BS Button Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Somebody out there give me some information. What can I expect from this equipment? Yamaha MX 1 amplifier @ 53 lbs, 200 watts 8 ohms full class A, holds it's own with Krell? Yamaha CX1 pre? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCturboT Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 BS Button, I have tried several SS amps as well as Tube amps and in my opinion Yamaha separates sounds very good with Klipsch speakers. As you can see by my posts I run a Yamaha MX-2000 amplifier as well as the complete 2000 series with my Klipschorns and it is very warm with great bass control.The MX1/CX1 were Yamaha last great attempt in the two channel arena before they gave up and went to the Home Theater market full force.The pair was the TOTL in Yamaha's lineup in the late 90s and are still highly coveted and still fetching a premium when they are available.If you do pick them up I would like to hear how the compare to your B&K which I hear is also a great SS combo to mate with Klipsch.Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ki Choi Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 MX-1 is a gem in my opinion. However, what I had experienced with highly sensitive Klipschorns, it's not as good match as other smaller tube amps with - that tube magic - to my ears. In comparison to Krell amp driving more demanding and modern speakers such as B&W Nautilus 800s, it's quite impressive. MX-1 has the similar clarity, definition, and dynamics in reasonble volume level as the Krell FPB700Cx. The Krell has more air on top and more body in bass but sometimes I prefer MX-1 especially in the summer time... It's a keeper. Ki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS Button Posted January 3, 2006 Author Share Posted January 3, 2006 I think they've re-entered the two channel arena with a digital amp and pre. Last night, another MX-1 fetched about $850 on ebay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ki Choi Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 As I recall the new MX-1 was about $1200 and CX-1 was close to it. It seems people are voting for MX-1 with their wallet. BTW, the CX-1 is a good functional preamp but nothing to write home about in comparison to other highend SS preamps. But considering their cost, it's relatively good. It lacks a bit of transparency sonically and a second set of outputs would have been nice but the remote is nice to have. I am not sure what you can buy one these days but if you are seeking performance, go with the Peach tube preamp. Peach and MX-1 is also a nice set up for modern full range speakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS Button Posted January 3, 2006 Author Share Posted January 3, 2006 As I recall the new MX-1 was about $1200 and CX-1 was close to it. It seems people are voting for MX-1 with their wallet. BTW, the CX-1 is a good functional preamp but nothing to write home about in comparison to other highend SS preamps. But considering their cost, it's relatively good. It lacks a bit of transparency sonically and a second set of outputs would have been nice but the remote is nice to have. I am not sure what you can buy one these days but if you are seeking performance, go with the Peach tube preamp. Peach and MX-1 is also a nice set up for modern full range speakers. That may happen at some point, but tube pre's with no loudness/contour or tone controls concerns me with the La Scala's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ki Choi Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 My CX-1 does not have loudness control as found on CX-2 as I remember. The CX-1 has only Bass and Treble - I guess more for the relatively purists... The CX-2 has more I/Os including variable loudness control and video switching which I didn't need at the time. In addition, I don't think you were aware but the MX-1 is not a "full" or conventional Class A amp like older Krells with full current available and drawn all the time including when idling - thus it doubles as room heater for wet Seattle winter. The MX-1 uses Yamaha's own Hyperbolic Conversion Amplification method that runs cool and supposed to be "better" according to Yamaha... what more can a man ask for?.... I don't have LS' but do have Belle Klipsches. I will try BKs with the CX-1/MX-1 combo when I am back home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCturboT Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 So ,after living with the Yamaha MX/CX for some time....how does it match up against the B&K? Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS Button Posted January 9, 2006 Author Share Posted January 9, 2006 You might want to ask "Woodog" as he's already given it the "official" Woodog listening test. Woodog, are you around? Give it to 'em, straight up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike stehr Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 I had a MX-1 power amp and CX-1 pre-amp. I picked up a pair of Chorus II's at a AFB thrift store, and then picked up the Yamaha amp and pre-amp a couple weeks later. The amp and pre-amp was 130 bucks. They were in great shape and worked fine. They had gobs of power with the Chorus II's, the amp and pre-amp would make them literally scream. The amp had plenty of detail and imaged well. But overall, the Yamaha gear had a cold and hard sound with the Chorus II's. Even after upgrading the Chorus II crossovers, the MX-1 and CX-1 still put off a cold hard tone. It wasn't as bad at lower levels, but after awhile it just kinda got boring, lifeless I suppose. IMO. I ended up getting rid of the amp and pre-amp with the Chorus II's. I don't miss the Chorus II's that much, but I'm still kickin' myself in the *** for ditching the Yamaha gear. The MX-1 and CX-1 could just have boogied fine on different speakers, or made a rather good subwoofer amp. Shoulda kept them...... They were rather mundane black black boxes. But built like tanks. The parts quality used inside the units was quite awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS Button Posted January 9, 2006 Author Share Posted January 9, 2006 They had gobs of power with the Chorus II's, the amp and pre-amp would make them literally scream. The amp had plenty of detail and imaged well. But overall, the Yamaha gear had a cold and hard sound with the Chorus II's. Even after upgrading the Chorus II crossovers, the MX-1 and CX-1 still put off a cold hard tone. Well, ya know, that's the way that "Ozzy" sounds on most all equipment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike stehr Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 They had gobs of power with the Chorus II's, the amp and pre-amp would make them literally scream. The amp had plenty of detail and imaged well. But overall, the Yamaha gear had a cold and hard sound with the Chorus II's. Even after upgrading the Chorus II crossovers, the MX-1 and CX-1 still put off a cold hard tone. Well, ya know, that's the way that "Ozzy" sounds on most all equipment. It didn't matter what type of music you played through the Yamaha amps with the Chorus II's, it all came out kinda cold and hard. The MX-1 and CX-1 didn't have much in the way of warmth, JMHO, YMMV....... The amp and pre-amp are fine pieces nonetheless, they just didn't seem to match up with the Chorus II's to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodog Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 You might want to ask "Woodog" as he's already given it the "official" Woodog listening test. Woodog, are you around? Give it to 'em, straight up. Hey! Sorry to chime in late on this, but I enjoyed your setup. Visually and aurally you have put together a sound system that can do justice to anything you want to throw at it. OTOH, I'm a tube junkie, and specifically, I enjoy the warm, golden/brown sound of the vintage Scotts. Some say it's distorted and inaccurate, but it's a distortion and inaccuracy that I have come to love. The hyper-detailed nature of solid state doesn't appeal to me for long. I'm happy with my 355/208, 130/208, or 299B driving the big 'ole horns. When I have more play money I'll get another kind of tube amp, not because I'm dissatisfied with what I have or what someone else thinks is better, but because it's, well, FUN. (a hobby, if you will). Also, I like lovin' up on old stuff and bringing it back to life. I'm not into 'new' (except for bicycles, and even there I have a weakness for vintage machines). A couple of things I noticed immediately about your system... a much wider sweet spot and a soundstage that was very fine. Muscular bass. Lot's of headroom, the crisp low mids that come with a high damping factor. Bottom line, if YOU like it, it doesn't matter if anyone else does or not. Knowing you, I doubt that you are at the end of your search even though you have put together a sound system better than 99% of what's out there. It's the nature of this sickness... uh, hobby. If you wind up with a vintage integrated that costs ~$500 and has a few dings on it I'm gonna have to laugh. [] woo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS Button Posted January 11, 2006 Author Share Posted January 11, 2006 Well put Woo, and the usual "artfully spoken" comments prevail. You've got me thinking about a tube pre-amp, again. Drats! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCturboT Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Well put Woo, and the usual "artfully spoken" comments prevail. You've got me thinking about a tube pre-amp, again. Drats! But....how did it compare with the B&K? Was it as warm? Edgy? How did the bass compare? Inquiring minds want to know Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodog Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Well put Woo, and the usual "artfully spoken" comments prevail. You've got me thinking about a tube pre-amp, again. Drats! But....how did it compare with the B&K? Was it as warm? Edgy? How did the bass compare? Inquiring minds want to know Jeff I liked the B&K better, but then again, sometimes I feel that talking about sound is like fishing about architecture. Woo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS Button Posted January 13, 2006 Author Share Posted January 13, 2006 Well put Woo, and the usual "artfully spoken" comments prevail. You've got me thinking about a tube pre-amp, again. Drats! But....how did it compare with the B&K? Was it as warm? Edgy? How did the bass compare? Inquiring minds want to know Jeff I liked the B&K better, but then again, sometimes I feel that talking about sound is like fishing about architecture. Woo I too, like the B&K amp (the amp) better. Guess it's those mosfets working to warm things up. The CX1 pre is a better pc of gear than the B&K PT-5 though. I wished that I would've hooked up this combo when Woo was here as I've been listening to (CX1 with B&K) for the last couple of nights. The PT-5 B&K noise floor was astonishingly high on the La Scala's, likely due to the efficiency. The search continues....dag gon tubes! Geez, I'm pissed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.