The sound quality difference is essentially related to the difference in power output of these two amplifiers. They are both designed and constructed to a good standard. With the benefit of an extra 3 dB, the more powerful amplifier will be a better choice.I'm talking about sound quality, power difference is under 3dB
The C370 seems to have refined everything a little bit
Amplifiers are not cars. They have a very simple job: amplify an electrical signal without changing it. The technology has matured and sonically perfect amplifiers have existed for decades. The only relevant advances have been in manufacturing technology and price. More recently they have also become more frugal with electricity.The sound quality difference is essentially related to the difference in power output of these two amplifiers. They are both designed and constructed to a good standard. With the benefit of an extra 3 dB, the more powerful amplifier will be a better choice.
NO you can'r base which onme is best buy the power, like with cars
Good pickup, I did notice that too but decided to post the US page... the local one here has it;WHY isn't there a 2500NE
Did you A/B the amplifiers blind and have them switch inputs randomly? This should be relatively easy to do bc the Wharfedales have the double binding posts for biwiring. Just don't feed high volume signal from both amps at the same time! Or you can buy a 20 euro switchboard for peace of mind. @Doodski is this a sound approach?The reason I listed the NAD here: recently had the opportunity to test a friend’s NAD 319 in my setup, with the Wharfedales, and the impression was quite strong. To my ears, the NAD was fuller and more clear in the mids (vocals, guitar, which I love as I listen to blues a lot), the bass seemed to be tighter (less boomy) and cleaner (more articulate maybe?) and the presentation was more forward, as in, while with the R-N301 the sound is more or less in line with the baffle, with the NAD was projected more in front of the speakers and closer to me. That’s the “feeling” I had, the best I can describe it in this “audiophile” jargon.
Compared to the NAD, the 301 sounds still clean, but very flat, uninvolving, like is lacking in the dynamics department.
Now, I don’t know whether this was because of the difference in power between the amps (and maybe not the nominal wpc but having more to do with power supply max output, more capacitance in the power level, etc - not an electro guy here..), but the NAD just felt it had a lot more grunt.
Or maybe it just has to do with the “voicing” of the amp, I don’t know. It’s the only “other” amp i tested on my speakers, so I don’t have a good reference to compare. Hence me posting here about the subject
The NAD 370 has a +/- 64VDC main power supply powering those transistors that drive the speakers.
The NAD C319 has a +/- 60VDC main power supply powering those transistors that drive the speakers.
Yes I actually did. I had both the Yamaha R-N301 and the NAD 319 wired to my speakers at the same time (4 cables, binding posts bridged) for a month or so, switching from one to another. The difference seemed to me very obvious, easy to catch.Did you A/B the amplifiers blind and have them switch inputs randomly? This should be relatively easy to do bc the Wharfedales have the double binding posts for biwiring. Just don't feed high volume signal from both amps at the same time! Or you can buy a 20 euro switchboard for peace of mind. @Doodski is this a sound approach?
It would be worth it to try since the differences you perceived could just as well be sighted expectation bias. It could save you an unneeded purchase or you can confirm that you prefer a higher powered amp.
Good job. You should also do it blind though. "Obvious" can become "very hard" or indistinguishable. It'd be only an hour tops of your time if your friend is still willing to have you borrow itYes I actually did. I had both the Yamaha R-N301 and the NAD 319 wired to my speakers at the same time (4 cables, binding posts bridged) for a month or so, switching from one to another. The difference seemed to me very obvious, easy to catch.
I sure can do thatGood job. You should also do it blind though. "Obvious" can become "very hard" or indistinguishable. It'd be only an hour tops of your time if your friend is still willing to have you borrow it
Thanks Willem for the explanation, it gave me some pace of mind about the 803d, which I strongly consider. And my hope is that YPAO would actually help with the room issues more that it would degrade the signal. I'm no audiophile and the speakers may not be that revealing anyway, so the 803d seems to be a great package (especially since I use Apple Music over Airplay a lot and also Spotify - still waiting for the HiFi subscription ).AV receivers have two problems. The first is that there is a lot of processing going on, and this may impact measured performance. However, if the processing is for digital inputs this is useful and should not create problems. If the processing is for dsp room eq it is harder to avoid interference, but the benefits of dsp room eq usually outweigh the degradation. Do not forget that the only criterion is ultimately if the degradation is audible - it often is not. The other problem is that these are multi channel units so they have to house a lot more power hungry amplifier channels. Often the power supply cannot handle this. However, a unit like the Yamaha RN803 is neither based on an AV receiver (it is in essence the same traditional design as the AS 701/801), nor does it have the many power hungry channels (it has a traditional beefy power supply). So used without the extra digital processing it performs very well. If the digital processing is used measured performance is indeed degraded somewhat, but for a useful purpose.