Take part in a short activity and share your valuable opinion on new design concepts for AVSForum! >>> Click Here
Our native mobile app has a new name: Fora Communities. Learn more.

did i make a BIG mistake ???

1618 Views 22 Replies 18 Participants Last post by Thirsty, May 5, 2006

bauercrew

Discussion Starter · May 4, 2006

hi everyone got a question im new to the home theater thing but i went and purchased nad t743 reciever as a starting point ,the sales man said that this is a quality piece of equipment for entry level i was intrested in yamaha rxv2600 but he said i would be more pleased with the nad because i really dont like all the bells and whistles that some of these recivers have,i was going to get the svs speaker SBS-01 system but decided not to yet because i read here that you should have a reciever with some power behind it,THIS is where my problem is. this nad receiver that the salesman says was so great,is rated at 50 watts per channel HE SAYS that they under rate there power rateings ,or somthing of that nature,OR WAS HE JUST PULLING THE WOOL OVER MY EYES (L.O.L),the yamaha had more power 130 WATTS so should i take it and exchange it,what was really weird is the yamaha cost more but the guy swears by nad ,i have never heard of them personally,cause i had a yamaha rxv 870 which is about 15 years old thats why i went shopping for another yamaha,SO did i make a REALLY BIG MISTAKE getting this NAD reciever,or will it power the above speaker system. my room is only 15x15 with 8 foot ceiling .i live in a townhome

Status: Not open for further replies.

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

dollarman

· #2 · May 4, 2006

Maybe this thread be of some help to you:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=671734

The bottom line is don't pay too much attention to power ratings advertised by Yamaha.

Tex-amp

· #3 · May 4, 2006

It takes doubling the watts for every 3dB increase in volume. If these both rate watts the same way the one would only be able to play ~4dB louder than the other one. Don't sweat it.

SethH

· #4 · May 4, 2006

I think you're going to enjoy your receiver.

Also, as an owner of the SBS-01 setup, I think you'll be pretty pleased with that as well. Do you have a return period with your receiver? If so, try and get the SVS speakers in to try out before the return period is up. If NAD rates their receivers conservatively, which I'm guessing they do, then 50 watts will likely be plenty to drive your speakers.

davdev

· #5 · May 4, 2006

Wattage ratings are a crock. The NAD should be fine

PULLIAMM

· #6 · May 4, 2006

I have an Onkyo 50watt/channel receiver that is much more powerful than a Sony receiver rated at 100watts/channel (I returned the Sony because it couldn't give medecent volume without being cranked up, and had no headroom.) It is all in how they measure it. My understanding is that NAD rates their amps much like Onkyo does.

(According to an article on this forum's homepage, new rules are being established for power ratings that will eliminate such discrepancies.)

ravingndrooling

· #7 · May 4, 2006

My first NAD came home back in 1988, 55 watts a channel and $500 besides. I powered a pair of Polk SDA SRS's with no problems. My room at the time was probably 20X20. That little NAD filled that room with a lot of sound. Talk about the little engine that could!! If I had to do it again, I would have bought the NAD over the Yamaha too. I still have that NAD, only now it lives in the garage. Regardless, it has been problem free since I brought it home back in '88. Enjoy it, I sure do!!

Nuance

· #8 · May 4, 2006

The NAD is a quality product. If you really need more power or purchase some power hungry speakers, you can always add an amp later. That NAD should have pre-outs on the back for this.

As far as the speakers, there is a nice comparison thread floating around in which these speakers were auditioned against a few others. To sum it up, I believe the SVS speakers took last place out of 3 or 4. I advise researching some more so that you are SURE before you purchase. These speakers are Internet Direct, so you can't listen before you buy. Be careful with this man. I have never heard the SVS, but from what I have read, they are bested by the Onix and Ascend offerings (no offense to SVS or their owners). Good luck with your search!

SimpleTheater

· #9 · May 4, 2006

The Yamaha 2600 has a street price of ~ $875, the NAD T743 $700. Buying from a local dealer, I wouldn't be surprised if the NAD T753 $999 isn't almost the same price you'd get the Yamaha 2600 which has an MSRP of $1,300.

Manufactures play very loose with wattage numbers as they know people will often ONLY look at watts for purchasing criteria. In reality, the Yamaha 2500 (predecessor to the 2600 and virtually identical to the 2600) can push 158 watts into 2 channels and 64 watts into five channels ( SOURCE )

If Yamaha wanted to be completely honest, they would market their receiver as 150 watts x 2; 60 watts x 5.

The NAD T743 will deliver a minimum of 105 watts x 2; 50 watts x 5 (unfortunately I can't find any test data on the T743, but we know NAD's numbers are honest).

The NAD T753 ($999) is actually closer in price to the Yamaha, and while NAD only rates it a 70 watts, in actual testing it is rated at 110 watts x 2; 93 watts x 5.

What does all this mean? The Yamaha will be more dynamic into 2 channel stereo listening and less dynamic in movies, SACD and multi-room audio then the T753. It will be more dynamic then the T743 in stereo and about the same in movies, SACD and multi-room audio.

Personally, I doubt you'll hear the difference between the T743, T753 or RX-2600. They are all excellent products.

--SimpleTheater

See less See more

AVOpus

· #10 · May 4, 2006

And to add that there is more to the overall sound quality than just the maximum power output... NAD is highly respected and uses top grade components internally. Yamaha is no slouch here, but I would give the nod to NAD. The sales guy wasn't trying to steer you wrong. You should be quite happy with your purchase.

Thirsty

· #11 · May 4, 2006

My Sony AV reciever advertises 120wx7...that piece of crap is lucky to have 30wx3 and 15w to the rears.

Nuance

· #12 · May 4, 2006

Thirsty brings up a good point. Many receivers are OVERrated and not the other way around. So bauercrew, when the salesmen told you the NAD is underrated, I highly doubt that is true. BUT, it is not overrated like many other manufacturers are. Again, the NAD was a good choice. Down the road I would add an external amp if I were you, or even a power amp if I didnâ€™t have much to spend, but that is just me.

Paul Scarpelli

· #13 · May 4, 2006

One of my systems (my office) uses an NAD receiver, driving an $8,500 5.1 speaker system, and it sounds great. In addition to my theater, which has separates, I have three receiver-based systems, and the NAD sounds the best of the three. It has less advertised power, but it will play louder than the other two receivers. It simply delivers more current. That's why receivers have AMPlifiers in them and not WATTlifiers...

NAD is most definitely underrated as far as power output and sound quality.

mgfred

· #14 · May 4, 2006

I have a NAD C272 amp with a NAD 710 receiver as a preamp. While the NAD probably has the full 150 X 2 watts of power continuous my Ohm F speakers can suck up every watt and make the amp clip on some songs. (This does not happen during normal volume levels)

Fred

ericgl

· #15 · May 4, 2006

For once the salesdude did not steer you wrong. For SQ I prefer the NAD. Of course, reasonably efficient speakers are always a good idea.

AzN_plyR

· #16 · May 4, 2006

What about my Onkyo rated at 65x5?

is there anyway to test it hehe. Although it is holding up great with me pushing a 4 ohm load for the rears and 8 in front

Ahhhhhh 70 bucks for it, and I am loving it! Onkyo TX-SR303s BTW

nitro1max1

· #17 · May 4, 2006

Every buddy cuts down Sony. I have a Sony 7100ES, 7x170 and let me say that this thing kicks butt.

AzN_plyR

· #18 · May 4, 2006

lol, well the sony's people are dissing are mostly low end stuff.... like thier speakers, subwoofers especially, receivers, etc. But the one you have seems to be real high quality, although a froogle brought up around 2k for that receiver!

SethH

· #19 · May 5, 2006

Quote:

Every buddy cuts down Sony. I have a Sony 7100ES

As mentioned, most of the Sony bashing is of their lower-end line. Many people are fond of the higher-end Sony receivers.

Mandrake

· #20 · May 5, 2006

In contrast to a post above, the NAD may well be more "dynamic" in all formats. They pride themselves on having power in reserve for peaks. This means the good components they use, esp bigger capacitors (I believe). NAD had some QC problems, as a search of AVS will show, but hopefully they are over that. I'd go for the NAD in a second, esp if assured on that. Two seconds otherwise.

You went for higher quality, with some less features. Makes sense to me.

D

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

Status: Not open for further replies.