[GregoriusM]

Hi.

If my Rotel 1056 doesn't come back fixed (which I hope it does), I have chose the following in my price range to consider (Rotel included for comparison).

I was quite surprised to see quite a difference in weight.

NAD T753 $1500 CAD 90 w/ch 6.1 ch - weighs 45.1 lbs.

http://www.nadelectronics.com/av_rec...3_frameset.htm

Rotel 1056 $1999 CAD 75 w/ch 5.1 ch - 37.4 lbs.

http://www.rotel.com/products/specs/rsx1056.htm

Denon 3805 $1920 CAD 120 w/ch 7.1 ch - weighs 37.5 lbs.

http://www.usa.denon.com/catalog/pdf...05%20Final.pdf

Marantz 8500 $1800 CAD 125 w/ch 7.1 ch - 33.1 lbs.

http://us.marantz.com/shop/_template...odel=25&cat=15

There is a significant difference between the Marantz at 33.1 lbs. and the NAD at 45.1 lbs.

If price was taken into consideration, that makes the NAD even more of a buy if weight is taken into a consideration.

Does anyone see what is included or missing in these receivers that I should be worried about, since a lot of us "audio enthusiast" equate weight with quality?

Better transformer, power supply, copper shielding, fans instead of larger heat shields, ?????

Any comments are appreciated.

I gave the links so that you could maybe point out something of value that adds to the weight of the component, or something that actually is heavier, but not as technically proficient as a lighter component.

Thanks!

-------

Edit:

Hmmmmm......... I auditioned the Marantz today and liked the sound.

The NAD was good too, but not quite as "strong" sounding, and not quite as detailed, although it had a nice, warm sound.

I'm bringing the Denon home for the weekend to check it out.

And I've got my 2nd Rotel home (with the buzz - waiting for the 3rd to be shipped) to compare to the Denon.

Now, if the Rotel still isn't working, it's the Marantz that I liked the sound of the most, but it's a skimpy 32 pounds. That's hardly more than the Denon 2805.

Why is this so doggone frustrating?

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!

---------

Okay:

NAD for the weight?

Marantz for the sound?

Denon for the price (it is on sale for $1498 at A&B and Advance)?

Or Rotel for the buzz ;-) and the weight? It is also only 5.1 channel, which is fine for me, but is heavier than the Denon and Marantz which are 7 channel.

The sound of each one of these is within my "hearing" parameters, so which should I go for?

[Allen Longcor]

I'd worry less about the weight and more about what your ears are hearing. Let's say that the receiver that weighs less didn't use as many high quality components as another receiver, but it still sounded better to you. Would the weight difference matter? I'd disregard weight in your decision since all the models listed are quality components. If you let every little detail bother you then you'll never fully enjoy your equipment!

[John Garcia]

Given two receivers that sound similar, I'd opt for the heavier one.

Given one that was on sale for less, weighs more, but doesn't sound as good...well I'd opt for the one that sounded better, so I'm in agreement with Allen. Weight should be a factor, but not so much that it influences your opinion about the sound.

What you might consider is going one model lower, with something like the Marantz 7500, and adding amps. My 8300 + amps cost me FAR less than a 9300, and I have more power than I would have with the 9300.

[GregoriusM]

Hmmmmmmmmmm........ I'll go with the sound, which is the Marantz IF the Rotel doesn't work out.

It still kind of bugs me though that a 7.1 "one down from the flagship" receiver can way only 32 pounds.

Oh well. The 8500 has some great reviews out there!

[Howard_You]

I wouldn't worry too much about the weight either, I recently purchased up a Cambridge Audio Azur 540R which weighs in at a light 21 lbs. It easily has more power than the 33 lb NAD T742 that I had previously. I would say it's closer if not greater than the power output of the 40+lb NAD T752 which I breifly had. I don't know how scientific it was but I used an SPL meter to take measurements from stereo music tracks from about 10 feet away from the speaker. I increased the volume on all three receivers until either the sound distorted (happened on the NAD T742 at about 105dB) or I hit 115dB (the T752 and CA 540R played at this level cleanly and both were about 15dB from the maximum setting). I don't actually listen to music at these levels but it's nice to know the extra headroom is there. I assume the torroidal transformer in the CA 540R gives it lots of power without much weight.

[John Garcia]

NAD also uses torroidal transformers in all of their receivers. I believe some of the new Marantz receivers are also using torroidal transformers. The transformer is where much of the weight is in a receiver, but different receivers may also have a more sturdy chasssis, larger heat sinks, capacitors, etc...

My 8300 weighed 37 lbs, IIRC. It puts out plenty of power (though I opted for more due to my speaker selection). "One down" from the flagship is true, but the flagship costs just about TWICE the price.

Don't think too hard about it

[Howard_You]

John, are you sure about the torridal transformers in all of the NAD receivers? I thought they were only in the T763 and T773 and not in the T743 and T753 (from reading postings on various forums). The NAD website mentions they're in the T773 and T763 but doesn't specify the type of transformer used in the T743 and T753.

[Shiu]

This is a tough question and I am not sure what the answer is, other than "it depends.....". I traded in my Sony STR-DA4ES to a Denon AVR3805 last year. The Sony weighs 46 lbs, that's 8.5 lbs heavier than the Denon. The Denon is a more powerful receiver and seems (not obvious to me) better in sound quality.

[GregoriusM]

I talked to my Marantz dealer and he said basically when you get to this level of component, it is the SOUND that makes the difference.

So, if the 3rd Rotel doesn't work, I'm going for the 8500 (possibly - see my new thread.)

P.S. The T753 is not toroidal. The 8500 is toroidal.

[John Garcia]

I thought they were. My mistake.