purists = bigoted snobs bridged mode of multi-channel amplifier-capacitors = and use less than non-bridge mode for output = was what i did, in the past. was runnning 55w per channel (which others laugh at, in the days of standard 100w per channel) in home theatre mode, at 100w bridged mode for stereo, with thick cables costing about half the price of the NAD receiver (i recommend car jump start cables thereafter), and paper-diaphragm cones with horn-tweeters those mathematics, when played at 20w RMS, is 100w bridged to 55w circuit to 20w at 8ohms to ears.
must afford to - win-some lose-some, or rather, lose-some to win-some, every step of the way, for inefficiencies of real-world 55w bridged to 110w = pushing your luck 55w to 100w = lose-some for marginal-lattitude gain headroom(lattitude-margin) 5 channel pro-logic era is analog dolby-digital AC3 is digital. point-one of 5.1 is no-capacitors, unamplified. 100w division by , more-than, x-squared minimum useable is 2-squared. woofer is 4x of mids. tweeter is negligible 1x 1x, 2x, 4x to 100w = 100/4 = 20w, 100/5 = 20w = afford price of 100w, afford silly discard of 55w unqualified snobs in social-circles, afford engineers sorted to switching sound of high-current circuits understand-and-cannot-understand, afford... use at ample reserves of rolls-royce tagline
![FNAF vs TF2 - Episode 2 [SFM]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z5b3V2-VLb0/mqdefault.jpg)
What speakers is ?
Is there a significant sonic difference between 514 and 521 bee, Rob?
hello. Have you listened to NAD T-741/743/754? how do they compare to the AV716?
Hi there, would you say the Stereo music output of this NAD is still comparable to today's AVR? I'm deciding between this and the Denon AVR2311..
Nad
For sure l have this amp it's got really good sound it's a classic
Hi dear ,you do a great job of reviewing.would you like to do reviewing our products???
purists = bigoted snobs
bridged mode of multi-channel amplifier-capacitors
= and use less than non-bridge mode for output
= was what i did, in the past.
was runnning 55w per channel (which others laugh at, in the days of standard 100w per channel) in home theatre mode, at 100w bridged mode for stereo, with thick cables costing about half the price of the NAD receiver (i recommend car jump start cables thereafter), and paper-diaphragm cones with horn-tweeters
those mathematics, when played at 20w RMS, is 100w bridged to 55w circuit to 20w at 8ohms to ears.
power switching clicks = engineers got sorted to the fluff
must afford to - win-some lose-some, or rather, lose-some to win-some, every step of the way, for inefficiencies of real-world
55w bridged to 110w = pushing your luck
55w to 100w = lose-some for marginal-lattitude gain headroom(lattitude-margin)
5 channel pro-logic era is analog dolby-digital AC3 is digital. point-one of 5.1 is no-capacitors, unamplified.
100w division by , more-than, x-squared minimum useable is 2-squared. woofer is 4x of mids. tweeter is negligible 1x
1x, 2x, 4x to 100w = 100/4 = 20w, 100/5 = 20w = afford price of 100w, afford silly discard of 55w unqualified snobs in social-circles, afford engineers sorted to switching sound of high-current circuits understand-and-cannot-understand, afford... use at ample reserves of rolls-royce tagline