Auto Setup: Setting & Checking Levels

After I pondered on this for awhile, I believe I figured out the problem. My room has a pretty nasty bass peak at around 30-40Hz. The RX-Z9 likely measured this and interpreted it as my subwoofers being set too loud. Since it couldn't compensate for this it attempted to lower the subwoofer levels to its limits (-10dB) via the subwoofer level trims. Apparently this was not enough and hence the error message. In reality, if I were to take the advice of YPAO on determining my subwoofer levels, I would have near flat bass at my room peak, and a bass void for the rest of the audible spectrum - a listening configuration that both myself and most listeners would loath.

Since most receivers and processors don't yet incorporate auto level calibration, I would normally have had to do this anyway, so to me it's no deal breaker. No matter how hard you try there will always be some degree of manual tweaking to get a system properly tuned and calibrated. So perhaps a good compromise would be to start off with the YPAO as a reference, and tweak with a handy SPL meter and your ears accordingly.

The RX-Z9 refreshingly had 0.5dB trim adjustments for all channels which is still uncommon in some higher priced processors. As a side note, we have found some receivers / processors and DVD players internal test tones to be somewhat out of whack, especially when calibrating at different reference levels. The Yamaha test tones, however, identically tracked Avia's when the master volume levels were set to produce the same reference levels. In addition, I achieved accurate channel trim balances for all reference levels I tested during the set-up phase. This didn't surprise me since I have consistently found Yamaha receivers to have incredibly accurate test tones and channel tracking.

As with that of the RX-V2400, I had some reservations as to how YPAO affected the sound of my system. The first time I engaged YPAO I was rather surprised with the sonic results of YPAO PEQ implemented on my reference system speakers. I was expecting to hear the same nasally, overbearing sound I observed on the RX-V2400 when it performed its room correction on my system. However, what I heard this time was a much more subtle approach to room correction. The overall tonal balance seemed a bit more forward and intimate, but without sounding boxy or compressed. At times it did add a bit more sibilance to recordings than my listening tastes preferred, but overall I could certainly see consumers enjoying and benefiting from this. What I did find odd was the second time I ran the Auto PEQ setup for "Flat", the graphical printout of the results changed, as did the sonic results I was hearing. This time the overall tonal shift changed far too drastically for my liking. It was bordering abrasive, especially in the center channel speaker whose new tonal balance now became too domineering. After extensive listening tests supplemented with measurements and analysis, I found the most pleasing PEQ setting was "Low". Most of the time I used no PEQ at all, but the "Low" setting did yield decent results that I found added to my listening enjoyment in some cases. Care must be used when engaging this system, including:

• Microphone positioning.
• Ensuring a low noise floor in the room.
• Running this set-up several times for consistency.
• Interpreting the results not as a biblical source, but as a starting point or alternative to no auto- calibration.

Recommendations for YPAO
Regardless what YPAO produces for your system, the results will likely need to be adjusted and/or corrected. This is especially true for speaker size crossover setting and subwoofer(s) distance. The PEQ should be treated just like any EQ or Cinema EQ - use if only if you feel it improves the fidelity of your system. I believe the best compromise for PEQ is to set it to "Front" so that your main channels will not undergo equalization where ill effects are most noticeable. In fact, this may benefit people who choose center and rear speakers that aren't a direct match to their main channels as it does try to equalize them to match the fronts as closely as possible.

What good is a feature packed receiver or any A/V gear for that matter if it cannot deliver the goods in sonic performance? Our viewpoint is sound first, features second. With that here is my subjective impression of the RX-Z9 for the gamut of playback modes I put it through.

One area Yamaha flagship receivers have always excelled in my opinion is two-channel audio. Unlike many lesser products, Yamaha never disappointed me in this regard. In my latest experience the RX-Z9 was no different. I was immediately overwhelmed by the almost limitless dynamic range I was hearing in two-channel stereo with this receiver. Its big, bold sound never lacked refinement or poise even when driven to my personal listening limits with my reference speakers and moderately large listening room (about 3000 ft^3). I was a bit disappointed that Yamaha did not provision for subwoofer output in "Pure Direct" mode (a feature necessary for my active subwoofer/satellite speaker system), thus the bulk of my two-channel listening tests were conducted in "2 CH Stereo" with all of the video processing turned off. This did not seem problematic to me since the RX-Z9 has a superb noise floor in all listening modes, partly attributed to careful circuit layout and implementation of the absolute best DAC's on the market - the Burr Brown DSD-1792s in differential configuration. As a side note, two channels of the PCM/DSD-1792's cost about twice as much as all of the lesser audio DAC's used in many costlier exotic processors. The good news is Yamaha spared no expense and implemented these DAC's on all channels , including the presence and subwoofer channels - and in balanced configuration! What my listening tests confirmed was the RX-Z9 was acting like a great sounding DAC for two-channel applications. If you have an older CD changer with an optical or coax output, I highly recommend using it as a transport and letting the RX-Z9 revitalize its fidelity.

Listening to SACD via i.Link was a real treat as this was the first time I actually heard SACD pass via a digital interface. For those worrying about the RX-Z9 passing subwoofer information in two-channel mode, fear not as the RX-Z9 does handle bass management via its i.Link interface much like it does when decoding DD /DTS. While some would argue converting DSD to PCM to do this feat, I would counter with "But can you really hear a difference?" I certainly didn't hear any ill effects and in my opinion the benefits of having bass management in this case far outweigh such concerns.

This remains one of my benchmark SACD's for good reason - lumpy jazz in a smooth jazz environment. You won't find repetitive and annoying saxophone scales, single stroke drumming, and simplistic guitar rifts. Instead you're showered with snappy jazz and provocative lyrics, slamming drums and memorable instrumental solos. The SACD layer of Track #2, "Morning Grace" sounded about as good as I've ever heard which in one word would best be summed up as "phenomenal". The RX-Z9 in this instance sounded quite transparent and certainly comparable to having my Denon DVD-5900 doing the SACD decoding. Making a direct comparison between the i.Link vs analog output of the DVD-5900 was next to impossible, since unfortunately an operational hiccup of the DVD-5900 causes all of the audio settings to default back to factory settings when toggling Dlink (Denon proprietary digital interface) or i.Link. I tried to reset and compare each time, but the lag time was too long for me to make an intelligent decision as to which I thought sounded better. They both sounded great by my estimation, and having one digital connection handle all of the audio formats, with proper bass management, level control and digital delay compensation allowed me to easily declare i.Link the winner.

DVD-Audio: Porcupine Tree - In Absentia
At last I finally have in my possession a DVD-A disc with enjoyable content that I can listen to more than just one or two tracks without absolute boredom. Porcupine Tree represents a mostly lost era art of Progressive Rock with a twist of modernization. I would categorize their sound as a cross between King Crimson, Genesis and Pink Floyd all in one with the harder, more aggressive playing style of Creed. As far as sound quality goes, this disc is a bit too bright and forward sounding and a bit anemic in bass response, but the surround mix for the most part is well done, and never sounds overbearing or forced.