Receivers: They come in all flavors and prices...

NEW! --- One Review; of the Newer Denon AVR-X4000 A/V Receiver.

---- Here

P.S. I've read several receiver reviews in the last two months (since April 4th), and I kind of let go of this thread.
...Don't get me wrong, there are newer receiver releases that are quite good actually.
But it's just that here at WBF, for most members receivers are not their type of food.

And furthermore, not everyone here is into Home Theater and all that jazz.
...Most are strictly hi-fi stereo two-channel audiophiles. ...Analog, and digital.

BUT! That is not a valid reason to let go of this thread, because there are other people who look for value in a SSP,
and a receiver can give them that. ...Like this one right here for example.

Soooo, I'll keep it alive. :b
 
Last edited:
Latest Yamaha Aventage AV receivers | Keep pushing the envelope technologically Sound

Yamaha Aventage RX-A3030 AV receiver: With ESS Hyperstream DAC (ES9006), and ESS Sabre Ultra 32 DAC (ES9016).

=> http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/aventage/rx-a3030_black_u/?mode=model

* Yamaha is now replacing its top receiver's TI Burr-Brown DACs with ESS DACs.
- I always liked Yamaha products, including its AV receivers.
 
Last edited:

DaveyF

Active Member
Aug 1, 2010
5,751
17
38
La Jolla, Calif USA
Bob, any thoughts on the lower end NAD's?? I'm seriously looking at the NAD T 748 V2 to place in my new theater set up. Fronts are the B&W 686's, Center will be the B&W HTM 62, the surrounds are Sonance in walls with silk domes and the Sub is a PSB Sub5i.
I listened to a Denon recently ( not sure of model and thought the NAD was clearly better sounding) OTOH, I am open to suggestions. I'm only going to be doing 5.1, so I do not need extra channels, etc.
 
Jul 25, 2012
2,554
0
36
NY

Johnny Vinyl

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 16, 2010
8,550
0
36
Calgary, AB
What the heck does this mean?

Specs Power Output: 9 x 125 watts (8 ohms, 2 channels driven)


How can it have 9 x 125 watts if only two channels are driven??? WTF?

What do the other seven channels have?
With all 9 channels driven it could drop down to half of that, if not less. I hate these published stats that mean nothing.
 
Feb 8, 2011
18,958
22
38
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
Bob, any thoughts on the lower end NAD's?? I'm seriously looking at the NAD T 748 V2 to place in my new theater set up. Fronts are the B&W 686's, Center will be the B&W HTM 62, the surrounds are Sonance in walls with silk domes and the Sub is a PSB Sub5i.
I listened to a Denon recently ( not sure of model and thought the NAD was clearly better sounding) OTOH, I am open to suggestions. I'm only going to be doing 5.1, so I do not need extra channels, etc.
Yes Davey, I have a strong opinion regarding NAD receivers at the lower end; they are for people looking for something different, less features, like Rotel stuff, like Cambridge stuff, like Arcam stuff, like NAD stuff with less features and more emphasis on the sound quality.
- NAD higher end receivers are quite more expensive, and powerful too (watts). ...Better Room EQ, Video side is not that important as long that they pass their signals 'uncorrupted' (virgin), and their external appearance is not NAD's particular preoccupation.

For a person like yourself who demands quality of sound first; it is a good quality in a person to explore all avenues.
By this I mean this: Is your home theater acoustically sound and treated?
- Are you willing to take the time to correct it and EQ it?
- How important it is for you to use a good/solid Auto Room EQ system?

I believe B&W speakers in general appreciate good current power.
How much is the T748 v2 Davey, $899? ...Or a bit more ($900)?

You should give a try to Marantz Davey, they're different than the Denon sound.
* And me, personally, I prefer an AV receiver with a good Auto Room EQ & Calibration system, like Audyssey MultEQ (minimum, and up to XT and XT32). Why? Because in most rooms (untreated) it does make a difference for the better. ...Experimented and proven by yours truly.

Tell me more Davey, and I'll be able to shine some more. ...But some already for you to consider; at the end it's your set of ears, your room, your mojo, your inclination, your ascent, your descent, and all that 'AV receiver/home theater' jazz.



What the heck does this mean?

Specs Power Output: 9 x 125 watts (8 ohms, 2 channels driven)


How can it have 9 x 125 watts if only two channels are driven??? WTF?

What do the other seven channels have?
The weight Gary, the weight. ... 27.56 pounds. ... For a 9-channel amp receiver* and two grands.
{This ain't a Class D amp, it is AB.}

* In reference to the Marantz SR7008 AV receiver.
 
Last edited:
Apr 3, 2010
16,022
0
0
Seattle, WA
FYI, until a couple of years ago, NAD had a terrible reputation for reliability. I heard that they have cleaned house and newer systems should be better. So be sure to look at warranty coverage and whether there is a local dealer to support you on it.
 

DonH50

Member Sponsor & WBF Technical Expert
Jun 23, 2010
3,539
4
38
Monument, CO
On power, I have seen specs and measurements all over the map. Some lose hardly any power, some drop a little, and some drop to 1/3 the stereo spec if all channels are running full-bore. I understand all channels will rarely if ever all need full power at once, but I wish the FTC would actually require multi-channel testing (IIRC there was a huge pushback when they tried that years ago).
 
Feb 8, 2011
18,958
22
38
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
FYI, until a couple of years ago, NAD had a terrible reputation for reliability. I heard that they have cleaned house and newer systems should be better. So be sure to look at warranty coverage and whether there is a local dealer to support you on it.
You got a point there Amir. It's very true, and not just in their AV receivers, but with preamps (SSPs), BD players, DVD players, and CD players too.

I didn't want to discourage Davey too much (and I'm sure he knows some too), and besides I know nothing about this particular model, the T748 v2; on reliability and more.

<<<>>> Reliability is priority number one; in life's everything, not just audio.
 
Last edited:

Ronm1

Member Sponsor
Feb 21, 2011
1,746
0
0
wtOMitMutb NH
Bob, any thoughts on the lower end NAD's?? I'm seriously looking at the NAD T 748 V2 to place in my new theater set up.
I listened to a Denon recently ( not sure of model and thought the NAD was clearly better sounding) OTOH, I am open to suggestions.
My 2 cents, Dave.
When I went on a receiver hunt I listened only to 2ch at b&m's or in home auditions. Once I had a few unit's I liked, that was pared down by features, upgradeabilify, etc. as an ex. JVC at the time was trying to get into the hi-end market. Unit I demo'd sounded superb, but they only had 1 coax and 1 optical input the rest was analog LR. Just not practical. Course that was probably why it sounded so good. If it were me I would do it again. Concentrate on 2ch ability first. IMHO, of course.
 
Feb 8, 2011
18,958
22
38
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
On power, I have seen specs and measurements all over the map. Some lose hardly any power, some drop a little, and some drop to 1/3 the stereo spec if all channels are running full-bore. I understand all channels will rarely if ever all need full power at once, but I wish the FTC would actually require multi-channel testing (IIRC there was a huge pushback when they tried that years ago).
For this particular receiver (Marantz SR7008); they made an error, they forgot to include 5 and 7-channel power running simultaneously from the lab tests. I'm sure it will be added eventually. ...Least of my concern at this point.

But when earlier I was referring to "the weight"; I exactly meant that: 27.56 pounds. ...As an informative spec, that is all.
{Earlier I had an Onkyo receiver, 7-channel one, and thirty pounds heavier, for same MSRP, and another one (30 more pounds too) and $1,000 MSRP cheaper.}
 
Last edited:
Feb 8, 2011
18,958
22
38
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
Davey, an Onkyo TX-NR818 you can have for six hundred dollars (or $699), with Audyssey MultEQ XT32.
...Forty pounds, solid power into five channels; and that, is to be considered IMO.

This is for your home theater (a very modest one), not for your high-end stereo system; Audyssey MultEQ XT32 is your ticket, I truly think.
Before you jump on that NAD T748 v2 receiver, consider what I just said, and more...

* This thread already contents all the info you need to choose the perfect receiver for you. :b
...With links, reviews, comments, etc. ...And that Onkyo TX-NR818 is certainly part of that elite already mentioned in this thread, as I considered it as one of the best buys this century and last. And it seems that a zillion of people (owners) agree too.

Marantz is nice too.
 

About us

  • Founded in 2010 What's Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing