Yamahas Digital Top Art - is it really different than what HK Marantz Denon ... Make?


Guys I am really sorry for posting a stupid question before with no info and that has been posted already.
All this Yamaha Digital Top Art, high current
amps, Optimized Space, Improved signal Flow, High quality parts Anti resonance Base ...
All these features from the RXV440
Is it real??
Don't Marantz, HK, Denon etc' match up to this?
Is the Marantz SR4300 made of poorer quality parts? is the engineering and technology used in the SR4300 really poorer than the Yamaha?

I would really appreciate the Help since these are the 2 final receivers I am checking now and actually I am itching to make my purchase :-)
Thanks a lot in advance


It's all marketing hype so try to take no notice of it. Trust me once you've had the receiver for a little while these things won't matter one bit. Best thing to do is concentrate on the sound as that's where the true quality of any receiver is. If you already have speakers then match them to either receiver if possible. If however you are starting afresh then you have the added bonus of finding a sound that you truly enjoy. What I'm basically saying is go and get an audition.

You have obviously done some research on the two receivers so I'm guessing that they both have the right number of connections for your system when complete?

It's marketing "hype" alright (I actually think another four letter word is more appropriate). Whenever you see this stuff, check to see if they say they have any patents on it. I bet they don't because it was discovered and named by the marketing department, not the engineering staff.

Yamaha is, IMO, the worst of the big brands. Most of their parts are proprietary (the beast has to buy internally, rather than seek quality parts on the outside) and the sound is very bright and grainy when compared to some other high quality brands. Another part of Yamaha's problem is that they are really wedded to this idea of all the soundfields that they can produce ("Cathedral", "Jazz Club", "Stadium", etc.), but I have yet to meet a Yamaha owner who consideres it more than a novelty that they use once to show their friends and then never use again. Meanwhile, Yamaha cuts corners on things like the power supply where it matters and as a resut the sound sucks. Think I am joking? Check out Sound & Vision magazine's review of the RX-V730, which has the identical power supply and output transistors that the new 440 has. They found that the 730, rated at 75 wpc, could only produce 37 wpc when driving all channels at the same time. See what I mean? Their power supply is pretty poor, and so are a number of the other critical parts.

I would take a Marantz in a heartbeat over a Yamaha, and that conclusion was reached last May when Yamaha was closing out its model line and I could have had a Yamaha at a great price. But I compared the Yamaha directly to the Marantz and the Marantz was clearly much better. It was cleaner, clearer, and more realsitic. In fact, I found the Marantz 4300 (the bottom of the line) was a much better receiver than the 730, which costs about twice as much. I found the Yamaha to be unlistenable for music and poor for HT, unless of course you want to hear the soundtrack to Speed done in the "Cathedral" soundfield.

1st Anonymous:

Damn it! Just go and buy the Marantz!

2nd Anonymous:

You spelt considers wrong!

I've been doing the same comparison and reached the same conclusion. Yamaha's got lots of bells and whistles, but they're mostly gimmicks (IMHO). Marantz are known for making audio equipment, and the overwhelming balance of reviews is that they are one of the most "musical" sounding rec/amps in the market.

Ultimately, all that matters is how it sounds, which si why I've gone for the Marantz even though I could have got the Yamaha for less (with a free set of NSP100 sub/sats).

You guys are all right on the money about Yamaha. They are more interested in their gimmicky dsp crap instead of producing a quality sounding receiver. Back in the "old days" of the late 70's and early 80's Yamaha made the best sounding receivers and integrated amps around but now they are indeed the worst I've heard in the last 15 years. I prefer Pioneer Elite, Nad, H/K, Onkyo-Integra, Marantz and Rotel.All make Yamaha sound like a kids toy.

And the NAD over the Marantz both 6.1 models, which would go?

Well I've had an H/K 525, Onkyo 800, Pioneer 45TX and Yamaha 2300. I purchased the H/K and Onkyo from CC and the Pioneer and Yamaha from 6 Ave. The music from the H/K was nice but movies suffered. The Onkyo was functional, but not awesome. The Pioneer is over rated; it was close but was lacking power. The Yamaha sounded very similar to the H/K and was better for movies. All in all the Yamaha was to most versatile and had no problem driving my speakers. Unfortunatly it was the first unit I purchased. So after buying and returning 4 units, I picked up the Yamaha again.

My recommendation is not to listen to anyone here and go down to your local Hi-Fi store and demo the units you are interested in. (if you have one, bring your significant other too)

FYI the new Yamaha RX-V2400 and 1400 look to be great. Plus they are THX.


When I bought my last receiver, I was trying to choose between Yahama (RXV-1200) and Marantz (SR-5200). I agree with most of what's been written. The Marantz is generally a more accurate and musical receiver. Listening to jazz, etc., the Marantz sounded better. However, in home theater I thought that the Yamaha was far more vibrant. The Marantz was just "too laid back." Additionally, I thought that the Yamaha was better on the surround modes. I also agree with others who have said that the Yahama is "gimmicky", but it also generally will have more functionality than others in its price range. Ultimately, I thought that the Marantz was a "better" machine, but I bought a Yahama because it fit my needs better. (I actually purchased the RXV-3200 because I needed a beefier power source that either of the models mentioned above had.) In the end, you are the one that has to listen to it every day. Get what makes you happy.

Thanks all u guys
Please take a look at post "looking for opinions on a certain upgrade"


NAD is better than Marantz, IMHO, but both are very good products.

Generally, Yamaha (higher models)is the best in
both movie and music. NAD is the best in music
and better in movie. Marantz is best in music
and good in movie. But in the end your ears is
the deciding factor in purchasing a new rcvr.
So I suggest audition as many receivers and
speaker set as you can and pick the one best fit
to your preferences and listening taste.


Has anyone can comment which is better Yamaha RX-Z9 or NAD-762 base on description below?



They have both equipt with toriodal transformer.

The Yamaha RX-Z9 and RX-V1 models are the best Yamaha makes and I think they are the only ones that use a high quality power supply in the Yamaha line--that is, one that won't run out of steam when you really need it. It shows, too, when played as the sound is detailed, but far smoother and more mellow than its lower priced brethren. That said, how can Yamaha justify a 9 channel receiver? If that isn't the ultimate gimmick, I don't know what is.

The NAD is half the price of the Yamaha and it sounds better, IMHO. BTW, the power supply in the 762 is a Holmgren brand transformer, usually only found in some very high quality separate amps, not in a receiver.

Hello every one need help I am planning to buy a Sony SA VE 835ED speaker set or bose accostimatic 6 3 single cube speakers tell me which one is better though i am in favour on Sony speakers as i heard everywhere that bose sucks and i also want to buy a/v reciever pls suggest which one to buy yamaha rxv 540 or rxv 640 or Onkyo tx sr 501 or tx sr 601 or sony str sb 1080 bcoz i live in middle east region and only yamaha,Onkyo or sony recievers are available

pls reply soon


Have you considered Acoustic Energy's Aego P5's without the receiver if its available?

Has anyone can comment which is better Yamaha 1400,yamaha 2300, denon 2803 or pioneer 43tx
thank Jose

reuben matt
bought a 440 RXV - the 2 channel source reproduction is great. but 6.1 music - no power - i have to turn up the volume till -20 db for it to sqeak. Same with movies.
« Previous Thread Next Thread »

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us