[Harleyujoe]

I keep hearing that NAD Receivers are Better Sounding to others.

Denon,Marantz, Onkyo..ect>>>>>

Does NAD really have it that much over the others or is it that some hear

sounds with NAD and Others Hear Sounds with the Other Companies that

sounds more purer because of the way our ears take the sounds in.


Or maybe it is our rooms acoustics that make us think that a receiver

sounds are more brillant ..


I ordered a Marantz 8002 and thought I was done searching but keep

getting mail saying NAD receivers have it over Denon and Marantz and

to name a few and they say even without True HD NAD.

They say hook it up with Anolog wires and get the sound from my

Samsung 1400 Blu Ray player for full sound effects..


Anyone care to give me more thoughts on this before tomorrow morning.

Thanks Again for all the information..Joe

 

[Jam Man flimflam]

To my ears - my NAD T773 sounds huge, but natural. In comparison, my now 8yr old Marantz SR-8000 sounds very nice, smooth, but much smaller with less definition in the bass. For home theater, I think the NAD is one of the best sounding receivers.

 

[b.greenway]

Some others, yes.

 

[jostenmeat]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleyujoe /forum/post/12949655


I ordered a Marantz 8002 and thought I was done searching but keep

getting mail saying NAD receivers have it over Denon and Marantz and

to name a few and they say even without True HD NAD.

They say hook it up with Anolog wires and get the sound from my

Samsung 1400 Blu Ray player for full sound effects..


Anyone care to give me more thoughts on this before tomorrow morning.

Thanks Again for all the information..Joe

I have an older refurbished NAD that I would have possibly traded up to the T-175. I love my NAD stuff. But I personally want the decoders. If only because my player can only bitstream. I contacted NAD in the last month, and after close to a week or so, the response I received was that they had no imminent plans to implement the "decoders".


If you use the MCA connections, first of all take care with the bass management. I do not know if BD players have improved them recently, but many players of all kinds have varying sub LFE cuts, usually something like -10db (but I guess there could be great variation).


Another concern is the ability or inability to matrix for rears if you have 7.1. I do.


And I don't why, but every consumer and or pro subjective review I have read says that it typically sounds superior when the receiver is unpacking. Also stated by Cnet reviewers. I am well aware that there should be no difference, as unpacking is not really "decoding", just unzipping sorta. Dunno.


Lastly, the stupidest reason of mine, it would be cool to have the logo's light up on the receiver.

Alas, I am still in a holding pattern...

 

[Trevor Schell]

Nad gear is excellent.

I owned a Nad T770 previously and have to say that it was a much better receiver than my previous Denon and Marantz.

The Digital decoding and sound quality was top notch.

 

[Nagthragarthoth]

I've got an NAD T754 and I love it. It sounds so warm and rich. Unfortuantely I bought a few months before they released all of their HDMI models, I went out and got a Pioneer Elite 91.... So far, I can easily say that the 754 sound superior.. I used to do custom installations and we mostly used Pioneer and NAD, the last install we worked was with a T785 and all I could say was wow.... That thing sounded so solid. So yes, NAD is imo, a cut above most of the popular mainstream AVr's, I wish though that I could say the same for their players.

 

[Jim Cate]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleyujoe /forum/post/12949655


I keep hearing that NAD Receivers are Better Sounding to others.

Denon,Marantz, Onkyo..ect>>>>>

Does NAD really have it that much over the others or is it that some hear

sounds with NAD and Others Hear Sounds with the Other Companies that

sounds more purer because of the way our ears take the sounds in.


Or maybe it is our rooms acoustics that make us think that a receiver

sounds are more brillant ..


I ordered a Marantz 8002 and thought I was done searching but keep

getting mail saying NAD receivers have it over Denon and Marantz and

to name a few and they say even without True HD NAD.

They say hook it up with Anolog wires and get the sound from my

Samsung 1400 Blu Ray player for full sound effects..


Anyone care to give me more thoughts on this before tomorrow morning.

Thanks Again for all the information..Joe

It would be helpful if those who hear significant differences between the audio response of the NADs and those of other receivers/amps would clarify the basis for their opinions and explain the circumstances of their listening comparisons.


In particular, were the comparisons based on LEVEL MATCHED comparisons of a NAD and another component? Did the comparisons involve listening to the same material, during the same listening session, in the same room, etc.? Finally, did you know which unit you were listening to at the time? Particularly if the units weren't level matched to within .1 dB, such comparisons are questionable to say the least. - It's always interesting how those dramatic, obvious and unmistakable audio characteristics seem mysteriously to vanish when you don't know which component you are listening to.


Jim

 

[Kal Rubinson]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Cate /forum/post/12951709


It would be helpful if those who hear significant differences between the audio response of the NADs and those of other receivers/amps would clarify the basis for their opinions and explain the circumstances of their listening comparisons.


In particular, were the comparisons based on LEVEL MATCHED comparisons of a NAD and another component? Did the comparisons involve listening to the same material, during the same listening session, in the same room, etc.? Finally, did you know which unit you were listening to at the time? Particularly if the units weren't level matched to within .1 dB, such comparisons are questionable to say the least. - It's always interesting how those dramatic, obvious and unmistakable audio characteristics seem mysteriously to vanish when you don't know which component you are listening to.


Jim

Admirable goals, Jim, but not likely to be achieved. One needs to split the sources to the two DUTs and then one needs a switch to connect both to the amp. I am almost set up for this.

 

[Kal Rubinson]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Cate /forum/post/12951709


It would be helpful if those who hear significant differences between the audio response of the NADs and those of other receivers/amps would clarify the basis for their opinions and explain the circumstances of their listening comparisons.


In particular, were the comparisons based on LEVEL MATCHED comparisons of a NAD and another component? Did the comparisons involve listening to the same material, during the same listening session, in the same room, etc.? Finally, did you know which unit you were listening to at the time? Particularly if the units weren't level matched to within .1 dB, such comparisons are questionable to say the least. - It's always interesting how those dramatic, obvious and unmistakable audio characteristics seem mysteriously to vanish when you don't know which component you are listening to.


Jim

Admirable goals, Jim, but difficult to achieve. One needs to split the sources to the two DUTs and then one needs a switch to connect both to the amp. I am almost set up for this.

 

[radtek]

I have a NAD T773 driving 4ohm Axiom mains, 7.1 system. I can only compare to a Onkyo tx-ds 797 (still own) AVR in the same room/setup. I have Tosh A1 using the 7.1 for advance codacs, . The NAD is great sounding avr it drives my speakers to levels the Onkyo only wished for. Sound quality is full, bold, and dynamically smooth. I listen to about a 60% music 40% video. That why I am going to hang on to the NAD for a while longer...the music reproduction. For movies using the regular DD5.1 and DTS array, using the optic inputs the NAD is also steller.


Now if you lean more to the movie side of the ledger and particularly Blu or HD then I would consider with a reciever that has the ability to decode the new hd audio. The NAD only does pass through on the 7.1 (no bass management) so if the HD/Blu player you are going to use does not have a good bass management setup it leaves a very lacking sound to my ears.


But its not just the AVR but the whole HT that produces what you hear so I can't see how one can say one is better then another with out the doing comparisons in the same HT. Would I reccomend the NAD to others ...yes but with qualifications of course.

 

[Russdawg]

The ones I have either demoed in home or owned with my speakers (best to worst, SQ only).....


Arcam, Nad, Cambridge Audio


Rotel, Sherwood Newcastle, Outlaw


Marantz


Denon, Pioneer


Yamaha


Onkyo

 

[Harleyujoe]

I decided to go with Marantz 8002 for it has True HD and DTS MA at this time

to go with the Blu Ray and 1080P TV I am using.

I was real close to NAD 775 but even with its Modular build I felt I wanted a receiver with True HD built in and a few years when NAD has it and it is proven to be affective I may listen to one and step up to NAD..

I was nervous about the NAD and adding a circut and what the chances are that it would be totally right the first time..

Good Luck and thank you for your responses..Joe

 

[swifty7]

I have an older NAD receiver myself and to tell you the truth it didn't impress me at all and wasn't too impressed with the built quality either.

 

[oztech]

it all boils down to personal preference.trust your ears.

 

[WilliamZX11]

I have had a NAD amp in the past. The sound was Ok when the unit was actually working, but nothing special.


But after dealing with their warranty service, I would never purchase NAD again.


As far as the supposed better build quality, the new NAD T175 pre-pro weighs 17 lbs., the new Onkyo/Integra pre-pro's weigh in at 30 lbs. That flat black (charcoal?) finish of the NAD looks fairly cheap as well.

 

[Harleyujoe]

I know until the unit is in your house you really have know idea

what sound the receivers will produce to your liking with your

own speakers and surroundings..

I found this out when I bought speakers approx 15 yrs ago and went back

to Sound Store 5 times and finally bought my Mirages..

Then I was pleased..

I know it always isn't in a name but how each company makes the sound produce through the receiver and how we take it in through our own hearing process and interpert these sounds..

Just like vision we all interpert what we see differently in contrast,color ect.

I was getting more stuckup on names than sound for a while and sure

until I receive my Marantz and it is in my home and I hear it in my

enviroment who knows...LOL Thank You Joe

 

[Jim Cate]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson /forum/post/12951833


Admirable goals, Jim, but difficult to achieve. One needs to split the sources to the two DUTs and then one needs a switch to connect both to the amp. I am almost set up for this.

Note that I didn't ask that every one of the testing criteria be followed for all testing comparisons. I'm not expecting instantaneous switching capability, which most of us obviously couldn't provide. (Though I would expect such capabilities for supporting published reviews.) - I merely asked that listeners who hear OBVIOUS and SUBSTANTIAL differences between components provide some information as to how they arrived at their particular conclusions.


For example, comparing a component listened to today with one heard several weeks ago, playing different material, seems rather absurd. Regarding level matching, I think that the Radio Shack dB meters sell for under $40, so it wouldn't seem to be asking too much to get an approximate balance between two components.


Jim

 

[CETA1]

I bought the NAD Masters Seperates last year. I really mean this and I don't think it is a case of "because I own it it's great" but sometimes I am really just blown away by this pair.


In all fairness I bought these units and replaced my speakers at the same time but my gosh what an improvement.


I had a Yamaha 2400 and Axiom Speakers. I would listen to my prior set-up and sometimes after an adult beverage this set-up sounded like finger nails on a chalk board to me. I couldn't stand it anymore.


I bought the Dynaudio Focus 220's, Center and 110's for the rear and along with the NAD's it is an awesome combination.


I watched "The Invasion" tonight and turned it up a bit louder than usual and after the movie I just shook my head in amazement. Now I am going to pop in K.D. Lang's new CD. It's great that music and HT are such a pleasure with this pair.


I am going to upgrade to level or two up in the Dynaudio line while I still can do a dealer trade-in and I was telling myself crap now I need to move up to Simaudio or another higher end brand but I tell you what I may just stick with the NAD Masters and see how it goes. They are that impressive sounding to me.


I am sure their AVR's are of a very good sound quality as well. I have not had the honor of an audition.


Good Luck

-Rick

 

[Breech]

I heard an Nad hooked up to Mythos Gems and it was awful for movies.

 

[shadow 8]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Breech /forum/post/13061839


I heard an Nad hooked up to Mythos Gems and it was awful for movies.

That is because the speakers sound like crap.

Seriously, you can't judge a receiver soley on how it sounds in a show room. The biggest variable in my experience is the speakers, then the room and how the speaker interfaces with the room placement. The receiver's contribution is well behind these two factors, but if you have a good set of speakers optimally placed in a good room, you are in a better position to judge the contribution that the receiver makes.