NAD vs Denon, Onkyo etc.

[PENG]

The flag ship NAD T785 tested very well in ACD but if you believe in S&V bench tests, the Onkyo 875/876 at less than 1/4 the price (Amazon.com)of the NAD flag ship model T 785 actually is a little more powerful. Again both tests were done by the same reviewer.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/receivers/3264/nad-t785-av-receiver-test-bench-page3.html
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/receivers/2463/test-bench-onkyo-tx-sr875-av-receiver.html

Now if you don't need the Reon, the 805 offers the same power output for even less, probably 1/5 (or less) the price of the T 785.

I guess I want to make the point that there is no free ride. All marketing hypes aside, one has to look at the $/watt, as long as you are comparing real watts, not watts at 1 kHz at clipping for example. You can't base your decision on just one or two reviews either. Bottom line, the safest way to get power is to buy power amps. One way to do it is to buy the AVR that offers great features and nice distortion, signal to noise figures and use it as a prepro only so their power output specs will only be a secondary considerations. This is a good low cost option for people who don't mind pro amps or Emo amps.

I think I will trade my 4308 in for a 4810 as soon as the 4810 drops to around $1,500. It's ACD output apparently sucks due to the way it's protective circuit works but as a prepro who cares. The NAD and Onkyo model's generous P/S will be wasted if used as prepros. The Denon also has the best distortion and S/N specs if you can believe half of the reviews and manufacturer'specs.

 

[fightinkraut]

And that is why I picked up the TX-SR805...didn't find anything with the features and power anywhere near the price range (refurbs were always floating around $550-600).

Good reminder, but for some reason I still find myself wanting to own some NAD gear...

 

[jostenmeat]

Now if you don't need the Reon, the 805 offers the same power output for even less, probably 1/5 (or less) the price of the T 785.

The NAD and Onkyo model's generous P/S will be wasted if used as prepros. The Denon also has the best distortion and S/N specs if you can believe half of the reviews and manufacturer'specs.

PENG, I use an 805 as pre/pro. Can you tell me (with whatever little info is available to you), how little I gain, if anything, with using my NAD T973 instead of the 805s amp?

I will always "want" a dedicated pre/pro, but do not know if that will be the case for any point in time. Therefore, I'll probably keep my NAD, even if it was identical to the 805 as far as an amp. Selling for loss, and then buying a 3ch amp (in case I always use a receiver as "pre/pro" in a way that's somewhat similar to how you do) will save me very little, if anything. Both 805 and NAD were bought refurbed. Heck, now I'm curious if there are 4810s available as refurbed. Shucks, I don't see one after a glance.

The below is a transplanted quote from the other thread:

For HT my AVR only drives the surrounds and center and I have 3 subs. NAD AVRs do good in low impedance situations but they don't get you more for 8 ohm loads. The way they do it you basically get the same output plus 2 to 3 dB of headroom. One last point, NAD or not, I would alway recommend separate amps for low impedance tower speakers

I guess you imply that 3db is not a considerable gain. True? It is IMO that 3db is a considerable gain, but based only on my own impressions. For instance, adding a second identical subwoofer would get you 3db gain, typically, correct? I only have one subwoofer, unlike yourself, booo.

Low impedance ability is still a nice future proofing effect. I've tended towards recommending overkill with fewer channels of amps to others, I think I am anyways, because the amp is the one place where you can just do it right the first time, and not worry about it afterwards for very, very long periods of time.

If I ever change the speakers that the NAD/Onkyo are running, they will likely be commercial type speakers. I think*. At least if it was in the near future, for discussion's sake.

 

[PENG]

PENG, I use an 805 as pre/pro. Can you tell me (with whatever little info is available to you), how little I gain, if anything, with using my NAD T973 instead of the 805s amp?

You should gain a little more power, and better S/N, and a little more headroom for short term peaks (20 ms).

I will always "want" a dedicated pre/pro, but do not know if that will be the case for any point in time. Therefore, I'll probably keep my NAD, even if it was identical to the 805 as far as an amp. Selling for loss, and then buying a 3ch amp (in case I always use a receiver as "pre/pro" in a way that's somewhat similar to how you do) will save me very little, if anything. Both 805 and NAD were bought refurbed. Heck, now I'm curious if there are 4810s available as refurbed. Shucks, I don't see one after a glance.

I would think that if you have one system for both HT and music enjoyment, then focussing your investment on a 3 or even 2 channel amp will get you the best for 2 channel music listening. For HT, I am convince the 805 can take care of the surrounds and even the center channel easily. The T973 is a very nice amp but at 140W 8 ohms with 1.4 dB headroom (230W) for peaks of 20 msec it is not all that powerful. Again for HT it will be great but for music you will be better off with the EMO xpa-2. It is a waste not to use the powerful amps in the 805 for the surround channels. If you have a separate system for music then the T973 is a good solution. For a single system, if I were to go 100% separate I would go with a big 2 channel amp for the L/R and a less potent 5 channel amp for the surrounds.

Anyway, it sounds like you have both the 805 and the T973. So does the T973 sound better to you?

I guess you imply that 3db is not a considerable gain. True? It is IMO that 3db is a considerable gain, but based only on my own impressions.

I also think 3 dB is a considerable gain.

 

[PENG]

PENG, I use an 805 as pre/pro. Can you tell me (with whatever little info is available to you), how little I gain, if anything, with using my NAD T973 instead of the 805s amp?

You must have read this right?

http://www.hometheatermag.com/compactspeakers/208bwonk/index5.html#

HT Labs Measures: Onkyo TX-SR805 A/V Receiver
Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1 percent distortion at 162.0 watts
1 percent distortion at 184.5 watts

All channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1 percent distortion at 120.4 watts
1 percent distortion at 151.7 watts

This graph shows that the TX-SR805’s left channel, from CD input to speaker output with two channels driving 8-ohm loads, reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 181.8 watts and 1 percent distortion at 212.3 watts. Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 327.6 watts and 1 percent distortion at 369.0 watts.

And this?

http://nadelectronics.com/products/home-theatre-amplifiers/T973-Seven-Channel-Power-Amplifier/specs

Continuous power out into 8 ohms 7 x 140W (21.5dBW)
Rated distortion (THD 20Hz-20kHz) 0.03%
Clipping power (0.1% THD) 170W (22.1dBW)
IHF dynamic headroom at 8 ohms +1.4dB
IHF dynamic power 8 ohms 230W (24dBW)
4 ohms 390W (26dBW)
2 ohms 450W (26.5dBW

Note that for continuous power the Onkyo seems comparable to the NAD and may even do better than the NAD in 2 channel mode into 4 ohms. The NAD shows excellent dynamic power (headroom) but they rate the IHF dynamic headroom for 20 msec only, very short peaks that works well in real world classical music listening.

By the way, I may be wrong about the 805's S/N ratio, they did very well in the HT mag lab measurements. I am not sure how trustworthy their lab measurements are.

 

[jostenmeat]

You should gain a little more power, and better S/N, and a little more headroom for short term peaks (20 ms).

I would think that if you have one system for both HT and music enjoyment, then focussing your investment on a 3 or even 2 channel amp will get you the best for 2 channel music listening. For HT, I am convince the 805 can take care of the surrounds and even the center channel easily. The T973 is a very nice amp but at 140W 8 ohms with 1.4 dB headroom (230W) for peaks of 20 msec it is not all that powerful. Again for HT it will be great but for music you will be better off with the EMO xpa-2. It is a waste not to use the powerful amps in the 805 for the surround channels. If you have a separate system for music then the T973 is a good solution. For a single system, if I were to go 100% separate I would go with a big 2 channel amp for the L/R and a less potent 5 channel amp for the surrounds.

Anyway, it sounds like you have both the 805 and the T973. So does the T973 sound better to you?

I don't know. The T973 used to be coupled to an older NAD pre/pro.

I bought the 805 because it was the most affordable thing that I've ever seen that had MultEQ XT, the one singular feature that I was truly looking for at the time, ok, outside of the ability to matrix bitstreams/PCM. Since it was refurbed, it was just about identical in price to the new 705 (which was unavailable as refurb then) at the time, and well, I got the amps for free I suppose, as well as the double power supplies (audio/video). The closest competitor, outside of the 705, with XT was about double the price I believe. The cheapest pre/pro with XT was $1,600 at the time.

I have two separate systems. A dedicated HT, and a stereo system in the LR. None of my audio collection has ever once been played in my HT.

If and when I buy a new processor/receiver, I will likely have a 9.1 rig at that point.

You must have read this right?

Yes, I knew of their existence, but I trust you more than me at this point, with understanding what's what with amp measurements. I also suspected that you knew of measurements that I never came across, possibly. Thank you.

Note that for continuous power the Onkyo seems comparable to the NAD and may even do better than the NAD in 2 channel mode into 4 ohms. The NAD shows excellent dynamic power (headroom) but they rate the IHF dynamic headroom for 20 msec only, very short peaks that works well in real world classical music listening.

Again, Onkyo/NAD is 100% HT (ok, I have close to double digit music mch blurays).

By the way, I may be wrong about the 805's S/N ratio, they did very well in the HT mag lab measurements. I am not sure how trustworthy their lab measurements are.

Ok, thanks.

 

[3db]

The flag ship NAD T785 tested very well in ACD but if you believe in S&V bench tests, the Onkyo 875/876 at less than 1/4 the price (Amazon.com)of the NAD flag ship model T 785 actually is a little more powerful. Again both tests were done by the same reviewer.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/receivers/3264/nad-t785-av-receiver-test-bench-page3.html
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/receivers/2463/test-bench-onkyo-tx-sr875-av-receiver.html

Now if you don't need the Reon, the 805 offers the same power output for even less, probably 1/5 (or less) the price of the T 785.

I guess I want to make the point that there is no free ride. All marketing hypes aside, one has to look at the $/watt, as long as you are comparing real watts, not watts at 1 kHz at clipping for example. You can't base your decision on just one or two reviews either. Bottom line, the safest way to get power is to buy power amps. One way to do it is to buy the AVR that offers great features and nice distortion, signal to noise figures and use it as a prepro only so their power output specs will only be a secondary considerations. This is a good low cost option for people who don't mind pro amps or Emo amps.

I think I will trade my 4308 in for a 4810 as soon as the 4810 drops to around $1,500. It's ACD output apparently sucks due to the way it's protective circuit works but as a prepro who cares. The NAD and Onkyo model's generous P/S will be wasted if used as prepros. The Denon also has the best distortion and S/N specs if you can believe half of the reviews and manufacturer'specs.

According to the review fom the previous NAD thread ,

NAD's "now claimed

"The T 747’s published specifications include two power ratings. The larger, 120W of "minimum continuous power," is derived from NAD’s version of the FTC method and, as the words in quotes imply, doesn’t reveal peak power. Instead, it illustrates the amplifier’s ability to push 120W of "FTC" power until the cows come home. The other power rating, 60Wpc of "full disclosure power," is derived from real-world measurements that allow NAD’s engineers to sleep soundly, knowing that they’re not pulling the wool over consumers’ eyes. This wattage is calculated into a 4-ohm load that, NAD says, is a very good facsimile of a real speaker load. Moreover -- and this is key -- to determine its "full disclosure power" rating, NAD measures output across the full audioband of 20Hz-20kHz. So when comparing the T 747 to its competitors, use the higher power rating; it corresponds most closely to the industry norm. "

The 120 watts x7 full disclosure power as advertised by NAD is 120x7 20Hz-2KHz into 4 channels all channels driven. I also don't understand how you can say the Onkyo is more powerful when the test results given by S&V link has far less tests applied to it than the Onkyo.

The other thing I noted is why bring in the older Onkyo model? Is it still in production?

 

[lsiberian]

According to the review fom the previous NAD thread ,

NAD's "now claimed

"The T 747’s published specifications include two power ratings. The larger, 120W of "minimum continuous power," is derived from NAD’s version of the FTC method and, as the words in quotes imply, doesn’t reveal peak power. Instead, it illustrates the amplifier’s ability to push 120W of "FTC" power until the cows come home. The other power rating, 60Wpc of "full disclosure power," is derived from real-world measurements that allow NAD’s engineers to sleep soundly, knowing that they’re not pulling the wool over consumers’ eyes. This wattage is calculated into a 4-ohm load that, NAD says, is a very good facsimile of a real speaker load. Moreover -- and this is key -- to determine its "full disclosure power" rating, NAD measures output across the full audioband of 20Hz-20kHz. So when comparing the T 747 to its competitors, use the higher power rating; it corresponds most closely to the industry norm. "

The 120 watts x7 full disclosure power as advertised by NAD is 120x7 20Hz-2KHz into 4 channels all channels driven. I also don't understand how you can say the Onkyo is more powerful when the test results given by S&V link has far less tests applied to it than the Onkyo.

The other thing I noted is why bring in the older Onkyo model? Is it still in production?

It's still being sold at 800 bucks a pop and the *05 series was the best line of Onkyo's in recent years.

 

[3db]

It's still being sold at 800 bucks a pop and the *05 series was the best line of Onkyo's in recent years.

Thx for the response on the 2nd point of the Onkyo.

I still wonder how a conclusion can be reached about that Onkyo being more more powerful then the NAD based on the lack of testing done by S&V.

 

[PENG]

The 120 watts x7 full disclosure power as advertised by NAD is 120x7 20Hz-2KHz into 4 channels all channels driven. I also don't understand how you can say the Onkyo is more powerful when the test results given by S&V link has far less tests applied to it than the Onkyo.

Sorry I have no idea what you are getting at. The links I provided allow you to compare the S&V lab measurements of the 805 and the T785, nothing to do with the T747. I also did NOT say the Onkyo was more powerful. I said the Onkyo offers the same power (I should have said approx./more or less etc.) for 1/5 the price. Did you actually try comparing the measurements of the two receivers?

The other thing I noted is why bring in the older Onkyo model? Is it still in production?

That is a good point, I don't think the "old" Onkyo is in production and new ones are now hard to find. It wasn't that long ago they were still available on Amazon.com for around $700 to $800 but apparently not any more. The newest 5007 that offers similar power are available for about 1/2 the price of the T785. I prefer NAD to Onkyo too but not for double the price. Mass market models do have an advantage, they are more cost effective to produce and amps are not rocket science.

 

[PENG]

Thx for the response on the 2nd point of the Onkyo.

I still wonder how a conclusion can be reached about that Onkyo being more more powerful then the NAD based on the lack of testing done by S&V.

Agree, but not me, I did not reach such a conclusion.

 

[Seth=L]

The other thing I noted is why bring in the older Onkyo model? Is it still in production?

The older Onkyo set a benchmark, like the Yamaha RX-V659 and Pioneer VSX-816 they where excellent values in their time and continued to be relevant reference points for great value long after their production stopped. The rendition of the TX-SR805 that's currently produced is the TX-NR1007, a 51 pound THX Ultra II certified monster receiver with an MSRP of $1599 and street prices around $1000 - $1150.

The biggest problem with these receivers has been their heat dissipation. While I admire the value of a powerful receiver I don't particularly enjoy a fire hazard or an over sized complicated to place piece of equipment.

Just an observation here, but Onkyo and Sony are the only two manufacturers that seem to include phono inputs on a receiver that cost less than a grand, starting with the TX-SR707 for Onkyo and the Sony STR-DA2400ES, both of which have an MSRP of $799. Denon, NAD, Pioneer, Sherwood, and Marantz don't seem to offer a phono input on most of their receivers, and if they do have it they are some of the higher models that cost significantly more than what it's worth just to have a phono input. With vinyl supposedly making a comeback in the industry this doesn't make much sense. Is this the iPod response? What Steve Jobs might have said, "we at Apple believe that MP3 is every bit as good as vinyl, to prove it we've unveiled our new product the iPad" and so on. Is the electronics manufacturing industry pushing against vinyl while label companies are trying to bring something reasonably decent back into the market?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I think I will trade my 4308 in for a 4810 as soon as the 4810 drops to around $1,500.

Oh, man, you just missed the 4810 on eCost. It was in stock yesterday for < $1,500:
http://www.ecost.com/Detail.aspx?edp=53705611&navid=155441519

 

[3db]

Sorry I have no idea what you are getting at. The links I provided allow you to compare the S&V lab measurements of the 805 and the T785, nothing to do with the T747. I also did NOT say the Onkyo was more powerful. I said the Onkyo offers the same power (I should have said approx./more or less etc.) for 1/5 the price. Did you actually try comparing the measurements of the two receivers?

I brought in the link on the T747 to describe NAD's full power disclosure...that was its only intended purpose. I'm assuming that the "full disclosure" measurement is based on all of its models. The other thing is that the tests run bt S &V were not as exhaustive on the NAD T785; now I only poured over that last page that the link took me too)

That is a good point, I don't think the "old" Onkyo is in production and new ones are now hard to find. It wasn't that long ago they were still available on Amazon.com for around $700 to $800 but apparently not any more. The newest 5007 that offers similar power are available for about 1/2 the price of the T785. I prefer NAD to Onkyo too but not for double the price. Mass market models do have an advantage, they are more cost effective to produce and amps are not rocket science.

Agreed.

 

[3db]

The older Onkyo set a benchmark, like the Yamaha RX-V659 and Pioneer VSX-816 they where excellent values in their time and continued to be relevant reference points for great value long after their production stopped. The rendition of the TX-SR805 that's currently produced is the TX-NR1007, a 51 pound THX Ultra II certified monster receiver with an MSRP of $1599 and street prices around $1000 - $1150.

The biggest problem with these receivers has been their heat dissipation. While I admire the value of a powerful receiver I don't particularly enjoy a fire hazard or an over sized complicated to place piece of equipment.

Just an observation here, but Onkyo and Sony are the only two manufacturers that seem to include phono inputs on a receiver that cost less than a grand, starting with the TX-SR707 for Onkyo and the Sony STR-DA2400ES, both of which have an MSRP of $799. Denon, NAD, Pioneer, Sherwood, and Marantz don't seem to offer a phono input on most of their receivers, and if they do have it they are some of the higher models that cost significantly more than what it's worth just to have a phono input. With vinyl supposedly making a comeback in the industry this doesn't make much sense. Is this the iPod response? What Steve Jobs might have said, "we at Apple believe that MP3 is every bit as good as vinyl, to prove it we've unveiled our new product the iPad" and so on. Is the electronics manufacturing industry pushing against vinyl while label companies are trying to bring something reasonably decent back into the market?

Agreed. I'm disappointed in any manufacturer that drops the phono input until one moves up to near top of the line. Yamaha did the same thing. I raised a thread (too lazy to look) on here a year or two ago about this very thing.

 

[Seth=L]

Agreed. I'm disappointed in any manufacturer that drops the phono input until one moves up to near top of the line. Yamaha did the same thing. I raised a thread (too lazy to look) on here a year or two ago about this very thing.

Yes, it seems you virtually have to get an RX-V1000 series or higher to get a phono input now.

 

[PENG]

I brought in the link on the T747 to describe NAD's full power disclosure...that was its only intended purpose. I'm assuming that the "full disclosure" measurement is based on all of its models

I like the full power disclosure thing, it is still a form of hypes but at least you can say they have taken the high road in that case. I must say I am disappointed with them now providing the FTC thing as well. Why contribute further to the already saturated marketing hypes? And now their FTC set of numbers (claimed 7X200W minimum) don't bear out in the S&V lab measurements whereas most upper mid range Denon and Onkyo models do. So what are we to think of NAD's power specs now then?

Take a look of the following comparisons (both reviewd by Daniel Kumin of S&V) and you'll see the NAD did better in only the 5 channel driven test. The Onkyo did much better in both 1 and 2 channel driven into even 4 ohms. I am not trying to change you mind at all and I know S&V did not conduct any square wave test etc., but the data at least show you can't simply compare Onkyo's FTC with NAD's FTC figures either. Denon's 3808, 4308, 4310 offered slightly less impressive results (around 0.5 dB less power in each category). The heavier 4810 came really close except the 7 channel driven test tripped the protective circuit. Let me be clear one more time, I am not drawing any conclusion from those data to say one is more powerful than the other but I do think any difference between those units aren't as significant as some people have you believed they are. As jostenmeat suggested, 3dB is considerable but I think we are talking about less than 0.5 to 1dB here.

NAD T785

Output at clipping (1 kHz into 8/4 ohms)
1 channel driven: 174/218 W (22.4/23.4 dBW)
5 channels driven (8 ohms): 148 W (21.7 dBW)
7 channels driven (8 ohms): 121 W (20.8 dBW)
Distortion at 1 watt (THD+N, 1 kHz)
8/4 ohms: 0.05/0.06%
Noise level (A-wtd): –75.0 dB
Excess noise (with sine tone)
16-bit (EN16): 0.7 dB
Frequency response: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0, –1.4 dB


Onkyo TX-SR875 (I fully expect the current 5007 would do equal or better).

Output at clipping (1 kHz into 8/4 ohms)
1 channel driven: 201/322 watts (23/25.1 dBW)
5 channels driven (8 ohms): 141 watts (21.5 dBW)
7 channels driven (8 ohms): 128 watts (21.1 dBW)
Distortion at 1 watt (THD+N, 1 kHz)
8/4 ohms: 0.02/0.03%
Noise level (A-weighted): -76.1 dB
Excess noise (with sine tone)
16-bit (EN16): 0.7 dB
Frequency response: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0, -0.8 dB


STEREO PERFORMANCE, DIGITAL INPUT

Reference level is -20 dBFS; all level trims at zero. Volume setting for reference level was 6.5.

Output at clipping (1 kHz, both channels driven)
8/4 ohms: 185/320 watts (22.7/25.1 dBW)
Distortion at reference level: 0.02%
Linearity error (at -90 dBFS): 0.2 dB
Noise level (A-weighted): -75.6 dB
with 96-kHz/24-bit signals: -88.8 dB
Excess noise (with/without sine tone)
16-bit (EN16): 0.3/0.3 dB
quasi-20-bit (EN20): 9.6/9.9 dB
Noise modulation: 0.2 dB
Frequency response: <10 Hz to 20 kHz +0, -0.8 dB
with 96-kHz/24-bit signals: <10 Hz to 44.5 kHz +0, -1.7 dB

 

[3db]

I like the full power disclosure thing, it is still a form of hypes but at least you can say they have taken the high road in that case. I must say I am disappointed with them now providing the FTC thing as well. Why contribute further to the already saturated marketing hypes? And now their FTC set of numbers (claimed 7X200W minimum) don't bear out in the S&V lab measurements whereas most upper mid range Denon and Onkyo models do. So what are we to think of NAD's power specs now then?

Take a look of the following comparisons (both reviewd by Daniel Kumin of S&V) and you'll see the NAD did better in only the 5 channel driven test. The Onkyo did much better in both 1 and 2 channel driven into even 4 ohms. I am not trying to change you mind at all and I know S&V did not conduct any square wave test etc., but the data at least show you can't simply compare Onkyo's FTC with NAD's FTC figures either. Denon's 3808, 4308, 4310 offered slightly less impressive results (around 0.5 dB less power in each category). The heavier 4810 came really close except the 7 channel driven test tripped the protective circuit. Let me be clear one more time, I am not drawing any conclusion from those data to say one is more powerful than the other but I do think any difference between those units aren't as significant as some people have you believed they are. As jostenmeat suggested, 3dB is considerable but I think we are talking about less than 0.5 to 1dB here.

NAD T785

Output at clipping (1 kHz into 8/4 ohms)
1 channel driven: 174/218 W (22.4/23.4 dBW)
5 channels driven (8 ohms): 148 W (21.7 dBW)
7 channels driven (8 ohms): 121 W (20.8 dBW)
Distortion at 1 watt (THD+N, 1 kHz)
8/4 ohms: 0.05/0.06%
Noise level (A-wtd): –75.0 dB
Excess noise (with sine tone)
16-bit (EN16): 0.7 dB
Frequency response: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0, –1.4 dB


Onkyo TX-SR875 (I fully expect the current 5007 would do equal or better).

Output at clipping (1 kHz into 8/4 ohms)
1 channel driven: 201/322 watts (23/25.1 dBW)
5 channels driven (8 ohms): 141 watts (21.5 dBW)
7 channels driven (8 ohms): 128 watts (21.1 dBW)
Distortion at 1 watt (THD+N, 1 kHz)
8/4 ohms: 0.02/0.03%
Noise level (A-weighted): -76.1 dB
Excess noise (with sine tone)
16-bit (EN16): 0.7 dB
Frequency response: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0, -0.8 dB


STEREO PERFORMANCE, DIGITAL INPUT

Reference level is -20 dBFS; all level trims at zero. Volume setting for reference level was 6.5.

Output at clipping (1 kHz, both channels driven)
8/4 ohms: 185/320 watts (22.7/25.1 dBW)
Distortion at reference level: 0.02%
Linearity error (at -90 dBFS): 0.2 dB
Noise level (A-weighted): -75.6 dB
with 96-kHz/24-bit signals: -88.8 dB
Excess noise (with/without sine tone)
16-bit (EN16): 0.3/0.3 dB
quasi-20-bit (EN20): 9.6/9.9 dB
Noise modulation: 0.2 dB
Frequency response: <10 Hz to 20 kHz +0, -0.8 dB
with 96-kHz/24-bit signals: <10 Hz to 44.5 kHz +0, -1.7 dB

I've noticed a hole in these measurements. How can the NAD beat the Onkyo in 5 channel but not in 7 channels? Strange eh?

So what it shows is that there is no standard way of measuring output. If HDMI can have standards, why can't the industry get together and do the same for power measurements as well.

The one thing that bothers me about the Onkyo's is their heat dissapation problems. They will be prone to failure long before the NADs because of this. All companies take shortcuts at one point or another and we consumers get stuck holding the bag.

 

[PENG]

I've noticed a hole in these measurements. How can the NAD beat the Onkyo in 5 channel but not in 7 channels? Strange eh?

So what it shows is that there is no standard way of measuring output. If HDMI can have standards, why can't the industry get together and do the same for power measurements as well

.

It is strange for sure, but there are more. Take of look of my favorite British magazine reviews and compare the test data of the NAD M25, a 7X160W power amp, with the Onkyo 906, a 7X140W (7X200W 6 ohms) receiver. The 906 came amazingly close, in some cases within a few watts and one case equal, with even lower THD. How much that matters, who knows? I learnt to read as many reviews as I could find before even forming an opinion let alone judgment.

http://hcc.techradar.com/reviews/new_reviews/onkyo+tx+nr906+av+receiver+offers+networking+and+thx+ultra2+certification+11+05+

The one thing that bothers me about the Onkyo's is their heat dissapation problems. They will be prone to failure long before the NADs because of this. All companies take shortcuts at one point or another and we consumers get stuck holding the bag.

It seems to me their heat related failures happened more often with the 875. The 805, 905, 906 don't seem to get mentioned regarding such failure as often. I hope they have this issue sorted out in their latest 3007 and 5007. Those new models really have everything most HT will ever need for a few years. Until we know they have fixed the heat issue, I would suggest look to Denon, Yamaha and Pioneer for alternatives. Okay, NAD too for people who can afford the higher $/W (real W.).

 

[3db]

.

It is strange for sure, but there are more. Take of look of my favorite British magazine reviews and compare the test data of the NAD M25, a 7X160W power amp, with the Onkyo 906, a 7X140W (7X200W 6 ohms) receiver. The 906 came amazingly close, in some cases within a few watts and one case equal, with even lower THD. How much that matters, who knows? I learnt to read as many reviews as I could find before even forming an opinion let alone judgment.

http://hcc.techradar.com/reviews/new_reviews/onkyo+tx+nr906+av+receiver+offers+networking+and+thx+ultra2+certification+11+05+




Okay, NAD too for people who can afford the higher $/W (real W.).

Thanks for the laugh PENG.