From Denon to Nad

[Donohue]

Depends on ohw the Nad is rated... Denon measures their WPC with 2 channels driven. If NAD measures their receivers with all channels driven, it would be the more powerful of the two.

 

[Donohue]

Should have read ahead...

that's 50 wpc, full bandwidth, all channels driven into 8/4 ohms. i don't think the denon is rated the same way.

I see you beat me to the punch on this one... I wasn't sure how NAD rated their power specs, but considering their reputation, I thought this might be the case.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Listen dude. I explained why there is a difference between NAD and the Denon. The difference between NAD's 50W and Denon's 75W is that the NAD was rated with a real world loads.

Huh??? What real world load??? Please explain further




And can do much better if asked to.

Like how?? That dynamic output???


Don't be so presumptuous and shortsighted. How do you know how many watts he needs anyway? You know, one day, maybe he's going to upgrade to something nice like a Totem Dreamcatcher system which dips down below 4 ohms.

And that NAD will drive it properly??? Or, whimper on its shortcomings??


Then all the dynamic headroom is going to be useful. That Denon would choke and die whereas the NAD would still deliver a powerful punch.


Speculation.



The fact is, the NAD will deliver its rated power into complex loads,

Huh? What complex loads? Greatly inductive? Capacitive? Or speakers that are poorly designed as it dips in impedance so much.



But designing an amp to handle complex loads is a much more difficult task requiring a design that provide higher current using beefier components kke larger transformers, output transistors.

What makes a load complex?? Greatly varying impedance loads??

My bet is the the NAD would sound cleaner and play at lower distortion levels with real world music.

Uhm, you would loose big time.

Take two cars.

Why would I want to use a car analogy. Not in the same universe, let alone the same hobby.



Take out your earplugs and actually try *listening* to the components for a change instead of gazing at the spec sheet.

Actually, I listen to music, not components. You should try it

 

[mtrycrafts]

take it easy dude i/we just described how NAD is different from the Denon. and fact is, it is more powerful as for sounding better, some people find the NAD to be more musical. but that is subjective and is not true for everybody.

More powerful? How?? By driving all channels at 50 watts at the same time? Not real world to me.

More musical??? What is that? Be careful

 

[mtrycrafts]

You've got nothing to worry. I share your experience. Don't take this dude seriously. He's got nothing to contribute to your listening pleasures. The NAD can sound as powerful as another brand touting a higher power rating on the same load with the same -10db volume setting. Listening with your ears is all you need to enjoy in this hobby. Not everyone is as blessed.

Of course the NAD can sound as powerful delivering 50 watts, as would the other componet will. And???

Oh, that obiquitous -10 on the volume control. How do you know two brands have the same gain at -10??? You don't as you keep speculating with silly comparatives.

But some people like to listen with their eyes as well. That gets them into trouble, of course. One only has to look at the hi end audio.

 

[warpdrive]

mtrycrafts...I have said what I wanted....you can continue to believe that all that everybody's power rating is directly comparable. Whatever you say

 

[bumblebee]

mtrycrafts,

have you actually tried amps other than denon, yamaha, onkyo or pioneer? and didn't i said finding a gear to be musical is subjective? what's w/ you?

 

[spider_duggan]

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/489/

"If there is one fundamental amplifier specification that ought to give an unambiguous correlation with what is heard, it is its power rating. An amplifier rated at 100W should, naturally, go louder (by 3dB, for all you techno-buffs) than one capable of pumping 50W into the same load. Yet at CES, NAD put on a convincing demonstration that their 50W FTC-rated 7100 receiver would swing more clipping-free volts into a typical load (represented by a B&W loudspeaker) than even a 90W competing product. The implication was that the 50W NAD product would go louder without distortion than another amplifier officially rated as being almost twice as powerful."

I don't know much about audio and electronics, instead I'll let this article speak for itself
regards,

 

[nibhaz]

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/489/

"If there is one fundamental amplifier specification that ought to give an unambiguous correlation with what is heard, it is its power rating. An amplifier rated at 100W should, naturally, go louder (by 3dB, for all you techno-buffs) than one capable of pumping 50W into the same load. Yet at CES, NAD put on a convincing demonstration that their 50W FTC-rated 7100 receiver would swing more clipping-free volts into a typical load (represented by a B&W loudspeaker) than even a 90W competing product. The implication was that the 50W NAD product would go louder without distortion than another amplifier officially rated as being almost twice as powerful."

I don't know much about audio and electronics, instead I'll let this article speak for itself
regards,

1989...wow, I'm sure all receivers are still using the same amplifier designs from then too, so the article must still hold water…wait it never did…articles from stereofool generally have bits and pieces of facts interspersed with their opinion and speculation in order to make a case for whatever it is they’re writing about. This article is no different: some truth, sprinkled with incoherent rambling and half thoughts.

 

[PENG]

Warpdrive, I have the feeling that you are right about the T743 more powerful than the 1604 but I think it is a stretch to say that the T743 can drive 2 ohm loads. Most mid level separate power amplifiers can only do 4 ohms. If you are talking about dynamic capability, then I have no doubt the NAD can handle those short durations when the speaker's impedance dip down to 2 ohms at certain frequencies, but then so can other receivers such as Denon.

For those interested, following is quote from http://www.usa.denon.com/support/faqs_ht.asp#Q9

"9) CAN I USE 4 OHM LOUDSPEAKERS WITH MY DENON RECEIVER OR POWER AMPLIFIER?

Yes, you certainly can.

To understand this a bit better, first realize that all amplifiers are designed to deliver a signal into an electrical "load" or resistance presented by the loudspeaker. We measure resistance in units called "ohms" (after the German physicist Georg Simon Ohm, 1787–1854).

Conventional wisdom makes an 8 ohm loudspeaker load the most acceptable because it "protects" the amplifier from delivering too much current. A 4 ohm loudspeaker can encourage a marginally designed amplifier to deliver more current than it comfortably can.

However, you should remember that a loudspeaker’s impedance rating is a nominal or average one: A speaker rated at 8 ohms may actually vary from 5 (sometimes even less) to 20 ohms or higher, depending on the frequency at which you measure the impedance. (Don’t worry about this too much -- good speaker engineers are well aware of these variations and take them into consideration when designing products.)

In general, you’ll find that Denon products are designed to function with a wide variety of loudspeakers and have power supplies and output circuitry more than able to meet the current demands of low impedance loads.

In the rare event that very low impedances tax the amplifier, quick acting circuitry will protect it from damage. If unusual operating conditions trigger this circuitry, the word "PROTECTION" will appear on the unit’s front panel. If this happens, simply turn the unit off, wait a moment or two, and turn the unit back on again. The protection circuitry will automatically reset. If it re-engages, check your system for possible malfunctions."

 

[PENG]

I find it interesting to see that British AV magazines don't always rate NAD (British design?) that high relative to Arcam (also British), Denon and Yamaha products. They tend to like them all, and rank them roughly at the same level. May be people generally favor imports.

 

[spider_duggan]

I'd suggest that you elucidate these incoherent ramblings and half thoughts. I've been reading journal articles, and recieving lectures containing theory and fact, from the late 1800s, that still 'hold water.' Date has little bearing to my research. Can you explain the change in amplifier design? Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

I've continued to research the descrepinces between 'all channels driven' ratings. It was pointed out in another article that there is no soundtrack that simultaneously drives all channels to the max, let alone for an extended period of time. So, i guess the rating means little to me and my experience of a recording.

 

[nibhaz]

From you article @ http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/489/

"Test We Must," cried High Fidelity's erstwhile editor, Michael Riggs, in a January 1989 leader article condemning the growth of subjective testing. (See the sidebar for Peter Mitchell's obituary of HF magazine, now effectively merged with Stereo Review.) With the exception of loudspeakers, where it is still necessary to listen, he wrote, "laboratory testing (properly done) can tell us pretty much everything we need to know about the performance of a typical piece of electronics...We know what the important characteristics are, how to measure them, and how to interpret the results."

With respect to Mr. Riggs who, all things aside, is still a man who apparently believes that magazines should contain leaders and is therefore a cut above the run-of-the-mill editor, this last statement is ridiculous. Ridiculous. I defy anyone to look at a comprehensive set of CD player or amplifier specifications and correctly predict its sound quality.

If you compare two well designed (accepted proper design) amplifiers and you do not exceed the amplifier's specifications you will not be able to distinguish between the two in a double bind test (the sound quality would be the same). But Mr. Atkinson ignores this fact and goes on to expel more of the drivel and idea's that stereophool hold so near and dear.

Of course, I should have known better. I had only to look at the fact that linear, and therefore distorted, ASA film-speed ratings had never been supplanted by the altogether more sensible logarithmic ISO or DIN figures to realize that being right doesn't make a case irresistible.

This is just dead wrong...ISO has been the standard for film for quite some time...but what does this have to do with power ratings....nothing

The point to note, however, is that, putting aside their commercial motivation, NAD has proposed a primary power rating that ties in with the subjective loudness of different amplifiers.

Yes...more subjectiveness defiantly moving in the right direction here...ah no!

The best one:

That way, you might be able to get a handle on why an amplifier with 1% of second-harmonic-only distortion, a typical classic tube design, for example, is objectively worse but subjectively better than a solid-state model with 0.1% of components ranging from the 7th to the 17th harmonics.

Yeah, subjectively better if you like the sound of distortion...

 

[mtrycrafts]

mtrycrafts,

have you actually tried amps other than denon, yamaha, onkyo or pioneer? and didn't i said finding a gear to be musical is subjective? what's w/ you?

So, then, musical has no real meaning, undefined?

 

[bumblebee]

So, then, musical has no real meaning, undefined?

if it sounds good to you, who's to contest that? you might be thinking of high fidelity instead.

 

[cornelius]

Illuminatti, if you're able to a/b the nad then trust your own ears and decide. I believe the nad a better performer soundwise, but don't believe me, and don't believe the numbers naysayers that say all amps sound the same. BTW, this also applies to reviews - never buy on a review.

 

[spider_duggan]

From you article @ http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/489/


If you compare two well designed (accepted proper design) amplifiers and you do not exceed the amplifier's specifications you will not be able to distinguish between the two in a double bind test (the sound quality would be the same). But Mr. Atkinson ignores this fact and goes on to expel more of the drivel and idea's that stereophool hold so near and dear.

Yes...more subjectiveness defiantly moving in the right direction here...ah no!

Is a double blind test subjective? I'm not sure how it counldn't be... If so, you're comments are conflicting. You suggest that the stereophools should use a double blind subjective test and then critizise them for suggesting that power ratings be subjective.

Other then that, thanks for the info and I'll research your comments further

 

[nibhaz]

Is a double blind test subjective? I'm not sure how it counldn't be... If so, you're comments are conflicting. You suggest that the stereophools should use a double blind subjective test and then critizise them for suggesting that power ratings be subjective.

Other then that, thanks for the info and I'll research your comments further

Double blind test are not subjective...

My statement supporting subjectiveness was sarcasm...

 

[spider_duggan]

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=7516#entry74066

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing.htm

http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm

According to my research, a double blind test is used to remove as many bias as possible, but remains subjective. Objective testing remains in the domain of charts and graphs.

"Yes...more subjectiveness defiantly moving in the right direction here...ah no!"

I caught the sarcasm and responded appropriately by saying, "You suggest that the stereophools should use a double blind subjective test and then critizise them for suggesting that power ratings be subjective." What I'm saying is that you're not being consistent, and upon further review I think that you've created a strawman argument, with regard to some of your ealier comments disecting stereophools arguments.

I think subjectivity is a neccesary part of the listening exerience, and it could even be applied to power ratings in some sense (i.e. what will the listener experience when using the amp/reciever) But objectivity holds true values and remains the only measure of actual preformance.
my 2 cents,
dan