[hammick]

I have been out of the loop for a four or five years on the home theater scene. Built a house and have been content with my Pioneer Elite VSX-55txi.


I am finishing the basement and putting in a living arear that will have a 7.1 system and the receiver/processor will also drive speakers in other areas of the basement using preouts and seperate amps.


I have not listened to anything yet but have been impressed by the new receivers that have the HDMI 1.3 specs.


I was initially looking at the new NAD units T775 and T785 but then saw the new Yamaha Units RX-V863 and RX-V663.


Back when I was really into this stuff I firmly believed that NAD had a sound that couldn't be beat and loved how they underated the power on their receivers and amps.


I started hearing very good thinks about Yamaha years ago but haven't tried any of them out.


I guess my question is NAD putting out a sound better than Yamaha that justifies spending an extra grand or more?


The front speakers in the home theater setup will probably be powered definitive techs or something similar while the surround speakers and other speakers in other areas of the basement will be good to high quality ceiling speakers.


Will the yamaha receivers fit the bill for me or should I spend on dropping a lot of cash. I haven't ruled out separates either but have some many other hobbies now AV equipment isn't a priority hobby.

 

[oztech]



Quote:
Originally Posted by hammick /forum/post/14231314


I have been out of the loop for a four or five years on the home theater scene. Built a house and have been content with my Pioneer Elite VSX-55txi.


I am finishing the basement and putting in a living arear that will have a 7.1 system and the receiver/processor will also drive speakers in other areas of the basement using preouts and seperate amps.


I have not listened to anything yet but have been impressed by the new receivers that have the HDMI 1.3 specs.


I was initially looking at the new NAD units T775 and T785 but then saw the new Yamaha Units RX-V863 and RX-V663.


Back when I was really into this stuff I firmly believed that NAD had a sound that couldn't be beat and loved how they underated the power on their receivers and amps.


I started hearing very good thinks about Yamaha years ago but haven't tried any of them out.


I guess my question is NAD putting out a sound better than Yamaha that justifies spending an extra grand or more?


The front speakers in the home theater setup will probably be powered definitive techs or something similar while the surround speakers and other speakers in other areas of the basement will be good to high quality ceiling speakers.


Will the yamaha receivers fit the bill for me or should I spend on dropping a lot of cash. I haven't ruled out separates either but have some many other hobbies now AV equipment isn't a priority hobby.

I would go demo some more units the ones you mentioned have a weaker

amp section than yours the brand you were looking at has some excellant

products they are just farther up the ladder towards the high end.NAD makes

some great gear and notice they spec out to 2 ohm they just might not have all

the latest bells and whistles.

 

[WilliamZX11]

The NAD units may have better sound...when they are actually working. My experience with NAD reliability, and even worse, the reliability of their repairs has turned me off to the brand forever.

 

[DougWinsor]



Quote:
I guess my question is NAD putting out a sound better than Yamaha that justifies spending an extra grand or more?

That would be based on your opinion but the NAD does not offer anything over the yamaha's.

 

[kgeorge78]

I had a NAD T754 and was amazing by it. Never had a problem. Switched to Pio Elite when i went Elite TV. The elite receivers are great but don't sound like NAD. Might go back to NAD soon.

 

[oztech]

Most electronics color the sound somewhat and we each have a fondness for certain

sound signatures the reason for this brand over that brand one man's trash another man's

treasure and visa versa.

 

[HT_n_Me]

I use a T175 processor and it has all the bells and whistles I could ever use in a HT environment, nothing actually is lacking. I've found support to be pretty good overall and very responsive to questions or issues.


I think the sound is among the best I have heard. When I was buying my T175 I had money down on an Integra 9.8, and had listened to Pioneer Elite's top receivers. I got my money back from the dealer and bought the T175 and have never had a regret.

 

[aydu]

Yamaha and NAD are at two exremes when it comes to design philosophy. Yamaha excels on bells and whistles - sound fields galore. NAD focuses on delivering sound quality with minimal features.


This won't matter to many but if you are the type of person that enjoys tinkering with the sound, Yamaha is your ticket. If you are primarily interested in sound quality that maches the source (be that good or bad), with minimal signal change within the unit, NAD would be preferable.


Technology wise, Yamaha makes a solid product with good reliability. NAD has had their technical challenges with HDMI. Read the owner's thread and you'll see that their current products had a tough time getting things right.


My advice would be based on your interest in 2 channel music reproduction. If this is important to you, go with NAD. You will get the sound quality you paid for.


If your priority is home theater, save the money and go with Yamaha. They excel in home theater and will give you a functional product with reliable HT connectivity and years of good performance.

 

[tivoboy]

I'd love to find some deals on NAD again, haven't had them in about 10+ years. They have always been VERY nice and nice sounding. I don't know if they are up with full AV setups today though, but the ones I have heard for Audio still sound quite nice indeed!

 

[DougWinsor]



Quote:
NAD focuses on delivering sound quality with minimal features.

Based on?

Quote:
My advice would be based on your interest in 2 channel music reproduction. If this is important to you, go with NAD. You will get the sound quality you paid for.

I think you just assume this because of the name.

 

[Bing]



Quote:
I think you just assume

Hey Doug,

They assume in this forum too.

(inside joke)

 

[Zenak]

My 2 cents: I demod a NAD 765 and it sounded better with more bass then my Denon 4802 or the Yamaha RXV 3800. They are a bit behind the curve in terms of HDMI 1.3 on their lower level models, and don't have as many HDMI inputs as the competition, but if you can live with what they do have to offer I don't think you will be disappointed in sound quality.

 

[DougWinsor]



Quote:
I demod a NAD 765 and it sounded better with more bass then my Denon 4802 or the Yamaha RXV 3800.

Quote:
but if you can live with what they do have to offer I don't think you will be disappointed in sound quality.

Again this is your opinion and why do you think it would be the same as someone else's?

 

[hammick]



Quote:
Originally Posted by DougWinsor /forum/post/14248366


Again this is your opinion and why do you think it would be the same as someone else's?

Never really understand why people get so offended when somebody says they like a certain brand. His post was clear that it was his opinion without having to say "in my humble opinion".


Thanks to everyone that contributed something useful to my post.

 

[ttowntony]

Hammick, I carry both brands. Both are excellent at feeding clients tastes differently.


NAD has long been known for sound quality. Yes, it has had some QC problems in the past 10 years, but so has every other manufacturer. I will say it has gotten MUCH better, though. Check out the new NAD Masters series if you have a chance, it's fantastic! NAD will never jump on the bells and whistles bandwagon like so many others have and I applaud them for that as most of these features are wasteful IMO.


The Yamaha RX-V663/863 is our most popular receivers that we sell. It does just about everything you would like or expect from an AVR and it's price is really good. A very reliable unit if you ask me. If I were to give it one complaint, it would be in the amplification section when all channels are being driven. It, like so many others, is over-spec'd.


Another great option would be the Marantz receivers. They are by far the most reliable brand we have dealt with over the years outside of the separates market (3yr warranties).


In the end, you should make the choice and not let others here influence your decision too much.

Best of luck, it sounds like you are well on your way to a very nice system.

 

[MichaelJHuman]

Blame the FTC, Tony. They let the manufacturers railroad them into the current situation with 5, 6 or 7 channel power ratings.


I don't know what's fair when it comes to measuring HT receivers, but I totally can sympathize with people who feel let down by a 100x7 amp that can only put out 35x7.


On the bright side, I would guess most people will be fine with the 663. I was fine with the 657 (though I believe it's slightly more powerful.)

 

[JAD2]



Quote:
Originally Posted by DougWinsor /forum/post/14245665


Based on?




I think you just assume this because of the name.

Well I'll have to guess you know nothing about NAD's past then.


Companies like NAD, Cambridge, B&K and a few others main focus has always been on sound in 2 channel mode, but since HT is coming out in a big way they adapted to it, but don't still to this day make them frilly. Frilly is loaded with with all the extra's to do things to sound one using such equipment wouldn't want.


These companies are known for quality DAC's, amp sections that are actually by todays standards under rated and so on.


I'd hate to say it only because I know it will create a stir, but the 2 the OP talked about are not comparable because they are not in the same league.


Only the Elite units offered by one of the companies is worthy to be compared to the other.


How do I quantify that??


Well it was the forums whom keyed me onto this newly formed hype sale pitch of specifications in the power sections of AVR's.

There is a bunch of makers out there claiming 80 watts or more per channel and according to many write ups about the power section which are clear and precise to the average person able to do math, like someone here all ready stated, people get pissed when they find out their 110 watts per ingests only 400 watts of power max and since output can't exceed input minus whats used for processing, 35x7 don't cut the mustard and thats what we have here.

 

[Bruins29]

Well well.....While I agree with many posters here I think there are two things being overlooked that are going to matter most to the OP.


1. While it is true that some AVRs do not output to published specs I think its not really going to matter unless you are pushing performance into a certain threshold. What I am saying is that without knowing the OP's listening habits its may be safe to assume that a $1000 investment into a potential better AVR may not yeild more performance. Like I keep preaching over and over, most listeners most of the time never use that much wattage anyway especially with powered subs being the norm.


So while I agree the power supply of an NAD piece might be a bit more stable than brand X the OP might never need it and may be wasting $1000 or more to get what he thinks might be "better sound"


2. Speaking of that, like William said, the NAD may have better sound..."may" being the key word. Until you do direct comparisons of these units in the same exact room with the same exact speakers and sources a listening test is not going to tell you anything of value.

 

[DougWinsor]



Quote:
Companies like NAD, Cambridge, B&K and a few others main focus has always been on sound in 2 channel mode, but since HT is coming out in a big way they adapted to it, but don't still to this day make them frilly. Frilly is loaded with with all the extra's to do things to sound one using such equipment wouldn't want.

So are just assuming? Last I looked the NAD T175, T785, and T775 had all the "frilly" options you are talking about.

Quote:
These companies are known for quality DAC's, amp sections that are actually by todays standards under rated and so on.

NAD does not use better or special DAC's.

Quote:
Well it was the forums whom keyed me onto this newly formed hype sale pitch of specifications in the power sections of AVR's.

There is a bunch of makers out there claiming 80 watts or more per channel and according to many write ups about the power section which are clear and precise to the average person able to do math, like someone here all ready stated, people get pissed when they find out their 110 watts per ingests only 400 watts of power max and since output can't exceed input minus whats used for processing, 35x7 don't cut the mustard and thats what we have here.

Wrong again, you might want to read some proper reviews and you would find out that the amp sections of most receivers are underrated for their power spec.

 

[jostenmeat]



Quote:
Originally Posted by DougWinsor /forum/post/14256468


So are just assuming? Last I looked the NAD T175, T785, and T775 had all the "frilly" options you are talking about.

Well, NAD products cannot unpack hi-def bitstreams, for one. I contacted them about the T-175, wondering if there were plans to implement decoders since its supposedly a modular design. They replied by saying there were zero imminent plans.


I've enjoyed NAD, but the above is not frilly to me. It was a must-have in my case. Too bad, but a lot of other nice stuff out there too...