I currently own a pair of Polk LSi15's and a 12" Velodyne sub. I'm looking to get another pair of LSi15's and the LSiC to finish off my home theater setup.
My question is what receiver I should go with. I was looking at the Denon AVR 3803 but that's a little outside of my budget. The Denon AVR 2803 is inside my budget but I came to realize neither of the Denon's are rated at 4 ohms. I'm not sure if this would be a problem being that all 5 of my speakers are 4-ohms and 4 of them are floorstanding.
So, in reading these forums I came across the NAD T752 receiver. This is rated at 4 ohms and is just within my budget. The limited feedback I have read on this has been good. The only drawback with this is that I really haven't found as much feedback on this unit vs. the 2803. Aso, the feedback I read about the NAD T751 is generally pretty negative in terms of mechincal issues with the receiver.
I was hoping someone may be able to give me some insight as to which reciever would be a better match for my speakers. I would really appreciate any feedback given.
Hawk
Posted on
The 752 is not an upgraded 751, but is an upgraded 761 (don't ask me why they did it this way, but I have had two different dealers tell me this and it makes sense as both the 761 and the 752 are 80 wpc x 5 receivers). You are correct that the 751 had some issues, but IMO the 752 is the best receiver out there for under $1K. I came across a review in a British audio mag and they claimed that the NAD 752 is built on the same assembly line as the Arcam 200 (MSRP of $1299) and that the two are identical under the skin (I obviously have no way to confirm this). I have a Denon 3803 and frankly, the 752 runs rings around it.
About 6 weeks ago we had another thread on this forum from a gentleman named Paul. He wanted the Polk LSi 9s and had the same question about the right receiver. I, along with several others, all suggested the NAD because of the issue of the low impedence of the speakers. He then checked our advice by writing an e-mail to the Polk tech support dept. They wrote back to say that they only recommended 4 brands to drive the LSi speakers:
1. NAD; 2. B & K; 3. Rotel; and, 4. Adcom.
Paul was kind enough to post the advice that he received. Now, I tried to drive some 4 ohm speakers with my Denon about 4 months ago and it was not a good experience, so I would say strike the Denon from your list. Based upon your budget, I would suggest the 752.
Valvear
Posted on
Mark, I aplogize for cutting into your string but I have to ask Hawk for some guidance regarding the NAD receivers. Hawk, I having been following your insightful posts across the boards which led me to select the NAD 762 for an M&K 750 system (4 ohm). Knowing that system usage will be 95% movies/sports, my only hesitation is whether I should better spend my budget (1-1.5K) on a receiver that has additional decoding options such as THX EX. Other potential receivers I have researched are the Marantz sr7300OSE, Integra DTR 7.3.
I would appreciate any feedback given.
Hawk
Posted on
Valvear:
I don't believe either the Marantz or the Integra are rated to handle 4 ohm speakers. I am pretty sure both only handle 6 ohm fronts, but if you use all channels, they specify that the speakers must all be 8 ohms. Their amp section is not built to handle the lower impedence speakers.
I find I am recommending NAD more and more simply because so many speaker packages today are going with a lower impedence and NAD appears to be the only brand that builds a receiver to handle 4 ohms that you can buy for less than $1K. Doesn't hurt that the NAD has great sound, too.
BTW, the THX Surround EX is nothing more than a processing that gives 6.1 channel sound from a 5.1 encoded disc. The sixth channel is matrixed by summing up the two rear channels and making a sixth channel from them. Thus, it is not a discrete channel. This is only useful if you have a 6.1 receiver and you have six satellites and you want to use six channels. You also must have a DVD player with digital audio connection to the receiver. I personally don't have a use for it, but of course, it looks nice on the spec sheet.