Response from Rotel

[2string]

Is the Rotel and NAD fairly close in SQ?

 

[B3Nut]

At matched levels with neither allowed to clip, there's no reason they wouldn't sound identical, unless one of them is broken or effects processing/EQ is inadvertently engaged. If the NAD is as stable into 4-ohm loads as my old 3130 integrated that I had when I was in high school was (I ran Magnepans with it), it may well outshine the Rotel at higher volumes where the Rotel will likely run out of steam and begin to distort (judging from the Rotel rep's comments), or overheat and go into protection.

TP

 

[2string]

I not looking to play my system loud but was curious how they compared at the same level. Thanks

 

[famorales]

Not sure what your budget is but maybe you could pick up a used B&K, AVR505 or 507 rated at 185 watts into 4 ohms. They seem to be very highly regarded.

 

[kenhoeve]

If you just want stable 4 ohm 3 channel you need a separate. The processing features of the avr's will kill the price and they start at about $1k for something that will handle 4ohm decently. As already mentioned of course.

 

[3db]

I don't think that one will do 4 ohm speakers for all 7 channel. The NAD and Arcam models are rated for 4 ohms but neither will give you more (may be slightly more) power for 4 ohm loads. The thing is, a Denon 2308, or as someone mentioned, the RX-V1700 and above can do the trick too but you will have to be careful with the volume control. Even with the NAD or ARCAM models, I would definitely recommend you add a 2 channel amplifier at the very least, to take care of the front channels that need the power most of the time. It is not that you would otherwise damage the receiver, but you will have peace of mind, knowing that your speakers won't be starved for current during peak demands.

Check the NAD specs again. NAD does 4ohms and is specced to do 2 ohms in alot of cases as well. Of all the receivers out there, NAD offers the most robust amp/power supply, bar none.

 

[2string]

What makes more sense buy a used Denon AVR-5800 for around $800 or a new 2308ci for around $1000? I don't care about passing the audio through the HDMI. I will use it for a 3 channel setup. Will the 5800 out perform the 2308 even though it an older model. When did they make the 5800?

 

[billy p]

Denon SQ processing dramatically improves from the 3... and up. IMO the 5800 would be an excellent receiver, processor or pre amp.

 

[PENG]

Check the NAD specs again. NAD does 4ohms and is specced to do 2 ohms in alot of cases as well. Of all the receivers out there, NAD offers the most robust amp/power supply, bar none.

If you read the 2nd sentence of my post, I did say NAD does 4 ohms. My first sentence referred to the Pioneer elite vsx-84 TXSi the OP linked in his post (see post #5). Note that we are talking about receivers. Unlike their separate amps, NAD receivers won't output much more continuous rated power into 4 ohm than they will into 8 ohms.

I am sure you know that those high 4 and 2 ohms numbers they specified are "IHF dynamic power", not continuous ratings.(http://nadelectronics.com/products/av-receivers/T765-A/V-Surround-Sound-Receiver/specs) I have no doubt the NAD receivers are among the best, in terms of the ability to drive low impedance speakers. I do however, prefer the comparable ARCAM models because they too, can do 4 ohms, weigh much less, and to me they sound sweeter (Placebo perhaps?).

 

[3db]

If you read the 2nd sentence of my post, I did say NAD does 4 ohms. My first sentence referred to the Pioneer elite vsx-84 TXSi the OP linked in his post (see post #5). Note that we are talking about receivers. Unlike their separate amps, NAD receivers won't output much more continuous rated power into 4 ohm than they will into 8 ohms.

I am sure you know that those high 4 and 2 ohms numbers they specified are "IHF dynamic power", not continuous ratings.(http://nadelectronics.com/products/av-receivers/T765-A/V-Surround-Sound-Receiver/specs) I have no doubt the NAD receivers are among the best, in terms of the ability to drive low impedance speakers. I do however, prefer the comparable ARCAM models because they too, can do 4 ohms, weigh much less, and to me they sound sweeter (Placebo perhaps?).

I hate placebo . There are two camps here. One camp says that all SS amps sound the same while the other camp chimes in with that there are subtle differences. If there are indeed subtle differences, could it be placebo based on looks or something else and not the sound? I honestly don't know.

 

[B3Nut]

It's most often placebo effect driven by perception of brand, reputation, etc. coupled with the fact that such comparisons are always sighted and seldom at anywhere near matched levels. When levels are matched within 0.15dB and a double-blind methodology is used (neither the listener nor the individual administering the test knows whether X is A or B) the amplifiers end up sounding the same provided each one is capable of driving the loudspeakers used at the set level without clipping. What's more is that when the odd amplifier comes along that *does* sound different in the DBT, it makes it easier to find the cause of the difference. Some tube amplifiers have poor damping factor (high output impedance) and that can cause the frequency response to follow the speaker's impedance curve with errors as high as 2dB or more, which is clearly audible. One almost never encounters solid-state amplifiers with high output impedance anymore (since the designer of such an amp would be pilloried as a hack) though Bob Carver once did that deliberately to his amplifiers to mimic a vacuum-tube amplifier and even produced a line of "Transfer Function Modified" amplifiers for that market. I think it's a gimmick, and such a device IMHO ceases to be a high-fidelity amplifier and becomes a horrendously-expensive equalizer. EQ is all well and good if your room or a dodgy recording needs it, but there are far cheaper ways of skinning that cat!

Sure, a cheap receiver will show its limits in such a test if driving reactive or low-impedance speakers at higher volume levels (some cheap ones will go into protect or lose all their magic smoke doing this!) but when you get to well-built solid-state amps, sound quality really isn't an issue since nearly all of them meet established criteria for transparency. The only questions are how difficult are your loudspeakers to drive and how loudly you wish to play given loudspeaker efficiency and room size. And as cheap as good clean power is these days, there's no harm in buying a higher-power amplifier than you need. You can never go wrong with headroom, after all...

Todd in Cheesecurdistan, whose 150wpc amplifier barely scratches 10 watts during an average listening session, even during a full pipe-organ tutti...

 

[dilznoofus]

OK this is a response I get from Rotel >>>>The RSX-1057 is only capable of speakers with 8 ohm minimum speakers. It is not designed to dissipate the heat that would be generated from 4 or 6 ohm loads. This could result in damage to the receiver.<<<<<

Interesting. I own an RSX-1055. It is now demoted to bedroom duty, but for years it ran Magneplanar SMGc's. I don't have the correspondence any longer, but Rotel advised me the 1055 would have no trouble with my speakers.

I am under the general impression that the amp section has remained fairly consistent across the 105x series receivers, but apparently either they aren't building them like they used to or their legal department is now reviewing all outbound e-mail. Sadly, they could also be doing both.