Adcom 545ii VS. Yamaha MX-2 amps

kidglove13 · October 2012

I have the Adcom 545ii and it is in need of repair even though I had it recapped:frown:

My amp guy is going to go through the Adcom on Monday.

There is a Yamaha MX-2 amp for sale local to me.

How does the Yamaha compare to the Adcom?

Thanks

Syndil · October 2012

I've not directly compared the two, but the MX-2 (and MX-1) is a superb amp. Yamaha really pulled out all the stops with that series. I'd jump on it if it's in good shape and the price is right, then audition the two and pick a winner. Would love to do that comparison myself (I have a GFA-545ii).

heiney9 · October 2012

I'd take the Adcom any day over the Yammy. Never cared for the sterile sound of Yammy amps.

H9

20hz · October 2012

I had a adcom 5300 it was the smoothest amp I ever heard !
I may get a 535 I just HOPE it sounds as nice !
I wouldnt think the mx2 sounds as warm if it did I would hear more great reviews about

Devlon · October 2012

I know that with my Polk Lsi's my Adcom GFA-7500 is pretty dang awesome! I think I would stay Adcom. Just look for a used one. Easy to re-sell.

polkrt3000p · October 2012

Coming from an Adcom fan, love them all. I have replaced a few caps on mine, but well worth it. I cant say if if the Adcom is better then the Yamaha, since I have not heard. But I just go with the piece of mind of the Adcom, it always sounds good to me, I have not seen an decline in sound for 15 plus years and where can you get that quality these days. It sounds as good as the day I first owned it. I did take a chance and purchased a Pioneer M-90 reference amp and found it sounds as good as the Adcom. It actually is very impressive for Pioneer, I think it maybe one of the best they ever made. I have been very pleased with it. I sold by Adcom 545 and picked the Pioneer up. The Pioneer has 200watt/ch and the 545 had 100watt so I felt it would be worth it and I can honestly say I have been very happy with it. Even thought the 545 sounded great, I just wanted more power.

Toobz · December 2012

Normally I would agree, Adcom over Yamaha for power, BUT !!! I have to disagree 100% with the Adcom 545II over the Yamaha MX-2. In the past, I managed a Hi-Fi store in SoCal. We carried Polk, B&W, Definitve Technology, Klipsch, PSB, Magnat, Phase Technology, and Canton speaker lines. In electronics, we carried Adcom, NAD, McIntosh, Yamaha, Marantz, Bang & Olufsen, Luxman, and others . So my experience is first hand with these brands, often on the same speakers, with the same cabling . Normally, I would agree with Adcom over Yamaha when it comes to power amps. BUT, the Yamaha MX1 and MX2 amps were a real step up from previous Yamaha's sonically. While they didn't have the nice flashy big meters like their earlier models did, these amps were truly better sounding amps then any of the previous Yamaha's. The Adcom GFA545II IS a nice sounding amp, but the MX-2 has better sonics across the range. Previous Yamaha's were known for a thin bottom end, and harsh highs with a tinny veil to them . However, with the MX-2 the highs are clean and open, without any of the harshness and veiling up top, while Bass is tight and quick with solid slam. In comparison, the Adcom sounded slightly soft in the highs, and a little veiled. It also lacked some of the quickness the Yamaha has. While some people find the softer highs appealing on brighter speakers, on more neutral speakers like the upper end B&W's, the Adcom really shows it's shortcomings when compared to the MX-2. To be fair to the Adcom GFA545II, the MX-2 is 50% larger (150wpc vs 100wpc) but the added power is not what made the Yamaha a better sounding amp. It just has a cleaner, more open sound to it then the Adcom had. Choose any earlier Yamaha amplifier like the M-85 (which people still overpay for on Ebay). THEN would I say that the Adcom is the better sounding amp, but not over the MX-1/MX-2 amps. I also believe the GFA545 (series 1 ) is better than the earlier Yamaha's, and the series II Adcom's, are even better still. MOST people have not heard the MX-1 and MX-2. Yamaha is an amazing company with vast resources. When they put forth a solid effort, they are not to be overlooked. However, they did bring a lot of this disrespect onto themselves. By simply cranking out the same dated designs, year after year, Yamaha became noted for some lackluster amps. But when they flex their design muscles, it can be quite impressive. The MX-1 and MX-2 are good examples of Yamaha's capabilities when they get it right. Now does this mean that I prefer the MX-1/2 over the rest of the Adcom lineup from that time period ? No ! The top Adcoms from that time, like the GFA-565's, and the GFA5802 were IMO, better still. Especially the GFA565 mono blocks. But, the
GFA545II , is not in the same league with the GFA565's. But, neither are the Yamaha's . So, to wind up this long winded reply, give a listen to the MX-1/2 before you lump them into Yamaha's past efforts. They are truly fine sounding amps, and well built as well.

Syndil · December 2012

Great first post. Welcome to the forums!

cnh · December 2012

Welcome to Club Polk!

Interesting post! However I've "never" heard anyone describe an "original" GFA-545 as veiled. Far from it. I can't vouch for the II, but I own an original, and if anything it's too detailed up high. And as to B&Ws, well perhaps the highest models, because their mid-level stuff just sounds like finger nails on a chalkboard to me. But that's why we all have different opinions.

But I do agree that the original 545 is the best of the lot. And that not all Yamaha gear is second rate. There were some interesting early pieces.

cnh

Toobz · December 2012

Don't get me wrong, the Adcom's are open, just a slight smearing or veiling as compared to the MX-2. The GFA545II's were noticeably smoother than the first gen 545's, but still not up to the newer Yamaha's in overall sonics. I'd have to say that the Adcom's were a little smoother than the Yamaha's, but at the cost of a little detailing in the upper mid's and high's.

As for the B&W's, I'm talking about (At that time) the matrix line. Matrix 801,802,803,804,805. My favorite (For the $'s) was the Matrix 804. A lot of bang for the buck. The top models, the 801, and 802 were a little more demanding of power amps, and as a result, budget gear like the Yamaha and entry level Adcoms weren't the best choices. However, the GFA555II and The MX-1 did a surprisingly good job of handling those 2 demanding speakers. The 804 was fairly easy to drive, and wasn't nearly as amplifier dependent as it's bigger siblings.

Now before everyone gets the wrong idea, let me state this simple fact. I sold FAR more Adcom amps then I did Yamaha's. For one thing, the GFA545II was much lower in price ($499.00) as compared to either $799 or $899 for the MX-2 (I don't recall exactly). The Adcom GFA545II was easily one of the best values in amplifiers at that time in the entire marketplace. We were also a NAD dealer, and the NAD 2400 was IIRC, $599. And regardless of price between the NAD and Adcom, I liked the GFA545II better. My co-worker preferred the NAD, we both agreed that the Yamaha was the better amp of the 3, but a little overpriced when directly compared. What I want most people to take away from this comparison, is that not all Yamaha's are ear shattering when it comes to making music. While they don't have the cache name like NAD or Adcom, they were very good amps in their day, and are often overlooked today on the used market. And NO, I don't have a trailer full of MX-2's waiting to be sold on the open market either.

You are right, early on Yamaha had some well made pieces, especially the V-Fet stuff. But the MX-1 and MX-2 are no slouches either. The one reason they didn't grab a lot of attention back then was due to their pricing. $1500 for the MX-1, and IIRC $899 for the MX-2. Better amps were available at those price points from other competitors, such as the ADCOM GFA565's ($1700.00). But when compared today on the used market, you can get a Yamaha MX-2 for about the same price as a GFA545II, and Both will be excellent values.

One other point. Of the 3 companies, we serviced far more Adcom amps than both NAD and Yamaha combined. I'm not saying that Adcom's are poorly built, because they are most certainly not, but they just don't seem to handle abuse as readily as the NAD and Yamaha's did. Again, to be fair to Adcom, we sold more Adcom's than NAD and Yamaha combined as well. But there was some quality issues that NAD and Yamaha didn't suffer from . I used to keep a stash of power switches and fuses for all of the Adcom amps on hand. I became quite adept at swappimg fuses and switches. But regardless of some poor parts choices, to keep costs down, the entire Adcom line was a huge success, and rightly so. Great sound and value, that was unmatched at that time .

Best regards, Stephen

iguaquerer · August 2017

Stephen, so, which one could be the best preamplifier for Yamaha Mx1/2? Do you recomend cx-1000, cx-1 or any from another brand? I have tried cx-830 from Yamaha, but seems dead sonically.

motorhead43026 · August 2017

I think the hogs ate Stephen shortly after that post.

Adcom 545ii VS. Yamaha MX-2 amps

Comments