• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Yamaha preamps

S

steelglam

AK Subscriber
Subscriber
I have a Yamaha MX-1000 power amp and have been searching for a used copy of the matching CX-1000 preamp for some time but have yet to be able to come up with one, either because the deal fell through (recently) or more typically because the price was way too high.

Hence, I was wondering if anyone had any insight as to other Yamaha preamps that most closely match the CX-1000, especially in terms of sound and performance. I know that the CX-1000 kills most of the other Yamaha preamps in terms of total features, so that is less of a concern for me at this point. Especially since I'm only looking for some basic features (see the end of this message) and because I really do not need all of the digital and DAT capabilities that the CX-1000 offers.

Any thoughts on which models I should be looking at? Other CX series ones like the CX-800 or CX-830? C series ones like the C-80 or C-85? Any others? Does one series sound better than the others?

I haven't given up on finding a CX-1000 if the price is right, but if any other Yamaha preamp sounds just as good as the CX-1000 and has the basic features noted below, I'd like to look for it and pick it up should I find it.

If you can suggest any models that sound just as good as the CX-1000, that would be great. I can then look them up and see if they have the features that I am looking for. Thanks for any insight that you can provide.

For what it's worth, I'm interested in a preamp that matches the CX-1000 primarily in terms of:

1. Overall sound and performance

2. Phono stage capabilities: I'd like it to have multiple moving magnet and moving coil settings like the CX-1000 does

3. A few other basic features. I'm looking for one with: A.) a mono switch; B.) tone defeat/bypass capabilities; C.) inputs for turntable, tuner, CD player, tape 1, tape 2, and at least one auxiliary input (aux or video); and d.) two sets of pre outs.
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
Yamaha pre amps

The best yamaha pre amp made in the last thirty years is by far the c2 series.i have never heard the 10000 series which could be the best.the c2, c2a and last the c2x were all very musical. I owned a c4, c80.they were dead sonically. Both of the early c2 and c2a were v fet units.if they break its all over.i own a c2 and a c2x and when matched to a really good amp and speakers are very very musical. I own a b2,b1,m2,and b2x.the current day monster power amps are very musical too. A yamaha ca 1010 or 2010 is really clean too.you could use the pre amp from these integrated amps and hook up to your mx 1000.i owned a m80 and m85 and used the c2 on them to great sonic effect. I owned magnepan tympani 1b speakers and needed more current to run them. This is because the mags had so little bottom end bass you really had to have an amp that had lots of current to make them sing. The cx 1000 was like most yamaha gear in the eighties. Better than nothing at all.to be fair the magnepans are so open and clean ,not very many things sounded very good on them.even cd players sounded different.i owned a yamaha cdx 1120 cd.sounded clean and musical but had very little bass.again because the magnepan would allow you to hear the differences.i settled on a sony es 608 and 707 cd player only because of the bass. A technics dvd a 10 is good as clean on the upper end as most new stuff.good luck:
 
LUCKYREDDOG said:
The best yamaha pre amp made in the last thirty years is by far the c2 series.i have never heard the 10000 series which could be the best.the c2, c2a and last the c2x were all very musical. I owned a c4, c80.they were dead sonically. Both of the early c2 and c2a were v fet units.if they break its all over.i own a c2 and a c2x and when matched to a really good amp and speakers are very very musical. I own a b2,b1,m2,and b2x.the current day monster power amps are very musical too. A yamaha ca 1010 or 2010 is really clean too.you could use the pre amp from these integrated amps and hook up to your mx 1000.i owned a m80 and m85 and used the c2 on them to great sonic effect. I owned magnepan tympani 1b speakers and needed more current to run them. This is because the mags had so little bottom end bass you really had to have an amp that had lots of current to make them sing. The cx 1000 was like most yamaha gear in the eighties. Better than nothing at all.to be fair the magnepans are so open and clean ,not very many things sounded very good on them.even cd players sounded different.i owned a yamaha cdx 1120 cd.sounded clean and musical but had very little bass.again because the magnepan would allow you to hear the differences.i settled on a sony es 608 and 707 cd player only because of the bass. A technics dvd a 10 is good as clean on the upper end as most new stuff.good luck:
Click to expand...

Thanks, LUCKYREDDOG. Do you have any info. on the C2x? I cannot seem to find anything. I found the manual for the C2a, and it seems to be lacking a few of the things that I'm looking for (noted above).

Also, what did you mean when you said "the cx 1000 was like most yamaha gear in the eighties. Better than nothing at all." I take it that means you had a negative impression of the CX-1000?
 
Last edited:
CX-1000U and CX-830TI

Steel:
I own both currently, and I really like both. I originally bought the CX-830TI to add to my other Titanium components, and it was an excellent buy for me. When I bought my CDX-2000 and CDV-1700, I wanted to try going digital, so I bought the CX1000U. The two were sold in the same sales brochure, but they are different in some ways. The styling and build of the CX-1000U is more old school (read: heavy, audiophile-ish). It seems to be the black version of the CX-2000 (this is a good thing), and they may be the same internals. The CX-830 is more new school (red: lightweight, sleek, more modern faceplate). However, when I compare the specs, they are VERY similar performance wise...

- THD (MM to record out) at 0.001%
- THD (MC to record out) at 0.002%
- S/N (CD) at 106db
- S/N (Phono MM) at 95b

S/N Phono MC is slightly better on the CX-1000 (91db vs. 90 db)

The CX-830 has an MM/MC Cartridge Load Selector feature (whatever that means), same as the MX-1000U (they are worded the same in my sales brochure, so I presume they are the same),so you should be covered here.

So, the main unique points in favor of the 1000 seem to be better build quality and components, more source selections, digital switching, and aesthetic match to your MX-1000 (all of which add to the cost/value for some).
 
I have owned a CX-600, CX-630, C-50 and currently own a CX-1000 driving my MX-2000 and a CX-800 driving my M-60. I've had the CX-1000 for almost 4 years and think it's a great preamp. It is certainly the best of the bunch from the ones I listed above and is one of the best Yamaha preamps they made. YMMV.
 
Yamahalic said:
Steel:
I own both currently, and I really like both. I originally bought the CX-830TI to add to my other Titanium components, and it was an excellent buy for me. When I bought my CDX-2000 and CDV-1700, I wanted to try going digital, so I bought the CX1000U. The two were sold in the same sales brochure, but they are different in some ways. The styling and build of the CX-1000U is more old school (read: heavy, audiophile-ish). It seems to be the black version of the CX-2000 (this is a good thing), and they may be the same internals. The CX-830 is more new school (red: lightweight, sleek, more modern faceplate). However, when I compare the specs, they are VERY similar performance wise...

- THD (MM to record out) at 0.001%
- THD (MC to record out) at 0.002%
- S/N (CD) at 106db
- S/N (Phono MM) at 95b

S/N Phono MC is slightly better on the CX-1000 (91db vs. 90 db)

The CX-830 has an MM/MC Cartridge Load Selector feature (whatever that means), same as the MX-1000U (they are worded the same in my sales brochure, so I presume they are the same),so you should be covered here.

So, the main unique points in favor of the 1000 seem to be better build quality and components, more source selections, digital switching, and aesthetic match to your MX-1000 (all of which add to the cost/value for some).
Click to expand...

Thanks, Yamahalic. This is a really helpful comparison. It's good to know that the phono stage for both is very similar, seeing as though that's really what I value the most.

Out of the stuff that you note as being unique to the CX-1000 compared to the CX-830, I'd say that the build quality would factor into my decision most at this point. I checked out the CX-830 manual, and it has enough source selections for me. And aesthetics don't mean squat to me.

Since I'm still in the learner's stage about some of this stuff, I must admit that I'm not as informed on the effects of digital switching. Does it make a significant amount of difference?

While it's clear from your description that the CX-1000 has a better build quality than the CX-830, do you notice a significant difference in how the two preamps sound? Also, do you have any thoughts on what would be a good price for the CX-830?
 
BroonsBane said:
I have owned a CX-600, CX-630, C-50 and currently own a CX-1000 driving my MX-2000 and a CX-800 driving my M-60. I've had the CX-1000 for almost 4 years and think it's a great preamp. It is certainly the best of the bunch from the ones I listed above and is one of the best Yamaha preamps they made. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Yeah, from everything I have read, it seems clear to me that the CX-1000 is the best. And ideally, it would match the best with my MX-1000 since they were made to go together.

But the reason why I started this thread was that I'm also finding the CX-1000 to be really expensive and difficult to find.

So, do you think any of those other Yamaha preamps that you've owned equal or come close to the CX-1000 in terms of sound? Obviously, the CX-1000 has a lot more features, and Yamahalic noted that the CX-1000 likely has the best build quality. But, the other preamps you mention seem to sell for at least $150-$200 less than the CX-1000. When you listen to the CX-1000, can you hear a $150-$200+ difference in sound quality over the other preamps? If not, which one or ones most closely match the CX-1000 in terms of sound in your opinion?
 
Last edited:
We can't turn this discussion into one of value, that would be a thread for the Dollars and Sense forum but I will say that yes, the CX-1000 sounds better, much better. I see them show up on the bay all the time. Personally, I wouldn't bother with the other preamps. If you want a CX-1000 then wait until one shows up for what you think is a reasonable price for one.
 
steelglam said:
Yeah, from everything I have read, it seems clear to me that the CX-1000 is the best...it would match the best with my MX-1000...the CX-1000 (can) be really expensive and difficult to find.
Click to expand...

Well that sort of sums it up. The good stuff has the value and it costs when folks determine the quality.

So just wait your turn on ebay or elsewhere for one and you'll get what you would like. Maybe you can get one cheap locally or BIN. Good Luck
 
Thanks to the past few responses from BroonsBane and Blue Shadow.

I understand the point about waiting to find a CX-1000 in my price range. But one of the points that I was trying to make is that when I say the CX-1000 seems "the best," I was wondering how much of that was due to features I don't care about vs. actual performance. For example, the CX-830 or CX-800 that Yamahalic described basically has all the features that I would want in a preamp. So, it's clear that the CX-1000 is "the best" in terms of total features, but I also do not need all of those features.

Hence, the question becomes does the CX-1000 sound so much better than, say, the CX-830 or CX-800, that it's worth waiting around for one to show up at a price I desire on ebay rather than springing for the less expensive and more easily found CX-800 or CX-830?

If the answer is yes, then clearly I should wait for a CX-1000. If the answer is no and the main reason why the CX-1000 is so much more expensive than the others is because it has features that I don't want/need, then it seems silly to not just go for a less expensive version that sounds similar and has less features.

Towards answering this question, it seems that BroonsBane is saying that the CX-1000 sounds a lot better than the CX-800. While Yamahalic says they are quite similar in terms of things that I am looking for. And rabbit and LUCKYREDDOG are advocating completely different series altogether: the c2's and the CX's, respectively.
 
BroonsBane said:
We can't turn this discussion into one of value, that would be a thread for the Dollars and Sense forum but I will say that yes, the CX-1000 sounds better, much better. I see them show up on the bay all the time. Personally, I wouldn't bother with the other preamps. If you want a CX-1000 then wait until one shows up for what you think is a reasonable price for one.
Click to expand...

I do see them every now and then on ebay, but much less than the others you mention. And I guess what concerns me is that the prices for the CX-1000 seem to be rising.

One other thing to note: I picked up a Bryston 3B amp last week, and after setting it up this weekend and starting to compare it to my Yamaha MX-1000, my initial impressions are that the Bryston is neck-and-neck with the Yamaha. This is interesting to me because every other amp that I've compared to the Yamaha to so far, it was clear by the end of the comparison that the Yamaha was better.

Anyhow, I mention this because I'm wondering how well the CX-1000 would sound even when matched with the Bryston, as opposed to my MX-1000. I should consider this as I move forward because I can't keep both amps, so if I end up deciding to sell the MX-1000 instead of the Bryston, I need to make sure that I get a preamp that will match the Bryston well.
 
I've also used the CX-1000 with Bryston amplification, they work well together. I don't know how else to say it that hasn't already been said, the CX-1000 sounds alot better than the other preamps you are considering.
 
I own a CX-630 and it sounds great, though I haven't owned any other preamps to compare to. It has everything that you want except for dual pre-outs.

I'm on the hunt for a CX-1000 too. I beat myself up from time to time because I passed up the opportunity to snare a CX-1000U for $175 CDN - about $150 US. I had just gotten into separates a few weeks earlier and had picked up the CX-630 preamp, MX-630 power amp, TX-350 tuner and CDC-665 changer for $125 for the whole set. $175 for one item didn't seem like such a bargain at the time. Rookie mistake!
 
I have bought, used and sold most of Yamaha's (now vintage) preamps (except the C-1!), but by far the best for sound and quality of components pre-1985 is the C-2x--very simple preamp, but one of the best. Also, the preamp sections of the CA-810, 1010 and 2010 (with MC preamp built-in) are quite nice. The C-65 and C-85 are great too and the C-4 is good too.

What I have left after I have bought and sold...is my original CA-810 integrated amp and the C-2x, and they will stay here.

The C-2 or C-2a is a viable option, but the back panel RCA connectors chronically have broken connections at the main circuit board. These connections, however, can be checked and resoldered as needed.
 
Last edited:
Steel:
You are in a position I have been in too many times, and I ask the same questions. I think in general, there will always be something "better", more expensive, cooler, etc. than what we may buy, but which do we buy??? My take on it is that the CX-1000U, CX-2000, and CX-1 units were the last of their kind/era, dipping into the audiophile world (by Yamaha) before taking a little vacation from stereophiles. The CX-800, CX-830, and CX-2 units were the next step from those, but with presumably some compromises to hit a price point. These next level choices are all fine units, with some good design behind them that you can see right away when you look at the back and see all those cool gold plated input terminals, and look critically at the specs.

There are so many things to consider. For example, the CX-2000 and CX-10000 are really special units by Yamaha, with the brushed aluminum structure and the polished wood sides. These units are made to be displayed, not buried in a stack (plus they don't fit to well in more narrow racks due to their width). These are the highest aspiration units for many of us, but many of us end up quite happily with the next levels units.

In my opinion, it is difficult to say which would be best for you (your system, your situation) as there are so many factors that may influence the difference between the units, including your budget, needs assessment, amp, speakers, source(s), music selection, room acoustics, etc. In my opinion, the PreAmp can be judged by its transparency, switching operations, feature set, quality, reliability, and how it integrates with your other components. Some may not actually hear a difference between all of these, so then the decision becomes based on other factors. I wish I could tell you I did an A/B comparison, but I never have. Based on what I have read, some can hear a difference in their situations, but it is difficult to place a monetary cost on "best" or "better" because everyone has a different "step-up" threshold.

In my case, the best sound (music) I ever heard in my system was when I went to all digital swtiching (i.e., using the DAC in the CX-1000), and adding an MX-1 amp to my system. How much was due to the amp versus the PRE I never looked into. And, if you never go digital (i.e., use the DAC in the CX-1000 versus the separates), then a valid comparison would only be in the analog realm.

I am Yamahalic (a Yamahalic), so my bias is obvious. It certainly would be great if you could try these out on your system. Interestingly, I just looked at the lastest PREs in Audio Advisor, and not one of them has better THD rating than the older Yamaha PREs in mentioned in this post.
 
Hey steel, you kind of round it up yourself. You want a CX-1000 but don't want to spend the money they normal go fore, this leaves you with 2 options; wait for a beat-up unit that will go for a low price or go as far down the ranking as you're wallet demands.

The ranking of the Yamaha pre's is quite easy, just look at the org. price tag and you will have a good idea of the ranking. Now transferring this into used prices takes a bit more footwork, but look at e-pay for month and the picture starts clearing up. Then you can start to mach you're wallet to the group of pre's and find what you think is the best mach to you're situation.

To help you out a bit I can give you a few pointers;
Given the features you are demanding forget about the 70's, the features you are asking for did not show until the C-4.
Sleepers are the C-65/60, a thing to notice here is the phono stage witch was new designed for the C-60 and used in later models.

In the higher ranking I did a shootout between the C-2x, C-85 and CX-1000 (the amp used was the M-85), the result was quite clear with the C-2x as the winner and the CX-1000 on the 2. spot. But the difference was not as clear between the C-2x and the CX-1000 as it was with the C-85 and the CX-1000.

A last thing; the pre you are going to buy is properly not going to be the last, so don't worry to much about not getting the perfect one, a good thing about vintage gear is that it don't drop to much in price when you sell it again (sometime it might gain in price, but don't count on it). So just jump in and while swimming keep looking for the dream pre at the right price, that is what the rest of us do.
 
the-real-mandak said:
I did a shootout between the C-2x, C-85 and CX-1000 (the amp used was the M-85)...
Click to expand...

TRM, does the C-2x or C-85 have digital inputs? By any chance, were you able to compare both the analog and digital inputs on the CX-1000 to compare the quality of your source DAC vs the CX-1000 DAC? I am guessing that the CX-1000 DAC is a wild card for many in that it is a very good one to be sure, but is it better than someone's particular source DAC? I have read articles on the merits of a high-end dedicated component DAC, but the CX-1000 is the closest I ever came to one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom