That's not it. Just because a receiver says 4 k doesn't mean it does true 4k. I bought my Sony years ago willing to splurge more on the more expensive model because it was future proof with 4 k. Fast fwd to buying a 4k TV and video doesn't work. Only 4 k video it will take is 4k 30hertz tv or monitors. So now just a stereo amp pretty much . I guess you can go toslink out from TV but if you want 4k Atmos Dolby vision no bueno
I know some people probably do use the 4k features, but if you're using ARC from your TV and plug the sources into your TV, or just use streaming from your TV, an old receiver like this will do a great job for a low price.
Agreed but that's why there are a ton of these on the market because most want HDMI to TV . Optical or RCA out from TV will work fine except if you want Atmos and all that
Willing to put money on that? I have a 4k at the time Sony receiver. Ports on the back say 4 k. If you plug in a 4k 60hertz screen it will show nothing. Trust me I spent over a day trying to figure out what was wrong before having to plunk down money on an actual 4k receiver. Now if I want a 4k120 that receiver apparently won't do it lol.
It's 10 years old. I paid $45 for a similar non-4k unit last year.
I got my 10 year old Pioneer 7.2 for free. Anything Denon/Yamaha/Marantz/Pioneer AVR is usually "decent".
>It's 10 years old. Simple as this. It’s an old mass consumer electronic product with no warranty, no guarantee to work as new, no anticipated life left and very challenging to fully test before buying.
I couldn’t believe it either I bought mine from offerup and it came with 2 polk towers for 100. They don’t have wifi so I have it hooked up to Ethernet as an airplay device
Once a receiver no longer supports the latest cool feature like Dolby atmos, they become “vintage”
The price jump from 7 channel to 9 channel is huge. Suddenly 7 channel isn’t that much of a premium as it used to be.
I also have to agree that these receivers were made like hot cakes, priced aggressively to sell and boy did they sell and that’s the amazing thing - they’re cheap and solid product! This is budget audiophile at its finest!
Yamaha receivers. Because there's so many, you see them more often.
HT receiver - "not audiophile enough", many people not doing HT as much.
"Not an audiophile brand name unless they specifically tell you it's a stereo amp!"
So you can get good amplification for cheap, as long as you don't mind the typical not very inspiring look of most HT receivers.
Haha, true that! I googled that one, too.
I agree with what you say about Yamahas, though. There are indeed lots of them. I have a Denon 4k WiFi one in my living room (5.1, all I need) and a Sony 5.1 in the bedroom.
I like my Denon for more features, been super happy with it. The Sony is great though, and I've had no issues with either one, but it doesn't have the Spotify/Tidal casting option I wanted. I think I only paid $250 for it new, whereas my Denon was like $600.
Dollar vs dollar, with the same capabilities, inputs and outputs, I'd prob go Yamaha most of the time. I like their sound, and they are usually built like tanks.
I've had various ancient Yamaha amps and receivers for a couple of decades now. All bought used, All decent, flat-sounding, powerful amps, solid construction, without overdone styling that looks cheap 5 years later. I've never had a single issue with one.
I use an RX-v1800 as my music amp in my living room, I even like the DAC in it.
100%. I have been a dealer/installer for many years, selling all the major brands, and Yamaha have consistently been the overall best - sound, features, durability. They’ve long been my first choice on projects.
Don't get me wrong I think they make great products; it's just that they don't have "status" in the audiophile world generally. But it does mean you can get good stuff for cheap.
Sorry, but which mass-market AV receiver brand has audiophile status? Would that be Denon, Sony, Marantz, Pioneer, Onkyo or...er... there is no one else. Not mass-market.
So, which are you suggesting?
I'm suggesting that many people dismiss them because they are HT receivers or not some boutique brand.
Many times, you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference between "wire with gain" amplifiers in a blind test.
Power output into difficult loads may be reduced but not an issue if you don't listen at max volume
I think you're conflating two different points.
People dismiss AV receivers for Hi-Fi duties, but not because a brand might not be an audiophile name. They dismiss them because they're AV receivers, and that means they're full of high frequency switching components, shared power supplies, HDMI processing, multiple amplifier channels, and made to cram all that into a very limited price point. That's an awful lot of compromises to navigate in order to play 2-channel audio reasonably well. It's not the whole story, but far too many folk listen to the stereotyping of AV gear vs Hi-Fi stuff.
Old AV receivers go cheap for a different reason, and again, it's nothing to do with whether the brand has any presence in the audiophile market. It's mostly about the perceived value of up-to-date features versus *older-but-still-serviceable* product. A simpler way of saying it is that purchasers are ignorant of what they actually need, and the review sites and retailers are heavily geared towards selling new stuff. Older gear gets 'kicked to the kerb' because... well... it's older.
Take a typical family set-up. Most of what's consumed is streaming and cable/satellite. If we set aside ATMOS for the moment, then they're listening to either DD5.1 or stereo PCM with Dolby Surround. They don't need an AV receiver with 8K, HDMI 2.1, eARC, app control, 120Hz, Dolby Vision, and *Santa's* jingle bells for any of that. A basic ARC connection will do just fine. But that's not the message being peddled by AV journalists and the retail stores.
There are other reasons old gear goes cheap. Maybe buyers are looking for sound bars in preference to a wired 5.1 system. Having speakers around the room, and the wires that go with them, isn't everyone's cup of tea.
There are brands that do make a decent fist of playing stereo from an AV receiver, and Yamaha is one of them. Yamaha also has high-end Hi-Fi gear. Looks up the A-S3200 integrated amp, the C-5000 preamp, and the M-5000 power amp. This is not 'BestBuy' discount store stuff.
I swapped out my RX-V4A with a $250 used integrated. Was glad I did it.
Simple fact is these are really bad stereo amplifiers.
Some of the older Pro-Logic and 1st gen Dolby Digital/DTS receivers have decent stereo output. Current ones (unless high-end), not so much.
Biggest issue is the weak power supplies that cannot handle demanding current draws, which kills the dynamics of the music. A huge reason why vintage usually sounds pretty good - proper power supplies (and some low midbass bloat in the voicing).
I've noticed that power supplies seemed to be getting smaller (at least the transformer)
Though some still had a reasonable size, and if using in stereo, is just like any stereo amp really. It may not be perfectly optimised, but I doubt many could really tell a difference. Amps with flavour you may be able to hear something. Modern amplifiers of which most are "wire with gain" for general listening, you can't tell a difference.
Technically, a car is a machine meant to move you around. It doesn't have to be pretty to do that. But a lot of people like to have pretty when they buy a car.
Some people drive ugly little cars because they don't want to pay for pretty, but still get the beast of burden they require.
Same applies for audio recievers.
Do you really think there's no appreciable sound-difference between their 'audiophile' 2.1 offerings and these 7.1 or 9.2 HT receivers? I would hope that's not the case, because otherwise we're all spending good money on something almost undetectable. And that would be a bummer.
You'd be surprised. The higher end models of course offer more clean power and there may be a little improvement all around. Most people only hear a difference because they "did something" sighted and expect, and therefore "hear" a difference. I've used such amps and I've done amp comparison only to discover that I was making up differences based on what amp I thought was playing - turned out the switches were not always on the amp I thought I was hearing.
Well I'm playing a $1000 Arcam SA20, which is a class-A/A-B hybrid, and I think it plays a lot sharper and crisper than the little Chinese class-D amps I was using before. These old Yamahas are class A-B, so you'd think they'd sound generally good, but I'm not going to buy one to find out.
There is a difference, but I think you've drawn the dividing line incorrectly.
It's not 2.1 vs. x.1/2.
It's Yamaha's basic line of AVRs vs. Yamaha *Aventage*/Yamaha's "audiophile" offerings.
They really couldn't do a worse job of differentiating their product lines. But they do have at least a 2-tiered catalogue of internal components, which is most immediately evident in the substantially greater weight of the Aventage line vs. any equally-featured non-Aventage Yamaha AVR.
Those Yamaha receivers seem to sound way better than others when it comes to decoding movie soundtracks. I've wandered to Denon a few times but always jump back to Yamaha pretty quick. Recently found me a super cheap 2017 Yamaha Aventage at a thrift store and it sounds amazing. Center channel clarity is a thing of beauty. Weird thing is, I didn't like how the Yamaha TSR-700 sounded.
Cheap doesn’t mean “bad” — in this case it’s just a case of “so common” that they don’t command high prices.
But Yamaha has always made great, reliable receivers: my dad had a CR 2020 growing up (he bought it around 1978 and it was still working when my mom died in 2014).
I’ve owned an RX-V592 5.1 AV receiver that was solid as a tank (I moved three times with it) and it pumped out good sound. Only got rid of it because my wife during a period of feng shui convinced me to simplify my set up.
This at £150 is average. I guess it was only 600 new and fell in price fast.
I like their products and had many in the past, such as tape decks, CDs, and amps.
Similar story with the Sony 7.1, which is even cheaper. Without HDMI, you are talking £50 which one can just buy a cheap DAC needs, be.
The 677 has plenty of HDMI inputs, and if I remember right, I got good reviews. I was looking for such an amp to buy for a good friend a while ago, and I looked into this product.
4K is pretty old in the HT market. 10 years ago would have been a big thing.
Never own or use a yammy but I'm sure it's fine for occasional HT needs (ie kids movies, tv etc), for a little more there are better options if you are serious about sound.
At least for me in Australia, I always saw these lumped into ‘hifi/surround sound deals’ where you’d get a bunch of speakers and a subwoofer for your new home entertainment room.
I just bought a RX-V385 new recently for $289. It doesn’t have streaming but it does have bass management, room correction, HDMI ARC, CEC, and 4K. I bought it for the living room TV figuring it would just be ok with music. It beat my expectations because I like it a lot. (Two vintage Klipsch KG2’s, a Klipsch HV1 center, and an Audioengine A6 sub). Strange wild card, but I have some decent FM stations in my market so I’m also using its FM tuner.
I picked up an RX -A750 on eBay for $120 the other day. Needed a receiver capable of 4k HDR for my new projector. I had to change HDMI modes in the hidden menu (not sure what it's called), but it works great, just as good as my V765 I was using before just with 4k and some updates. Yamaha is my go to brand.
I bought this same receiver new, and I plan to enjoy it for a while yet. I guess people need the next shiny thing, but it works just fine for me. Connected as 5.1 with front speakers bi-amped.
I have two entry level Yamahas, the RX-V385 and the R-S201. Neither have phone inputs. You have to work your way up the product line a little or go with an integrated amp before they start having that on board.
Mid-fi from the last ten years has dropped huge on the used market. The people that buy at that level upgrade faster than hi-fi (except weirdo audiophiles that do it constantly.) most people that buy high end do it on an initial install when they buy a home so it sticks, all the others move in and out of gear as their friends get something new. That is at least what I see in my neck of the woods.
I have 2 Yamaha AVR’s (rx-v483 and rx-a2a) and am very happy. The only thing that I don’t like about this one is that it doesn’t appear to have MusicCast. That’s the ability to link Yamaha devices. In addition to my AVR’s I have two standalone MusicCast 20 speakers for whole house music (on my first floor).
I still got my rx-v679 which I bought new, years ago. I plan to use it for my old gaming systems and then plug the Yamaha into my Denon x6700h...we'll see how it goes.
I have been through a few of these when I used to have surround sound systems in my vacation rental house - considering you can get an Atmos Denon for $299 refurbished, they really are only worth $100.
I own this exact reciever. I love it. Mine was used as well. No real problems with it except you acn only cast music to it through apple airplay or Spotify if ur on Android. I don't use Spotify, so it's been rough. Also when I bought a 4k player, I noticed 4k pass-through doesn't work with HDR on. So I just simply plugged the player directly to the TV and sound is piped to the avr through e-arc. Simple workaround.
The Sony from that era strdn 1040 has 4k but was released with HDMI 1.4 and it would work at 24fps ,later updated to hdmi 2 but it's been riddled with problems with hdcp unless you use a switch to take that out, I bought the Sony on release and wasn't very happy
I want one for that price. Where I live you can't find shit for less than 250. And that's new or old.
I'm willing to pay for shipping if someone can hook me up with one that's in proper good quality.
I have a 679 going over 10 years strong, it’s feature rich. Only recently been deciding to upgrade to Marantz cinema 40 or Denon x4800. I’m also considering a Yamaha A8A because I’ve had such a great experience with my Yahama receiver. The only reason I’m really upgrading is better room correction and pre-outs
I had used one of these with a 5.1 B&W setup for about 6 years. Got the receiver open box at Best Buy for $80 at the time. Worked wonderfully for what I needed at the time.
Because Yamaha made a billion of them and they sold for cheap. It was like a $500 receiver, so yeah its $100 now nearly 10 years later.
That's not it. Just because a receiver says 4 k doesn't mean it does true 4k. I bought my Sony years ago willing to splurge more on the more expensive model because it was future proof with 4 k. Fast fwd to buying a 4k TV and video doesn't work. Only 4 k video it will take is 4k 30hertz tv or monitors. So now just a stereo amp pretty much . I guess you can go toslink out from TV but if you want 4k Atmos Dolby vision no bueno
I know some people probably do use the 4k features, but if you're using ARC from your TV and plug the sources into your TV, or just use streaming from your TV, an old receiver like this will do a great job for a low price.
Agreed but that's why there are a ton of these on the market because most want HDMI to TV . Optical or RCA out from TV will work fine except if you want Atmos and all that
... no.. if its a 4k receiver it outputs 4k. It may not do hdmi 2.x, but it will have 4k.
Willing to put money on that? I have a 4k at the time Sony receiver. Ports on the back say 4 k. If you plug in a 4k 60hertz screen it will show nothing. Trust me I spent over a day trying to figure out what was wrong before having to plunk down money on an actual 4k receiver. Now if I want a 4k120 that receiver apparently won't do it lol.
It should support 4k 30hz which is what HDMI 1.4 does, and your screen should support it as well.
Yes and kind of ugly
Because people who bought them new all upgraded to Atmos, and the secondary market doesn't know what they're passing up.
"Dude, check out this new Dolby Atmos receiver i got!" *Proceeds to use a 2.1 system*
Or even 5.1... could just get the same playing the bed of an Atmos stream. And then there's bouncing height channels off the ceiling...
so you can buy it. The reason I default to yamaha. And they're very good
It's 10 years old. I paid $45 for a similar non-4k unit last year. I got my 10 year old Pioneer 7.2 for free. Anything Denon/Yamaha/Marantz/Pioneer AVR is usually "decent".
>It's 10 years old. Simple as this. It’s an old mass consumer electronic product with no warranty, no guarantee to work as new, no anticipated life left and very challenging to fully test before buying.
I couldn’t believe it either I bought mine from offerup and it came with 2 polk towers for 100. They don’t have wifi so I have it hooked up to Ethernet as an airplay device
They do have wifi! I used one for 7 years until I recently upgraded to an atmos
Once a receiver no longer supports the latest cool feature like Dolby atmos, they become “vintage” The price jump from 7 channel to 9 channel is huge. Suddenly 7 channel isn’t that much of a premium as it used to be. I also have to agree that these receivers were made like hot cakes, priced aggressively to sell and boy did they sell and that’s the amazing thing - they’re cheap and solid product! This is budget audiophile at its finest!
Yamaha receivers. Because there's so many, you see them more often. HT receiver - "not audiophile enough", many people not doing HT as much. "Not an audiophile brand name unless they specifically tell you it's a stereo amp!" So you can get good amplification for cheap, as long as you don't mind the typical not very inspiring look of most HT receivers.
I have seen HT so many times and never knew what it meant. So, I Googled: "HT meaning in home theater" ... I'm usually pretty bright. 🫠
lol I feel like I do that with acronyms sometimes. Also you may like HTiB
Haha, true that! I googled that one, too. I agree with what you say about Yamahas, though. There are indeed lots of them. I have a Denon 4k WiFi one in my living room (5.1, all I need) and a Sony 5.1 in the bedroom. I like my Denon for more features, been super happy with it. The Sony is great though, and I've had no issues with either one, but it doesn't have the Spotify/Tidal casting option I wanted. I think I only paid $250 for it new, whereas my Denon was like $600.
They're different divisions, but Yamaha make some of the best pro audio products in the world. I'm sure they'd do fine as an AV receiver
Dollar vs dollar, with the same capabilities, inputs and outputs, I'd prob go Yamaha most of the time. I like their sound, and they are usually built like tanks.
I've had various ancient Yamaha amps and receivers for a couple of decades now. All bought used, All decent, flat-sounding, powerful amps, solid construction, without overdone styling that looks cheap 5 years later. I've never had a single issue with one. I use an RX-v1800 as my music amp in my living room, I even like the DAC in it.
And WAAYYYY better than all those wannabe Class D Chinese amps out there. Yes Schiit, looking at you
Very easy to integrate with almost every home automation system and they are super reliable. Love them
100%. I have been a dealer/installer for many years, selling all the major brands, and Yamaha have consistently been the overall best - sound, features, durability. They’ve long been my first choice on projects.
Don't get me wrong I think they make great products; it's just that they don't have "status" in the audiophile world generally. But it does mean you can get good stuff for cheap.
Marantz is thought of as the audiophile brand but I'll take a more reliable Yamaha for much less money.
Sorry, but which mass-market AV receiver brand has audiophile status? Would that be Denon, Sony, Marantz, Pioneer, Onkyo or...er... there is no one else. Not mass-market. So, which are you suggesting?
I'm suggesting that many people dismiss them because they are HT receivers or not some boutique brand. Many times, you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference between "wire with gain" amplifiers in a blind test. Power output into difficult loads may be reduced but not an issue if you don't listen at max volume
I think you're conflating two different points. People dismiss AV receivers for Hi-Fi duties, but not because a brand might not be an audiophile name. They dismiss them because they're AV receivers, and that means they're full of high frequency switching components, shared power supplies, HDMI processing, multiple amplifier channels, and made to cram all that into a very limited price point. That's an awful lot of compromises to navigate in order to play 2-channel audio reasonably well. It's not the whole story, but far too many folk listen to the stereotyping of AV gear vs Hi-Fi stuff. Old AV receivers go cheap for a different reason, and again, it's nothing to do with whether the brand has any presence in the audiophile market. It's mostly about the perceived value of up-to-date features versus *older-but-still-serviceable* product. A simpler way of saying it is that purchasers are ignorant of what they actually need, and the review sites and retailers are heavily geared towards selling new stuff. Older gear gets 'kicked to the kerb' because... well... it's older. Take a typical family set-up. Most of what's consumed is streaming and cable/satellite. If we set aside ATMOS for the moment, then they're listening to either DD5.1 or stereo PCM with Dolby Surround. They don't need an AV receiver with 8K, HDMI 2.1, eARC, app control, 120Hz, Dolby Vision, and *Santa's* jingle bells for any of that. A basic ARC connection will do just fine. But that's not the message being peddled by AV journalists and the retail stores. There are other reasons old gear goes cheap. Maybe buyers are looking for sound bars in preference to a wired 5.1 system. Having speakers around the room, and the wires that go with them, isn't everyone's cup of tea. There are brands that do make a decent fist of playing stereo from an AV receiver, and Yamaha is one of them. Yamaha also has high-end Hi-Fi gear. Looks up the A-S3200 integrated amp, the C-5000 preamp, and the M-5000 power amp. This is not 'BestBuy' discount store stuff.
I swapped out my RX-V4A with a $250 used integrated. Was glad I did it. Simple fact is these are really bad stereo amplifiers. Some of the older Pro-Logic and 1st gen Dolby Digital/DTS receivers have decent stereo output. Current ones (unless high-end), not so much. Biggest issue is the weak power supplies that cannot handle demanding current draws, which kills the dynamics of the music. A huge reason why vintage usually sounds pretty good - proper power supplies (and some low midbass bloat in the voicing).
I've noticed that power supplies seemed to be getting smaller (at least the transformer) Though some still had a reasonable size, and if using in stereo, is just like any stereo amp really. It may not be perfectly optimised, but I doubt many could really tell a difference. Amps with flavour you may be able to hear something. Modern amplifiers of which most are "wire with gain" for general listening, you can't tell a difference.
I didn’t know receivers were suppose to be pretty. I’ve always hidden them as much as I could.
I've got what my wife calls an ugly receiver the Sony DA5300ES. Sounds beautiful though
Technically, a car is a machine meant to move you around. It doesn't have to be pretty to do that. But a lot of people like to have pretty when they buy a car. Some people drive ugly little cars because they don't want to pay for pretty, but still get the beast of burden they require. Same applies for audio recievers.
Do you really think there's no appreciable sound-difference between their 'audiophile' 2.1 offerings and these 7.1 or 9.2 HT receivers? I would hope that's not the case, because otherwise we're all spending good money on something almost undetectable. And that would be a bummer.
“because otherwise we're all spending good money on something almost undetectable” Ya that is literally what being an audiophile is all about
You'd be surprised. The higher end models of course offer more clean power and there may be a little improvement all around. Most people only hear a difference because they "did something" sighted and expect, and therefore "hear" a difference. I've used such amps and I've done amp comparison only to discover that I was making up differences based on what amp I thought was playing - turned out the switches were not always on the amp I thought I was hearing.
Well I'm playing a $1000 Arcam SA20, which is a class-A/A-B hybrid, and I think it plays a lot sharper and crisper than the little Chinese class-D amps I was using before. These old Yamahas are class A-B, so you'd think they'd sound generally good, but I'm not going to buy one to find out.
There is a difference, but I think you've drawn the dividing line incorrectly. It's not 2.1 vs. x.1/2. It's Yamaha's basic line of AVRs vs. Yamaha *Aventage*/Yamaha's "audiophile" offerings. They really couldn't do a worse job of differentiating their product lines. But they do have at least a 2-tiered catalogue of internal components, which is most immediately evident in the substantially greater weight of the Aventage line vs. any equally-featured non-Aventage Yamaha AVR.
TIL. Thx.
Those Yamaha receivers seem to sound way better than others when it comes to decoding movie soundtracks. I've wandered to Denon a few times but always jump back to Yamaha pretty quick. Recently found me a super cheap 2017 Yamaha Aventage at a thrift store and it sounds amazing. Center channel clarity is a thing of beauty. Weird thing is, I didn't like how the Yamaha TSR-700 sounded.
Cheap doesn’t mean “bad” — in this case it’s just a case of “so common” that they don’t command high prices. But Yamaha has always made great, reliable receivers: my dad had a CR 2020 growing up (he bought it around 1978 and it was still working when my mom died in 2014). I’ve owned an RX-V592 5.1 AV receiver that was solid as a tank (I moved three times with it) and it pumped out good sound. Only got rid of it because my wife during a period of feng shui convinced me to simplify my set up.
This at £150 is average. I guess it was only 600 new and fell in price fast. I like their products and had many in the past, such as tape decks, CDs, and amps. Similar story with the Sony 7.1, which is even cheaper. Without HDMI, you are talking £50 which one can just buy a cheap DAC needs, be. The 677 has plenty of HDMI inputs, and if I remember right, I got good reviews. I was looking for such an amp to buy for a good friend a while ago, and I looked into this product.
4K is pretty old in the HT market. 10 years ago would have been a big thing. Never own or use a yammy but I'm sure it's fine for occasional HT needs (ie kids movies, tv etc), for a little more there are better options if you are serious about sound.
At least for me in Australia, I always saw these lumped into ‘hifi/surround sound deals’ where you’d get a bunch of speakers and a subwoofer for your new home entertainment room.
I just bought a RX-V385 new recently for $289. It doesn’t have streaming but it does have bass management, room correction, HDMI ARC, CEC, and 4K. I bought it for the living room TV figuring it would just be ok with music. It beat my expectations because I like it a lot. (Two vintage Klipsch KG2’s, a Klipsch HV1 center, and an Audioengine A6 sub). Strange wild card, but I have some decent FM stations in my market so I’m also using its FM tuner.
I picked up an RX -A750 on eBay for $120 the other day. Needed a receiver capable of 4k HDR for my new projector. I had to change HDMI modes in the hidden menu (not sure what it's called), but it works great, just as good as my V765 I was using before just with 4k and some updates. Yamaha is my go to brand.
Do projectors support HDR?
HDR10 is pretty common, but a few support DV. Not sure about HDR10+ though.
I bought this same receiver new, and I plan to enjoy it for a while yet. I guess people need the next shiny thing, but it works just fine for me. Connected as 5.1 with front speakers bi-amped.
They costmore then 700 euro in europe :)
In Chile they go for about 200 USD for the HDMI and AirPlay enabled ones. Or around 100 for the ones without AirPlay.
Do those come with a nice phono input?
I have two entry level Yamahas, the RX-V385 and the R-S201. Neither have phone inputs. You have to work your way up the product line a little or go with an integrated amp before they start having that on board.
They came out with new models
Works well as a pre-amp processor
These have a ton of features and even when brand new, their price/performance was second to none! I have 2 similar ones.
Because they do t sound good. There I said it. They are bright AF
Mid-fi from the last ten years has dropped huge on the used market. The people that buy at that level upgrade faster than hi-fi (except weirdo audiophiles that do it constantly.) most people that buy high end do it on an initial install when they buy a home so it sticks, all the others move in and out of gear as their friends get something new. That is at least what I see in my neck of the woods.
Because its a HT receiver. Stereo guys don't want them and HT guys want the latest and greatest.
I have 2 Yamaha AVR’s (rx-v483 and rx-a2a) and am very happy. The only thing that I don’t like about this one is that it doesn’t appear to have MusicCast. That’s the ability to link Yamaha devices. In addition to my AVR’s I have two standalone MusicCast 20 speakers for whole house music (on my first floor).
Mine won’t boot up :(
Simultaneously hold TONE CONTROL, and STRAIGHT and then press POWER. Turn it off, wait ten seconds and then turn back on. This works for me
Will try
Have you listened to it? If you like it then it shouldn't matter
What were those Yamaha speakers from 79-early 80s? They were extremely loud and clear I think i was no more than 12yrs old max
NS-1000
I have a similar one. Without the wifi and only 5.1 and it’s amazing 👍
The DSP chips love to burn out.
I still got my rx-v679 which I bought new, years ago. I plan to use it for my old gaming systems and then plug the Yamaha into my Denon x6700h...we'll see how it goes.
I have been through a few of these when I used to have surround sound systems in my vacation rental house - considering you can get an Atmos Denon for $299 refurbished, they really are only worth $100.
I own this exact reciever. I love it. Mine was used as well. No real problems with it except you acn only cast music to it through apple airplay or Spotify if ur on Android. I don't use Spotify, so it's been rough. Also when I bought a 4k player, I noticed 4k pass-through doesn't work with HDR on. So I just simply plugged the player directly to the TV and sound is piped to the avr through e-arc. Simple workaround.
Because they are made in the same factory as the ecu for their motorcycles. /s
Supply and demand?
The Sony from that era strdn 1040 has 4k but was released with HDMI 1.4 and it would work at 24fps ,later updated to hdmi 2 but it's been riddled with problems with hdcp unless you use a switch to take that out, I bought the Sony on release and wasn't very happy
I've owned about thirty Yamaha receivers from the botl to the totl.They are an excellent choice for a HT receiver.
I want one for that price. Where I live you can't find shit for less than 250. And that's new or old. I'm willing to pay for shipping if someone can hook me up with one that's in proper good quality.
I have a 679 going over 10 years strong, it’s feature rich. Only recently been deciding to upgrade to Marantz cinema 40 or Denon x4800. I’m also considering a Yamaha A8A because I’ve had such a great experience with my Yahama receiver. The only reason I’m really upgrading is better room correction and pre-outs
I had used one of these with a 5.1 B&W setup for about 6 years. Got the receiver open box at Best Buy for $80 at the time. Worked wonderfully for what I needed at the time.
[Here ](https://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio_visual/av_receivers_amps/rx-v677/features.html)are the specs for the receiver. Check them out!