yamaha or nad reciever

[mike_07]

i am looking to get a new a/v reciever and was wondering if i should get the yamaha rxv1400 for all the features,or the nad t743 for the music performance.i have mission valare mv61 speakers and was wondering which reciever they would sound better on.i am looking for a reciever that gives me good home theatre along with great 2 channel performance. any feedback would be appreciated!

 

[nadnklipsch]

i'd go with the nad, but i think i might be a little partial to them

 

[mtrycrafts]

i am looking to get a new a/v reciever and was wondering if i should get the yamaha rxv1400 for all the features,or the nad t743 for the music performance.i have mission valare mv61 speakers and was wondering which reciever they would sound better on.i am looking for a reciever that gives me good home theatre along with great 2 channel performance. any feedback would be appreciated!

I wouldn't worry about the 'music performance' of wither component. Buy the one that would meet your flexibility needs and the impedance load and sensitivity of the speaker.Then enjoy.

 

[Yamahaluver]

Music performance of Yamaha is quite good if you like accurate sound but it also depends a lot on the speakers used.

 

[annunaki]

The NAD has a more dynamic amplifier section. It will reach higher output levels. Both are great units, but personally, I would go NAD.

 

[mtrycrafts]

but it also depends a lot on the speakers used.

Usually does Some wish it to be otherwise though

 

[mtrycrafts]

The NAD has a more dynamic amplifier section. It will reach higher output levels. .

I am curious what you mean here. What is more dynamic and how? Is this NAD rated for higher power out than the Yam in question?

 

[annunaki]

The Yamaha is rated with only two channels driven. The NAD is rated with all channel driven simultaneously. With the Yamaha, as more speakers are turned on or added, the power to each speaker continues to decrease. The receiver in question does 120 watts x 2 stereo. Add another speaker and now we have 80 watts x 3, add another and there is 60 x 4, another and there is 48 x 5, add two more and we are down to 34 x 7. Conversely, with the NAD, we have 50 watts x 2, 50 x 3, 50 x 4, 50 x 5. The power never drops off therefore making it more capable dynamically. Both units are very nice. When I look for a receiver I want something with power that is not made to look more impressive than it really is. I am not into frills like DSP modes and what not.

 

[Unregistered]

The Yamaha is rated with only two channels driven. The NAD is rated with all channel driven simultaneously. With the Yamaha, as more speakers are turned on or added, the power to each speaker continues to decrease. The receiver in question does 120 watts x 2 stereo. Add another speaker and now we have 80 watts x 3, add another and there is 60 x 4, another and there is 48 x 5, add two more and we are down to 34 x 7.

That will only be the case when all channels are driven simultaneously - a case that rarely if ever occurs with real music and even when it does ocurr it will be for fractions of a second. The only time all channels will be driven simultaneously is listening to pure tones, not music or movies.

Receivers rated for all channels driven will definitely have a more robust power supply and be able to deal with large transients better than 2 channel driven rated receivers, but that shouldn't dissuade you from choosing Yamaha. I don't care for them myself, but not for the reason that they are rated when 2 channels are driven simultaneously.

 

[annunaki]

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.

 

[Unregistered]

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.

I don't want to debate the relative merits of one receiver over another but the belief stated above is what people give as a reason for preferring a receiver that is rated all channels driven. The problem is that it is just not true.

The only way to drive all channels simultaneously is to have a pure tone at the exact same frequency and amplitude in all channels at the same time; ie not music.

The argument breaks down even more when you use a very 'dynamic' passage of music. While all channels will be playing in 5 or 7 channel music, they will still not be playing *at the same time*. There will always be a finite, albeit very small, difference in time between the channels. The differences are even greater the more dynamic the passage is.

A more robust power supply such as used by NAD will handle the stress far better than run of the mill receivers, but you could just as easily argue that 2 channels at a time is more realistic. Regardless one should audition the receviers in question and choose based on features, build quality and price.

 

[mtrycrafts]

The Yamaha is rated with only two channels driven. The NAD is rated with all channel driven simultaneously. With the Yamaha, as more speakers are turned on or added, the power to each speaker continues to decrease. The receiver in question does 120 watts x 2 stereo. Add another speaker and now we have 80 watts x 3, add another and there is 60 x 4, another and there is 48 x 5, add two more and we are down to 34 x 7. Conversely, with the NAD, we have 50 watts x 2, 50 x 3, 50 x 4, 50 x 5. The power never drops off therefore making it more capable dynamically. Both units are very nice. When I look for a receiver I want something with power that is not made to look more impressive than it really is. I am not into frills like DSP modes and what not.

Actually, I doubt that is the case, that it is an issue of dynamics.
One amp is a 50 watt amp, the other is 48 watts while driving 5 channels.
You call that 2 watt advantage dynamic? You should reconsider this, really.

Who rated this NAD? Prehaps it is conservatively rated into 2 channels to make it look better? I have never seen an amp with the same ratings into 2 ch or all ch.

And, as was stated you will most likely never see all channels driven to full power at the exact same time that this would be an issue.

So, The 120 watt Yam is a much better receiver as it has a 4dB advantage over the NAD.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Receivers rated for all channels driven will definitely have a more robust power supply and be able to deal with large transients better than 2 channel driven rated receivers, but that shouldn't dissuade you from choosing Yamaha. I don't care for them myself, but not for the reason that they are rated when 2 channels are driven simultaneously.

While receivers usually are rated by the company for two channels driven, that doesn't mean all channels cannot be driven simultaneously to its capability. this is shown by numerous publications. This doesn't mean that they will have the same power capability to all channels as to two channels.

There is no difference in power between that Yam and the NAD driving 5 channels. They put out 50 watts. Perhaps the NAD is defficient as it cannot do more when fewer channels are driven?
It is certainly not more dynamic with 50 watts.

 

[annunaki]

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.

 

[Unregistered]

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.

I agree with you completely. These discussions arise precisely because of what you said. People see a receiver advertised as 7x100 and infer that that means 'all channels driven simultaneously', when they actually state 'any 2 channels driven'. I would prefer that receivers gave both ratings (2 channel, all-channel) so one could make a more informed decision, but I still think its rather academic as most of these receivers have enough power to drive reasonably efficient speakers anyway.

 

[LeadTrac]

I took the middle ground. I have the Yamaha 2400 and I run it through an Adcom 5 channel power amp. Therefore, I get the best of both worlds. It works for me.

 

[moverton]

old nad or new

I had a great experience with an older NAD receiver (7240.) This was back in thier 'power envelope' period. The thing was rated at 40 watts but was clearer and more powerful than any of the 200 watt yamaha, onkyo, etc stuff around at the time (I was in the military where the barracks probably had 40 receivers to compare against). The thing converted half the brigade to NAD (and Energy Pro 22's).
Years later after losing the receiver in a fire I looked into replacing it. The NADs from that time (1995) were nowhere near as well made and sounded terrible (IMO). I have always wondered if they bounced back from that.
Recently I bought an old NAD 2600 amp from 1989 to bypass my current receiver's amp. It sounds great. Better than most new high power modern receiver amps i've heard.
I've avoided looking into newer NAD until now. Love to hear others experience with their newest lineup. Still have warm feelings left from the old days.
-mark

 

[av_phile]

I don't use a NAD myself but I agree entirely with Annunaki's points. Between the two, when it comes to receivers or separates, I'd get a NAD anytime. Most of my colleague have upgraded from a yamaha to a NAD and find the experience most fullfilling in terms of sonic quality for the SAME rated power as published or advertised. Sooner or later, they had realized that conservative power rating always has an edge over marketing hype when it comes to delivering customer expecations based on promised specs. Power isn't everything ofcourse, but between two amps rated at the same 70 wpc as claimed by both manufacturer, the NAD always sounded more powerful. Louder always seemed better to the casual listener. But that's really beside the point. You can't go wrong with conservatism most of the time.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I had a great experience with an older NAD receiver (7240.) This was back in thier 'power envelope' period. The thing was rated at 40 watts but was clearer and more powerful than any of the 200 watt yamaha, onkyo, etc stuff around at the time (I was in the military where the barracks probably had 40 receivers to compare against). The thing converted half the brigade to NAD (and Energy Pro 22's).
Years later after losing the receiver in a fire I looked into replacing it. The NADs from that time (1995) were nowhere near as well made and sounded terrible (IMO). I have always wondered if they bounced back from that.
Recently I bought an old NAD 2600 amp from 1989 to bypass my current receiver's amp. It sounds great. Better than most new high power modern receiver amps i've heard.
I've avoided looking into newer NAD until now. Love to hear others experience with their newest lineup. Still have warm feelings left from the old days.
-mark

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.

 

[Yamahaluver]

As you can see, one bias person comes in and totally turns this into a Yamaha bashing fest, to say that NAD has better quality sound than Yamaha is among the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard, and I know many of my customers at Rabsons updated to Yamaha after their NADs either died due to horrible reliability issues or they just didn't like its sound.

Sound is subjective,just like pulchritude no need to say one is better than others, leave it to your own ears.