I would agree that Yamaha should have called it an "anti-loudness" control. But if you read any Yamaha owner's manual, they explain how it works and how you are supposed to use it pretty clearly. This is the gist of it: First, you set the loudness knob to Flat, then you turn up the Volume to the highest setting that you would normally listen at. Then, if you want a lower sound level (late at night, for example), you adjust the Loudness knob away from Flat, which mainly reduces the mid-range frequencies to lower the overall sound level to what you need while still sounding natural or "good" at that lower sound level. You leave the Volume knob alone when you do this. The intent was to follow the Fletcher-Munson sound curve. Unfortunately, most people have never read the owner's manual, so they don't know how it is supposed to work. The CR-1020 was closer to the top of the 1977 Yamaha receiver line. These were the 1977 models: CR-2020 CR-1020 CR-820 CR-620 CR-420 In 1978, Yamaha added the CR-3020 at the top and the CR-220 at the bottom.
Thanks much for the clarification of the "loudness control" and the model numbers. I did look at the manual, but from my point of view after being an audio hobbiest, since the late 70's, I just what a push button loudness control that boosts the high and lows at lower volume levels. As I pointed out by another commenter who read the manual and sets the volume to the max they listen to and then adjusts the "loudness level" down to the listening level they like, is not how I want to do things. But I do appreciate the explanations!!
I owned the CR 2020. The FM tuner had the best sound quality I ever listened to from any brand. The design features of the late 70's are still mostly unaltered in todays Yamaha HiFi equipment.
Thanks for taking some time to share your thoughts. I am still a little sad I sold the one that was given to me- they do sound and work good, and the looks are certainly very good!
Thanks for this enjoyable review! I used to see advertisements for these back in the day. I later owned a 1985 1020A model with the Auto Class A feature that I rarely used. I didn't use or like the variable loudness feature either. But I did like the sound of that Yamaha integrated amplifier. I ended up selling that amp a while back and getting a Parasound amplifier, which I like a lot. Thanks again.
Thanks for taking the time to share your experiences, Scott! Just forget about the "loudness feature" and enjoy the sound and look of this amp, or many in that line including the 1020A...
Somewhere back in time a small group huddled around a desk in Yamaha's back office and cooked up a devious plan for the loundess control. _"Oh man, this is really going to mess with Scott when he finally reviews it"_ 🤨
Had one for a while. Nice performer, but spent too much time on the weak point... the input selector! Instead of a round wafer with contacts, they had a long shaft drive a cam that drove a linear slide switch! Very difficult to clean, compared to a round wafer. Kept failing.
Nice job and a very nice looking receiver (and nice looking Vette, I assume that's a good sign for the receiver). My AR SP-3 pre-amp has a similar "loudness" control. I actually really like it. I first turn the pre-amp on with the volume control about as high as I would ever want it. Then use what AR calls the "Contour" control as the volume control. I'm assuming the lower volume I go with it the higher the bass and treble bumps are. So why the volume goes down as I turn it clockwise. Not sure, but I'm guessing the Fletcher-Munson curves show more boost is needed at lower volume levels?
Appreciate your taking the time to comment, as always, Chris. I think the Fletcher Munson curves are more related to the average frequency response of our ears, but have not researched it- probably will later today... I almost always start with my volume control low and raise it accordingly, and 90% of the loudness controls boost the bass and treble, which is nice at lower listening levels. I never would have considered doing things the way you do, but you are still attenuating the signal that way, just the relative frequencies not as much as others. The highest "rating" I give is two Corvettes and it goes down from there. Not many have gotten two.
@@vintageaudioreview My McIntosh C26 has I think basically the same feature. Roger Russell, the designer of the C26, explained it like this on his web page (you find by googling "roger russell c26". The C26, however, only boosted the bass. When the "loudness" control was all the way counterclockwise, no bass boost and no attenuation. At 1/2 rotation, about 6db of bass boost at 20 Hertz and -10db attenuation at 1K Hertz. At Max rotation, about 15db of bass boost at 20 Hertz and -20db attenuation at 1K Hertz. This is from the C26 graphs in the Owner's Manual. Continuously Variable Loudness Control The loudness control supplied low frequency boost to compensate for the behavior of the human ear at low listening levels. Most loudness contours were switched in with a fixed amount of contour using a tap on the volume control. The user had no control of the contour for any particular volume control setting. The C 26 had much better compensation. It provided a continuously variable contour. First, the volume was set at the highest desired listening level. Then, when the loudness control was rotated clockwise from the flat position, the volume decreased and the contour automatically increased the required amount of bass amplitude and bandwidth for the new listening level. This action provided full frequency range listening at even the lowest listening levels.
I don't know where your math comes from as far as inflation figures go, but if that receiver was new today, it would go for at least $6,500...if not $8,000.
Thanks for the comment. I use the inflation calculator (www.usinflationcalculator.com) and the listed retail price for the item I find in old trade publications. Sometimes it makes me scratch my head, but for me, I do find it interesting from a relative point of view.
I would agree that Yamaha should have called it an "anti-loudness" control. But if you read any Yamaha owner's manual, they explain how it works and how you are supposed to use it pretty clearly.
This is the gist of it:
First, you set the loudness knob to Flat, then you turn up the Volume to the highest setting that you would normally listen at. Then, if you want a lower sound level (late at night, for example), you adjust the Loudness knob away from Flat, which mainly reduces the mid-range frequencies to lower the overall sound level to what you need while still sounding natural or "good" at that lower sound level. You leave the Volume knob alone when you do this. The intent was to follow the Fletcher-Munson sound curve.
Unfortunately, most people have never read the owner's manual, so they don't know how it is supposed to work.
The CR-1020 was closer to the top of the 1977 Yamaha receiver line. These were the 1977 models:
CR-2020
CR-1020
CR-820
CR-620
CR-420
In 1978, Yamaha added the CR-3020 at the top and the CR-220 at the bottom.
Thanks much for the clarification of the "loudness control" and the model numbers. I did look at the manual, but from my point of view after being an audio hobbiest, since the late 70's, I just what a push button loudness control that boosts the high and lows at lower volume levels. As I pointed out by another commenter who read the manual and sets the volume to the max they listen to and then adjusts the "loudness level" down to the listening level they like, is not how I want to do things. But I do appreciate the explanations!!
I owned the CR 2020. The FM tuner had the best sound quality I ever listened to from any brand. The design features of the late 70's are still mostly unaltered in todays Yamaha HiFi equipment.
Thanks for taking some time to share your thoughts. I am still a little sad I sold the one that was given to me- they do sound and work good, and the looks are certainly very good!
Thanks for this enjoyable review! I used to see advertisements for these back in the day. I later owned a 1985 1020A model with the Auto Class A feature that I rarely used. I didn't use or like the variable loudness feature either. But I did like the sound of that Yamaha integrated amplifier. I ended up selling that amp a while back and getting a Parasound amplifier, which I like a lot. Thanks again.
Thanks for taking the time to share your experiences, Scott! Just forget about the "loudness feature" and enjoy the sound and look of this amp, or many in that line including the 1020A...
Somewhere back in time a small group huddled around a desk in Yamaha's back office and cooked up a devious plan for the loundess control.
_"Oh man, this is really going to mess with Scott when he finally reviews it"_ 🤨
That comment made me chuckle for a bit, Douglas! Good way to start my day! Thanks!!
@@vintageaudioreview
You're welcome.
Had one for a while. Nice performer, but spent too much time on the weak point... the input selector! Instead of a round wafer with contacts, they had a long shaft drive a cam that drove a linear slide switch! Very difficult to clean, compared to a round wafer. Kept failing.
I would have thought that slide switch would be fairly easy to clean with dexoit or some other cleaner/lube. Thanks for the comment!
Nice job and a very nice looking receiver (and nice looking Vette, I assume that's a good sign for the receiver). My AR SP-3 pre-amp has a similar "loudness" control. I actually really like it. I first turn the pre-amp on with the volume control about as high as I would ever want it. Then use what AR calls the "Contour" control as the volume control. I'm assuming the lower volume I go with it the higher the bass and treble bumps are. So why the volume goes down as I turn it clockwise. Not sure, but I'm guessing the Fletcher-Munson curves show more boost is needed at lower volume levels?
Appreciate your taking the time to comment, as always, Chris. I think the Fletcher Munson curves are more related to the average frequency response of our ears, but have not researched it- probably will later today... I almost always start with my volume control low and raise it accordingly, and 90% of the loudness controls boost the bass and treble, which is nice at lower listening levels. I never would have considered doing things the way you do, but you are still attenuating the signal that way, just the relative frequencies not as much as others. The highest "rating" I give is two Corvettes and it goes down from there. Not many have gotten two.
@@vintageaudioreview My McIntosh C26 has I think basically the same feature. Roger Russell, the designer of the C26, explained it like this on his web page (you find by googling "roger russell c26". The C26, however, only boosted the bass. When the "loudness" control was all the way counterclockwise, no bass boost and no attenuation. At 1/2 rotation, about 6db of bass boost at 20 Hertz and -10db attenuation at 1K Hertz. At Max rotation, about 15db of bass boost at 20 Hertz and -20db attenuation at 1K Hertz. This is from the C26 graphs in the Owner's Manual.
Continuously Variable Loudness Control
The loudness control supplied low frequency boost to compensate for the behavior of the human ear at low listening levels. Most loudness contours were switched in with a fixed amount of contour using a tap on the volume control. The user had no control of the contour for any particular volume control setting. The C 26 had much better compensation. It provided a continuously variable contour. First, the volume was set at the highest desired listening level. Then, when the loudness control was rotated clockwise from the flat position, the volume decreased and the contour automatically increased the required amount of bass amplitude and bandwidth for the new listening level. This action provided full frequency range listening at even the lowest listening levels.
I don't know where your math comes from as far as inflation figures go, but if that receiver was new today, it would go for at least $6,500...if not $8,000.
Thanks for the comment. I use the inflation calculator (www.usinflationcalculator.com) and the listed retail price for the item I find in old trade publications. Sometimes it makes me scratch my head, but for me, I do find it interesting from a relative point of view.