Rotels & Nads versus Denon

[hershon]

If any of you have had a Denon and either a Rotel or NAD receiver or both, out of curiosity which do you prefer and why?

[anamorphic96]

I have owned all three and there all great companies.

The biggest thing I notice with NAD and Rotel is they tend to have stronger amp sections than Denon. NAD and Rotel rate there receivers with all channels driven where as Denon rates there receivers with only two channels driven. This is not to say that all the channels on the Denon receivers can't be driven to there rated power. They can. They just cant do it with all six or seven channels driven at the same time at full bandwith. The NAD and Rotels can. In order for NAD and Rotel to achieve this they have to build larger amp sections with more robust power supplies, output stages, and transformers. This however raises the prices considerably. Rotels entry level receiver is 1299 if im not mistaken and NAD's is 699. So there is a pretty hefty price jump. Denons entry level receiver is 299.00.

Some take comfort in knowing this and pay the difference. However keep in mind that rarely if at anytime will a receiver be called upon to output all channels at the same time at full power. It's a very unrealistic scenario. Especially considering powered subs do most of the grunt work these days.

The other thing and some may argue differently is NAD and Rotel tend to pay more attention to the two channel music reproduction aspect. This aspect in my mind is one of the biggest problems with receivers today. However it has gotten better.
Music is much harder to reporduce accurately than home theatre.

NAD and Rotel tend to sacrifice features in order to put higher quality parts in there receivers. Denon tends offer an enormous amount of features. Which most people will never use. So NAD and Rotel invest the money in other areas to improve sound quality. The best example is the amplifier design.

On a whole Rotel and NAD tend to be more music oriented with there product lines. Just goto there sites and look. NAD and Rotel have complete product lines for 2 channel music reproduction where as Denon has a very limited 2 channel line. Just a few receivers and and CD players Denon focuses more on HT since this is where a majority of the market is these days.

It all comes down to where your prioities are. If your big into features and DSP surround modes Denon might be the way to go. Denon uses some of the best DSP chips out there. But if youre a music purist and only dabble in HT maybe NAD and Rotel would be the way to go. This is not to say NAD and Rotel are not good in HT. They are. They just go about things differently.

Hope this helps. Im sure others will have different thoughts. But this is what I see in there designs.

[hershon]

Thanks for your input. One more question if you can answer this. I listen to CD's on the 5 channel all natural mode, meaning the sound isn't reprocessed and the center speaker gets both the left and right channels, I'm sure you know what I'm speaking about. I do this because for me personally it gives more depth. I am extremely happy with my Denon 3801 but are you saying that in all likelyhood in regards to music, the 5 channel all natural mode in the NADS & Rotell will be better then the Denon? If so, for what models as next time I'm in a store, even though I've had lousy demonstrations in the past, I'd like to hear these models.

[anamorphic96]

I know the format you are talking about and the NAD and Rotel offer this. However I always felt they where gimmicky and processed sounding. Im probably not the best person to ask in regards to this. But check them out and listen for yourself.

Im a bit of a purist and feel software should be played in the format it was intended for.(Some would say its even disrespectful to the artist to alter there art.) All channel stereo modes have some sort of processing going on. This is how they get the L and R channels into the center. The NATURAL name used would in my opinion mean its not making the music sound like its in a church or stadium.

Movies with 5.1 soundtracks should be played in DD or DTS or the format they where encoded with.
Music should be playen in stereo with absolutley no processing.

As far as if the Denon or NAD/Rotel are better is up to you. These companies tend to be equal in the DAC's and DSP quality they use. The NAD/Rotel just dont offer as many Church Stadium or Club settings that you get with the Denons. You basically get a straight DD or DTS and all channels stereo mode. Remember the biggest difference with these receivers is in the amp sections.

When youre watching movies in a theatre they dont use these gimmicks they just try to create what the sound designer and director wanted you to hear with no alterations. There is no such thing as DTS Action mode in a commercial theatre like I have seen on some receivers.

In a movie theatre the sound is read from the film and decoded into what ever format is being used. If the sound is digital it is decoded into the six channels and converted to an analog signal then passed through an equalizer that is set to an industry standard to help create the same enviroment the film was mixed in. This way you can hear the movie the way the director and sound designer intended you to.

My ideal is to get as close to what the artist wanted me to hear. DSP modes tend to alter this intent to me.

[hershon]

I basically agree with you on everything you said except I still don't consider listening to CD's
in the 5 channel all natural mode really processed sound or a DSP though technically I suppose it is. I guess this is a matter of personal preference. Keep in mind that if you're using your sub when playing in the 2 channel mode, you're also reprocessing sound.

The good thing about the Denon 3801 I have as opposed to my previous JVC RX DV31SL receiver which was pretty good, the depth of the sound field is much wider and spread.

For DVD's I basically listen to 5.1 dolby digital surround sound.

I have yet to know of one human being who listens to CD's using a DSP's concert, club, arena, etc. sound modes & am convinced this if just a way for comopanys to increase their retail prices.

[anamorphic96]

Actually in 2 channel you are not using any processing. You are just extending the frequency response of the system with the sub.

The signal is sent to a pre amp stage then sent to the amp. Thats it. There is no eq or processing.

With my integrated amp I have used the pre outs to the sub and blended it with the mains with the use of the crossover and volume. There is no alteration of the signal being added. Just extension of the frequency range.

[edtyct]

Since I was in the other Rotel thread, I thought I'd be consistent and join this one, too. Anamorphic96 has hit the nail right on the head. Rotel and NAD have a different emphasis in their receivers than some of the more popular electronics companies. So far as rated power in all channels driven is concerned, in many cases the full power won't make much difference. But some people have demanding speakers all around the room and/or listen to multichannel SACDs or DVD-As that spread content equally around the room. It's nice to have added headroom for these situations when needed. The high-current designs in Rotel and NAD equipment might be able to carry on when other receivers poop out.

When the DSPs first arrived, it was a lot of fun to experiment with them. But eventually, most serious listerners tired of them. After all, they can throw a significant veil over the music as recorded; most of us want to hear the music as clearly as possible, not to diminish its resolution.

Listening to stereo music in five channels requires quite a bit of processing and steering, creating all sorts of variations on the basic Pro Logic approach to soundtracks or the Hafler design of days gone by. I used to like Lexicon's Logic versions, which were based strictly on acoustic properties rather than merely conceptual ones. Many people think that surround is a much more accurate and pleasing way to hear music than two-channel stereo, mimicking the sound qualities of live music more realistically in a generic space. Dedicated multichannel recordings are often based on this notion, though some of them create sound spaces that defy the suspension of disbelief (though they still can be engaging). The steering by a processor on two-channel music that doesn't have inherent cues for live ambience is often a hit or miss affair, some of it sounding good and some of it not so good. Sometimes the degree to which such steering seems like an improvement on the original two channels is a direct reflection of how well a system, and room, can reproduce them. If the music sounds right in the first place, many of us would be reluctant to mess further with it.

Ed

[Hawkeye]

So far as rated power in all channels driven is concerned, in many cases the full power won't make much difference. But some people have demanding speakers all around the room and/or listen to multichannel SACDs or DVD-As that spread content equally around the room. It's nice to have added headroom for these situations when needed. The high-current designs in Rotel and NAD equipment might be able to carry on when other receivers poop out.
Ed I think this is an important bit of information not just from a power standpoint but also from a level of trust standpoint. If I'm buying a multichannel receiver that's stated by the manufacturer at, say, 85 wpc and in essence is barely pushing out 30 or 35wpc with all channels driven, then I feel the manufacturer is intentionally being decietful. I certainly have a better feeling about a company that, if anything, underestimates their power ratings. Its kind of like an automobile company bragging about a car getting 50mpg but fails to qualify that by also saying "but only when coasting downhill." Not a true to life example maybe but I'm sure you understand my point.
That said, all three receivers mentioned above are superb receivers that sound fantastic and live up to or exceed their stated power ratings.

[N. Abstentia]

You've got it backwards...listening to a 2 channel source through a 5 channel DSP is HEAVILY processed. It's very much fake, probably the most processed type of sound you can get because the DSP makes up the information to fill in the missing channels. It's about as far from natural as you can get, no matter what they name the DSP.

Listening to a 2 channel source on 2 channels is natural and not processed.

[edtyct]

Hawkeye,

In the absence of any standards with teeth about how to measure and publish power ratings, manufacturers will obviously choose the rating procedure that gives them the biggest number. The practice might be an outright deception if the method of obtaining the rating is missing from the specs; even if isn't missing, the result may be deceptive, since many people won't have a clue that the power rating given fudges reality to some extent. The irony is that certain amps/receivers that carry measurements with all channels driven may publish a power number significantly lower than those that rely on only two channels at 1 kz for their measurement, thereby leaving the matter to the consumer, who may decide to buy on faulty evidence. Luckily, most people won't notice. Those who have a sense of what they need to drive their systems are less likely to be misled.