-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Weight of receivers a significant factor?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
28 replies to this topic

#1 of 29 OFFLINE   GregoriusM

GregoriusM

    Second Unit

  • 279 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 31 2000

Posted May 25 2005 - 04:16 PM

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.nadelectr....3_frameset.htm

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

http://www.rotel.com...ecs/rsx1056.htm

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

http://www.usa.denon......05 Final.pdf

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

http://us.marantz.co....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?

#2 of 29 OFFLINE   Allen Longcor

Allen Longcor

    Supporting Actor

  • 551 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 21 2001

Posted May 25 2005 - 05:02 PM

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!

#3 of 29 OFFLINE   John Garcia

John Garcia

    Executive Producer

  • 11,542 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 24 1999
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationNorCal

Posted May 25 2005 - 06:46 PM

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.
HT: Emotiva UMC-200, Emotiva XPA-3, Carnegie Acoustics CSB-1s + CSC-1, GR Research A/V-1s, Epik Empire, Oppo BDP-105, PS4, PS3,URC R-50, APC-H10, Panamax 5100 Bluejeans Cable
System Two: Marantz PM7200, Pioneer FS52s, Panasonic BD79
(stolen) : Marantz SR-8300, GR Research A/V-2s, Sony SCD-222ES SACD, Panasonic BD-65, PS3 60G (250G)

Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it’ll spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.” – Albert Einstein

 


#4 of 29 OFFLINE   GregoriusM

GregoriusM

    Second Unit

  • 279 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 31 2000

Posted May 25 2005 - 10:26 PM

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!

#5 of 29 OFFLINE   Howard_You

Howard_You

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 60 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 16 2003

Posted May 26 2005 - 03:52 AM

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.

#6 of 29 OFFLINE   John Garcia

John Garcia

    Executive Producer

  • 11,542 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 24 1999
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationNorCal

Posted May 26 2005 - 04:05 AM

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 Posted Image
HT: Emotiva UMC-200, Emotiva XPA-3, Carnegie Acoustics CSB-1s + CSC-1, GR Research A/V-1s, Epik Empire, Oppo BDP-105, PS4, PS3,URC R-50, APC-H10, Panamax 5100 Bluejeans Cable
System Two: Marantz PM7200, Pioneer FS52s, Panasonic BD79
(stolen) : Marantz SR-8300, GR Research A/V-2s, Sony SCD-222ES SACD, Panasonic BD-65, PS3 60G (250G)

Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it’ll spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.” – Albert Einstein

 


#7 of 29 OFFLINE   Howard_You

Howard_You

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 60 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 16 2003

Posted May 26 2005 - 04:57 AM

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.

#8 of 29 OFFLINE   Shiu

Shiu

    Second Unit

  • 447 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 18 2003

Posted May 26 2005 - 06:33 AM

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.

#9 of 29 OFFLINE   GregoriusM

GregoriusM

    Second Unit

  • 279 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 31 2000

Posted May 26 2005 - 08:58 AM

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.

#10 of 29 OFFLINE   John Garcia

John Garcia

    Executive Producer

  • 11,542 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 24 1999
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationNorCal

Posted May 26 2005 - 09:34 AM

I thought they were. My mistake. Posted Image
HT: Emotiva UMC-200, Emotiva XPA-3, Carnegie Acoustics CSB-1s + CSC-1, GR Research A/V-1s, Epik Empire, Oppo BDP-105, PS4, PS3,URC R-50, APC-H10, Panamax 5100 Bluejeans Cable
System Two: Marantz PM7200, Pioneer FS52s, Panasonic BD79
(stolen) : Marantz SR-8300, GR Research A/V-2s, Sony SCD-222ES SACD, Panasonic BD-65, PS3 60G (250G)

Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it’ll spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.” – Albert Einstein

 


#11 of 29 OFFLINE   John S

John S

    Producer

  • 5,460 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 04 2003

Posted May 26 2005 - 09:46 AM

What a question.....

While weight can and is often an indicator....


Remember the 9lbs Carver mini cube amps of yesteryear???

They were and still are extreme nice audiophile amps to this day. So in short, wieght isn't everthing, you really have to go with what sounds best at the volume levels you listen at.

#12 of 29 OFFLINE   Leo Kerr

Leo Kerr

    Screenwriter

  • 1,699 posts
  • Join Date: May 10 1999

Posted May 26 2005 - 11:13 AM

Weight is sometimes a first-impression issue.

The Pioneer DVD-V7400 players we use at work are probably in the neighborhood of 15 pounds.

The Panasonic DVD player next to me right now is probably on the order of 2.5 pounds. Just touching it makes me think, "cheap!"

But does it really matter? Well, I kind of prefer heatsinks over fans, I want a good sized power supply (which often equates to a good sized transformer and big caps.) I'm leery, though, of a receiver/amplifer that claims to be able to do 1500w and weighs two pounds. Okay, "how long?"



Leo

#13 of 29 OFFLINE   FeisalK

FeisalK

    Screenwriter

  • 1,245 posts
  • Join Date: May 01 2003

Posted May 26 2005 - 03:09 PM

With digital amplifiers that are very efficient (up to 80%) almost no heat is generated - and therefore requires no heavy heatsinking - can go very light and still sound excellent. The Panasonic XR series weigh in at 9lbs and are competitive sonically
>
DVD-A registry for hirez/surround audio
Bluray, DVD-Audio, DAD/HDAD, DualDisc, MVI

#14 of 29 OFFLINE   GregoriusM

GregoriusM

    Second Unit

  • 279 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 31 2000

Posted May 26 2005 - 03:22 PM

John S:

Your statement "What a question...."

I was just wondering if that meant:

"What a stupid question....." or

"Hmmmmmmmmm... what an interesting question...."

or something altogether different.

Just wondering.....

#15 of 29 OFFLINE   FeisalK

FeisalK

    Screenwriter

  • 1,245 posts
  • Join Date: May 01 2003

Posted May 26 2005 - 03:24 PM

I thought it meant 'interesting'

if you had asked about the color of the faceplate, however...
>
DVD-A registry for hirez/surround audio
Bluray, DVD-Audio, DAD/HDAD, DualDisc, MVI

#16 of 29 OFFLINE   GregoriusM

GregoriusM

    Second Unit

  • 279 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 31 2000

Posted May 26 2005 - 03:26 PM

he he he Posted Image

#17 of 29 OFFLINE   FeisalK

FeisalK

    Screenwriter

  • 1,245 posts
  • Join Date: May 01 2003

Posted May 26 2005 - 04:08 PM

For some reason I thought that NADs always sounded the way they are because of that gray...

I'm not kidding however about the Panny Digitals - try it out you may be surprised. One of my friends here thinks his XR25 sounded definitely better than his older Marantz 7500 and thinks its better than a Denon 3805.
>
DVD-A registry for hirez/surround audio
Bluray, DVD-Audio, DAD/HDAD, DualDisc, MVI

#18 of 29 OFFLINE   Leo Kerr

Leo Kerr

    Screenwriter

  • 1,699 posts
  • Join Date: May 10 1999

Posted May 27 2005 - 01:45 AM

I wondered if my additional comments on heatsinking would raise the spectre of digital amps...

I've not had the chance to play with one, but I've heard good things about some of them on this forum, so...

Leo

#19 of 29 OFFLINE   FeisalK

FeisalK

    Screenwriter

  • 1,245 posts
  • Join Date: May 01 2003

Posted May 27 2005 - 01:55 AM

Leo,

didn't take long did it? LOL

actually this forum is relatively mild on digital amps, comparatively (AC has some people with in-depth experience on varied systems)

(and yes it sounds wonderful, even the lowly XR25)
>
DVD-A registry for hirez/surround audio
Bluray, DVD-Audio, DAD/HDAD, DualDisc, MVI

#20 of 29 OFFLINE   Chu Gai

Chu Gai

    Lead Actor

  • 7,270 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 29 2001

Posted May 27 2005 - 02:26 AM

In some countries women who will soon approach the age where they are expected to be married are sequestered for a time to fatten them up to make them more attractive to the husbands that will also have other wives and beat them. So yes, weight matters.