Yamaha AX-596 Integrated AMP: Good/Bad?

[titan7]

I am looking to upgrade my 12 yr old Denon Receiver (60 watt PC RMS). I can get an AX596 for about $350, and the tuner for about $70.00. How does this compare to Adcom or NAD? I am looking for something in the 100 Watts per ch. range to power my new MA GR-10 speakers, they are rated for 100 watts RMS so I am concerned I am underpowering them with the Denon.

thanks!

[titan7]

Wow, this is a slow forum, I will assume bad or nobody cares.

thanks!

[anamorphic96]

I will give this a go I guess.

The Yamaha is a respectible integrated amp and will drive the MA's. But it will not have the dyanmic output or refinement that the NAD, Rotel, and Cambridge Audio will have.

If your on a tight budget try looking at used integrated amp. A NAD C370 integrated amp should only run you 350 to 400. It will offer you a 120w per ch and have tremendous amounts of dynamic headroom.

Hope this helps.

[titan7]

It does thank you!!

[Mark111867]

I know we're not talking apples to apples here, but I just recently replaced a Yamaha RX-596 stereo receiver with an NAD C720BEE receiver. The NAD was a big step up in sound IMO, although I'm not saying anything bad about the RX-596. For a two channel receiver in that price range, it would be tough to do much better IMO. I guess what I'm really getting at here is that if I was given the choice, I would choose NAD over Yamaha. Sometimes the extra money spent is well worth it. Good luck with your decision.

By the way, although the NAD is rated at 50 watts per channel, it is as loud as the Yamaha which is rated at 80 watts per channel. I've heard from some folks that it is not the amount of watts that is important. It's the quality.

[GMichael]

I know we're not talking apples to apples here, but I just recently replaced a Yamaha RX-596 stereo receiver with an NAD C720BEE receiver. The NAD was a big step up in sound IMO, although I'm not saying anything bad about the RX-596. For a two channel receiver in that price range, it would be tough to do much better IMO. I guess what I'm really getting at here is that if I was given the choice, I would choose NAD over Yamaha. Sometimes the extra money spent is well worth it. Good luck with your decision.

By the way, although the NAD is rated at 50 watts per channel, it is as loud as the Yamaha which is rated at 80 watts per channel. I've heard from some folks that it is not the amount of watts that is important. It's the quality.

A Yammie rated at 80wpc is probbably more like 60wpc.
The NAD rated at 50 is probbably also 60 or even 65wpc.

[titan7]

The AX-596 is rated at 100x100

[GMichael]

The AX-596 is rated at 100x100

I like Yamaha. I have the RX-V2500 and love it. But NAD usually has a little better sound. The way I understand it is that Yamaha is a good mid level mfg and NAD is an entry level hi-fi.

[jtgofish]

I am looking to upgrade my 12 yr old Denon Receiver (60 watt PC RMS). I can get an AX596 for about $350, and the tuner for about $70.00. How does this compare to Adcom or NAD? I am looking for something in the 100 Watts per ch. range to power my new MA GR-10 speakers, they are rated for 100 watts RMS so I am concerned I am underpowering them with the Denon.

thanks!

HI,I bought one of these for a friends system.Great value amps and more like 140 watts RMS.They sound quite like the NAD amps really -sort of warm and a bit hazy but more musical than the clear but cold mechanical sound of many transistor amps.The pre amp section on these is their weak point.Later upgrade through a better pre amp would be a good way to go.

JT