On the Denon AVR E300, does anyone have a theory as to why its rated power consumption compares so poorly to the NAD 326?
Not sure what you meant by "so poorly"?
NAD 326
Rated power consumption 290W, output 50W X 2
That means overall efficiency equals approx. 100/290=69%
Denon E300 power consumption 360W, output 75W X 2, 175W total 5 channel.
That means overall efficiency equals approx. 150/360=41.7% 2 channel, or 175/360=48.7%.
So on paper the NAD has better efficiency as it outputs more at a given input (power consumption). However, let me repeat some of the issues on this topic I posted many time before:
1) Manufacturers don't seem to base their specifications on the same standard(s).
2) Related to above, you will find terms used include: power consumption, maximum power consumption, rated consumption, power consumption at rated output, and/or a combination of those, for example, some Yamaha models provide both power conumption and maximum power consumption or maximum power consumption.
3) Some specify different power consumption for different country models, further indication that they have different standards to base/comply their published figures on/to.
Example: Yamaha 1020 USA model power consumption: 490W, Canada model: 400W, Korea model: 390W, Max power consumption: 1190W
Also, would you say that the THD spec is the most important one? It doesn't appear to be since we can't hear the difference between .1 and .01, or am I missing something? There are a dozen or more other specs, and if one is to compare specs, the whole picture needs to be looked at if one wants a more accurate assessment.
I standby what I said in my previous post. It is an important one but by itself does not guarantee the sound quality that you like. I definitely agree one has to look at the whole picture for a more accurate assessment. That however is often a moot point because most so call mid range gear are kind of at or near the point of diminishing return due to the limits of our audio sense.
I'd say the reasons why the NAD seems so expensive over a Denon would be economies of scale, simple economics.
That's what I said too, good to know we can agree on something.
there are two schools of thought on modern amps. One says that all amps or amp sections sound exactly the same, or at least close enough that you can't tell them apart, when running within their design parameters and not in some way damaged or out of spec.
To me I thought I could hear some difference between AVR/amps I have, but they seemed so close to me that there is no way I can tell them apart in a blind test. I don't think I am overly placebo prone but I know I am affected by my sight and knowing the cost, design, and build quality differences. I may belong to a 3rd school of thoughts if one exists.
The other school thinks differently. How can 40 or 50 manufacturers, using different approaches, different techniques, different goals and budgets, different technologies and different materials end up with amps or receivers that sound EXACTLY the same?
IMO because a) they don't sound exactly the same, but too close to call in a blind test. b) all well designed amps are designed and built to specs that well past the point where humans can tell with their limited audio sense, truly gifted and trained golden ears excepted. c) like anything else, engineers can build things to do the same with different design and material, especially when you only have to meet requirements that are not hard to do given current technological advance.
I am sure others can come up with better examples but to me it could be like looking from 100 ft away there is no way I can tell the difference between two objects of the same shape but one is 100 ft long while the other is 100.5 ft long unless they are line up side by side.
I owned 2 NAD integrated amps, the C372 and still own the C326. I also own a Parasound A21 and preamp P7. They all sound unique. Not night and day, but it's there nevertheless. An AVR is a collection of compromises and cost cutting decisions that you won't see in an integrated.
That does not put you in one school or the other.
IMO though, NAD maybe one of those that has its own sonic signature. I heard them before, and I am biased base on their unique design in a couple areas, one being the soft clipping thing.
Simply take your time, audition some models if you can with music you are familiar with. Buy what you want, not what some stranger on the internet recommends, including me.
Agree, but could be difficult for some people, at least time consuming.
