outs can handle the speaker load. IE if your outs are 8 ohm only, you'll want to make sure that you're not going to be driving 4 ohm speakers. Also 4 ohm speakers will knock 3db off of your headroom. Damping can also be important, but it's very interactive with your speakers, and beyond my tiny understanding to discuss ... there's lots of sharp guys here who may be able to describe the implications. -- CWC ============================ It's not that nice guys finish last, They have a whole different notion where the finish line is. ============================ |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"Powell" wrote in message ... "Mike Rieves" wrote Would you use home Hifi speakers as studio monitor speakers? Depends on the speakers and the application, no? Ever hear of B&W 800 or 801 in studio use, for example? Plenty of Paradigm Studio 20s, for example, being used at the low end (low cost), too. Did you not catch the "Studio" in Paradigm Studio 20's? BTW, the Paradigms are $700.00 and the B&W's are much, much higher. Surely you aren't attempting to compare these to an inexpensive mid-line Yamaha consumer power amp! In any event, just because some folks use home hifi speakers as studio monitors doesn't mean that they make good stduio monitors. We had this discussion a while back in this group, and I believe that the consensus was that home hifi speakers belong in the living room. Just to be clear on this, many studios have home hifi speakers setting around for listening tests, to see how a mix will sound on home equipment, but no por studios and very few home studioists (other than those who can't afford real monitor speakers) actually mix on home speakers. Amplifiers selection usually isn't as critical as speaker selection, but if you want great mixes, everything in the chain has to be right. If not then why would you use a hime hifi amp to power your studio monitors? Huh? There are several hi-fi amp manufacturers with superior (specs, performance & sound) to the studio amps. And my count there are 61 manufacturers of Hi-Fi power amps using XLR connections, so that can't be a limitation either. Studio monitor equipment isn't necessarily better sounding that other equipment, it's more accurate than other equipment. As for "superior" sound, superior for what use? Connectors don't matter, most pro SR amps have XLR connectors. Use whatever you want to mix on, but keep in mind that if you don't hear it correctly, you won't mix it correctly. If you want to use an M-50 to drive your studio monitors, be my guest! :-) Keep in mind that most home hifi equipment is built to sound good in a typical living room, and there is a world of difference between a typical home living room and a decent studio control room, even a home studio. Studio monitor equipment is designed to be accurate so that the mixing engineer can hear every nuance and detail in the mix, something that isn't necessarily desirable in a home hifi system, where folks just want the music to sound good. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... David Nebenzahl wrote: Maybe you missed the earlier post where someone gave some of the published specs for this amp. One of them was 0.01% THD. If true, I would think that would be plenty good enough for studio use, assuming the other specs are on par with it. These actually aren't such bad amplifiers, and they are better than a lot of the stuff sold today as (ahem) monitor amps. But full power THD specs don't tell you anything useful these days. In fact, if you compare something like the Yamaha to a something like the Aragon or Levinson amp with the same power rating, you'll find they sound different and that a lot of this has to do with the lower output impedance of the better amp as well as the coloration in the electronics. On the other end of the scale, the Yamaha probably sounds a lot better than an Alesis RA-100 for the same reasons. --scott The Alesis RA-100 was an attempt to build an accurate studio amp for those who couldn't afford a good studio amp, and it did this fairly well. There are probably many hifi amps that sound better than the Alesis and some of them might even make better studio monitor amps, but none of them are as low-priced as the Alesis. In my experience, all the Yamaha Natural Sound equipment colors the sound to some extent, that's part of their "nautral" sound. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message . net... Mike Rieves wrote: You've not really answered the question. THD, IM, slew, etc are ordinary specs which were quoted for consumer stuff as well. "other differences not shown in the published specs." Doesn't make it on a technical group. If someone else used that line on you, you'd probably hammer them, yes? Specs are measured with the amp driving a pure resistive load, which makes them all but meaningless when you consider that speakers are a highly reactive load. This should be common knowledge in a technical group. BTW, I failed to notice that this was a cross post. I'm replying from home-studio which is not a technical group. I wish folks wouldn't cross post like that, or at least have "CROSS POST!!!" in the subject line. My future replies will be to home studio only. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"Mike Rieves" wrote Would you use home Hifi speakers as studio monitor speakers? Depends on the speakers and the application, no? Ever hear of B&W 800 or 801 in studio use, for example? Plenty of Paradigm Studio 20s, for example, being used at the low end (low cost), too. Did you not catch the "Studio" in Paradigm Studio 20's? If you are suggesting that Paradigm is marketing the entire Studio & Signature product line of speakers for recording studio use you are sadly misinformed. BTW, the Paradigms are $700.00 and the B&W's are much, much higher. No, the MSRP is actually $800 for the version 3. And B&W are $16K and $11K respectively. And the "much, much higher" in studio use are the Wilson Audio top models at $79K and $125K. Surely you aren't attempting to compare these to an inexpensive mid-line Yamaha consumer power amp! And why not? In any event, just because some folks use home hifi speakers as studio monitors doesn't mean that they make good stduio monitors. Couldn't it be equally said that just because a speaker is marketed as *studio* doesn't mean that it's a "good studio monitor", no? We had this discussion a while back in this group, and I believe that the consensus was that home hifi speakers belong in the living room. Quack, quack, quack... Just to be clear on this, many studios have home hifi speakers setting around for listening tests, to see how a mix will sound on home equipment, but no por studios and very few home studioists (other than those who can't afford real monitor speakers) actually mix on home speakers. If you are producing commercial works only based on the sound of the mixing speakers then you are probably producing low fidelity works. Fine for commercials spots, mp3 and such but bad for complex musical CD presentations. Amplifiers selection usually isn't as critical as speaker selection, but if you want great mixes, everything in the chain has to be right. Agreed. If not then why would you use a hime hifi amp to power your studio monitors? Huh? There are several hi-fi amp manufacturers with superior (specs, performance & sound) to the studio amps. And my count there are 61 manufacturers of Hi-Fi power amps using XLR connections, so that can't be a limitation either. Studio monitor equipment isn't necessarily better sounding that other equipment, it's more accurate than other equipment. Gobbledegook. As for "superior" sound, superior for what use? More gobbledegook. Connectors don't matter, most pro SR amps have XLR connectors. "Connectors don't matter"... Huh? If you need XLRs are you suggesting converting to single end instead? Use whatever you want to mix on, but keep in mind that if you don't hear it correctly, you won't mix it correctly. How would you know? If you want to use an M-50 to drive your studio monitors, be my guest! :-) I think it's a good starting place for the OP. Keep in mind that most home hifi equipment is built to sound good in a typical living room, and there is a world of difference between a typical home living room and a decent studio control room, even a home studio. Hehehe... oh, right! Why produce a product that sounds good in the consumer's living room, it's only the limited studio version that counts. That makes no sense whatsoever. Studio monitor equipment is designed to be accurate... What, Hi-Fi amps arn't? so that the mixing engineer can hear every nuance and detail in the mix, something that isn't necessarily desirable in a home hifi system, where folks just want the music to sound good. Mmmm... so the actual speakers selected/purchased by the engineer isn't based on personal preferences? One thing that is crystal clear is that you own a lousy home audio system. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"Mike Rieves" wrote Some high-end hifi amps do make good studio amps, but one can generally get an amp designed for studio use that sounds just as good in the studio for a considerably lower price. "Considerably lower price"... that seems to be the crux of the whole amp issue for you, mr. Broke-A$$®. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"Powell" wrote in message
... Couldn't it be equally said that just because a speaker is marketed as *studio* doesn't mean that it's a "good studio monitor", no? Nope. It says in Wikipedia that they are not allowed to do that. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Jim Carr spake thus:
"Powell" wrote in message ... Couldn't it be equally said that just because a speaker is marketed as *studio* doesn't mean that it's a "good studio monitor", no? Nope. It says in Wikipedia that they are not allowed to do that. Ah, that settles it then. -- I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all. - Horst Prillinger (see http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html) |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"Mike Rieves" wrote in message
"Powell" wrote in message ... "Mike Rieves" wrote Would you use home Hifi speakers as studio monitor speakers? Depends on the speakers and the application, no? Ever hear of B&W 800 or 801 in studio use, for example? Plenty of Paradigm Studio 20s, for example, being used at the low end (low cost), too. Did you not catch the "Studio" in Paradigm Studio 20's? BTW, the Paradigms are $700.00 and the B&W's are much, much higher. Surely you aren't attempting to compare these to an inexpensive mid-line Yamaha consumer power amp! I'm very pleased to notice that I'm not the one who has to defend gross generalities like: "Would you use home Hifi speakers as studio monitor speakers?" taken as a rhetorical question. To re-iterate, given my choice of home hifi speakers, yes I would (and have) used home hifi speakers for monitor speakers, and vice-versa. It can work. In any event, just because some folks use home hifi speakers as studio monitors doesn't mean that they make good stduio monitors. Yet another gross generality that I'm pleased to not have to defend. We had this discussion a while back in this group, and I believe that the consensus was that home hifi speakers belong in the living room. Who is this all-mighty "we"? Just to be clear on this, many studios have home hifi speakers setting around for listening tests, to see how a mix will sound on home equipment, but no pro studios and very few home studioists (other than those who can't afford real monitor speakers) actually mix on home speakers. Where is the statistical study that supports this claim? BTW it can't exist because it contains instantly false hyper-generalizatinos like "no pro studios and very few home studioists (other than those who can't afford real monitor speakers) actually mix on home speakers." Amplifiers selection usually isn't as critical as speaker selection, but if you want great mixes, everything in the chain has to be right. There is no such thing as a unique or narrowly-defined "right" when it comes to things like this. "Right" is very context-sensitive. Because of this it is also a moving target. If not then why would you use a hime hifi amp to power your studio monitors? Huh? There are several hi-fi amp manufacturers with superior (specs, performance & sound) to the studio amps. And my count there are 61 manufacturers of Hi-Fi power amps using XLR connections, so that can't be a limitation either. Studio monitor equipment isn't necessarily better sounding that other equipment, it's more accurate than other equipment. Wrong again. In fact there is no reliable, generally-agreed upon definition about even what studio monitor equipment is. Furthermore "studio monitor equipment" has historicially included pieces of work such as the Yamaha NS-10 which is probably less accurate than a huge number of speakers that sold primarily for home use. As for "superior" sound, superior for what use? Connectors don't matter, most pro SR amps have XLR connectors. I think that just about everybody who understands the advantages of balanced inputs and has the budget for including them would prefer to use a power amp with balanced inputs over one without, all other things being equal. Let me remind you that the Alesis RA-100 which is a power amp that many love to hate, was widely sold as "studio monitor equipment" and lacks balanced inputs. Use whatever you want to mix on, but keep in mind that if you don't hear it correctly, you won't mix it correctly. Which begs the question - what is correct? Let me advance the theory that if your target audience is people listening with iPods, mixing and/or mastering on iPod-like equipment can make a lot of sense. And if you think that necessarily involves problematical compromises in terms of sonic accuracy, let me suspect that you've never carefully listened to a well-made .wav (actually it will be an AIFF but most Ipod-familiar techies know what I mean) using a pair of say Shure E-3s, E-4s or E-5s. If you want to use an M-50 to drive your studio monitors, be my guest! :-) Speaks to your prejudices, I fear. Keep in mind that most home hifi equipment is built to sound good in a typical living room, and there is a world of difference between a typical home living room and a decent studio control room, even a home studio. Is your point here that near-field speakers and mid-field speakers are different? Guess what - lots of pro studios don't have near-field monitors at all, or if they have them, they don't do most of their work on them. Studio monitor equipment is designed to be accurate so that the mixing engineer can hear every nuance and detail in the mix, something that isn't necessarily desirable in a home hifi system, where folks just want the music to sound good. Where is it written on stone that just because the reproduction is very accurate, it can't sound good? It isn't. In fact one of the founding tenets of home High Fidelity is that accurate reproduction sounds best, all things considered. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com Jim Carr spake thus: "Powell" wrote in message ... Couldn't it be equally said that just because a speaker is marketed as *studio* doesn't mean that it's a "good studio monitor", no? Nope. It says in Wikipedia that they are not allowed to do that. Ah, that settles it then. Agreed. ;-) |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"Mike Rieves" wrote in message
Specs don't tell the whole story, or even a significant part of it. Someone obviously believes that all spec sheets are the same. Amps with the exact same specs may sound quite different from one another, and how an amp handles the reactive load that a real world speaker represents is another matter entirely. How amplifiers handle reactive loads can and have been speced. You don't see specs for things like this on a $99 Sherwood 100wpc stereo receiver, which is not to say that said receiver might or might not actually handle some of the more reactive loads around pretty well. Amps specs are measured using a pure resistive load, which is only a vague, inaccurate approximation of a real world speaker. Again, true for some but not all amp spec sheets. Studio amps, in general, are designed to provide accurate drive to a wide range of reactive speaker loads, so that the sound coming from the speaker is an accurate representation of what is going into the amp, this may not necessarily true of a hifi amp. This is an over-generalization that is impossible to defend. Some high-end hifi amps do make good studio amps, but one can generally get an amp designed for studio use that sounds just as good in the studio for a considerably lower price. I will agree that home audio gear above a certain price point is often a poorer value than comparably-priced pro audio gear. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"CWCunningham" charlesw-at-blackfoot.net wrote in message
Damping can also be important, but it's very interactive with your speakers, and beyond my tiny understanding to discuss ... there's lots of sharp guys here who may be able to describe the implications. Damping is a wierd spec because it is based on questionable logic. It is based on loudspeaker impedance, but loudspeakers are generally thought to be independent of power amps and we all know that loudspeaker impedance is a strong function of frequency. The better spec would be amplifier source impedance, which is a property of just the power amp. Source impedance can be specified as a set of numbers or a curve, as it also varies with frequency. But at least it doesn't change every time you change the speaker. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Mike Rieves wrote:
The Alesis RA-100 was an attempt to build an accurate studio amp for those who couldn't afford a good studio amp, and it did this fairly well. There are probably many hifi amps that sound better than the Alesis and some of them might even make better studio monitor amps, but none of them are as low-priced as the Alesis. No? Look in the Adcom, Rotel, and Parasound catalogues. Even Tascam makes something that sounds acceptable in that price range. The RA-100 is an example of when you try and cut costs too far. In my experience, all the Yamaha Natural Sound equipment colors the sound to some extent, that's part of their "nautral" sound. Well, everything does color the sound. That's the way electronics are. Some are cleaner and some are less clean. Some are euphonic and some are not. If you want uncolored sound, you need to listen to live acoustic music. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Mike Rieves" wrote in message et Specs don't tell the whole story, or even a significant part of it. Someone obviously believes that all spec sheets are the same. Usually they are. In fact, at least five or six different manufacturers in China are using the same data sheet for their microphones... even though they are actually different products. And the numbers off the datasheet actually are copied off the U87 data sheet. I guess if the numbers are good enough for Neumann, they're good enough for us. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Jim Carr wrote:
"Powell" wrote in message ... Couldn't it be equally said that just because a speaker is marketed as *studio* doesn't mean that it's a "good studio monitor", no? Nope. It says in Wikipedia that they are not allowed to do that. SO LET IT BE WRITTEN. SO LET IT BE DONE! -- Les Cargill |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
"Mike Rieves" wrote in message
. .. | Studio monitor equipment isn't necessarily better sounding that other | equipment, it's more accurate than other equipment. As for "superior" sound, | superior for what use? | Connectors don't matter, most pro SR amps have XLR connectors. | Use whatever you want to mix on, but keep in mind that if you don't hear | it correctly, you won't mix it correctly. If you want to use an M-50 to | drive your studio monitors, be my guest! :-) | Keep in mind that most home hifi equipment is built to sound good in a | typical living room, and there is a world of difference between a typical | home living room and a decent studio control room, even a home studio. | Studio monitor equipment is designed to be accurate so that the mixing | engineer can hear every nuance and detail in the mix, something that isn't | necessarily desirable in a home hifi system, where folks just want the music | to sound good. | This is a total misunderstanding. HiFi is by definition the set of specifications for ultimate accuracy (High Fidelity) in sound reproduction. Back when the term was coined, there were minimum specifications for what was, and what was not Hi Fidelity. Over time as the state of the art in reproduction systems evolved, those specifications also evolved such that hifi in the 50's outperformed hifi in the 40's. Eventually the state of the art in reproduction systems evolved to such a degree that you would be hard pressed to find moderately priced home stereo equipment that does not meet and/or exceed the stringent specifications for High Fidelity. In fact, run of the mill equipment these days specs so well that the term HiFi has fallen into disuse because if you're looking for quality equipment, you can find it under a myriad of brand names in colors that will match your decor. If you're only interested in a boombox or a car stereo or an mp3 player, all bets are off, but if you want accurate reproduction; 1) You know better than to buy toys. 2) You'll find the consumer market flooded with excellent choices. This is not to say that pro grade equipment should be avoided for pro sound production applications, but I will go so far as to say that if you have quality modern consumer reproduction equipment, you'll have to spend a lot of cash to get pro grade equipment that is more accurate in any meaningful sense. (speakers are an exception and should be carefully chosen by ear with a guaranteed return policy so that they can be evaluated in their intended environ). -- CWC ============================ It's not that nice guys finish last, They have a whole different notion where the finish line is. ============================ |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.home-studio
|
|||
|
|||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs?
Arny Krueger wrote:
"CWCunningham" charlesw-at-blackfoot.net wrote in message Damping can also be important, but it's very interactive with your speakers, and beyond my tiny understanding to discuss ... there's lots of sharp guys here who may be able to describe the implications. Damping is a wierd spec because it is based on questionable logic. It is based on loudspeaker impedance, but loudspeakers are generally thought to be independent of power amps and we all know that loudspeaker impedance is a strong function of frequency. The better spec would be amplifier source impedance, which is a property of just the power amp. Source impedance can be specified as a set of numbers or a curve, as it also varies with frequency. But at least it doesn't change every time you change the speaker. Speaker cabinets* can be expressed as a phase plot/group delay curve ( as a function of frequency). This from WinISD. *acgtually, cab/driver combo... That seems a whole lot more useful... -- Les Cargill |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Yahama "natural sound" amp specs? | Pro Audio | |||
Linkwitz' Orion design | High End Audio | |||
WANTED: Info or Specs for KLH model Thirty-One Speakers ? | Marketplace | |||
Specs for Blaupunkt ODWA1200 12" old model subs??? | Car Audio | |||
MTX Woofer Specs | Car Audio |