NAD T747 review

[3db]

Here's a review of NAD's T747 review. Its interesting because the article states the two different power measurements and how NAD actually rates the power of their model. For instance this receiver is rated at 60W x 7 full bandwidth (20Hz to 20KHz) into 4 ohms, not 8. So if anyone is looking for a 4 ohm stable receiver, NAD deleivers


http://www.hometheatersound.com/equipment/nad_t747.htm

 

[Affejunge]

Thanks for the link. I was really sitting on fence with getting the 747 or upgrading my Oppo and staying analog. I went with the Oppo upgrade.
I love separates, but I wonder if I did the right thing.. not having room correction my be effecting my sound more than better DACs.

Oh...will the upgrades ever end? I just need to keep telling myself, "You are happy now...You are happy now.. no need to upgrade"

 

[anamorphic96]

This isn't surprising to me. Most of NAD's newer amps are rated into the same wattage for 8 and 4 ohms. NAD receivers and integrateds have always been 4 ohm capable.

They also recently dropped the price of the T737 from 800 to 600. Probably due to the fact it offers none of the newer features such as HD audio, auto set up and video scaling. The 747 offers the newer features but its price is way to high for what you get. 800 is more realistic.

 

[PENG]

I would like to remind everyone that if you read British (NAD's origin) magazines you will find in general they favor Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo even Sony, much like here in the Americas they favor NAD, Arcam, Rotel, Cambridge Audio etc. The topic about well AVR sounds is highly subjective and controversial. I don't have golder ears so I am not really affected or influenced by those reviews.

On the technical side and in regard to 4 ohm stable, you can run any of the latest mid range 120WPC and up Denon, Pioneer or Onkyo and they are all pretty much 4 ohms stable as long as you pretend they are really only good for 60WPC just like the NAD T747. As far as I am concerned the NAD, HK specs are just marketing hypes in different forms. For informed buyers it really doesn't make much difference one way or the other because they know what they can expect. For less informed buyers, NAD & HK could be at disadvantage, for being apparently more 'honest'. For me, I generally prefer mass market mid range products because naturally they can afford to give more for less, on a per unit basis. That means you can expect to get more value for your money, from top sellers such as Denon and Yamaha products.

 

[jliedeka]

I have the older NAD 744 as the center of my bedroom system. I got it at a closeout price. I'm a big fan of NAD because you know you are getting decent amplifiers and good sound. They may not be the bang for buck champs but buying NAD is generally a pretty safe choice.

Jim

 

[3db]

I would like to remind everyone that if you read British (NAD's origin) magazines you will find in general they favor Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo even Sony, much like here in the Americas they favor NAD, Arcam, Rotel, Cambridge Audio etc. The topic about well AVR sounds is highly subjective and controversial. I don't have golder ears so I am not really affected or influenced by those reviews.

On the technical side and in regard to 4 ohm stable, you can run any of the latest mid range 120WPC and up Denon, Pioneer or Onkyo and they are all pretty much 4 ohms stable as long as you pretend they are really only good for 60WPC just like the NAD T747. As far as I am concerned the NAD, HK specs are just marketing hypes in different forms. For informed buyers it really doesn't make much difference one way or the other because they know what they can expect. For less informed buyers, NAD & HK could be at disadvantage, for being apparently more 'honest'. For me, I generally prefer mass market mid range products because naturally they can afford to give more for less, on a per unit basis. That means you can expect to get more value for your money, from top sellers such as Denon and Yamaha products.

All very good until until you make a warranty claim stating that you were attempting to drive a 4ohm speaker. "I'm sorry sir but you voided your warranty" . And unlike the others, NAD doesn't make wild exagerated claims of power delivery which they are not capable of delivering. I guess it all depends on what side of the fence one is standing on.

I'm a less is more kind of guy. NAD now carries Audessy and all the latest codecs but it doesn't waste its money on superficial sh?t like IPOD docs, fancy deep color GUIs (that does absolutely nothing for sound quality) and other bells and whistles.

Just on aside, I didin't put any stock into what the reviewer says as far as sound quality over the Marantz. Thats all subjective hogwash as far as I'm concerned.

 

[PENG]

Just on aside, I didin't put any stock into what the reviewer says as far as sound quality over the Marantz. Thats all subjective hogwash as far as I'm concerned.

I read enough of your posts to know you did not believe in those hogwash and that you were only referring to the NAD's real power and excellent headroom capability relative to their published specs. Me neither, in fact I have been gradually losing faith in their "lab measurements" as well due to their very apparent inconsistent ways of "measuring". In another post I cited some recent HT mag numbers that showed the 10 lb heavier, higher power consumption figures Denon 4810 failing the 7 channel tests while the 4310 did it with excellent results. That's just one example. S&V also managed to get the HKAVR330 to trip out at very low output into a 4 ohm (resistive) load.

NAD AVRs are power houses, but unless you are in the UK, you do pay more $ per watt (I do mean real watt) for them. All that don't even matter to me as I have enough separate amps for music, when I want no clipping in my classical music listening. 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.

 

[jostenmeat]

In another post I cited some recent HT mag numbers that showed the 10 lb heavier, higher power consumption figures Denon 4810 failing the 7 channel tests while the 4310 did it with excellent results. That's just one example.

I missed that post, thanks for sharing. I don't know much about amps, and haven't been in this hobby for a very long time, but that is the first time I've ever heard that a higher model was outperformed by a lower model, from the same brand, and same year.

 

[PENG]

I missed that post, thanks for sharing. I don't know much about amps, and haven't been in this hobby for a very long time, but that is the first time I've ever heard that a higher model was outperformed by a lower model, from the same brand, and same year.

No problem, here it is, see post #6.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63157&highlight=4810

I took the numbers from:

http://hometheatermag.com/receivers/denon_avr-4810ci_av_receiver/index4.html

http://hometheatermag.com/receivers/denon_avr-4310ci_av_receiver/index4.html

Same reviewer for both units. Both had excellent distortion numbers and S/N ratios if you can believe the reviews.

I can't wait to see the reviews of the same products by the Home Cinema Choice magazine as their tests/methodologies tend to yield more consistent and belivable (logical) results over the years.

 

[jostenmeat]

Thanks, ok, so I did read that, but I must have purposely ignored it, as it seems to be pretty far fetched. Is it possible that they accidentally ran a 9ch test with the 4810?

I didn't understand at first that your example here was to show how funky some measurements are; I was taking it as the "truth", because you were citing it.

 

[PENG]

Thanks, ok, so I did read that, but I must have purposely ignored it, as it seems to be pretty far fetched. Is it possible that they accidentally ran a 9ch test with the 4810?

I didn't understand at first that your example here was to show how funky some measurements are; I was taking it as the "truth", because you were citing it.

I actually thought may be they did run a 9ch tests but the math still wouldn't work. Plus, this isn't the first time I noticed the apparent (give them the benefit of doubt) funky result. I subscribe to to both HTM and S&V so I have seen such suspicious numbers often enough. I still hope Gene would chime in one day and give us his opinion, speculation, or guess.

 

[PENG]

Thanks, ok, so I did read that, but I must have purposely ignored it, as it seems to be pretty far fetched. Is it possible that they accidentally ran a 9ch test with the 4810?

I didn't understand at first that your example here was to show how funky some measurements are; I was taking it as the "truth", because you were citing it.

I should say while I said the figures were not logical, I do understand it could simply be that Denon had put in a more advanced protective circuitry in the 4810 to protect it from being damaged by ACD simultaneously at high level such as those ACD tests conducted by HTM and S&V. In trying to achieve that goal they might have over protected the unit, relative to how they protect the older and/or lower models (e.g. 3808, 4310, 4308).

 

[3db]

I should say while I said the figures were not logical, I do understand it could simply be that Denon had put in a more advanced protective circuitry in the 4810 to protect it from being damaged by ACD simultaneously at high level such as those ACD tests conducted by HTM and S&V. In trying to achieve that goal they might have over protected the unit, relative to how they protect the older and/or lower models (e.g. 3808, 4310, 4308).

Some of the reviews by these mags that you mentioned on the older Yamaha's like the RX-V2700 had mentioned that the power output of all channels tests were startling lower than the 2 channel test (much lower than expected) and they had mentioned that this was a result of the protective circuitry cutting in and reducing the amount of power out allowed by the receiver. Maybe they keep forgetting to mention this on their reviews now. Who knows. Maybe their tests are flawed.

IK know the HTM review of the RX-V1065 power output as conducted by the HTM was dismal at best. The 2-channel test into 4 ohms of this receiver showed a bump in output no where's close to matching teh doubling into 4 ohms as one would expect.

 

[PENG]

Some of the reviews by these mags that you mentioned on the older Yamaha's like the RX-V2700 had mentioned that the power output of all channels tests were startling lower than the 2 channel test (much lower than expected) and they had mentioned that this was a result of the protective circuitry cutting in and reducing the amount of power out allowed by the receiver. Maybe they keep forgetting to mention this on their reviews now. Who knows. Maybe their tests are flawed.

IK know the HTM review of the RX-V1065 power output as conducted by the HTM was dismal at best. The 2-channel test into 4 ohms of this receiver showed a bump in output no where's close to matching teh doubling into 4 ohms as one would expect.

You are right, S&V did mention the protective circuit activation when they tested the 4810 recently but it happened when the unit reached 60W after a couple of seconds or something in the ACD (7 channels) test, quite a bit higher than that in the HTM tests. It also mentioned in real world this is meaningless.

So perhaps the 4810 offers a more robust protection circuit that only allow a short burst of high power/current if it sees a true all 7 channel driven simultaneously condition, a bit like NAD's IHF dynamic output ratings (0.02 second in that case). If you read their tests on previous models such as the 3805, 08, 4308, 4310, they yielded 108 to 120WX7 continuously without the protective circuit activated. So if you push those units with ACD to such output level you may stand a greater chance to damage the unit. On the other hand, I can't think of too many applications where the AVR would encounter such 7X120W continous conditions. Anyway, I am just speculating, still waiting for experts such as gene to shed some light on those test procedures.