OPINIONS PLEASE - NAD vs. YAMAHA (7.1 receivers)

[Mr Tech]

I am contemplating replacing a dead NAD T 753 (7.1 receiver) with a Yamaha RX-V1065 (7.1 receiver).

The NAD is 70w x7 and the Yamaha is 105w x 7.
Also, the Yamaha has many features that the NAD does not.

My concern, and question, is will the sound quality of the Yamaha equal, or exceed, the NAD's ?

Thanks,
Wade

[tube fanatic]

There's no way to predict how the Yamaha will sound in your particular system. The best way to handle it is to purchase from a supplier which allows returns if you are not satisfied. If I were to say that I'm pleased with the combo of the Yamaha and K-horns, for example, it doesn't mean that you would feel the same way.......................

[Max2]

You might want to search some bench tests on the Yamaha. Lots of Receivers are falling way short of their listed power output I have found. Even some of the upper Denon receivers are falling short on their numbers when driven with 5 channels or more.

Yamaha RX-V1065 A/V Receiver:
HT Labs Measures

HT Labs Measures

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 50.4 watts
1% distortion at 59.7 watts

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 30.2 watts
1% distortion at 35.2 watts

http://www.hometheater.com/receivers/yamaha_rx-v1065_av_receiver/index4.html

[willland]

Mr Tech,

While many on the forum enjoy their Yamaha/Klipsch combos, they don't have your ears.

I happen to have your NAD T 753's big brother the T 773 and think it is the best sounding HT receiver I have ever heard. I am so impressed with the sound(HT and music), I may one day step up to a NAD pre/pro or one of their HDMI receivers. I say if you like the sound of NAD and can afford it, get one of their newer receivers. The Yamaha you are considering may be more feature packed but may fall short where it counts most(to me), sound(to your ears).

Here is one suggestion.

http://www.spearitsound.com/nad/T765.asp

Bill

[garyrc]

Rather than receivers. I have had both Yamaha and NAD separates driving Klipschorns.. The models you are trying to compare may be quite different. I had a Yamaha power amp (135 w/c) fed by the preamp section of a Luxman receiver, and a NAD power amp fed by a NAD T163 AVpreamp. Both combinations sounded excelent. The NAD combo was slightly better sounding, except for a bit of hum a very slight hiss from listening positions with Klipschorns. If there is any noise in the system Khorns will reveal it, because they are so wonderfully efficient. .

Nothing solid state sounded as good as a former Luxman receiver using its own internal amps (100 w/c, and it was noise free through Khorns), and nothing ever sounded as good as my and my friends' old Mcintosh tube amps ( 40 w/channel and 75 w/ch -- a bit of hiss through Khorns, but in those days there was tape hiss -- even with Dolby or Dbx -- on almost all comercial reordinge, including vinyl (unless "Direct-to-Disk)," so a little extra hiss from the amp didn't matter. Even my old Dyna tube amps (40w.ch), sounded better than the solid state units mentioned above, although they had relatively bad THD & IM specs, compared to the tube McIntoshes and the solid state units. There is not a terrific correlation between specs and sound.

As to the power in watts, I wouldn't consider differences in power unless one unit is twice as powerful as the other (twice the watts), as this is only a 3 dB difference. As someone else said, make sure the power rating is for all channels operating (or at least the number ofl channels you are going to use), as it is not unheard of for name brand amps to fail to deliver the rated power to many channels at once.

When thinking about power, I still like to go by the RMS figure (even though RMS power turns out to be something of a misnomer) because it is the one considered to be for real over the decades. My NAD power amps are rated aa 150 w/ch, all channels operating. The very reputable dealer I bought them from measured 171 w/ch all ch operating just under clipping. RMS would be approx .707 times the power just below cliping -- 171 in my case -- so I regard my amps as being 120 w/ch RMS.

With Khorns wattage is no big deal. The very lowest sensitivity ratings I''ve ever seen for the Khorns was 98 dB / 2.83v [1 wt @ 8 Ohms] / iM ... this figure came up in some European magazines and in Audio magazine in the U.S.A ... the measurements were probably taken "nude" -- i.e., not sealed into a room corner -- out of doors, or in a (quasi) anechoic chamber Klipsch gets 105 w/ch with the Khorn in a wooden corner sitting in their special anechoic chamber. That makes sense, because the room corner is part of the design. Even at the 98 dB rating, though, my 120 watts into a Khorn is equivalent to about 800 watts into a typical speaker with a 90 dB rating. If you count being sealed into a trihedral room corner (as Klipsch does) the equivalent would be about 2,000 wts, or more.

[raven7132]

I own a Yamaha m-80 w 250 wtts/chn and love the "legend". I also have a nakamichi pa-7 and think it is the best amp I have ever owned. It's all a question of taste, and what you are playing with the marriage of components. I can tell you the Yamaha I own is a great product.