I was all set to buy a Denon AVR 3805 which I had a deposit on at a local Tweeters here in Pennsylvania. I listened to it, liked it a lot, and read some terrific reviews. Tweeters was sending the remaining 3805's out the door at $788, which I thought was pretty decent. Unfortunately, when I went to pick it up today, my salesperson had mistakenly tagged an empty box (or so I was told). She was very apologetic, and offered me a 3806 for $950. Concerned with bait-and-switch tactics (I'm generally trusting, but this is a lot of money for me), I asked them to let me have it for $900, to which they agreed. I figured for the extra $112, I might have made the upgrade anyways, but know very little about how the 3806 compares to the 3805 in build quality, electronics, etc. Should I be concerned?
The truth is you will find a lot more refurbished 3805's out there for less, but I doubt you will get any good deals on the 3805's for a quite a while. You will not get a better deal out there on that unit.
Hmmm. I'm about to purchase a 3806 on ebay for $950. Now I'm getting confused here. Is it a good deal or not? How does the 3806 stack against the Yamaha RX-v2600? BTW, I'm planning on getting Axiom Epic Master 350 7.1.
I've owned both NAD and Denon. The NADs have sounded so much better and I haven't had any problems with them.
If someone else want's to buy a Denon that's thier choice but based on past experience I will never buy another Denon. The Denon sound it too thin, lifeless, and lacking.
Edu, seeing the demo 3806 go for a bit less, I would hold off just a bit on the ebay purchase. But thats just me. Thickwhistle hasn't heard them al, and i would hope the new NAD fixed the noise issues I have heard about, but not demo'ed. If you can sit tight, and bargain a bit at the store(is that your thing?), you might come out a bit better off, even a set of cables tossed in.
Check other dealers, if possible, toss a lower price and have a little fun with it! Unless that's not your idea of fun.
In which case, I could send my wife. Now THATS FUN! \ Keep an eye out and use the bargaining skills!
Nuck you're right I haven't heard them all but I have heard quite a few denon recievers and quite a few NAD recievers and in my opinion the NADs generally sound much better than the Denons.
That said, we all know that buying audio equipment is a very subjective experience and what one person may love another may hate. Most of what I, as well as everyone else posts on here, with regard to the sound quality is opinion.
I reccomend the NAD and tell people to stay away from denon because it is what I would do but my best advice for someone looking to buy a new reciever would be to make a list of all the different recievers available to them in thier price range, then go to the store and listen to them all and buy the one that they liked best and not the one that myself or someone else on this sitw recommended. It's all about getting the most for your money and being happy with your purchse regardless of what others may think.
For more sophisticated home theatre and music the Denon 3806 is a winner. It has HDMI, which the NAD doesn't have. To me, buying a receiver without HDMI (if you have an HDTV with HDMI) is a deal stopper. It has Dolby 11x, which the NAD T753 doesn't have. It has HDCD processing the NAD also has this), HDMI digital video switching and analog-to-HDMI conversion, XM Satellite Radio Ready, Audyssey MultEQ auto setup and room calibration system. The only thing it is missing is a firewire (i-link) input. It has Denon-link instead, which is useful if you have or get a Denon dvd player with the same, which allows it to pass DVD-audio and the latest iteration should allow it to pass SACD.
Another receiver that has the above with i-link is the Pioneer Elite 74TXvi. It will cost about $200 more than the Denon if bought online. I love i-link, as I have quite a few DVD-A and SACD recordings and it passes all disk formats (with an i-link dvd player) on a single cable with the best sonic integrity.
Gregory, my bottom line when considering a reciever is sound quality and NAD beats Denon hands down. While it may be nice to have an HDMI unit, there really aren't that many components out there that use it yet and also the HDMI cables are very expensive. As for Dolby11X, the higher end Nad units have upgradable software so that they can be made to decode formats that haven't come along yet.
So I'll take my NAD which may not have all the bells and whistles that the Denon has but sounds so much better.
Gvenk
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Lord T., you may be one of a dying breed (unfortunately for NAD which isn't moving fast enough). Are you related to Ed by any chance?
NAD still caters to people for whom sound is the most important part but they have failed to keep pace with HT as a total experience and that includes progress such as digital connectivity (to prevent video loss that is worse than audio loss), audio/video sync capabilities, latest codecs, automatic help in audio equalization across multiple speakers (which wasn't relevant for 2-ch systems), etc.
Most people don't "listen to movies", they watch them and the whole experience is more important than just sound quality.
This is not to say others have caught up with NAD in their sound quality for 2-ch systems but rather that NAD has failed to catch up with what is needed in modern HT set up.
I am not taking positions in NAD vs. Brand X nor ami I ignoring your preference for NAD sound quality but I would find it very hard to recommend any unit at these price levels that haven't incorporated some of the latest requirements in HT unless one is in the habit of replacing/upgrading their systems every year (or living with self-induced starvation of what a good HT system can do overall). Your profile of preferences heavily biased towards audio would probably not fit most HT consumers.
Of course, there is a compromise between sound quality and video quality but problems with video quality is much more readily observed by an average consumer than differences in audio quality.
Anyone that has a modern HD video display would not be served very well by buying things that don't support digital connectivity for video regardless of the difference in sound quality.
Besides, in HT use the purity of sound production is less important than it is for 2-channel music reproduction.
You might not have had any problems with NAD but the amount of reports of problems in multi-channel NAD equipment cannot be ignored and introduces a significant risk that one might run into the same problem (all equipment like cars have problems but there is such a thing as statistical probability).
As much as I like NAD, I am afraid I would not recommend any of the multi-channel NAD receivers at this point for a combination of reasons mentioned above.
Since the technology is in a bit of a flux, I would certainly recommend that people hold off a large-budget purchase until the end of the year and go for a cheaper (about $500 or less) system at this point that will serve them reasonably well for a couple of years at least or can be replaced much more cost-effectively.
The argument that HDMI cables are expensive is a silly one, don't you think given how much good audio/video cables cost and the difference in the price of the units themselves?
Whether it is Ed with his Panny or you with the NAD, religious pitching really doesn't serve people asking question well.
Well I do use my NAD T763 for home theatre and I think it's great. I have noticed that Denon and some of the other feature laden brands make a big deal out of the stuff they can do like I saw a new Denon reciever that has 9.1 channels. Gee that's great but last time I looked I didn't see any DVD's with 9.1 channels of sound.
I am happy with 5.1. I think it sounds great and as far as the HDMI stuff goes I don't really need it on my reciever as the only thing I would use HDMI for would be the video side even though it does both. I'm content to use dvi or hdmi from my tv to the dvd player and then use high grade audio cables for the sound. I don't get into the switching stuff.
I think you underestimate the reproduction of sound in the home theatre experience Gvenk. As with 2 channel audio, you should want to get the best possible sound from a home theatre and I think the NAD does this well as well as 2 channel.
Another thing I don't buy into is the automatic equalization to adjust for a room. I have listened to a couple of Pioneer Elites that do this and didn't see a difference. I think it's just a gimmick.
You contend that NAD hasn't kept up with the other brands as far as all the bells and whistles. I would say that a lot of that stuff is not necessary in creating a system that does a great job at 2 channel and home theatre.
Gvenk
Unregistered guest
Posted on
You may not want HDMI and that is fine but the world has moved on. You may not want many of the features that are required in a HT set up but the world is moving on. Video is as important if not more important as audio in the converging world and being able to start a movie with minimum fuss is a critical marketing requirement. NAD's previous target market which are die-hards like you are unfortunately a shrinking one if they don't keep up (especially for the price premium they command) with what the rest of the people want.
I grew up in the "don't need no stinkin' remotes" world of audio. At that time, the "high-end" equipment manufacturers and their fan club that didn't have remotes used to say "we don't need them and that can only affect the sound quality". That was as much an apologist attitude as the current "we don't need no stinkin' DSPs or HDMI attitude". The fact that you din't see a difference in room equalization is no more testament to the lack of a difference than someone who didn't see the difference in SQ between a Panny and a NAD.
Purely from a business point of view, people no longer want to juggle with multiple remotes and multiple wires hanging around. No one wants to put up a $3000 plasma TV and have 5 wires dangling from it. This is where NAD hasn't kept up. They brought out their L series 2 years outdated.
Say, you don't need a lip sync delay? What happens when you buy a HDTV which has a slow video processor and so the audio comes out faster than the video. Suffer with it just because it is a NAD? These are all real world problems. Just because, you haven't seen it doesn't mean others don't.
Unfortunately for NAD, their marketing people seem to think the same way you do. That is bad for NAD's business.
For a good example of how great audio design can also move with the world, look at Outlaw. You don't need ALL the bells and whistles but the Outlaw folks have been very smart about figuring out what is needed and what is a nice to have and have outsmarted/outdesigned NAD in every respect. There is no need to recommend NAD for HT use when an Outlaw exists that will serve the purpose. Don't like the Denons? Fine. But the alternative is an Outlaw rather than a NAD for most people that don't look at NAD as a religion.
The Denon AVR-3805 has gained the following awards:
'Home Cinema Choice' - Best Buy,
'What Video' - Best Buy
What Home Cinema' -- Best Buy.August 2004
"A few words of praise are due for Denon's excellent Pure Direct mode, which has a striking effect on the sound", "Excellent value for money and great all-round performance", HiFi Choice, August 2004.
CNET - 2004 Editors Choice
Sound and Vision - 2004 Reviewers Choice
Audioholics.com - 2004 Receiver of the Year
I like my 3805. I auditioned the NAD T753. It sounded nice paired with some PSB's. But post after post after post lists that Hum and Hiss issue. One post says that the member could hear an FM radio channel coming through whenever he used his coaxial or toslink connections. So that sounds way to "buggy" for me.
No problems with any of the other 2 Denons that I have owned (2805 and 3805). Well, I had to reset the microchip once on the 3805 when it froze up.
As far as Denon sounding "thin", I had that problem with a 2803 that I had once, but I think that was more an issue of not properly calibrating the speakers in that instance. To my ears, the 2805 and 3805 are mostly very neutral with just a touch of warmth and very, very gently rolled off highs.
But, that is not everyone's cup of tea. There are people who like coloration in their music, like "warmth", which to my ear, usually sounds the like mid-range and upper bass are bloated.
One man's bright is a another man's tranparent. Where did I read that?
I still think you made a good choice with the Denon.
The Denon AVR-3805 has gained the following awards:
'Home Cinema Choice' - Best Buy,
'What Video' - Best Buy
What Home Cinema' -- Best Buy.August 2004
"A few words of praise are due for Denon's excellent Pure Direct mode, which has a striking effect on the sound", "Excellent value for money and great all-round performance", HiFi Choice, August 2004.
CNET - 2004 Editors Choice
Sound and Vision - 2004 Reviewers Choice
Audioholics.com - 2004 Receiver of the Year
I like my 3805. I auditioned the NAD T753. It sounded nice paired with some PSB's. But post after post after post lists that Hum and Hiss issue. One post says that the member could hear an FM radio channel coming through whenever he used his coaxial or toslink connections. So that sounds way to "buggy" for me.
I have also owned Pioneer, Kenwood, Yamaha x2, and H/K x2.
No problems with any of the other 2 Denons that I have owned (2805 and 3805). Well, I had to reset the microchip once on the 3805 when it froze up.
As far as Denon sounding "thin", I had that problem with a 2803 that I had once, but I think that was more an issue of not properly calibrating the speakers in that instance. To my ears, the 2805 and 3805 are mostly very neutral with just a touch of warmth and very, very gently rolled off highs. Overall, I find Denons to be crisp, clean and very transparent with music.
But, that is not everyone's cup of tea.
One man's bright is a another man's tranparent. Where did I read that?
I still think you made a good choice with the Denon.
I don't think NAD is ignoring the technological advances as much as you seem to think they are Gvenk. It seems liek you keep pointing out that NAD recievers don't have HDMI. Well lots of recieveres from other brands don't have HDMI yet either. As for the room correcting EQ's or whatever you wanna call them I have listened to them and have not found them necessary. They're a fairly new feature so maybe when they are more devloped they will be more worthwhile but right now I don't think they are.
With regard to the NAD marketing startegy... NAD isn't sold at Best Buy, Tweeter, Circuit City or any other big box store. They market to a different target audience than brands like Denon, Yamaha or Onkyo. NAD could probably never compete with the volume these guys do and probably has no desire to do so. It's a different type of product marketed for a different type of consumer. Generally the people who would consider brands like Yamaha, Denon, Onkyo, Pioneer would not also consider brands like NAD, Rotel, Arcam, Lexicon and vice versa. So I don't think NAD takes thier cues on building new units from what Denon is doing.
Also HDMI is still in it's infancy and the use of it is still relatively rare. You seem to think I am anti HDMI but I'm not. I might someday want components with HDMI. it's just that with the limited amount of HDMI components available at the moment i don't believe it is necessary.
I feel the same way about HDTV. yeah the picture is great but if you have directv like I do are you really going to pay 300 to have them install it, buy an expensive tv, and then pay a higher monthly fee for only 6 channels or pay more for hdtv premium channels? I'm going to wait until it's more cost efficient myself.
With regard to all those awards Denon has won Riches, I'd take them with a grain of salt. Audio like cars or any other industry is all about money and who gives who what to say what about thier product. As a consumer I decide which product is better than another. I don't take the word of some magazine who gets funding fromw ho knows where.
Maybe you didn't find the Denont thin but I did Riches. Everything is subjective as you pointed out and the NAD I have now is definitely warmer and fuller than the Denon I previously owned which to my ears is just plain better.
NAD is lacking in more than HDMI, see posts above. And that is not even considering the more than average problems reported in reliability. You will be surprised but a significant number of people I know who were NAD customers have switched to Yamahas and Denons. NAD IS competing with these brands because the gap between them in perceivable quality is narrowing every year and the balance of features has tipped it against NAD.
I am not discounting whatever reasons you have for preferring NAD. Like I have said before you are indeed the target customer for the current crop of NAD products who isn't moving as fast as the rest of the world is moving and is loyal. But the main point is that the niche that you think NAD targets and is right for them that you represent has shrunk and continues to shrink to a very small one (even within the small niche they had before) and they are losing it to Yamahas and Denons than to Arcams and Rotels. That is the unfortunate reality.
A head-in-the-sand attitude helps to rationalize for oneself. Doesn't do so well for recommending for others.
Again take a look at Outlaw for NAD done right. They don't have a HDMI yet bit do support DVI switching.
