Earlier tonight I hooked up one pair of binding posts on my mains to the NAD amp & pre-amp I just got (see "holy MOFO!!!" thread in Receivers section) and left the other pair of binding posts on the mains connected to my Marantz receiver, leaving in place the metal connecting strip between the two pairs of binding posts. I was thinking that way, I could turn on the Marantz whenever I wanted 5.1, then turn it off and turn on the NAD gear for 2.1. As long as both the Marantz and the NAD were not on at the same time it should be fine, right?
So I turn on the NAD gear, it already sounds great at low volumes but as soon as I go just barely above moderate (-35db?) levels it starts heating up and keeps going into "Protect" mode! I'm thinking, "it shouldn't be doing that, this is supposed to be a powerful amp, have I just bought a lemon? What a pain, shipping back this big heavy old thing! AAAAUGH!!!"
Spent at least an hour reading and rereading the manuals, playing with different plugs and buttons and settings, turning it on and off...no dice!
Just as I'm in front of my computer and about to send off a frantic PM to Art asking for help, it hits me---the one last experimental solution that I hadn't tried yet: unplug the Marantz's speaker cables from the mains! So I run back, do it, and whaddaya know...TA-DAAA!!! The amp works like a charm, soon I have already sent my wife scurrying to the other side of the house, it's rockin' so loud, LOL!
My question is, technically, what HAPPENED? Why did having two sets of speaker cables on the mains at the same time do this to the amp, even though the Marantz was off the whole time? I guess I'd like the electronical explanation, if anyone knows it...
It's a circuit. The amp was getting more power back then it was producing. You need to remove the brass plate if you want to use both amps, but by the sounds of it the NAD has plenty of juice so just use that for everything your mains produce.
I think the NAD was trying to drive the load, which included the speakers and the Marantz. This would be rather difficult as it could construe the load as a short circuit.
Use the SR5400 as yet another source component hooked up to the video or aux on your pre and to power the center and rears. Leave the SR5400 off completely when listening to 2 channel. I go from the L/R front pre outs on the SR5400 to the video in on my NAD C162 pre. The C162 pre has 2 sets of pre outs. I use 1 set to go to the power amp and the other to go to the sub so that I have use of the sub for both 2 channel and home theater. I have to set the pre amp volume control to a set mark when I calibrate the home theater and return it to that setting every time I listen to it. It's key to remember to turn it back down before returning to 2 channel use or you can blow your fronts. It's a bit of pain but well worth it to me for better 2 channel music performance
Any specific questions please feel free to ask. Isn't audio fun. I probably will wee my pants trying to extract the behemoth sub from my system to install the B&W. In fact I can feel my back breaking just thinking about it. The NAD gear sounds good eh?
Do what Art does, but don't do what you did. The Marantz might have been off, but it apparently has a low impedence on the speaker posts when it's off. That's a very good way to damage both amplifiers at the same time.
yeah I was planning to do just that, in fact the wife will probably not bother with turning on the mains when she's watching TV, she's fine with just the mono center channel.
So you're saying that when using the NAD with the Marantz you have to turn up the NAD volume a lot higher during DVD playback than when listening to CDs with the NAD alone? Hmm, I didn't consider that since with the Marantz I don't notice much of a volume difference going from 2-channel source direct CD to multi-channel DVD.
I'm curious: would the signal that the Marantz pre-outs send to the NAD still be Dolby Digital or would it just be normal stereo?
PS. As for moving your SVS, yeah I hear you...this is why I've been reluctant to upgrade our humble 20" tube to a bigger 32" or 36" tube and would rather wait to buy a DLP, LCD, or plasma TV instead. You might want to wear one of those weightlifting belts, they're great backsavers.
I'm curious: would the signal that the Marantz pre-outs send to the NAD still be Dolby Digital or would it just be normal stereo?
You would be sending the main L and R pre-outs of the Marantz (already processed) to some stereo input on the NAD preamp. In turn, the NAD would power your mains. All other surround channels would be powered by the Marantz. It's a good idea!
Edster, I did something I probably shouldn't have...went to a high end place..They showed me Krell speakers and PSB speakers and a NAD receiver. The Krell's were way over my budget at 8,000 a pair, but the PSB's are a possibility. This is a long way from the HK 630 and the Polk LsI6 mains...I just want a nice sounding system, I don't want to blast my neighbors out. But interestingly enough, those higher end speakers didn't really need a sub...There are so many more choices than in the 70's..but I actually had one of the first NAD's 25 years ago!!
I'm pretty sure they were the Image series T65 floor atanding speakers. I'm wanting to upgrade from an older Yamaha reveiver (RXV990) and a mix of Bose 401 Mains, and Polk center and rear speakers. I really dislike the audio presets(Rock, Jazz club etc) so I have been using the pro logic setting for everything, even music.
The PSB speakers are pretty nice looking, especially in the silvers price range. How do they match up to the Paradigms and Ascends? I know, I'm stealing Chris'thread here.
Well after I bought my Ascends, I took them to the dealer I bought my Marantz receiver from to compare to his speaker inventory. This was his invitation, not mine when he found out that I'd gone Internet-direct...he told me that just two weeks before one of his customers had shipped back an entire Axiom speaker package after doing side by side comparisons with his stock (Klipsch, Monitor Audio, PSB, Triangle, NHT). So guess he was feeling cocky...
However the Ascend 340s pretty much had him squirming. They outperformed every speaker he had up until about the $1200 range then it was pretty even.
Unfortunately at that time I was very new into audio and so had major cognitive overload with all the brands and models (plus the guy could spout at least 15 minutes of arcane details on every model). All I remember is that the Triangles were the stiffest competition but they were considerably more expensive. The others often had better bass extension but usually got whacked on the highs and especially on the midrange---the Ascends reigned supreme with voice reproduction.
That's quite allright, David. I am listening to all recommendatons and suggestions. Edster had said to sink $$ into the speakers instead of a receiver. Even the guy trying to sell me the Krell's and PSB's said my old Yamaha had enough juice to power these speakers, but I promised my wife I would get a system she could understand, and that requires getting a more current receiver with a universal remote.
> Edster had said to sink $$ into the speakers instead of a receiver.
Let me clarify that: in most cases $700 speakers with a $300 receiver is better than $300 speakers with a $700 receiver.
However, once you cross a certain threshold (say $1200 receiver or ESPECIALLY $1400 separates) then you can go with cheaper speakers and still get great sound. But the difference between a $400 and $800 HT receiver is usually just extra inputs and electronic features rather than any huge improvement in sound quality.
As for the new "digital path" "all digital" "pure digital" receivers, go to avsforum.com and search for "list of digital receivers" for about 40 pages of engrossing reading. It seems they get about 90% rave reviews from the owners. I personally did hear a $230 JVC RX-F10 that had mind-blowing clarity, detail and spaciousness...now whether it might lead to listener fatigue over extended periods of listening at high volumes (the usual criticism by traditional analog fans), I can't say because I was only listening for maybe 30 minutes.
Others will disagree, I'm sure, but I agree with Ester about the speaker/receiver dollar ratio. I'm running several thousand dollars' worth of speakers with an h/k 325 receiver.
That is strange no way should it be that hot, a lemon indeed it is big time "get the picture"
Fidelity Pm-50 not for sure if that's the name of the amplifiers I saw in a second hand shop and these F+*kers where dame hot in fact way, way, way, way, too hot you can cook an egg on them I'm not joking, I was stumped as to why these amps to mono blocks where so dangerously hot, I run my JBL THX cinema approved sub bass via the sub bass amplifier and the heat-sink never comes close to burning hot, never.
And they wanted £400.00 pounds each for them STUFF that.
> That is strange no way should it be that hot, a lemon indeed it is big time "get the picture"
Re-read my post, Andy.
This whole thing was totally my f*ckup, it was because I had both my receiver and the amp connected to the speakers at the same time but was running only the amp. As soon as I disconnected the speakers from the receiver, the amp worked beautifully.