RX-V2500 to NAD T973 a worthy upgrade?

[Pyrrho]

I have a RX-V2500 and I just got all my new energy speaks.. My boss ordered me a 973 but now I may have come to my senses. Need some back up from you smart people
The real question here is: Do you think there will be a large difference going from a yamaha RX-V2500 (130x7) to the NADT973 (140x7)? I know that NAD is cleaner power but will it make a difference? I also know that the NAD is rated very conservatively so it should be substantially more power but still is it worth the 1500?

No, there will not be a large difference between them. "Cleaner power" is one of those phrases that is meaningless; presumably, you mean that it is rated at less THD? Are you hearing distortion now with the Yamaha? If so, it is probably either defective or you are listening at very loud volumes. You are almost certainly wasting money if you do the upgrade. What is wrong with your system now, and what is it that you expect the NAD to do to fix that problem?

 

[LaserMark4]

No, there will not be a large difference between them. "Cleaner power" is one of those phrases that is meaningless; presumably, you mean that it is rated at less THD? Are you hearing distortion now with the Yamaha? If so, it is probably either defective or you are listening at very loud volumes.

Or it could very well be that your speaker demands, under high volumes and 7.1 loads, are not being served up the power they need. I noticed your Energy R-70's required 4 ohm loads-- typically a sign of a quality, higher-end speaker. Many digital AV receivers will actually warn you to stay away from them if your speakers have below 8 ohm demands.

Your specs for the RX-V2500 is on page 106 of the manual here: http://www.yamaha.com/yec/customer/manuals/PDFs/RX_V2500.pdf

I noticed that it's maximum power output is 180 watts at only 1kHz at 8 ohms (assumed one channel driven).... BUT has a huge 10% THD distortion. If your speaker loads are pulling 4 ohms or lower, guaranteed you are most likely running out of headroom!

It's all about headroom as we look to the future of audio and HT! Can your Yamaha deliver the goods when the HT room is at peak levels and the demands of today's movies (crammed full audio spectrums at historically high levels) slam the system for minutes at a time. That's where the rubber meets the road, and where some receivers run out of room-- headroom!

I think the best white paper I have read on this issue of headroom vs. digital AV receivers is here on eCoustics: http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/109459.html This article will explain how some 100 watt-6.1 channel AV receivers on the market today may actually deliver only 27 watts per channel!

I own 5 of the some of hardest speakers to drive in the business (Martin Logan electrostatics) in terms of overheating amps, as all require 1.3 to 2 ohm loads continuous (remember zero is a dead short!) --and they are obviously all driving at once under max loads in the HT. This system eats weak digital receivers for lunch, and when that happens, it sounds like shear crap (distortion!). With ML's, the more pure power you can feed them, the better the sound.

I currently own the NAD T973 and all I can say, this amp rocks with incredible power. It would take a lot longer than everyone would want to read to explain each reason why this is so. Here's just a few-- 7 individual monoblocks with one for each channel, 80,000 uF storage capacitance, Power Drive automatic impedance adjustment, and over 70 lbs of beast material behind it. I have run my ML's and the HT system at continuous, screaming audio levels for hours on end, and the T973 is literally stone cold to the touch and doesn't skip a beat. I have never even come close to pushing this thing to a sweat, let alone to the limits. IMO, that's called headroom for "all channels driven" when your loads are 1-4 ohm, and most receivers will overheat with the greater power flows (not to mention the increased abrasive distortion.)

Again, most 8 ohm speakers can be driven with the right AV Receiver behind them, and will sound and operate well. In other scenarios like mine, depending on speaker demands and conditions, they will suck wind and distort/clip/bail-out like an old Sony Walkman.

But to say "No, there will not be a large difference between them" may not necessarily be true based on your speaker load demands, the particular audio levels you listen at, etc.

Finally.....bring home a separate amp like the NAD, Outlaw, Anthem, or Rotel and torture test the system to see what you hear. Then "trust your ears"! They will tell you exactly if the receiver is all you need, or if the system is in fact underpowered and a separate amp is needed to really deliver the goods.


Happy Listening- Mark S.

 

[mulester7]

"Cleaner power" is one of those phrases that is meaningless

.....cannonfodder.....call it what you will, but it's all relevant to the quality and components of the build....I know for a fact, yes, I said fact, some dedicated amplifiers sound different from others I have had in my home theater....Gentlemen, trust what you hear, not what some guy said in an article or review who could have very well been getting a kickback under the table for either an endorsement or a putdown....I firmly believe the almighty dollar hath skewed many a reporting that was maybe marginal to start with, why not?, the almighty dollar seems to influence virtually everywhere, does it not?....trust your hearing to guide your purchases....your ears are connected to the somebody who is laying out the green, so why not strive to please that particular somebody, and tell anyone else to go soak their head?.....great post, LazerMark4....the only thing I would change is it's not necessarily headroom....technically, headroom is the land between continuous-watts-rated and the peak-power-rating....I say the goal should be a large pool of continuous-watts-rated from dedicated seperates amp sections, with the Land of Headroom sitting on top of the continuous-watts-rated spec....

.....it seems the upgrades to come commercially, generally apply to processing, which usually applies to some form of matrixing....as long as the industry standard remains "stereo" as per cost factors, that is what I will humbly continue to lean toward, and will also continue to consider any form of matrixing I have ever heard, to be worthless.....

.....if you feel so led, audition some dedicated amps now, they won't be outdated anytime soon, so get 'em while they're hot, mustard optional.....

 

[LaserMark4]

LazerMark4....the only thing I would change is it's not necessarily headroom....technically, headroom is the land between continuous-watts-rated and the peak-power-rating....I say the goal should be a large pool of continuous-watts-rated from dedicated seperates amp sections

Hey Mulester7-- Good description....."a large pool of continuous-watts-rated (power) from dedicated separate amp sections" --maybe you need to coin a new term? That's exactly what I think, but hey, I'm still an amatuer.

The sheer amount of audio material in action movies these days (100+ audio tracks digitally mastered in Pro Tools) is why more systems simply choke under fire. The lady keeps saying "turn it down.... it's too loud" simply because there is so much distortion generated by the system not being able to keep up with the complexity, dynamics, and freqs of the new movie material. I mean, 10 years ago did you ever think we would be fighting for more sub 15 Hz performances as we want today, and have the subs to deliver it (and more importantly the sources and material too)?

On the other hand, when the system can handle the demands and it all comes together, it's true bliss and sounds sooooooo good!

"Mo Power.....Mo Power!"

 

[mtrycrafts]

Or it could very well be that your speaker demands, under high volumes and 7.1 loads, are not being served up the power they need. I noticed your Energy R-70's required 4 ohm loads-- typically a sign of a quality, higher-end speaker. Many digital AV receivers will actually warn you to stay away from them if your speakers have below 8 ohm demands.

Your specs for the RX-V2500 is on page 106 of the manual here: http://www.yamaha.com/yec/customer/manuals/PDFs/RX_V2500.pdf

I noticed that it's maximum power output is 180 watts at only 1kHz at 8 ohms (assumed one channel driven).... BUT has a huge 10% THD distortion. If your speaker loads are pulling 4 ohms or lower, guaranteed you are most likely running out of headroom!

It's all about headroom as we look to the future of audio and HT! Can your Yamaha deliver the goods when the HT room is at peak levels and the demands of today's movies (crammed full audio spectrums at historically high levels) slam the system for minutes at a time. That's where the rubber meets the road, and where some receivers run out of room-- headroom!

I think the best white paper I have read on this issue of headroom vs. digital AV receivers is here on eCoustics: http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/109459.html This article will explain how some 100 watt-6.1 channel AV receivers on the market today may actually deliver only 27 watts per channel!

I own 5 of the some of hardest speakers to drive in the business (Martin Logan electrostatics) in terms of overheating amps, as all require 1.3 to 2 ohm loads continuous (remember zero is a dead short!) --and they are obviously all driving at once under max loads in the HT. This system eats weak digital receivers for lunch, and when that happens, it sounds like shear crap (distortion!). With ML's, the more pure power you can feed them, the better the sound.

I currently own the NAD T973 and all I can say, this amp rocks with incredible power. It would take a lot longer than everyone would want to read to explain each reason why this is so. Here's just a few-- 7 individual monoblocks with one for each channel, 80,000 uF storage capacitance, Power Drive automatic impedance adjustment, and over 70 lbs of beast material behind it. I have run my ML's and the HT system at continuous, screaming audio levels for hours on end, and the T973 is literally stone cold to the touch and doesn't skip a beat. I have never even come close to pushing this thing to a sweat, let alone to the limits. IMO, that's called headroom for "all channels driven" when your loads are 1-4 ohm, and most receivers will overheat with the greater power flows (not to mention the increased abrasive distortion.)

Again, most 8 ohm speakers can be driven with the right AV Receiver behind them, and will sound and operate well. In other scenarios like mine, depending on speaker demands and conditions, they will suck wind and distort/clip/bail-out like an old Sony Walkman.

But to say "No, there will not be a large difference between them" may not necessarily be true based on your speaker load demands, the particular audio levels you listen at, etc.
Finally.....bring home a separate amp like the NAD, Outlaw, Anthem, or Rotel and torture test the system to see what you hear. Then "trust your ears"! They will tell you exactly if the receiver is all you need, or if the system is in fact underpowered and a separate amp is needed to really deliver the goods.
Happy Listening- Mark S.

Is there a reason you singled out that EIAJ spec at 10% distortion?
RMA power is a minimum of 130 watts at .04% into 8 Ohms.

As to video, I am not aware of a movie that demands full power to all channels at the same instant. As to those 1 minute passages, I bet it is not continuous but sufficient time to recharge the caps for the next demand. This amp is rated for dynamic power into 2 ohms.

 

[mulester7]

.....LazerMark4, some have been messing with audio components longer than others, but we're all amateurs.....

 

[The13thGryphon]

I don't think there is such a thing as "waiting for the perfect opportunity" when it comes to electronics and technology. If that were the case in the world of computers, we'd never own one... -TD

I couldn't agree with you more for receivers and pre/pro's. A good amp can bring you solid performance and pleasure for many, many years to come. But anything that performs any processing (receivers and pre/pro's for instance) will be obsolete in six months to a year.

No, there will not be a large difference between them. "Cleaner power" is one of those phrases that is meaningless; presumably, you mean that it is rated at less THD? Are you hearing distortion now with the Yamaha? If so, it is probably either defective or you are listening at very loud volumes. You are almost certainly wasting money if you do the upgrade. What is wrong with your system now, and what is it that you expect the NAD to do to fix that problem?

My first home theater system was based upon a Marantz SR-4200 receiver (70 watts per channel). At the time I had two pairs of speakers in the house, and decided that I’d build a surround system around one of the two.

They were a pair of Klipsch Forte’s and a pair of KEF Q75’s. Both of these speakers are efficient, and neither is seemingly a difficult load. The Forte is a 96 dB (1 watt/1 meter) speaker with a nominal 8 ohm rating. The Q75 is a 91 dB (1 watt/1 meter) 6 ohm nominal speaker.

With 96dB sensitivity and an 8 ohm rating one would think you could use pretty much any amplifier with the Klipsch Forte’s. This, however, is not the case. Apparently, in order to match the output levels of the midrange and tweeter drivers (those horns, you know) to the 12” woofer, Klipsch used a transformer in the crossover circuit. Transformers are inductive by nature; which means that while the amplifier doesn’t have to have a high power output, it does need to be able to deal with a very difficult load caused by the inductor’s presence. Using a receiver with these speakers is entirely the wrong approach. What’s needed is a high-current amplifier that can deal with difficult loads without any problems.

Therefore, my Marantz receiver/Klipsch experiment failed miserably; muddy, tubby, and generally unappealing sound was the result. Luckily, the KEF’s sounded very nice with the Marantz, which allowed me to begin building my home theater anyway. My point is that impedance and sensitivity are not the only parameters in the speaker/amp interface to be concerned with. Phase angle and inductance must also be taken into account, at a minimum.

Now, here’s where it gets even more interesting. After several months of enjoyment with my new system I wondered how it would sound with more oomph behind it. Not that it wasn’t loud enough… just that I wanted a more dynamically realistic presentation for both music and movies. Therefore, I grabbed my stereo amp (a Harman-Kardon Citation 22) which is rated at 200 watts per channel into 8 ohms.

The difference was obvious (to me at least). Not as great as the difference between the Klipsch and KEF speakers, but significant none-the-less. Even with the relatively mild-mannered KEFs there was greater dynamics and impact, greater detail and clarity, greater growl in the bass, better low bass extension, and overall, a much more lifelike and exhilarating presentation. And where the Marantz wouldn’t play nice with the Klipsch Forte’s, the Citation amp made them sing!

So, will an outboard amp make a difference? Possibly. Your hearing, your room, your speakers, your choice in music and movies, your personal preference for volume and impact will determine whether it does in your case. But it certainly did for me.

 

[LaserMark4]

Is there a reason you singled out that EIAJ spec at 10% distortion?
RMA power is a minimum of 130 watts at .04% into 8 Ohms.

As to video, I am not aware of a movie that demands full power to all channels at the same instant. As to those 1 minute passages, I bet it is not continuous but sufficient time to recharge the caps for the next demand. This amp is rated for dynamic power into 2 ohms.

We are not talking minutes, here-- more like immediate reproduction of life-like sound. I think the eCoustics article best describes it:

If it were a real-life orchestra playing at full tilt, and you wanted to reproduce the illusion in your living room of standing next to that grand piano, then peaks of 109 dB would be required. So getting from 96 dB to 106 dB will require ten times as much power again (10 x 10) or 100 watts per channel. The goal, remember, is real-life reproduction of that grand piano, so now we only need 3 dB more (subjectively "somewhat louder") to hit 109 dB in the living room. But twice as much power is required for a 3-dB increase (100 watts x 2 = 200 watts). All of a sudden our A/V receiver or amplifier has run out of power!

Of course, it's just a brief peak, lasting perhaps 200 milliseconds (one-fifth of a second), but the amplifier must have sufficient reserves of power to properly reproduce that momentary peak without distorting. If the amplifier has 3 dB of dynamic headroom, it will make it, and output the required 200 watts per channel for a fraction of a second, with no clipping and no distortion. But the truth is that most A/V receiver amplifiers have little or no dynamic headroom, so the receiver runs out of power, the distortion rises, and audible distortion intrudes, ever-so-briefly. The piano then "sounds too loud," to our ears because of the nasty distortion components, so we turn down the volume just short of our goal, because our amp didn't have enough dynamic headroom to handle the instantaneous peak power requirement.

The guy who wrote this article is Alan Lofft, a true expert/veteran in the business-- the 13 year Editor in Chief of Sound & Vision magazine, and Senior Editor of Audio magazine.

Available power of sufficient output and reserves is the key. It suprised me that if the minimum of "all channels" driven was 130w across the full spectrum (20-20K) at 8 ohms (no sustained rating for lower ohms), then the max output of one channel at 1K at 180w seemed to me to fall off dramatically with a lot of THD (10%).

But specs are only specs, and real world listening and applying the unit to the actualy conditions will tell the story. Again, I am not intimately familiar with this receiver and not trying to trash talk it. It may be awesome with the speakers involved, but lower ohm speakers will definitely demand more sustained horsepower if you want quality delivery.

But only listening and comparing will tell the real story.

 

[LaserMark4]

Maybe a Smoking Gun?

As to video, I am not aware of a movie that demands full power to all channels at the same instant. As to those 1 minute passages, I bet it is not continuous but sufficient time to recharge the caps for the next demand. This amp is rated for dynamic power into 2 ohms.

Not to dominate this thread, but I bumped into the Audioholics review of the RX-V2500 by Gene DellaSala which is a quality, very technically oriented review and analysis. He definitely speaks to the issues we have just been discussing regarding power limitations of amps vs. receivers:

"The Yamaha RX-V2500 does a bang up job in power delivery into 8 ohms. While it is specified to deliver 130wpc into 8 ohms, I actually measured a whopping 148wpc with one channel driven and 135wpc into 8 ohms with 2 channels driven unclipped!

What’s even more impressive is that it did so with only 0.05dB additional attenuation at 20kHz when compared to the 1 watt frequency response test. What this demonstrates is excellent frequency response uniformity at all power levels. Kudos to a receiver that delivers all the latest bells and whistle with a free 7CH amp thrown in!

Driving 4 ohm loads is certainly not the RX-V2500’s forte, but it did a commendable job considering. It was able to deliver 200wpc with one channel driven and about 110wpc with 2 channels driven unclipped. Initially I cranked more power out under these test conditions from 20Hz to about 15kHz but then found major slew induced distortion at higher frequencies followed by a rapid shut down of the receiver. This is very good news actually since the amplifier automatically shuts down once bandwidth uniformity has been compromised for being driven too hard and is a good preventative measure for protecting both the amplifiers and the loudspeakers. This shouldn’t be a real world problem because at high frequencies very little power is being delivered to the speaker system since music is mostly harmonic in nature above 13kHz or so. The real power demand is in the bass and in most home theater systems a dedicated subwoofer or two is used to alleviate this problem.

Considering this, I backed off on the Yammie until I had a pristine unclipped waveform at 20kHz to come up with the measurements published herein. It should also be noted that anytime I drove 4 ohm loads at full power, the fan came on shortly after. I caution those using 4 ohm speakers to make sure you have plenty of ventilation and airflow.

Recommendations:

The Yamaha RX-V2500 has respectable amplifier performance for a receiver in its price class and should serve most home theater environments quite well. I advise against using low efficient 4 ohm speakers in environments where you like to play your music loudly and your room dimensions exceed 2000 ft^3. For best results, my advice is to use reasonably efficient (88dB or higher) 6-8 ohm speakers (4 ohm may be used if their efficiency is 90dB or greater and you provide adequate ventilation) and apply bass management to all channels and route the power hungry bass information to a dedicated subwoofer or two. If you find you need more power in the future, simply preamp out to a dedicated amp and you have yourself a great processor with all the latest surround formats on board."

Does it make sense now that this may not be a good choice for 1.32 ohm rated speaker-- It all depends on your selection of components, pieces, and parts. "Parts are parts".....Not!

If you want to read the entire bench test, you can find it here: http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/yamaharxv2500benchtestp1.php

 

[mulester7]

.....Guys, this last post says you can trust Gene to state faults, and you should scour FleaBay for older, quite used, but generally trustworthy considering they're built like a Sherman Tank, two-sided dedicated power amps from the, let's say, 70's-80's, that have three or four or even five hundred watts continuous-rated per side....300-350 watts, was the norm for Crowns I saw back then....and, I assure you, there's plenty of power amps from the 60's and before, still popping that full-range signal, with the low-end mainly, standing out proudly....but it's more than just the low-end....listen, it either sounds "more live" to you with a new piece of equipment, or it doesn't, and you should care less if it sounds "more live" to ANYONE else....but, I'll say as somewhat of a disclaimer, I feel the little woman will like any improvement in the music as long as "you" honestly feel there's a real improvement, but hey, if they don't gripe a little, they explode, ya' know?.......

 

[KC23]

Was reading a thread on the Axiom site which a guy with RX-V2500 upgraded to Outlaw 990 with 1725. He said the quality improvement was significant.

 

[NGL_BrSH]

Wow didn't realize this would be such a heated discussion. Thanks a lot for ALL of your replys. I think it's worth taking the nad home and giving it a try. (a little flak from my boss for opening it)

I'll have the 973 to try out in a couple days against my RX-V2500. I live my music loud but haven't had a chance to use my new speaks on the rxv yet. (Still in Service for a blown center IC) I've been using my roommates amp/pre setup and they sound remarkable. Soon i'll give my full amateur analysis of the three different setups.

Thanks again.

 

[LaserMark4]

I'll have the 973 to try out in a couple days against my RX-V2500. I live my music loud but haven't had a chance to use my new speaks on the rxv yet. (Still in Service for a blown center IC) I've been using my roommates amp/pre setup and they sound remarkable. Soon i'll give my full amateur analysis of the three different setups.

Thanks again.

I'll be anxious to hear about your results with each setup, NGL_BrSH!

Mark S.

 

[LaserMark4]

You should scour FleaBay for older, quite used, but generally trustworthy considering they're built like a Sherman Tank, two-sided dedicated power amps from the, let's say, 70's-80's, that have three or four or even five hundred watts continuous-rated per side....300-350 watts, was the norm for Crowns I saw back then....and, I assure you, there's plenty of power amps from the 60's and before, still popping that full-range signal, with the low-end mainly, standing out proudly....but it's more than just the low-end....listen, it either sounds "more live" to you with a new piece of equipment, or it doesn't

I would agree with one caveat. I've have several friends that have "mixed and matched" legacy amps in their 5.1 to 7.1 systems-- typically one to run the mains and center, and one to run the surrounds. That's a good strategy. The only caution I have heard from their experience is that if you are trying to blend the sound of a suite of compatible matching speakers (like I have with all 5 electrostatics), using mixed-matched amps may have an adverse affect on the blending of the sound and final results. Some of the newer amps (like NAD) have microprocessing technology and a 2nd high voltage rail that can distribute the power to the required channels "on demand", thus channeling (and conserving) the overall power reserves to deliver it to the speakers where it is most needed.

Field testing seems to bear out that some of these latest amps may create a more harmonious, blending sound if you're driving a suite of the same manufacturer's speakers. In one instance, a friend using my identical NAD T973 (true 140w x 7, 450w 2 ohm, and power distribution) actually found it really improved and changed the overall sound of his theatre vs. the original sound that his 2-3 amps were delivering, even though his mixed/matched amps had greater specs and output (some as high as 600 watt beasts). I think some of this certainly has to do with the fact the good amp manufacturers really are building a better product today in 2006, with newer technologies, components, microprocessing, etc.

Finally, Gene DellaSala, President of Audioholics, had a pretty profound synopsis of this discussion elsewhere on this Forum:

The truth of the matter is an absolute power rating of an amp, just like HP in a car, tells very little on how it will perform sonically. This is why we put more resources into testing other metrics that really do matter. People get too hung up on power, not even realizing the rated power specs are very conditional, and that the wall outlet is usually the limiting factor, not necessarily the amplifiers output power capability.

The reasons people may prefer a high end Parasound/Krell/separates amp over the amp section in a $1k receiver are:
1) The separate amp has a lower and more uniform output impedance. The advantages here is it will sound more consistant when driving an assortment of loudspeakers regardless of their impedance/phase profile.
2) The separate amp is more capable of driving reactive speaker loads undistorted and unadulterated partly because of reason#1 and because of a beefier power supply, more heatsink area, and more output devices.
3) The amp will not have nearly as much frequency response variation as the $1k receiver amp based on #1 and #2.
4) The amp has less slew induced distortion, particularly at high frequencies when driving reactive loads.
5) The amp has more phase margin allowing it to drive reactive loads more easily.
6) The amp likely has better power supply filtering and noise immunity.

Really all 6 of these are interrelated.​

 

[mulester7]

.....good post and good points, LazerMark4, but many who come here to read and learn have families and limiting budgets....sure, the modern stuff is better, but the older stuff will deliver good results coming from a receiver's pre-outs....upgraditis is for real with those who can be thrilled by a sound system....ya' best spoon-feed the disease a little at a time......

 

[mtrycrafts]

We are not talking minutes, here-- more like immediate reproduction of life-like sound. I think the eCoustics article best describes it:

If it were a real-life orchestra playing at full tilt, and you wanted to reproduce the illusion in your living room of standing next to that grand piano, then peaks of 109 dB would be required. So getting from 96 dB to 106 dB will require ten times as much power again (10 x 10) or 100 watts per channel. The goal, remember, is real-life reproduction of that grand piano, so now we only need 3 dB more (subjectively "somewhat louder") to hit 109 dB in the living room. But twice as much power is required for a 3-dB increase (100 watts x 2 = 200 watts). All of a sudden our A/V receiver or amplifier has run out of power!

Of course, it's just a brief peak, lasting perhaps 200 milliseconds (one-fifth of a second), but the amplifier must have sufficient reserves of power to properly reproduce that momentary peak without distorting. If the amplifier has 3 dB of dynamic headroom, it will make it, and output the required 200 watts per channel for a fraction of a second, with no clipping and no distortion. But the truth is that most A/V receiver amplifiers have little or no dynamic headroom, so the receiver runs out of power, the distortion rises, and audible distortion intrudes, ever-so-briefly. The piano then "sounds too loud," to our ears because of the nasty distortion components, so we turn down the volume just short of our goal, because our amp didn't have enough dynamic headroom to handle the instantaneous peak power requirement.

The guy who wrote this article is Alan Lofft, a true expert/veteran in the business-- the 13 year Editor in Chief of Sound & Vision magazine, and Senior Editor of Audio magazine.

Available power of sufficient output and reserves is the key. It suprised me that if the minimum of "all channels" driven was 130w across the full spectrum (20-20K) at 8 ohms (no sustained rating for lower ohms), then the max output of one channel at 1K at 180w seemed to me to fall off dramatically with a lot of THD (10%).

But specs are only specs, and real world listening and applying the unit to the actualy conditions will tell the story. Again, I am not intimately familiar with this receiver and not trying to trash talk it. It may be awesome with the speakers involved, but lower ohm speakers will definitely demand more sustained horsepower if you want quality delivery.

But only listening and comparing will tell the real story.

Well, if you want to listen to 109 dB spl at your listening position, be my guest. I don't sit next to a grand piano at a performance, going full blast, or any blast, for that matter. You miss a lot. Your hearing will be damaged in short order.
And, the question is what power was used to get to 96dB? Maybe it wasn't 10 watts, hence, to get to 106dB is less than 100 watts.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Does it make sense now that this may not be a good choice for 1.32 ohm rated speaker-- It all depends on your selection of components, pieces, and parts. "Parts are parts".....Not!

Who said that this amp, or most stand alone amps would drive a 1.32 Ohm speaker??? Why would anyone buy such a speaker in the first place??? Plenty of good speakers on the market with good impedance.

 

[LaserMark4]

Who said that this amp, or most stand alone amps would drive a 1.32 Ohm speaker??? Why would anyone buy such a speaker in the first place??? Plenty of good speakers on the market with good impedance.

I sense you sense haven't heard Martin Logans perform-- you owe yourself a favor to hear them some time with hopefully some great equipment behind them.

A great many of the finest speakers in the world today operate down in very low impedence levels-- it's one of the reasons they deliver such great fidelity. Wilson Audio-- sub 1 watt! Quads, B & W, Genesis, MBL, ML's, -- all 4 ohm and below. Now I know many of these are in the "outrageous" price point to most, but more and more speakers are encroaching on the 4 ohm territory in the moderately priced realm as well.

So there is good news and bad news.

The bad news is these speakers may typically be only fed by separates as opposed to AV receivers. The good news is that there are a host of great amps (with more and more choices and price points) that can serve up this kind of performance......NAD being one. The bad news is, as mulester7 point out, $$$$ is a big issue and may drive up the overall costs of a typical HT system.

I only point out some of these issues, due to the fact that when folks fall in love with a certain speakers, they got to understand that there is a price and technology associated for the package that must come with those speakers if they want them to really deliver the goods. For that reason, one has to pay close attention to the power requirements of their speakers, and make sure their receivers and/or amps match that demand or problems will always surface and overshadow the final outcome.

 

[mulester7]

.....LazerMark, I notice you abide in the city where the time signal for my atomic Casio comes from, Fort Collins, Colorado....do you own a buncha' atomically set clocks and watches?....my watch is solar-powered too, but Fort Collins can't claim the sun, LazerMark, that comes up around Ozark, Arkinsaw.....

 

[mouettus]

It's not just a power thing.

Your NAD will have WAY MORE power because it's conservatively rated. Extreme high current, extreme high current!

But the real deal is sound quality my good man. You have heard of those two receivers. Then you should have your choice right away. Now, are you ready to pay for this upgrade? This is up to you buddy!