question....this is to the experts on electronics

[JimBRICK]

ok I need an answer to this. I've had 5 friends who have heard both systems set up and we all think the same thing.

I had my rti10's csi5, fxi5 and psw404 hooked up to my yamaha rxv1300. Had this systme up for about 6 months and all these guys were over tons for PPV and sporting events.

I know have my friends secondary setup till my lsi's arrive which is, monitor 50, monitor 30 cs1 and psw10 with the NAD t743 I bought from Dorokusai.

well tonite they were over watching spike tv fights and they all say the same thing. over and over I hear, "WOW this sounds Wild now" or "so much more bass out of your speakers". the funny thing is that I've heard ALOT of audio over the years and I have to admit that they do sound better.

Is this new amp doing the job??? can it be that different than the yamaha?

the yamaha retailed new over $1300 CAD the nad retailed for $699 so you'd think they werent even in the same catagory. It just blows my mind

[disneyjoe7]

Name isn't everything and some are sold by name only. Other then that Yes the new amp is doing it's job. ;)

[danger boy]

send Doro some flowers on his birthday for selling you the NAD. ;)

Yes, it''s the NAD you are enjoying now.. it cost less then the Yammie... but it is so much better too.

[dragon1952]

A 'boomier' or 'bloated' bass will be more noticable than a nice tight bass. Some people like a boomy bass. Maybe this system isn't better. Maybe it's just more 'noticable'. It's like your 'brighter picture' in the stores you've talked about, or in audio stores many times the brighter or bassier system will at first seem more pleasing. Also, I'm not sure 'the fights' or any TV event would necessarily be the best test of your systems performance ;)

[engtaz]

The new amp has more ump.

[george daniel]

or you could say,, Mark was there to,,,,,pump them up :D

[WilliamM2]

You are using different speakers now, so a direct comparison is not really possible. Could be that the speakers mate better with your room, although I think you would have gotten better bass from the 404.

[ohskigod]

the amp, maybe your calibration for that set up is better than you had for the other set up. positioning can be better too, but gut tells me most of it is on the amp.

[shack]

Not all amps are equal. The Yamaha AVR is loaded with bells and whistles that add "value" to the product. The NAD is rated to drive 2 ohm speakers The NADs amp is a high current design and the power rating is stated as minimum continuous power with all channels driven simultaneously. The Yamaha is probably rated at peak with two channels driven (as are most mass market AVRs).

A 50 wpc amp from mid-fi companies like NAD, Cambridge Audio, Rotel, B&K, etc. will blow away stuff from the mass market guys rated with twice as much power and costing more.

[dorokusai]

Don't worry, be happy. Tell your friends to bow to your new found power.

[WilliamM2]

So he is using completely different speakers, but you guys credit most of the difference in sound to the NAD? Don't you think speakers make a bigger difference?

It also seems odd that he is getting more bass from a PSW10, than he got from a PSW404, which are both powered subs, and have nothing to do with the power of the Yamaha or NAD.

[AndyGwis]

I noticed a big jump in dynamics, bass, etc when I went from a BB Pioneer VSX1015 to my HK, and another jump in each category when I added some separate power amps.

I'd say amp stage make a very noticeable difference. Maybe the material was better, or turned up louder, etc. for this latest viewing as well. Maybe everyone was drunk and happy, too.

[JimBRICK]

So he is using completely different speakers, but you guys credit most of the difference in sound to the NAD? Don't you think speakers make a bigger difference?

It also seems odd that he is getting more bass from a PSW10, than he got from a PSW404, which are both powered subs, and have nothing to do with the power of the Yamaha or NAD.

yes I'm using lower end speakers now and they sound better, I barely heard my other sub with the yamaha. I just can't believe my ears. As I said before I'm sold on nad and will never be looking at a mass market product again. So much for my dealer discount on electronics LOL. My Lsi's should be here shortely and then the fun will begin


another cool thing about this amp too is the "ears" setting for tv. It really brings you into the program

[F1nut]

It's impossible to say exactly what is making the difference as you're talking about two entirely different systems. Apples and oranges, eh!?!

[AndyGwis]

Sooooo, basically you're telling me my Polk Monitor setup would crush any RTi setup. . .

that's what I'm reading, anyhow. Don't tell me otherwise. . . this is the first thing I've heard in 1.5 years on the forum that might actually keep me from wanting to upgrade :)

[tonyb]

Reading alittle too into it ..eh Andy?

[jcaut]

It's impossible to say exactly what is making the difference as you're talking about two entirely different systems.

This is true. However, what you're describing is consistent with what many people notice when going from a receiver to a power amp. What's going on with a speaker's impedance curve- both impedance magnitude and impedance phase- is often grossly oversimplified by saying that a speaker is "8 Ohms" or "compatible with 8 Ohms". My guess is that RTi10's aren't a particularly easy load for an amp and that the Yamaha was running out of steam trying to control them. I've not heard of many people who are willing to go back to their receiver after they've listened to a good power amp for a while, even if they thought they were satisfied with the receiver before.

You switched to speakers that are probably less demanding and to an amp that is more capable. Much of what you perceive as bass impact and "slam" is related to transients in the <100Hz range, so don't think it's all the sub. Then again, even a slightly different setting on the two subs could make a big difference too.

Jason

[JimBRICK]

Sooooo, basically you're telling me my Polk Monitor setup would crush any RTi setup. . .

that's what I'm reading, anyhow. Don't tell me otherwise. . . this is the first thing I've heard in 1.5 years on the forum that might actually keep me from wanting to upgrade :)

What I'm saying is that with my NAD these monitors sound better than mt RTI did with my YAMAHA.
I wish I had waited to sell my rti's cause I probably would have been happy with them with the nad

[billbillw]

Hate to say it, but fights on Spike are not exactly the best material to judge the sound of a system. My guess is that the levels are not adjusted the same and the sub has more gain in your current setup. Changing a receiver will not make that big of a difference if everything is adjusted to the same levels. Given the fact that most of your bass comes from the sub, which has its own amp, I think its pretty obvious. The extra power that the NAD might have does not even reach the sub.

[AndyGwis]

Reading alittle too into it ..eh Andy?

Sometimes people see what they want to see, and I wanted to see that Monitor series speakers were clearly a world beater and easily out-class the more expensive (yet highly regarded) RTi Series.

So, that's what I'm going with.

[MSALLA]

Sometimes people see what they want to see, and I wanted to see that Monitor series speakers were clearly a world beater and easily out-class the more expensive (yet highly regarded) RTi Series.

So, that's what I'm going with.

Hey, what ever works for you.

On another note, The Yamaha's I have owned were rated continuous but with only 2 channels driven. Fire up 5 or 7 at one time and your probably only getting around 60wpc out of the rated 130 (just an example).

[shack]

This is true. However, what you're describing is consistent with what many people notice when going from a receiver to a power amp. What's going on with a speaker's impedance curve- both impedance magnitude and impedance phase- is often grossly oversimplified by saying that a speaker is "8 Ohms" or "compatible with 8 Ohms". My guess is that RTi10's aren't a particularly easy load for an amp and that the Yamaha was running out of steam trying to control them. I've not heard of many people who are willing to go back to their receiver after they've listened to a good power amp for a while, even if they thought they were satisfied with the receiver before.

You switched to speakers that are probably less demanding and to an amp that is more capable. Much of what you perceive as bass impact and "slam" is related to transients in the <100Hz range, so don't think it's all the sub. Then again, even a slightly different setting on the two subs could make a big difference too.

Jason

He went to a NAD T743 AVR from his Yamaha AVR....not a separate amp. It is still my contention that the NAD amp section is probably better than the Yamaha, even though the Yamaha retailed for more.

[jcaut]

Sorry. I made the ass-umption that the NAD was an amp. Like you, I figure that the NAD's amp section is probably beefier than the Yamaha, and so most of what I said still holds.

[billbillw]

Sorry. I made the ass-umption that the NAD was an amp. Like you, I figure that the NAD's amp section is probably beefier than the Yamaha, and so most of what I said still holds.

The Receiver is NOT sending power to the SUB! He specifically mentioned noticing a different output from the SUB. That is level control man! Either that, or maybe he's running all the speakers as large? Either way, its not because of more power. I do agree that the NAD probably puts out slightly more clean power

[dragon1952]

Yes, this phenomena is certainly a combination of things. And like I said earlier, if it's just the bass that sounds 'better' it could be that it just sounds more prominent. 'Better' is very subjective and sometimes loudness or prominence is taken as 'better'. That sub is about half the price so maybe it's just boomier. If the entire system sounds better overall then maybe it's just a certain synergy between the components and the listening environment. I just doubt if the total improvement is strictly the amp and too many changes at once to nail it down for sure.
BTW, speaking of Yamaha's, I just read a review of the Yamaha RX-V659 and the reviewer said it actually tested better than rated power at all channels driven. I know this may not have always been the case but maybe they've addressed the issue. I loved the little Yamaha I had for home theater but got rid of it because of it's lousy music reproduction. But I never have got the same quality theater experience ever since, lower power or not.

[jcaut]

I didn't say that the receiver was sending power to the sub, nor did JimBRICK specifically say that the sub was louder, just that he thought he was hearing it better. I'm saying these things:

1: The whole system is different, so it's pointless to try and say for sure what made the audible difference. I should have stopped there, but I went on to say that:

2: Most people DO claim to notice better bass and better dynamics if
they switch to a better amp.

3: The RTi's are probably harder to drive than the Monitors.

4: Not ALL of that which contributes to bass quantity or quality comes from the subwoofer, therefore the better amp could, in theory, contribute to what he's hearing. And, finally,

5: Different settings COULD have a big impact.

I'm not disagreeing with you, except that you say flat-out that it's not because of more power and I say that it could be. See #1.

I'm not trying to argue.

[billbillw]

Jcaut,
I don't generally like to have drawn out arguments either, but I think you missing the point. In Jim's posts he said this:

...so much more bass out of your speakers...
and
...I barely heard my other sub with the yamaha...

This makes me believe that its the sub output that has increased by a significant amount.

If he has this system setup properly (set to Small), the speakers should not be outputing that much low bass because they would be x-overed at something like 80 or 90Hz (not sure cuz I don't know much about the NAD).

If he has the speakers set to large, then perhaps this is a different setting from what he had with the previous receiver.

The Monitor and the RTi are both spec'd at 89dB sensitivity and 8ohms nominal, so one shouldn't be significantly harder to drive.

When you say people notice improved bass from more power, I don't disagree, but this is usally better quality bass, not significantly higher output. And again, in an HT setup, most of the bass is coming from the sub, not from the main speakers.

I'm sure the NAD will be a better match (compared to the Yamaha) when Jim gets an LSi setup, but he better be prepared for a much more laid back sound.

[JimBRICK]

Doood I now how to set up my amp, and just to let you know before I had the rxv yamaha I had a htr5850 receiver as well. The same thing I didnt hear anything from my sub. Powered or not the bass was terrible. If you havent heard both systems then dont doubt what I'm saying. These guys have heard my system before a ton of times in 3 different houses and it was the same dull bass. THE REASON I bought my LSI's. So what I'm saying is ................

why does this monitor series speaker system sound more alive, clear, present and more deep than my better RTI speakers with a more expensive yamaha amp????

I've come to the conclusion that the NAD is just a better product overall. Just to put all you nay saying to rest I'm taking this amp to my friends house who owns my RTI's now and his room is only 1 foot different with the same layout and I'm going to see if I would have been happy with my rti's and upgraded speakers for nothing.


I'm sure I will be happy with the LSI but I could have waited till next year to upgrade instead

[dragon1952]

Sell all your RTis, cancel the Lsi's and buy the Monitors :p You've evidently got too many 'experts' in the kitchen here.

[shack]

I'm sure I will be happy with the LSI but I could have waited till next year to upgrade instead

More than likely when you get the LSis hooked up to the NAD you will wonder why you waited this long...