yamaha or nad reciever

[mtrycrafts]

That may be, however, what if your front three channels require say full power and the rears require half of their rms. Or two front speakers require their full rms output two require half their rms output and one requires a 1/4. in either case the NAD will be more dynamic as it will deliver more power. I am simply stating my opinion. As I stated in my previous post, BOTH are good receivers, and I tend to choose mine by who is going to give me what they claim and maybe some more to boot. Others are welcome to make their own conclusions as they can think for themselves. This is just what I look for when I buy a receiver or amplifier, among other things.

Also, remember that some people do listen to music (not myself) in five and/or seven channel stereo modes, as well as Pro-logic II and IIx. These modes do utilize ALL channels at the same time. While music is dynamic, it can require all of the channels' continuous power (or a vast majority of it) depending upon volume levels.

If the front requires the full power of the Yam, then that material will also require the same power from the NAD, of course the same speakers and system in use , the NAD would go into clipping as it is rated to 50 watts and much more is demanded

I prefer prologic/II listening myself yes. While they utilize the channels at the same time, the volume from the surround, in th emusic I am interested in, sanely recorded is an effects channel with very little power needs, maybe 1 watts, maybe, most likely way less.
That is my take

 

[mtrycrafts]

I have to admit, when I first replied, I was thinking, it (the NAD), was a different model, the T753. I apologize as this makes the argument here pretty null.

With 5 channels driving on both receivers there would be liitle differece. With a 2 watt difference there would be no audible difference and a very small measurable one. To that argument I would concede. However, I was referencing the "all channels driven" power numbers, 7 for Yamaha, 5 for NAD, understandably it is not quite fair, but in that case the NAD would have more dynamic capability. While driving only two channels, the Yamaha would have a 2db overall output advantage, which would most likely be, for most people, inaudible. The NAD is rated at 70 watts x 2 cont. both channels driven at .08% thd in two channel mode. 50 watts x 5 cont. all channels driven simultaneously at .08% thd. Sorry guys, it was "one of those days."

I do have to say though, that I prefer a manufacturer that is totally honest. As to one that says, "because our receiver is capable of driving each channel to 120 watts x 2, it must be able to do it on all channels while using them all simultaneously", which is just not the case. If the receiver only does 48 watts when 5 channels are driven simultaneously, then say it. I do not care if they use the 120 watts to market the receiver but it should be stated otherwise somewhere in the manual.

We all have those days
While I understand honesty and look for it myself, I am not sure your implication

"because our receiver is capable of driving each channel to 120 watts x 2, it must be able to do it on all channels while using them all simultaneously",

is what Yamaha is stating. I am not reading that at all but I can see how some would inferr that since another company stated all channels driven simutaneously.

 

[annunaki]

If the front requires the full power of the Yam, then that material will also require the same power from the NAD, of course the same speakers and system in use , the NAD would go into clipping as it is rated to 50 watts and much more is demanded

What I am stating here would be of unclipped program power. While I understand what point you are stating, one would have to use some common sense with the volume control as well. In that scenario, the front channels would not receive 120 rms each as the other speakers requiring power would draw that total down, making the output similar to the NAD. Either way, in this instance, there is not a whole lot to argue as they are quite evenly matched.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Either way, in this instance, there is not a whole lot to argue as they are quite evenly matched.

Yes, absolutely right you are

 

[moverton]

Nad

I am not really any great NAD fan anymore. Don't really know how they held up during the 90's.
The thing that the old NAD did was rate the amps very conservatively. The NAD back then had 6db of headroom. Most of the the amps i was comparing it against were rated 100 or 200 watts but would fall apart on deep bass.
Actually, from what I can tell NAD gave up on trying to sell a lot of headroom.

I am not sure the barracks was the best place to do any meaningfull comparisons
Unless the Yam was broken or the power stated incorrectly or rated by music power in the old days, 40watts vs 200 watts is a no brainer. 40 watts just cannot be more powerfull.
But, there is nothing wrong with the NAD otherwise.

 

[mike_07]

thanks for all the advice guys.after all the decidiing back and forth between the nad and the yamaha, i actually ended up purchasing the denon3805 and ran my cambridge audio amp into it for the front 2 channels to keep the sound im used too for my music.its working out great for me.thanks again.

 

[annunaki]

Great to see you made a choice and are happy with it.

 

[av_phile]

Congrats too. Between a NAD and a Yamaha. And the winner is..... a Denon.

 

[Mudcat]

Congrats too. Between a NAD and a Yamaha. And the winner is..... a Denon.

That the nicest and most civil thing you've written in a long time. sniff sniff.

It's making me teary eyed.


I've followed this thread, and always wanted to jump in. But receiver power never meant anything to me. Yeah I have a Yamaha RX-V1400. But I only use it as a pre processor. All loads driven by seperate amps. I have four 75 watt/channel and two 150 watt/channel. It helped that I already had them and didn't have to shop for them.

 

[3db]

NAD vs Yamaha; my experience

Nad suffered from quailty control issues which appears to have been cleaned up in the last two years according to a reputable high end audio shop that I frequent. This shop sells both Yamaha and NAD. Yamaha according to this shop, has had next to no quality problems. The way these two receivers are postioned in the store, Yamaha is considered entry level and NAD is considered mid level. I've had a chance to hear the RXV1400 and the NAD T773 drive a pair of PSB Image T45s (the replacement for the 4Ts) and I noticed an improvement in quality of sound with the NAD. It wasn't night or day difference..It just brought more of the music nuances, bass was little more controlled and the soundstage just a little more open. The salesman mentioned the sames things I noticed after I auditioned it. He knows I can't afford the NAD but was curious to see if I could pick up on these subtleties.

I could easily live with either receiver as they both sound good. The NAD sounds just that little bet better. Is it worth the extra coin? Don't know..depends on where one's priotities lie.

 

[annunaki]

That, in the end, is really the deciding factor. Isn't it?

 

[Unregistered]

hello, i had a nad t 743 and its a super machine for that price... if i were you i would choose nad 753, and yamaha wont be close enought to even compete with your nad! have a good playing

 

[Unregistered]

NAD Hands-down

A NAD T7x3 will outperform most receivers priced twice as much 9 times out of 10.
As with anything though, your source matters (garbage in=garbage out), and your speakers matter too...NADs handle less-efficient speakers better than anything else since they don't over-rate their amps like the japanese junk vendors do (yes, that means you Yamaha, Sony, Marantz, etc.).
Go to a respectable dealer, bring both amps home and try them out...crank 'em up and you'll see it's no-contest.

NAD every time.

p.s. ...or Denon

 

[Yamahaluver]

Yep, definitely stay off junk like Yamaha for good.

 

[Unregistered]

me

Love how the guy bashes Japanese brands but then says... p.s. or Denon. Denon is a Japanese brand and also rates their receivers in the same manner as all the others.

 

[Unregistered]

nad

there is no comparison . they are not even in the same ball park. go wih the nad!

 

[Unregistered]

nad

p.s the guy dissing marantz is ****ing clueless. this is one of the next best recievers to the nad. do your homework before saying such rediculous comments you chump!

 

[Unregistered]

This is very late in the discussion, but I was just looking at Yamaha's RX-V1400 web page and the power rating says 110 x 7. So am I misunderstanding something or was all that power discussion back there based on a false premise (that the RX-V1400 was 120 x 2)?

 

[annunaki]

The Yamaha is whatever is says it is on thier website. I believe the 120 watts was an example.