Weight of receiver a significant factor?

[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_receivers/T753_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/pdfs/AVR-3805%20Final.pdf

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

http://us.marantz.com/shop/_templates/Proddetail.asp?model=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!

[Andrew Pratt]

Lets look at it another way...the Rotel is the only 5 channel amp in that bunch yet it weights more then all but the NAD which is also 7 channel...makes you wonder about where the Denon and Marantz save on weight to pack in an extra 2 chanenls of power...I'd guess in the power supply.

[GregoriusM]

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) 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?

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

[Patt]

I own Denon and am curious about Marantz these days, 20 years ago I had a 30 wpc Marantz and wish it was still here.
To me, Denon has a dark closed in sound about it.

Goodluck with your decision.

[Nick M]

If they all meet your sound requirements and have the features you need, then consider reliability and price. Some factor in resale value too, but I usually don't bother with electronics... they all depreciate like rocks thrown in a pond (except for amps). By the time you've got your use out of it, DTS-ESXRVB2^5 will be out... :B

If they all sound good I'd go with the Denon which has a low price tag, great feature set, and good reliability from what I've read. With the money you save you might be able to pick up a Rotel amp like the 1075 in the future, or even a 2ch like the 1070 or 1080 for stereo use. I'd recommend the route I went with the "Dinosaur" Outlaw 950, but I don't know what features you need and you would probably get slammed with buying from over the boarder.

Anyhoo... I'd be beyond the point of enraged with that Rotel unit you have if it were me.

[Snap]

Greg I have a Denon 3805 and I love it.

[David Meek]

We generally associate weight with quality. I know that I still do. And yes weight can be an indicator as you pointed out Grego. Heavier transformers, thicker metal chassis, etc all point towards a product with better components and construction quality. However, that trend is changing somewhat. Look at the new digital amplifier technology. Yamaha has a new stereo amp targeted at the higher-end market, the MX-D1 that puts out 500 WPC @ 8 Ohms, 1 Kw @ 4 Ohms and has been reviewed rather favorably for its sound. It's one rack unit high, weighs 23 lbs and that includes a 1/2" thick aluminum face plate and side panels!

Where I'm headed with this is don't let weight be the deciding factor. It can be important, but your ears should be the final judge. If the Marantz pushes your buttons the hardest, then go with it. They're a good company (like the others, too) that's been designing and selling quality components for decades.

[Shane Martin]

the NAD which is also 7 channel...

The NAD is 6 channels.

I would go with what sounds best to you. You have said in the past you plan to add an external amp in the future so as long as what it sounds like now fits your needs, why worry about weight?

The NAD would still worry me. While it likely has the strongest amp due to its technology inside by where power is routed to the channel needing it most(forgot what they call it), It likely will also have the gremlins that plague NAD(and it appears Rotel).

With the money you save you might be able to pick up a Rotel amp like the 1075 in the future, or even a 2ch like the 1070 or 1080 for stereo use.

Possibly but given his gunshyness already over Rotel, going Rotel again maybe a bit of a reach.

[Andrew Pratt]

The 1075 amp has never had any problems whats so ever...neither has the 1070 so either would be solid choices.

Greg receivers are made to produce music not be paper weights....go with the one that sounds the best.

[George Bellefontaine]

We generally associate weight with quality. I know that I still do.

Yeah, if it's heavy , it's expensive... :lol:

[Foxman]

You need to do some research about NAD's quality control. They may have it buttoned down now, but not so long ago they were really struggeling with their QC on their AVR's.

[Cowanrg]

food for thought:

my dad has a pair of klipsch chorus speakers (older and about 101db/w). on his old nakamichi receiver (30w/ch), you couldnt get much beyond half-way on the volume before your ears were ringing. he bought a marantz receiver (110wpc) and he used it for movies and music around +5 and it wasnt "that" loud yet. it ran out of power, whereas the nakamichi at 30wpc was insanely loud only after half volume.

[Al Garay]

Weight is not a good indicator. Take the NAD T763 and put the Integra 6.5 next to it. Listen and see if the NAD is worth $400 more... The NAD is much heavier. Then put the ARCAM AVR300 next to those. The ARCAM weighs probably half as much, uses two fans (which are noisy) but the sound quality is superior. Though, the Integra is darn good for being less than half the cost.

If you are in Seattle, you can go to Speakerlab to hear all three of them next to each other.

[hidefdvd]

Forget the NAD T763 and get the T773. Its a 53lb beast :E

[whoaru99]

Yeah, if it's heavy , it's expensive... :lol:

Yeah, I'd agree. Consider the Krell's, Levinson's, etc. Usually very heavy for any given power rating and equally as expensive.

[Gordon Moore]

Digital amps are going to throw the Heavy = better thing right out the window.

[Shane Martin]

Digital amps are going to throw the Heavy = better thing right out the window

Not if they can't drive a difficult load they won't. The big knock on them is that they can't drive low impedence stuff.

Forget the NAD T763 and get the T773. Its a 53lb beast

With the same QC problems as the others.

Weight is not an good indicator of sound quality.

[GregoriusM]

Thanks guys!

Although I'm not sure that weight can totally be ruled out. I'm 225 pounds and I sound pretty good when I sing! :rofl: