Eywadude
Lunatic Member
So in my last shootout here...
http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/yamaha-rx-v2092-vs-rx-v757-yammy-vs-yammy.691251/
...I did a shootout between my Yamaha RX-V757 and the RX-V2092, and the RX-V757 came out on top. This time I did another shootout between the RX-V757 and a recently acquired and (again) more expensive RX-V2300. This time however, the performance was closer between both units. This is mostly due to the fact that this time, both receivers being reviewed are of the same era and are more similar in design theorem than the RX-V2092 was, so there are more similarities than dissimilarities. Anyway, on with the review:
Both the RX-V2300 and the RX-V757 were made within a couple years of each other. The RX-V2300 in 2003, and the RX-V757 in 2005. Here are some very basic specs:
RX-V2300
110 WPC
THD: 0.04%
S/N ratio: 100 db
Damping factor: 80> or more
450 watts of power consumption
33.0 pounds
RX-V757
100 WPC
THD: 0.06%
S/N ratio: 100> db or more
Damping factor: 120> or more
400 watts of power consumption
27.6 pounds
Overall, despite the fact that the RX-V2300 is rated with 10 WPC more power than the RX-V757, I found that it seemed to have substantially more than that. Whereas the RX-V757 has always had plenty of power (I have never been wanting for power with it), the RX-V2300 has LOTS of power. It is worth noting though that if need be, both can be run to deafening volume levels without a hint of distortion, clipping, or compression. This seems to be a common trait of a lot of the newer Yamaha gear I have auditioned.
As always, I started by idling both receivers for several hours beforehand to get the caps in each receiver similarly charged and up to temperature, etc. But more crucially, I also ran both receivers with all the processing turned off, as well as in Direct mode with all the tone controls bypassed. This ensured a cleaner signal with no electronic trickery to fool around with the sound.
Through my listening tests, both units had a very similar tonal quality and overall sound signature, and mostly it came down to the finer details and micro dynamics between the two.
While listening to the RX-V2300 I found that it had excellent soundstaging and imaging. Its soundstage was ever so slightly wider than the RX-V757, which was a bit surprising because the RX-V757 already has superb soundstaging. The RX-V2300 sounded very well fleshed out in its sense of "air", space and volume, and just like the RX-V757 it had excellent reproduction of reverb that brought a sense of lush realism to certain performances recorded with that effect. The RX-V2300 was quite holographic in that respect and certain aspects of it were quite beguiling. In that realm it did everything the RX-V757 does, but had that extra 10% more. The RX-V757 had more sounstage height however, which also adds to the overall volume of the soundstage, and helps to add a sense of realism as well.
Imaging of the RX-V2300 was very good as well. Just like the RX-V757, instruments are spread out over a wide soundstage and are not homogenized or overlapped with each other. Instruments come from distinct places and have their own sense of space within the soundstage. However, I found that the RX-V2300 had ever so slightly more "air" and space around each instrument. Not by much, but it was noticeable. However, the above are the only aspects where the RX-V2300 bettered the RX-V757. Again, not by very much, but these differences were noticeable.
On the flip side, while the overall tonalities of both receivers were very similar, I detected a slight hitch in the RX-V2300's presentation of certain instruments that was not as good as the RX-V757. What I found was while the RX-V2300 seemed to have slightly more "air" and soundstage in its presentation, the leading edge of instruments like guitars, piano, violin, and some percussion intruments were slightly soft and truncated. This led to a slightly softer sound with less detail and texture retrieval than the RX-V757. Things like the pick hitting the strings of a guitar and how a guitar player's pick attack forms the sound of the leading edge of the notes being played just wasn't as well defined as with the RX-V757. These are textural details that lead to a certain level of realism to the performance. I have played guitar for over 20 years, so I intimately know what this sounds like and it is something I look for in many recordings, but it just wasn't as well presented in the RX-V2300 as it is in the RX-V757.
Beyond that, with the RX-V2300 I also heard slightly less harmonic complexity with electric guitar and piano as well. It captured all the body and much of the tonality of them, but just wasn't quite as harmonically complex or complete with overtones as I heard through the RX-V757. With violin I noticed a bit less of the textural "rosin-on-bow" sound with the RX-V2300, and slightly less woody resonance as well. And with percussion instruments, the leading edge of snare drum hits were not quite as crisp and immediate as with the RX-V757, and some of the textural detail was not as noticeable though the RX-V2300. With the RX-V757 I got a slightly better sense of the texture and tonality of the drum skins, as well as where they were being hit. Overall the RX-V757 gave me more of a sense of tonal and textural realism of the instruments being played. This is not only a good thing in regards to detail retrieval, but also in the ability to more clearly hear these things also helps to bring you closer to the core of the music and the emotional meaning and intent behind the musicians playing their instruments.
I also found that overall the RX-V2300 was ever so slightly more pushed back sounding in it's soundstage presentation than the RX-V757. Again, this was barely noticeable, but it was there. I generally preferred the more upfront presentation of the RX-V757 because it seemed a little more intimate with the performance as a whole. It brought the performance to me instead of me having to listen for it, and did so in a way that was non-fatiguing.
Overall, I'd describe the RX-V2300's presentation of instruments as being in a very large and holographic soundstage with great air around each instrument, but each instrument was overall slightly softer and more two dimensional in its sound reproduction. To put it in oversimplified terms: it was as if they were swimming in a gorgeous sea of soundstage and imaging, but were slightly more like two dimensional cutouts of the instruments being played instead of having more depth, texture, and complexity of the RX-V757. In truth, that might be a bit of an overly-harsh statement, but for a lack of better words that is the closest analogy of what I was hearing. Again, these differences were not as black and white as it may seem reading about it here in text, but the differences were there and were audible to the trained ear (given the familiar music I listened to and my experience with the RX-V757).
In the end, the RX-V757 won and the RX-V2300 was sold. While the RX-V2300 may have been slightly more beguiling in its sense of space (again, it was still close, but noticeable), overall my decision was based on the fact that the RX-V757 just seemed to have better reproduction of the instruments themselves. As much as I love soundstage and imaging (I really do), it is the instruments and musician's performances with those instruments that are at the heart of the music we listen to. Again, as many things as I mentioned about instrumental texture, nuance, complexity and tonality, both receivers were still relatively close. But overall I felt the RX-V757 was better at instrumental reproduction, and for me, that's why it won.
http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/yamaha-rx-v2092-vs-rx-v757-yammy-vs-yammy.691251/
...I did a shootout between my Yamaha RX-V757 and the RX-V2092, and the RX-V757 came out on top. This time I did another shootout between the RX-V757 and a recently acquired and (again) more expensive RX-V2300. This time however, the performance was closer between both units. This is mostly due to the fact that this time, both receivers being reviewed are of the same era and are more similar in design theorem than the RX-V2092 was, so there are more similarities than dissimilarities. Anyway, on with the review:
Both the RX-V2300 and the RX-V757 were made within a couple years of each other. The RX-V2300 in 2003, and the RX-V757 in 2005. Here are some very basic specs:
RX-V2300
110 WPC
THD: 0.04%
S/N ratio: 100 db
Damping factor: 80> or more
450 watts of power consumption
33.0 pounds
RX-V757
100 WPC
THD: 0.06%
S/N ratio: 100> db or more
Damping factor: 120> or more
400 watts of power consumption
27.6 pounds
Overall, despite the fact that the RX-V2300 is rated with 10 WPC more power than the RX-V757, I found that it seemed to have substantially more than that. Whereas the RX-V757 has always had plenty of power (I have never been wanting for power with it), the RX-V2300 has LOTS of power. It is worth noting though that if need be, both can be run to deafening volume levels without a hint of distortion, clipping, or compression. This seems to be a common trait of a lot of the newer Yamaha gear I have auditioned.
As always, I started by idling both receivers for several hours beforehand to get the caps in each receiver similarly charged and up to temperature, etc. But more crucially, I also ran both receivers with all the processing turned off, as well as in Direct mode with all the tone controls bypassed. This ensured a cleaner signal with no electronic trickery to fool around with the sound.
Through my listening tests, both units had a very similar tonal quality and overall sound signature, and mostly it came down to the finer details and micro dynamics between the two.
While listening to the RX-V2300 I found that it had excellent soundstaging and imaging. Its soundstage was ever so slightly wider than the RX-V757, which was a bit surprising because the RX-V757 already has superb soundstaging. The RX-V2300 sounded very well fleshed out in its sense of "air", space and volume, and just like the RX-V757 it had excellent reproduction of reverb that brought a sense of lush realism to certain performances recorded with that effect. The RX-V2300 was quite holographic in that respect and certain aspects of it were quite beguiling. In that realm it did everything the RX-V757 does, but had that extra 10% more. The RX-V757 had more sounstage height however, which also adds to the overall volume of the soundstage, and helps to add a sense of realism as well.
Imaging of the RX-V2300 was very good as well. Just like the RX-V757, instruments are spread out over a wide soundstage and are not homogenized or overlapped with each other. Instruments come from distinct places and have their own sense of space within the soundstage. However, I found that the RX-V2300 had ever so slightly more "air" and space around each instrument. Not by much, but it was noticeable. However, the above are the only aspects where the RX-V2300 bettered the RX-V757. Again, not by very much, but these differences were noticeable.
On the flip side, while the overall tonalities of both receivers were very similar, I detected a slight hitch in the RX-V2300's presentation of certain instruments that was not as good as the RX-V757. What I found was while the RX-V2300 seemed to have slightly more "air" and soundstage in its presentation, the leading edge of instruments like guitars, piano, violin, and some percussion intruments were slightly soft and truncated. This led to a slightly softer sound with less detail and texture retrieval than the RX-V757. Things like the pick hitting the strings of a guitar and how a guitar player's pick attack forms the sound of the leading edge of the notes being played just wasn't as well defined as with the RX-V757. These are textural details that lead to a certain level of realism to the performance. I have played guitar for over 20 years, so I intimately know what this sounds like and it is something I look for in many recordings, but it just wasn't as well presented in the RX-V2300 as it is in the RX-V757.
Beyond that, with the RX-V2300 I also heard slightly less harmonic complexity with electric guitar and piano as well. It captured all the body and much of the tonality of them, but just wasn't quite as harmonically complex or complete with overtones as I heard through the RX-V757. With violin I noticed a bit less of the textural "rosin-on-bow" sound with the RX-V2300, and slightly less woody resonance as well. And with percussion instruments, the leading edge of snare drum hits were not quite as crisp and immediate as with the RX-V757, and some of the textural detail was not as noticeable though the RX-V2300. With the RX-V757 I got a slightly better sense of the texture and tonality of the drum skins, as well as where they were being hit. Overall the RX-V757 gave me more of a sense of tonal and textural realism of the instruments being played. This is not only a good thing in regards to detail retrieval, but also in the ability to more clearly hear these things also helps to bring you closer to the core of the music and the emotional meaning and intent behind the musicians playing their instruments.
I also found that overall the RX-V2300 was ever so slightly more pushed back sounding in it's soundstage presentation than the RX-V757. Again, this was barely noticeable, but it was there. I generally preferred the more upfront presentation of the RX-V757 because it seemed a little more intimate with the performance as a whole. It brought the performance to me instead of me having to listen for it, and did so in a way that was non-fatiguing.
Overall, I'd describe the RX-V2300's presentation of instruments as being in a very large and holographic soundstage with great air around each instrument, but each instrument was overall slightly softer and more two dimensional in its sound reproduction. To put it in oversimplified terms: it was as if they were swimming in a gorgeous sea of soundstage and imaging, but were slightly more like two dimensional cutouts of the instruments being played instead of having more depth, texture, and complexity of the RX-V757. In truth, that might be a bit of an overly-harsh statement, but for a lack of better words that is the closest analogy of what I was hearing. Again, these differences were not as black and white as it may seem reading about it here in text, but the differences were there and were audible to the trained ear (given the familiar music I listened to and my experience with the RX-V757).
In the end, the RX-V757 won and the RX-V2300 was sold. While the RX-V2300 may have been slightly more beguiling in its sense of space (again, it was still close, but noticeable), overall my decision was based on the fact that the RX-V757 just seemed to have better reproduction of the instruments themselves. As much as I love soundstage and imaging (I really do), it is the instruments and musician's performances with those instruments that are at the heart of the music we listen to. Again, as many things as I mentioned about instrumental texture, nuance, complexity and tonality, both receivers were still relatively close. But overall I felt the RX-V757 was better at instrumental reproduction, and for me, that's why it won.
Last edited:
Stay tuned.....
I call a score on that one! 
BTW, here's the two remotes:
