Enough with the NAD already!

Jacko	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 06:31 GMT It's been a while since I have checked in here to this BBS but yesterday and tonight I've been doing some catching up and I have to say a couple people here have turned this into a "NAD is the best" group. Funny how a man with a flute can lead the blind mice to the river. In my research I see there wasn't a mention of NAD here until July and then a certain person started pushing the NAD line and before you know it there are 5 other lured into buying one and now they are singing the praises of the almighty NAD. Guys this is ridiculous, sure NAD is ok but you've gone way overboard here, soon as someone asks a opinion on which receiver is right for them 4 people jump in and spew the same stuff about how NAD is right for them and is the best sounding receiver it isn't "too bright" it isn't "too laid back", damn it must be the best sounding receiver ever made. NOT! Seems like who ever this Johnny is has gone out of his way to be a NAD or bust seller, hey Johnny you like it good but ease up a bit on the propaganda man it is getting sickening. The NAD T series have been out for years and isn't it funny how we hardly ever heard it mentioned here until last July, then a person who seems to know his stuff praised the NAD line and the snowball became a mountain, you're not actually a sales rep for NAD are you?? Makes you wonder huh. Personally I am an Outlaw Component man but that doesn't mean I should shove it down other's throats, very disappointed in you guys and thank goodness for the old guys here such as "elitefan" who is still giving newbies good solid unbiased opinions. Thank goodness there are other unmotivated forums out there I enjoy for this one has gone south. very sad.
Not a NAD fan	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 13:49 GMT Right on Jacko! go see this thread https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/7159.html When I was looking to replace my old JVC I came to this board to get some help. Apparently if you are not interested in NAD or HK no questions will be answered. Too bad.
elitefan	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 13:59 GMT Jacko, Thanks for the kind words, but "old guy"! Actually I am not quite 50 but close. I dot into this stuff at an early age and it's been an obsesssion ever since. Maybe I'll grow up some day but hope not.
Jacko	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 15:08 GMT Don't you ever grow up elite!!! I don't plan on it for I am also nearing the 50 mark but this "obsession" is much too good to let go, hence the reason for my flame here. People come here to seek advise but lately it seems a few unmentionables here just like to push what they bought as the almighty king of receivers, if that was the case NAD would be winning all the Reviewer's Awards from Sound and Vision, CNet, Stereophile or Soundstage, Soundstage even shows the winners since 1990 and NAD isn't listed once! Again NAD is fine but boys get off your soapboxes, Denon, Elite, HK and Outlaw is just as good or better! Don't make your preferences a reason to talk down about these great "other" receivers!
Johnny	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 15:31 GMT Jacko, I don't want to turn this into an issue, but I do feel that I must defend myself here. You were pretty harsh to me in your posting, and I don't think it is deserved. It is my understanding that this forum is a place where the "everday man on the street" can post his/her experiences with audio equipment. In my quest to find a receiver that would meet my needs, I did a LOT of research. I read countless internet forums such as this one, read many different published reviews from various sources (both internet and print), and visited nearly every audio dealer within a two hour radius of my home. I spent hours listening to several brands including Denon, Elite, Onkyo, H/K, Yamaha, Kenwood, Sony, Panasonic, and of course, NAD. In my mind, for me, the NAD was the hands down winner. This is my opinion, which I am entitled to, correct? When someone on this forum asks for an OPINION, I give them mine (which is what this forum is for, isn't it?). I am a high school teacher, not a salesman, not an NAD rep, and certainly not a "propagandist" as you say in your posting. I am simply telling the kind folks here what I heard from all of the various brands when I auditioned them for myself. I am simply giving my opinion. If someone wants to disagree with me, then so be it. Audio preference is an individual thing. What is "bright" to one person may sound wonderful to the next. I give my opinion, nothing more, nothing less. If you read my postings as much as you say you did, you should know that I have often recommended several brands other than NAD. If someone asks what the "best receiver under $1000" is, yes, I do almost always recommend an NAD, because as I said, I listened to many different brands, and to me, the 762 was the best receiver. Why would I recommend something else if I don't beleive it? If someone on this forum wants to take my postings or anyone elses as anything more than an opinion, then that is their fault, not mine. It is obvious that this is an opinion forum and all postings should be taken as such. You say how you are releived that people such as elitefan are "still here". I truly respect elitefan's opinions. As you say, he presents an unbiased opinion and often gives very sound advice. However, he is very quick to recommend Pioneer Elite's (as his screen name would suggest), nearly as often as I recommend NAD's. That is fine, he has an Elite and obviously loves it. That is why he recommends it, and that is what this forum is for. However, why is he a treasured member of this forum and I am simply a "propagandist" whose opinions should be disregarded because I "cram them down other people's throats"? I see all of this a different way. The reason that so many people are on the forum talking about NAD's are because they make quality products, many people are buying them, and many people are extremely happy with them. Are all of the other scores of people on this forum who strongly advocate NAD's (Hawk, John A., Smitty, Boots, etc, etc, etc) "propagandists" too? No...they are just satisfied customers. I see it as a testament to NAD quality that so many NAD stories are placed on this forum, not as some sort of conspiracy by NAD junkies to spread the "gospel" and somehow brainwash all others who read the forum into buying an NAD. This is a free forum. Anyone who has internet access can post their opinions. If a group of people want to advocate a different brand, they are as free to do so as we are. One must ask the question then, other than NAD, Elite, H/K, Rotel, and Outlaw, why then are no other brands recommended here on a regular basis? You can all answer this question on your own. If I do, my answer will obviously be tainted with propaganda.
SAL	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 15:34 GMT I agree with Jacko, I have been looking at this site for about 2 weeks now, and it seems that to cure all your problems purchase a NAD, the only problem I have with that is with every recommendation of an NAD product also accompanies a complaint about humming, volume issues...etc. If you guys would step back and look at what you guys recommend, Jacko is right. It does look like NAD has put a source on this sight in order to sell their products. Do not get me wrong, I appreciate all the advice you guys give me...I really do, and I think this forum is great for learning about HT. You guys have helped me a great bit and it is very much appreciated. I have chosen to go with a Marantz avr because I sampled it, and to my EARS it sound absolutely perfect with a set of B&W speakers. That is not to say that others on this site would feel the same way. You cannot buy HT products with your eyes, there is a reason for having a set of ears, and that is to use them for what you like in a product. Also, I called NAD, and spoke with someone at their home office in Canada, they are aware of the volume clicking noise when (increasing/decreasing volume) issue with the receivers, and said that is was just a characteristic of the product. I personally am not going to tolerate that type of characteristic from something to me is that expensive. There are a great deal of manufacturers that make outstanding products. But I believe you to be a fool for ordering something that you have not listened too. Try it out, you do buy a vehicle without a test drive not should you with these items.
Johnny	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 15:58 GMT SAL, I applaud you for your purchase. If that is what sounded the best to you, then you were right for buying it. However, if you seriously think that NAD has "put a source on this site", then apparently you have been watching too many Oliver Stone movies. This is not a conspiracy. Lots of people are happy with their NAD purchase. Not everyone has problems with NAD products. That is why we recommend them. You say that we should take a look at what we recommend. If I have had no problems whatsoever with my NAD, then why should I not recommend it? If you keep reading this forum, and are so inclined to share your experiences with others, I am sure that you will be very quick to advocate Marantz receivers. It sounded great to you, so you will want to let other people know that, am I right? If that is the case, then why are all of us wrong for doing the same thing? I have heard from some on this forum that Marantz receivers are underpowered. However, to you, this was a non-issue...just as the potential NAD problems were non-issues to me, and to others on this site. You know what you heard, and you liked it. Please do not da*m all of us NAD lovers for doing the same thing.
SAL	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 16:35 GMT Johnny, You are correct about what I would recmmend, when it came to receivers. I truly enjoyed the Marantz sound. With that I can understand your point in regards to recommending NAD products. Tha main point I was trying to make in my prevois staement is that these guys should take your information, and go to a dealer and listen to the products. I personally do not have a NAD dealer in my town, which is aggrevating, so therefore i will not be purchasing one, because i do not want to handle any problem via mail. I talked with the guys at Saturday Audio, and they are just as helpful as this site. Very personal, and all very willing to give , to me, very good advice. The strongest thing I can say about SA is they seem to be really cst service oriented. Johnny, do not misunderstand my comments you personally have helped me a great deal, and once again I appreciate it. My point was that not all people have an NAD dealer in thier area, and they should not buy anything(in my opinion), without first listening to the product. Lastly, if there is a power issue with Marantz i could not tell, and to me that is what matters most. Thanks again for all your help. And for those of you guys out there reading this I would not hesitate in taking advice from these guys, I beleive they give you great info, and sometimes they can be a little biads,but for reasons explained in prior inserts. Thanks again.
DenonFan	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 16:38 GMT Y'know it is not that NAD is a bad product, far from it. It's just that whenever someone is looking for a receiver that is not a NAD, they get busted for it. Johnny, I agree, it is your opinion. The difference between you and Elitefan is that although he loves his 45x he also appreciates other makes and does not hesitate to recommend them as in "look at pioneer but what is also good for your appliucation is.... ). I don't believe that Hawk has a NAD yet. I think he is still waiting to get it. He also suggest other brands that would/might fit. I am one of the few here who has a Denon with Klipsch speakers. I do not suggest that this set up is the best for everyone. It is for me, for now. Who knows what I will do next year, or in 2 years or in 2 months. As I said in a previous post, I will be auditioning other receivers. Why would I do this? To educate my ears to what might be possible or is impossible. Who knows maybe the NAD might just blow my socks off when matched with my speakers. Would I then suggest to everyone that solution to all their problems is NAD. NO! I just think that we should all temper our suggestions or opinions. Just because you bought NAD, does not mean that by suggesting it may not be the best, that you are being put down. For every problem you should come up with several alternative solutions. Which is the point that Jacko is trying to make (I think). Personally I would prefer if no else had my set up. then I would be very unique. Basically comes down with either being the lead dog or one of the pack. If you are the lead dog, the view of the world is grand. Think what your view of the world is if your following the lead dog?
phred	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 17:26 GMT Interesting that no-one feels it necessary to label themselves as a "NADfan" - perhaps their entire identity isn't based around their choice of receiver. I know, I know, it's a hard concept to grasp. FWIW I think it would be crazy for someone to recommend a system they wouldn't listen to themselves. I look forward to hearing everyone who complains about the NAD-centricity of this BBS weigh in next time someone asks 'What's the best system costing less than $$$'. You won't acheive anything by running off to other 'unbiased' boards . The people who have bought (or are buying) NAD will recommend NAD, let those who have decided to go with another manufacturer stand up for their corner.
Johnny	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 17:44 GMT SAL and DenonFan, I truly thank you both for your logical and non-accusatory approach to this matter. SAL, I think you were right in not purchasing an NAD without hearing it first. While I did purchase from Saturday Audio, I can understand your hesitation to buying without auditioning first. I want to appologize to any whom I may have offended or put off by my strong recommendations for NAD products. I do not appologize for recommending NAD...I am happy with mine and will continue to recommend it to anyone. However, if I was too pushy in my approach, I would like to appologize. I guess I was kind of fired up about it, and maybe I let that get in the way. I did not intend to imply that NAD was going to solve everyone's problems. I feel that it is a quality receiver, but there are others out there that are also fine receivers. As I said in my earlier post, I have, on several occasions, recommended several brands other than NAD. I personally like H/K and Elite very much. Either none of you has read these alternative recommendations or they choose to ignore them. I try to be as unbiased as possible, but obviously, since I bought one, I feel that NAD is superior. Maybe not for everyone, but for myself at least. I welcome any recommendations that are contrary to my own...we live in a democratic society that is built upon this principal. I agree that maybe I should have presented alternative views when I recommended NAD products, but to be called a "propagandist" for neglecting this on a few occasions is very troubling to me. I was making my recommendations based on the assumption that all who read my postings would take them as merely my own personal opinion, not the "gospel" of the audio world. I also assumed that no one would rush out and buy an NAD just because I told them to, but rather would take my recommendation as one possible opinion and conduct their own tests to find out what works best for them. If these assumptions were incorrect, then I obviously must rethink my views on what types of people we are dealing with on this forum. Once again...I truly appologize to anyone I may have offended by my recommendations. In the future, I will do my best to present more alternatives to any problem, as to not "sicken" anyone else. By the way Denon Fan, nice analogy in your post.
Johnny	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 17:45 GMT phred, Couldn't have said it any better myself. Thank you very much.
Jonmoon	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 17:50 GMT I'm sorry, but this thread is ridiculous. Johnny, don't get all PC and apologize for recommending a receiver to those who ask for recommendations. Very few of these posts make recommendations without explanation. If some of you disagree with the recommendations or have additional recommendations, just make them and don't attack others for speaking their mind. Opinions are like . . .
DenonFan	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 17:55 GMT Johnny, Great stuff!. Positive discourse can only enlighten and move forward any discussion. I have not read all your posts and did not mean to suggest that you are "only" pushing NAD. I too got that rush of a new system and wanted to shout it out. Normal stuff that euphoria. What I like to see is a debate of the merits of each device. If one is crap and apparently the Denon 3803 has not been well received by several posters here, fiine. Better to know what might be crap than not. It is just that I really like to see more than one viewpoint, and not just a -me too- jump on the bandwagon "its the best cause i got it" post. I look forward to reading your opinions.
Smitty	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 17:55 GMT By all means go and listen with your own ears. My local NAD dealer also sells Denon and thinks they sound great, in fact he's currently carrying the new line of H/K x30 receivers (they never carried H/K before) and claims now H/K is 'approaching Denon'. The one thing I think most people will agree on is that the receivers from different manufacturers sound noticably different from each other. I really liked the sound of my H/K but like the sound of my new NAD better. In fact a friend of mine upgraded from a H/K receiver (I think it was an AVR85) a couple of years ago to Rotel separates and still says he preferred the H/K sound for stereo music but likes the Rotel setup better for HT.
Ilker.A	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 18:03 GMT I say listen to all the products that interest you and then make your decision. It really does not bother me that there is lot of NAD discussions on this forum. And it really does not bother me that people push or recommend the product. Yes NAD is a great receiver but there are also other brands out there that make really good receivers also. I did read this forum a lot before i made my decision on a receiver. And yes i did look at NAD also. But at the end i bought the DENON because to me for home theater it sounded the best. I don't listen to too much music, i watch lot of DVD movies and Denon really shined in that Area. And it matched my Mission speakers really good. So do the comparing your self. If you like NAD then go buy it. But listen to other brands before you make that decision. Just my .2 cents.
SAL	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 18:07 GMT Johnny, After reviewing my first comment, I had some after thoughts about what i put down in writing. I did not mean to direct my comments towards you, they were made in general. I personally was looking for answers beyond NAD, and I guess my frustration came out in my comments; from the lack of not having a NAD dealer to sample the products. Once again I was not directing my comments toward any individual on this site, and if someone took offense to that I apologize. I do not think everyone feels as strongly as Jacko. I am the same way when it comes to products I believe in, I recommend them. Also, I will continue to solicit info from you and others on this site, because I appreciate all the feedback that I have received in the past few weeks. Dennonfan, I agree nice analogy.
Johnny	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 18:33 GMT SAL, Not a problem. I didn't mean to direct anything at you either. I guess it was just bad timing on your part. I had just got done reading Jacko's post, and then came yours. He obviously WAS directing a lot of criticism my direction, and in Hawk's direction. Jacko mentioned me by name, and although never mentioned him by name, implied Hawk as well. There was definately some transfer of emotions when I went from reading his post to yours. I am truly happy that you found a receiver that you are happy with...I think that is why all of us are here...to help people find happiness. Jonmoon, Like I said, I was not appologizing for recommending NAD...however, obviously I have offended some, and felt an appology was necessary. It is true that on a few occasions, I have proclaimed that "NAD is hands down the best". I assumed people would see this as only my opinion...but apparently some didn't. That is why I appologized...for the misunderstanding...not for my recommendations. You make some excellent points. I am a big fan of rational thinking...and you obviously are too.
Dave	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 19:12 GMT Hi all, I'm a newbie in music/HT equipments so I have no voice on these. However, I truly believe that people who are recommending NAD is because they did audition and make comparison between NAD and other receiver such as Elite, Denon, and so forth. Sometimes if the dealers that they came to only have a limited list of receivers, then obviously the one that sound best will be come up on the top for them. A recommendation is a recommendation, no harm done here. It's up to the reader or the one that seek the opinion to not only evaluate it, but also should go to the dealer and listen to the receiver that they want to look for. Even buy it home and test it out with their speakers system to see if it sound right to their ears (if they can return it without the charge). Also many other thing will need to be factor in such as the budget, the speakers that they will use, the setup, and what do they use their system most. All brand such as Outlaw (I just heard of it), Denon, Yamaha, Elite (just heard of), NAD (just heard of), H/K are all great equipments. I for once listen to both the H/K 325 and NAD T762 and the 762 have a warmer sound than the 325 (but then you are talking about 500 buck different here). So I think... all in all, get the recommendation so that you have something else to compare with, go out and listen and more listen to different receivers... Get the one you like that fit your budget, and be happy with what you have until the next upgrade.
Anthony	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 19:25 GMT Hi all, It's your hard earned money. Pick whatever brands sound good to you. Our ears aren't built the same, and neither are our taste for music. Our homes have different footprints. Some people have dedicated soundrooms, but some don't even have a room. I presume nobody gets paid to offer "advice" here in this forum. Take everything with a grain of salt. Just don't bash everyone you don't agree with. And heck if you really like Bose, go for it.
Jacko	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 19:47 GMT " I have proclaimed that "NAD is hands down the best". I assumed people would see this as only my opinion...but apparently some didn't. That is why I apologized" Guess that would go for this post concerning NAD: "It is much more forward sounding, and the detail and clarity cannot be matched, even by HK." Hmm cannot be matched huh... Guess Outlaw, Rotel, Adcom, Denon, Elite and especially HK should just pack up and close shop.. But again the products they put out are and I will say LESS BUG INFESTED then the T7** series and that is a fact.. Just backlog a search here and other forums and see what name pops up for having the most out of the box problems but then again another quote: "Others have experienced what I would consider to be minor annoyances (i.e. receiver "skips" the first millisecond of a cd being played through a DVD Player connected digitally, or a slight "popping" sound when changing surround modes). To me, these minor problems are nothing worth returning a receiver for." Hmm and this isn't even bringing up the clicking volume control reported numerous times here with NAD". For $899 you should not and repeat NOT have to deal with multiple "annoyances", this is not a bash NAD or to bash someone in particular post this is a let's keep all brands on a even basis, although just to put my 2cents in I would buy a Denon, Outlaw or Elite before NAD for HI FI Mag. reviewers have rated them higher everytime and reliability is proven better with these companies. NAD was a great HI FI product years ago and hopefully they are coming back but they are not where they use to be, not by a long shot.
elitefan	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 21:13 GMT This hasd been an interesting thread today with lots of good points and I appreciate the kind words. I would like to try to make a point here if possible. When someone recommends a certain product hopefully he is doing so based on experience with that product and in comparison with similar products from other brands. We all need to keep in mind that how we perceive the sonic characteristics of different receivers will vary as we all hear differntly. There are however, measureable, proveable differences in various receivers and that is why some of us try to bring this up in our recommendations. It's a measureable fact that some brands have better power supplies than others and for home theater this is a very important factor to consider. In multichannel mode a receiver is under a lot of stress and some just can't cut it under those conditions in certain situations. Room characteristics are also very important and is something that does not get enough attention here in general. In closing I would just like to say please trust that most posters really try to give honest answers and that goes especially for the person in question at the start of this posting. The most important thing is to enjoy your system as much as possible as often as possible. This is supposed to be fun after all.
Anonymous	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 22:19 GMT Hey Jacko, Here's my personal opinion.....you need to get real. All you have done is turned everyone's opinion, including your own, into something that is completely overanalyzed. You are acting like someone is out to get you or something when, in reality, you are the one who is making himself look and sound bad. I know that I would want to take advice from someone who spends all of their time on a forum hunting down other people's quotes and opinions just to start sh*t! Uh, NO! Grow up a little and do what everyone else on here is doing....give and get advice. Although, I think you may as well forget the giving part, because I know your name is tarnished in my book.
Johnny	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 22:56 GMT Jacko, Alright man, you win. I am done with this. It is obvious that you feel very strongly about this topic. You must have spent a considerable amount of time going through every single post that I have ever written to find those quotes. I have much better things to do with my time. My only question is, how can you say "this is not a bash NAD or to bash someone in particular post" (look, I found the copy/paste too)? Every quote you put in your posting is from me. Sure sounds like you are bashing someone in particular. I have by no means been the only one to say these things. I remember Hawk one time saying "the NAD T762 is hands down the best receiver"...yet no quote from him. He posts on here more than I do...should have been no problem to find quotes from him...yet once again, all quotes are from me. I don't know what you have against me, but like I said, I am done with this. I admit, all of those quotes you listed are from me. I particularly like the quote ""It is much more forward sounding, and the detail and clarity cannot be matched, even by HK." Do you want to know why I said that...BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT!! It is my opinion. I listened to both NAD and HK, and I believe that the NAD is more detailed. Once again...this is my OPINION!! I know what my ears told me. If you don't agree with it, which you obviously don't, then put your own posting right after mine that states what you believe. You are entitled to your opinion, but you don't have to bash mine. Another quote from me: "Others have experienced what I would consider to be minor annoyances (i.e. receiver "skips" the first millisecond of a cd being played through a DVD Player connected digitally, or a slight "popping" sound when changing surround modes). Notice the words "what I would consider to be". Is it not clear that this is my opinion? How much more clear can I get? I knew about the potential problems with NAD receivers going in...but for me, it was not an issue. Let me also say, as evidenced by numerous posts from other people on this forum, the problems you listed are in no way limited to NAD receivers. Similarly, you and others seem to be making a big deal about this clicking sound when changing volume. We might be talking about different things here, but at least on my receiver, IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THAT WAY!! As SAL states, "Also, I called NAD, and spoke with someone at their home office in Canada, they are aware of the volume clicking noise when (increasing/decreasing volume) issue with the receivers, and said that is was just a characteristic of the product". That is true, for some reason, whether it is right or not, the NAD is built so that when the volume is changed using the remote and no sound is coming from the speakers, each time you press either the "up" or "down" button, the receiver emits a VERY slight "click" or "beep" to be more precise. It only does it when no sound is coming out of the speakers. I guess it is to let you know that the volume is changing...since there is no sound coming from the speakers...if one is accidentally "sitting" on the volume button. If one doesn't know that the volume is changing, when the CD, or DVD starts, the resulting high volume could be disasterous. That is why NAD said "it is a charachteristic of the product"...because it is built that way. Jacko, you say that "it seems a few unmentionables here just like to push what they bought as the almighty king of receivers, if that was the case NAD would be winning all the Reviewer's Awards from Sound and Vision, CNet, Stereophile or Soundstage". Just to let you know, Sound and Vision named the NAD T762 both their "Receiver of the Year" and "Product of the Year". In conclusion, just let my opinions be just that, my opinions. Do not bash them. If you disagree with me...then so be it...I can handle that. But, as a social studies teacher, I cannot tolerate it when someone is scorned for simply presenting their opinion. Check the First Amendment to the Constitution...you will see that I have every right to present my opinion. If one is not allowed to voice their opinions...then all of those who have died for our country have died in vain.
Anonymous	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 22:58 GMT jacko:"this is a let's keep all brands on a even basis, although just to put my 2cents in I would buy a Denon, Outlaw or Elite before NAD for HI FI Mag". I'd like to hear your 2 cents worth of opinion on why the brands you stated are better then a NAD.
Anonymous	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 23:03 GMT Johnny , don't let this fly by night poster get ya down....we all luv ya
MarcoV	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 23:33 GMT I would say that Jacko has contridicted his very exsistence on this forum, I quote "this is not a bash NAD or to bash someone in particular post" Jacko all you have been doing is bashing Nad and Johnny as all you have done is quoted him and only him. Why dont you give us your opinion on why you prefer some products over others? for instance take a Nad receiver and Denon place them side by side and compare the two and tells us why you think one is better then the other. If you want to come into this forum bashing Nad thats fine, back your statment up, but personally attacking someone is uncalled for.
Railbait	Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 23:55 GMT Johnny, pay no attention to the wacko. As they say in numerous forums, "don't feed the trolls". I value your "opinions" and see them as such.
Al Holland	Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 00:27 GMT I see nothing wrong with anyone stating their experiences with a particular brand. Notice that I said stating experiences, not proclaiming that it can't be touched. What is acceptable for one is not necessarily acceptable to all. Example: There is reported fan noise from the NAD and this is no problem for some. I owned a Nakamichi AV10 which I thought sounded as good as any receiver, however, I could not tolerate the fan noise. My experience with Denon has been unacceptable. I think that they are very dry and thin sounding. I have experienced too much sub distortion with Yamaha. My Sony 777ES produced a noticable hum, supposedly from the power supply. HK's would distort at higher volumes (not max volume). B&K 307 had an amp to fail. Integra 8.1 had to be repaired for clicking noise when increasing volume. This clicking is not a concern for Johnny but I found it unacceptable in a $2000 receiver. The best receiver that I have found for my use is the the Kenwood 6070, however, most all continue to down grade Kenwood. All that I have rejected are admired by others so my preference really does not matter. It is my opinon that auditioning in a store does not compare to auditioning in your home and that is why I do not believe that recommendations should be given strictly because something sounded better or worse in a store. Botton line: Sound is very subjective to the listener. Audition and make your decicion on what sounds best to you. Never let the sales person try to tell you that brand x sounds better than brand y and that is what he owns.
Anonymous	Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 00:59 GMT As an employee of a very reputable NAD dealer I must say that there is way too much hype over the NAD 742, 752, 762 and siver series products. I have seen problems in this line that I'm sure most of you have not. This is after installing and calibrating over 500 of them. Their remotes are crap, the led's and lights in some of the models burn out, the autodetection for Analogue and Digital signals is slow, the pre outs act as an antenna which turns subwoofer cables into an incredible way of tuning into your favorite FM stations. For those of you who are looking into purchasing one of these amps I would suggest against them. As an alternative I would recommend Marantz, Anthem or H.K.
rambo	Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 01:16 GMT I bought my first home theater set 6 years ago with an HK AVR 80 mark II along with the paradigm reference set(5.1)v1 of studio 60 fronts/ studio 20 surrounds and cc450 along with a 15" Velodyne. I view HK to be one of the better receiver brands because of its high current design. Six years ago my HK 80 II was rated as good as the Marantz (I believe they actually were the same receivers then)and for the price/value it was my choice. I consider myself as somebody who really researches before I buy anything-TVs,vacuum cleaners, PC's,monitors, cars, speakers, receivers,etc. I can only say that this site, notwithstanding some biases by certain mainstays on the NAD, has been one of the most lively and informative sites for anybody looking to buy receivers and speakers. Like some, I was put off and skeptical of the NAD preference by some. More so because of the bugs and issues that were stated on certain models. So I actually went to no less than 7 audio stores to look and listen at Yamaha VX2400,Marantz 7300,NAD 762 and had my HK fixed. I even auditioned the NAD and the Marantz for 2 weeks. I can honestly say that for 900 bucks the NAD is a good buy and is better sounding than the 7300 and my HK. So there, I bought the NAD.(I probably should have auditioned the HK 7200 (also 900) but I wanted to try a different brand) So in summary, though this board may have some people who are passionate about NADs, a) I can't blame them b)they have exhibited credible and non-coercive knowledge of which I have profited from c)caveat emptor-always double check and do your own research, validation and sound testing. Without passionate views, quality never shines out. The thing that keeps this place OK, I hope, is that there are a lot of people who really are honestly trying to buy the good thing and that there really are people honestly trying to help them.
Daniel	Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 04:41 GMT Hi all, As a person who look to buy new receiver, and not bias to any model, and as a person who audited HK, Denon, Yamaha, Rotel, and NAD, I must say that to me the AND sound was the cleanest and the highest one that I was listening. The NAD sound is natural and has no effects as the Yamaha (3300). I like also the Denon (3803) after the NAD as well. I did not audit the Yamaha 2400 model with the THX certification, but to me this certification is not important at all (and may be I have a mistake with this). So, with all my "research" next month I will buy the NAD T762 (or the T773) with the SNELL speakers. My only concern with NAD is the too many issues I have read in this forum, but I have a list with all of the issues and I will audit my one very carefully. In addition, I must say that this forum help me a lot with my decision as I read many good and quality messages describing in high details the Pro and Con of the receivers found currently at the market. Thanks, Daniel
Brad C.	Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 04:54 GMT All I know is everyone is "opinionated" and "biased" in some form or another... But that is what experience gives us. There is no holy grail of receivers but its still nice to get feedback no matter what the "brand"... I may not preach NAD like the others, but after buying my nad T752, I now have the experience to compare it to other receivers I have listened to and the authority to post my "biased opinion" to others... Just as anyone else has the right to without defending themselves from people jumping on their cases about their pro "insert brand here" statements... If you dont' want to read about the NAD then skip those threads and find ones that suit your taste in receivers... Just remember once again everything is opinionated and what floats one's boat will sink the others... But I can tell you two things about my NAD experience... 1) They are not perfect and have minor issues... 2) They blow Denon's (which I use to think was the holy grail of receivers) out of the water, even my friend's NAD T742 has more detail and clarity than any of the denon's from the 1804 to the 3803 ( which I have heard in showroom and people's homes ) and that my friend should tell you something... And you will not catch me comparing it to other receivers such as HK, considering I have never auditioned HK, but I will continue to give my experience and preference over the Denon because I know the smile that I now have and want others to understand that $$$ amount doesn't always = better... My two cents and continue to tell your stories my NAD brothers~n~arms... ;)
AdamT	Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 05:07 GMT Phew, what a thread! What a lot of crap being sprayed about! While there are a lot of NAD fans here, I think most acknowledge that H/K, Pioneer, Rotel, Marantz, etc. also make nice receivers. I recently bought an NAD T 752 and I'm really happy with it. I didn't buy it because I think it's the world's best receiver, but because at the moment it happens to be a very good value. Denon? Don't care for the sound. H/K? Well I've owned three pieces of H/K equipment over the years and each one had serious--nay--fatal quality problems. Rotel? Er, costs twice as much. Outlaw? Lacks power, PLII and has well-documented problems with ES disks. Elite? Nice receivers but I just prefer the NAD sound. Marantz? I forget why I didn't like it, but I know I had a good reason. Regarding the anonymous NAD dealer, I've never heard of anyone having problems with the NAD remotes or LEDs. As for the sub cable--sell better cables and you won't have a problem? So there you go. The T receivers have a few issues but they sound fabulous, have muscle to spare, aren't loaded down with gimmicks, and they're a joy to operate. Weigh the pluses and minuses, use your ears and if you have one the brain in between'em.
AUDIO ECONOMIST	Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 08:49 GMT Jacko, You sicko, you just let the flame runs ever hotter in them NAD fanatics. I happened to be one of them. You know why NAD matters? It is because the people who bought this brand will defend it to death because we saw in it something that other receivers can't touch. You SIMPLY CANNOT INSPIRE THAT BRAND LOYALTY IN THEM OTHER BRANDS. Show them how, Johnny, we love ya! AUDIO ECONOMIST (I am not a fly-by-night poster)
Paul T	Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 13:03 GMT Well I'm not going to get into who said what or what is the best receiver out there, it's all in what I have posted here many times, "Listen for yourself and choose the one be it speaker or receiver that sounds the best to you". Sure some guys go a bit "overboard" I believe Jacko called it about they're recommendations but I would believe it's because they truly feel through they're research and home use their NAD is one of the best out there. Me I have searched for months before deciding on my speakers/receiver, got the speakers but haven't bought the receiver yet but it sure looks like it will be NAD, partly because of the posts here, I've learned their power output is true to their word which to me guarantees lots of clean power to my speakers and that can only be a good thing. Outlaw, HK, Elite and Rotel are on the same level but for my speakers and the sound they put out NAD seems to fit the bill better, just hope I don't have any "bugs" with mine when it does come but that is the chance I'm willing to take . Let's just get off "this soapbox" as Jacko stated and get back to "Constructive" discussions. Someone stated it perfectly here somewhere above which boils down to "Don't read the thread if you don't like it". Let's all just enjoy!!! Jacko, I believe he is a fake, I've been on many newsgroups and there always seems to be a couple who just love to make flames. Let's not give him the satisfaction here, it's just what they want!! Hey Johnny, I'll be looking for some advise when I do get my NAD, sure I will have some questions when I do get my receiver and it's alway nice to ask someone who has one and knows the ins and outs... Peace all. Paul
ScottNC	Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 18:24 GMT Just so you people know..I WOULD NEVER BUY A NAD RECEIVER!! Cuz I just bought the NAD C320BEE instead For all the people who don't like the NAD hype(or the people who recommend NAD) for whatever reason: Go listen for yourselves. As for the so-called 'bugs'..I think that issue has been overblown entirely. Whenever you buy a manufactured product of such complexity, there will ALWAYS be the random problem. I have no doubt that the mass market brands have 10 times the returns and/or repairs that NAD does...and I would be willing to bet that their percentages are much higher as well. And I can tell that the anonymous NAD 'dealer' is anything but. Bet it is probably Jacko just trying to spread more love. Don't listen to the hype..in either direction. Go listen for yourselves. And if you don't have a dealer nearby, buy from SaturdayAudio. If you don't like it, send it back. Johnny, don't let the trolls run you off. Your opinions are valued by the people who matter.
John A.	Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 18:33 GMT rambo, Daniel, Brad C., AdamT, AUDIO ("Caps") ECONOMIST, Paul T, Johnny, In my experience, being patient and reasonable just winds up people like Jacko even more. Let's see. You all make really good general points. Jacko: thanks for posting. You are right to be sceptical. I too would probably look for a conspiracy theory if I were new here. Just lay off the accusations, and things will be fine. Few people here (Hawk is a notable exception) have done major and systematic comparisons of multiple models and makes of receiver, let alone tried them with different speakers. To do that, and then let strangers know, for free, what you found, is amazingly generous. It is also generous just to tell the story of your own particular upgrade or purchase, what you did, any mistakes you made, what you now recommend. Most of us are on a learning curve. There are some frauds here, but it is clear who they are not. Johnny, for example, took some time and trouble to share the details of what he learned. His whole story rings true if you've been through it yourself. In contrast, Jacko's comments are unconstructive, to say the least. He also seems to think people care what he buys. Why, I don't know. I am at "entry level" and have been stuck there for 25 years. Maybe one day my ship will come in. I will tell the tale again, only shorter. In 1992 I bought a Sony power amp (TAF55ES) plus the cheapest NAD pre-amp (100) to replace the old and trusted stereo integrated amp I blew up driving recently-acquired speakers (KEF C15s plus SW2000 passive subs). I therefore wanted the cheapest Watts. I never believed amps were an issue for quality sound, just as long as they had enough muscle to drive your speakers and you gave them a good quality signal. I was happy with that combo for ten years, though I sort of tired of listening to music. I thought it was me. I've got a stressful job. Last Christmas I caved in, and got the DVD player the family wanted, and we watched movies in stereo with that system for while. I then looked around for a multichannel receiver. I never liked receivers much, preferring separates, but we are a big family and don't have money to squander. I got a reasonably-priced, few-years-old NAD T760, thinking it would be OK for HT, and I would keep my stereo system for real listening. To my complete surprise, the receiver totally transformed the sound quality of my music collection, even in stereo. And I mean "totally". Even though it was a step-down in power, at least on paper. I am now listening to old Cds and LPs with renewed interest and pleasure. For example, in the mid-1980s I was getting a set of three recordings on LP, and switched to CD for the last of the three. I have just gone back to the LPs, which I thought I knew inside out, and loved. I've played them with the same turntable, cartridge, pre-amp, and speaker combination and location, that I've had for years. The only difference is that the power amp stage of the NAD receiver replaces a dedicated Sony power amp, which you would think would not be easily upstaged. As Johnny said, just after he got his new system "I can hear things I never heard before". In my case, this is an awful lot of things, and the performances just come to life in a way I never imagined possible. The players seem actually to be in the room, with a whole new dimension of nuances of phrasing, wit and intelligence. These shine out from what I thought were already great preformances and recordings. For the record, I am talking specifically here about something called Mozart's "Haydn" quartets by the Salomen Quartet on Hyperion - period instruments; gut strings; Direct Metal Mastering LPs; perfectionist audio engineers. I am purist and difficult to please (and probably live with). But it ain't just "serious" music (what ever that is). I put on the Beatles "Number 1" CD from last Christmas and I realize, for the first time, what a totally beautiful and moving song is "Something" by George Harrison. If he had done only that he, should still have been a legend; and he was not the true genius in that band. I have been able to hum the tune and mumble the words for thirty years. I never listened before. I can now. There is something there to listen to. It is wonderful. What is the difference in my musical appreciation? For the LPs and my older Cd collection, it is the power amp stage of the NAD receiver. That's all. It is what is called a controlled experiment - just one thing is different. So you know what produced the result. No-one should expect be convinced by paper specifications - you can't measure music, or predict your emotional response to it. Here I disagree with e.g. G-Man. So there you have my reason for NAD brand loyalty. It cost very little, and has unexpectedly enhanced my pleasure in music. This all leaves aside the HT issue where the whole family is happy, also DVD-A, but here I have no comparison to tell. I have always maintained that others could truthfully tell similar tales for other brands. The fact that I don't read them here means nothing. And it shouldn't for Jacko. To anyone who cares most of all about the music and sound quality, my suggestion, on my single experience, is try an NAD. If you find something better at the price, well done, please let us know. We will all thank you. It could be Jacko. That would be great. BTW I didn't find this forum until after I bought the NAD. I thought I already knew a bit about amps/receivers (wrong; the dramatic upgrade was sheer accident). I found ecoustics looking for an introduction to active subs, about which I knew zilch. I've learned a lot here. Thanks, guys! I have no competing interests, financial or otherwise.
yuri	Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 18:40 GMT Oh LOOK ALL it's crazy John again......... Blaaaa..................
Anonymous	Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 05:53 GMT I love SONY and Bose. I just bought a Sony Reciever and hooked it up to my Bose Acoustimass 10 speakers from 1996 and they sound like Christmas every day for me. In fact, the only thing the Sony lacks in my opinion is about 15 or 20 more DSPs. I'd like to be able to listen to my cds in an Adobe Cathedral Sound. That would be excellent. Lots of Echo. Get real people. If you like something, say you like it. Not everyone is going to spend 5K on a home theater, not everyone needs to. Would we all like to? There's no doubt, but just like what you like. Who cares what anyone else likes? They don't live in your house, they don't deal with your wife when you have huge tower speakers she has to dust, they don't sit in your living room listening to your music. If they did, and they didn't like it, then they should just leave.
Anonymous	Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 06:46 GMT Building a house with home theater and multi room speakers. I do not want to spend alot of money! It appears to be cheaper to buy multiple receivers than to buy one receiver with 2 zones and a amp. What is the best approach. The house has just been wired with all wires coming in to one location using 12 gauge wire, any suggestion. I have one HT and 4 rooms wired with ceiling speakers. Lastly any recommendations on volume controls and speakers. I am planning to buy Bose speakers for the HT. No idea on the VC and ceiling speakers. I am trying to stay under $3000. Any advise would be great.
Anonymous	Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 00:38 GMT Yuri, To think that John A. has more sense in his pinky than your whole slobberin' mass is something to think about. Most of us here appreciate John's inputs. Get real, man!
valeem	Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 05:40 GMT Well said!
John A.	Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 10:23 GMT Anonymous, valeem, Thanks, guys. That counts for something. I have learned some valuable stuff here, and try to give a little back, that's all. Anonymous (1.46 am): I read here that Bose made great speakers ten to twenty years ago or more, that would fit with Anon (12.53 am) liking his Bose Acoustimass. But hardly anyone recommends the newer ones. They seem to be based on some idea of omnidirectional and reflected sound, which is very likely to cause phasing problems and lack of clarity. Bose's expensive, global ads are absurd and make ludicrous claims. I have not heard Bose speakers myself, except in restaurants and pubs. There is a review of their new, inexpensive HT speakers in November Hi-Fi News. The bottom line is "OK for parties"....
Kodaz NADfan	Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 06:29 GMT There are pluese and minuses for all products. NAD's CD players used to fry their backlight on the displays after about a year. They still sounded great but you couldn't see any track info. The NAD T762/752/742 ahve had problems with popping noises on the sub outputs but if you get a good one the sound is fantastic. I own NAD, marantz and Sony electroincs and think all suit their purposes well. I am not blinded to other products and try to collate opinions and informtation before listening and purchasing products. And as for the comment from Jacko about NAD products not being very worthy of awards consider these: T762: The Perfect Vision Product of the Year. T762: The AV Receiver of the Year. T742: Editors Choice What Home Cinema. And their two channel gear has raked in many awards with their C521 based CD player getting best buy for 5 years running. I don't know of any other brand that consistantly gets acolades like these (but please correct me if I'm wrong). And as for flaming some innocent it may be wise to pull head from a r s e before opening mouth.
Anonymous	Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 16:59 GMT Well this is my first post so it I am sure it will be disregarded among the regulars, however those that do not believe manufactures hire ad firms solely to push their products on internet forums are very much in the dark. It is very common now, so common in fact that 60 minutes had a feature on just such firms. They are hired to simply go into forums and "push" a product in order to create a buzz. Backhanded advertising. I am not saying it is done here, just that it is quite common. I have been looking for a AV receiver and eventually eliminated this site as a biased well rounded source of what to look for, since it seem like every "What should I get or Opinions Please" thread ends up with the pro NAD people taking over. I have been to a ton of local stores and 2 of the 3 that sell NAD told me not to buy any of the 2 series except the 742. The one dealer told me he literally had 18 of 18 752's sold returned for one problem or another. He didn't even have the 3 series in yet but steered me away from his 752, 762's on the shelf because he was tired of the returns. I had always thought the 1 series was the problem series but it seems to be hit or miss along the entire line. It is too bad because I am in agreement with the Pro NAD cronies that NAD receivers sound great, in fact better. Nevertheless, how so many people can recommend an obviously problematic component is beyond me.
John A.	Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 17:21 GMT Anonymous, But you have written hundreds of posts... "...how so many people can recommend an obviously problematic component is beyond me." It's the sound, man. Not anything that shows up in specs and conventional test measurements. But you are right, and the problems get aired here as well as the advantages. It is better to have an unmoderated forum, then we can make up our own minds whether the posts are real. Also, I've read a few anti-NAD posts which are clearly not from bona fide customers, or about real experiences; they don't add up. That puzzles me. Guess Liz Taylor couldn't get Jacko out on bail.
Johnny	Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 17:25 GMT Anon, The reason I recommend NAD receivers is because I have one (T762) and have had absolutely NO problems with it. It performs wonderfully. All of the other people on here who advocate NAD undoubtedly have had NO problems with their units at all either. That is how "so many people can recommend an obviously problematic component"...because the vast majority of them are not problematic. If I have had no problems with mine, why should I not recommend it? I agree that some owners have had some serious problems with NAD products, but what brand does not have problems? Just in the past week I have read numerous threads on this same forum that deal with problems on Marantz and HK receivers. One Marantz receiver fryed some guys speakers. Is that to mean that all Marantz receivers will do this? Absolutely not. The same is true of NAD.
Anonymous	Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 17:27 GMT Anon of 11:59am, Do you go by another name? Jacko perhaps?
JonMoon	Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 18:01 GMT Anon of 11:59 am, I think you have good points. All of that must be considered before paying this kind of money for a receiver. I had never heard of NAD before coming to this board and it was the recommendation of Hawk and others that turned me on to try it. I was impressed with the sound but scared about the many reports of problems. I have been to many other forums and review sites and have read many other complaints about the quality of NAD. I do not dismiss those complaints and feel there is enough consistency and diversity that there is truth to the complaints. I also noted some of the types of complaints that were listed. Many had to do with a popping or clicking noise while changing channels from the satellite. Since I do not use the receiver for normal tv viewing, I was not put off by that complaint. The other major complaint was the loss of the initial portion of a cd due to the receiver's delay in recognition of the input signal. I had a Marantz which already had that problem and I never thought it was a big deal. I actually found the NAD didn't have that problem. I read more serious problems about just plain bad receivers. I had the opportunity to buy a new T752 substantially discounted or the dealer's T762 he used at home with a full warranty. Even though the T752 would probably have been enough, I was worried and decided to buy the receiver which the dealer knew worked. By the same token, I also read posts from people claiming that these receivers will last decades and are well made. My experience is with one receiver that I have only had one month which sounds great and I have had absolutely no problems with. Dealers also tell you urban myths. Lots of dealers will say: "I use to carry that item but don't anymore because of quality control." Frankly, from the forums and review sites, every manufacturer has some problems. I believe as you state that there may be sharks out there stuffing the ballet so to speak. But I have been impressed by several posters who give questions measured responses and who make recommendations depending on the circumstances and who also admit when they do not know anything about a particular brand. If you come to a forum like this, it is either to learn something or to impart knowledge. And if you learn something valuable, it is helpful if you impart that knowledge. I do not believe that this forum is NAD biased as much as other forums are Denon or another brand biased. I also see that there appears to be cycles and the brand of the moment. I found the NAD information to be (1) informative; (2) balanced (good with the bad) and; ultimately (3) correct.
Stone	Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 20:12 GMT Anon of 11:59am, Do you go by another name? Jacko perhaps? --- Ok, what the heck, I'll set myself up for some flames and establish a name. Stone I totally agree they sound really nice and the NAD's used price points are very tempting. It just seems, NAD's quality control has had a few very bad years. I am researching products and reading other forums and no other high end brands seem to have the return rate of these receivers. The one really pro NAD dealer I have worked with told me, "Well they have had problems... but that is all in the past" - To me that's still little scary. You can stick your head in the sand and say I recommend this product because I have had no problems, but the trends are obvious when NAD even acknowledges some of the complaints. Despite all my criticism, due to that NAD sound I have still actually been tempted to get one that is pre-owned and confirmed not to be a lemon. Even if I did buy one and loved it, I wouldn't feel right posting a recommendation without at least mentioning to a prospective shopper of the potential problems these units can have. I will most likely wait a while, save some more coin, be safe, and go for a Rotel. The Rotel AV receiver I heard absolutely blew me away, but that opinion is for another thread.
JonMoon	Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 15:28 GMT Stone, I understand your position but most of us are not from stores nor are we manufacturer representatives. If NAD is recommended it is because of our personal experience. There are plenty of posts which describe problems with NAD and other receivers. For example, see www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/7343.html which describes a Pioneer Elite problem right out of the box from Avdude who was considering buying a NAD but was concerned about quality control. If you have the money and the time, buy what you feel comfortable with. No one here is providing anything but advice which you can take or leave.
Hawk	Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 20:00 GMT I think one thing has been consistantly overlooked here--no brand is without a problem unit. There have been posts over the last six months for problems with every major brand. In just the last two weeks, we have been told of major problems some have had with their Marantz and Yamaha receivers, yet no one indicts the whole brand as problematic. Because of the shrill accusations, I have made a point of asking several differnet NAD dealers about their reliability and I have been consistantly told no more or less problems than their other brands. These are coming from dealers I have dealt with for more than two decades, so I am confident they are telling me the truth. There is no doubt that the first release of the T752 had a problem with the firmware, but NAD has gone out of its way to get a fix out there and not to hide it. I have been very impressed with the posts on this site of how NAD stepped in to get a receiver fixed. I know of no other manufacturer that goes to these lengths. Frankly, I am "tired" of hearing that NAD is a problem brand from people who have no direct knowledge, but only what they have heard. I recommend NAD regularly here because it is the best sound, without question, from any receiver under $1K. Jacko started this thread, but he suggests he is a "Outlaw components man." That is fine--I wish I had the money to get some Outlaw separates myself, but I don't (for someone like Jacko, who suggests he has Outlaw separates, to criticize NAD receivers is like Marie Antoinette telling the Paris mob crying for bread that they should eat cake, instead). Outlaw combos start about $1700 (950/7100/interconnects). My budget is far more modest, as are the budgets of most people who visit here. What NAD offers to me and many others is the sound quality of separates like the Outlaws, but at 1/3 to 1/2 of the price. I would love a Rotel, for example, as Stone recommends, but they start at a bill and a half, something I don't have with one child needing braces and another facing the cost of college. Yet, with the price of NAD being what it is, I can afford one and I am very close to the sound of quality separates. I cannot get that sound quality from Yamaha, Denon, Onkyo, JVC, Pioneer, or any other mass market brand. I have shopped them all and I know. I have owned a Denon now for some time. It is a fine receiver and I know why many people like it. However, I get the same delay in recognizing that my DVD player is now playing a CD as has been complained about on this board (using an optical digital connection). I also get a popping sound when switching inputs. I do not claim the brand is defective nor do I go running back to my dealer to exchange it because I have learned from this board that these problems are endemic to receivers of all brands. But I have not been satisfied by the sound, which is what I buy a receiver for. Since determining that the Denon was not going to satisfy my needs, I have made a point to listen to every receiver I can, often taking my own speakers into the dealer so that I can be sure I know what is the speaker and what is the receiver when listening. I can say without question that the NAD receivers sound better, IMO, than anything else under $1K. I am not employed by anyone--I am disabled and getting by on my disability payments and what my wife makes and my savings. Nor do I think anyone else here is employed to "push" a brand on this board. I have heard of such things, but of the regular posters on this board, I have not seen it. We do try to help steer those who ask for help to the products we know will address their needs. But if someone asks for the best sound quality for under $1K, I am going to suggest an NAD because I know from listening for myself, that they have the best sound quality for under $1K, bar none. I do not demand anyone take my advice, but I always suggest they listen for themselves. For those that do some serious auditioning, it is no surprise that most end up agreeing that the NAD does in fact, sound the best. For those like Jacko who are "tired" of reading NAD recommendations, you don't have to read them. Better yet, why don't you suggest something else. Have you done any shopping to have the knowledge to help? We may disagree, but I invite anyone who has an informed opinion to join the discussions here. The more info, the better.
John A.	Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 21:59 GMT Applause. Nice one, Hawk.
PeakMaster	Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 03:48 GMT The NAD hysteria is brought on by a bunch of Canadians who want to see a Canadian company do well. Fair enough. The truth is, NAD is OK but not what it's being cracked up to be. Any Joe six-pack that asks some advice before plunking down his $$'s gets the full NAD or HK full court press. It usually comes from the same guys that suggest buying an $850 receiver when the guy clearly indicates he only has $350 to spend. Truth is Onkyo puts HK to shame in the value for money category and NAD is over hyped.
Kodaz	Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 04:23 GMT Hi PeakMaster Saying that Canadians are creating "NAD hysteria" is defamatory. If you like Onkyo and have had good experiences with Onkyo say that and only that. But your comment that "Onkyo puts HK to shame in value for money catergory and NAD is over hyped" lacks facts, figures, experience or even hearsay. You are not making this "discussion" any more adult by blurting out factless comments and are only making yourself look small and petty. I have owned NAD and have had good and bad experiences and have owned other brands as well (Marantz, Sony, Cerwin Vega, Paradigm, Etc) but have found NAD to be good in comparision. But I wouldn't say it is better than X Brand if I hadn't compared it myslef with X and Y models. You may want to take an introspective look at yourself and think before posting.
caNADian	Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 15:57 GMT DAMN the secret is out. Peakmaster must be silenced as he has found out the true Canadian agenda. Once every one has NAD is his/her home we will secretly be brainwashing them using the internet (another Canadian Invention along with the telephone). Soon everyone will be saying Go NAD or Go home.
Pioneer	Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 11:33 GMT Kodaz appears to be quite self-righteous. A somewhat common flaw for an electronics sales hack. All PeakMaster stated was his opinion. You NAD sales hacks are using this great forum for your own personal gain.
John A.	Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 18:12 GMT For what it's worth, I am neither Canadian nor a sales hack. For anyone.
DenonFan	Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 21:15 GMT John A. Never thought you were a sales hack. peakmaster is not worth wasting time on. I also think the last post from jacko was an imposter. His (assuming he is male) tone and word use changed. Aka caNADian - cause you have to stir the pot every so often
UNICRON-WMD	Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 04:07 GMT I honestly don't know what the problem is with these guys liking their NADs. I love my NADs!!! I play with my NADs all the time!!! So, leave my NADs alone and I'll leave your NADs alone!!! Capisce?
Anonymous	Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 04:14 GMT GO......NAD.....GO....NAD...GO..NAD..GONADS!
Johnny	Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 14:49 GMT Hawk, I was gone for a long Thanksgiving weekend and just now read your posting. I think you and I were trying to get the same point across on this thread, only you did it much more eloquently. I am surprised that it took you this long to respond since in effect, you were "called out" by Jacko. It is just a shame that people like this try to defame honest people on this site who are trying to do nothing more than share their own personal opinions and experiences with others. I think you have done more research and listening than most of the people on this site have even thought about. Bravo, and keep up the wonderful advice!
Anonymous	Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 18:00 GMT Jacko, CaNADian: If you can't grow up long enough to post useful information on this discussion board, stop wasting EVERYONE'S time! Why don't you go start an anti-NAD discussion or something that more people like you would appreciate. You're obviously not going to win over the fine people of ecoustics and frankly, you're making yourself out to be an uneducated, dimwitted, as*. But, that's just my opinion.....which, according to you, people of my country (or any other, for that matter) are not allowed to have.
John A.	Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 07:35 GMT CaNADian, Yes, what a shame Peakmaster has spilled the beans. Just as well he does not know the conspiracy is far wider; I have just read on another thread that it is Canadian Immigration policy and, specifically, Muslim hardliners who are responsible for faults in NAD receivers. Doubtless Osama is recruiting for NAD quality control, even as we write. With these things made in China, too, it is a miracle they don't explode when switched on. Anonymous. I think you've got Jacko's number, but misread CaNADian. It was irony. At least, I hope so. Which country? it's OK, you are anonymous! Peakmaster. Speaking as a total outsider, my advice is that feelings of xenophobia directed at Canada, of all countries, seem like a good reason for seeking help.
caNADian	Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 19:19 GMT John A. You got it. There are too many real issues to get excited angered and upset over. Hmmm maybe I should get a white van and start selling some fine TR speakers..... (AKA DenonFan)
John A.	Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 19:42 GMT deNONfan, Ciao. I put my own white van experience on June 22 on https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/240.html#POST16233 One kind guy, timn8er, got it, but otherwise it fell on stony ground. Best.
deNONfan ;	Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 14:49 GMT Verrry Funnnny John A. Irony is lost on most people.
G-Man	Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 19:17 GMT "No-one should expect be convinced by paper specifications - you can't measure music, or predict your emotional response to it. Here I disagree with e.g. G-Man." John A--I believe you misunderstand my point on measurements. Obviously music is an emotional experience.I never said or implied it could be enjoyed by looking at meters--afterall, besides owning a chemical company I have played cello since I was 8 years old and go to concerts all the time--both classical, rock, jazz, and blues. My point is about signal reproduction--and that is strictly scientific--if the same music sounds better on one receiver than another, there must be a reason. There is no magic. I never talked about measuring "music", but I have asked why a product seems to sound different to others. My REAL thought from personal experience (and what makes me unpopular when I address this issue) is why receivers sound so similar. As Bob Carver says in an interview from Audio Ideas Guide--oh my, a Canadian publication:-): "GB: How audible are the differences between solid-state amplifiers? Bob Carver: What I'm going to say will fly in the face of what most people believe. I believe that you can take two solid-state amplifiers, and provided neither one is overloaded in any fashion, they'll sound identical. That's a big if. Amplifiers are overloaded in three basic ways. They're overloaded in amplitude; they've overloaded in current; they're overloaded in speed. It's very easy to do this if you don't have a big juicy amplifier. Obviously a little Radio Shack amplifier is not going to be able to touch a big Jeff Rowland or a Mark Levinson or a Sunfire amplifier. Provided the amplifier has flat frequency response and sufficiently low distortion, BOTH OF WHICH ARE TRIVIAL THESE DAYS, and provided there are no interface problems, the differences will always be the subtle differences associated with overload, either momentarily, like slew-rate limiting or clipping, or just running out of drive current. Hence, I believe like Bob Carver--for people listening in ABX blind circumstances they aren't going to be able to tell one comparable receiver from another. By comparable, I mean a 60 watt to 100 watt per channel (honest measurements) except under severe extremis--like momentary clipping (which is rare unless you buy inappropriate speakers with your receiver--heck it is rare even when you buy inappropriate speakers with your receiver). So Bob Carver says what I have been basically saying--that most solid state receivers are sonically alike and much like commodities. They mostly differ in features and remotes, unless you spend significant money and get bigtime power supplies, which is really only necessary in big rooms and inefficient speakers. GB: Your power amplifiers have two sets of output terminals: one for current source and one for voltage source. What's the point? Bob Carver: The voltage source has very low output impedance like a solid-state amplifier, so it has the sound of a solid-state amp. The current source has output impedance like a vacuum-tube amp, so it sounds more like a vacuum-tube amplifier. With the current-source output, the output impedance is exactly one ohm. We did a survey of tube amps and they average about an ohm. So to Bob Carver the output impedance is what basically changes the sound of an amp or receiver. He was able to get and duplicate the so-called "tube sound" from measurements and listening. To me--Listening confirms the measurements and measurements confirm the listening. Do you really argue with that? I think the NAD's are generally fine receivers. I suspect if the the NAD sound truly exists, it may be attributed to an alterred output impedance more than anything else. I think it is also attributable to the fact that most audio salons sell NAD's to go along with their Paradigm's and other quality speakers. I am not suprised they sound very good under those combinations. Also audio salons generally know how to place and get the most out of their speakers. Salon owners generally have their work as their avocation, not just their vocation. At Circuit City and Best Buy it is just a vocation where you won't find NAD's, Arcam's, Rotels and they mostly know squat about speaker placement, balancing, and showing off the products as well as can be done. Even at Tweeter, which is a bit more upscale, most of their people know squat. I live about a mile from a Tweeter--mostly ignorant desperate salespeople. Ninety percent of the people in this forum are far more interested in sound and video than those employees I've met. I buy receivers on features, looks, ease of use--particularly the remotes, good power supplies (like Tim Allen, I like power to spare), and from magazines and articles I respect DESIGN EXCELLENCE. I realize that 90% of the people here disagree with my viewpoint. It is too bad we don't all live within a few miles of each other and could test all these opinions to find if there are significant differences. But honestly, I have no vested interest. If it turns out through testing that a NAD a Pioneer Elite, or a Rotel can blindly be discerned I will be happy. I just want to know the reason much more than I want to know the opinion. But anyone who has read me knows that I do believe in a big difference in speakers and no money in audio is better invested than in good speakers.
DenonFan	Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 20:14 GMT G-man, Great points. Check out this article by Bob Carver. ~~http://home.earthlink.net/~rogerr7/truth.htm~~#goodamplifiers
John A.	Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 07:09 GMT G-man, Thank you. I agree with all you say, also with Carver. Yes, it is really a question of how easily the unit gets into "overload" , and which sort it is. My theory at present is the NAD sound I hear compared with e.g. Sony may have something to do speed, transient response. There is just more detail. I hear it. I would like to be able to explain it. But if I can't, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. "Is the result repeatable?" is the first thing to ask. My throw-away remark was a reference to a disagreement we seemed to have on another thread, which you will remember, but others may not have seen. Is Onkyo a Japanese company? See especially Sept 28 onwards. Hawk had said that he thought that perhaps the big Japanese manufacturers tended to rely more than some European and N. American ones on meeting pre-defined and measureable specifications. I incline to agree, especially with speakers, but it is all very debatable, and difficult to generalise. He made some good points, I thought. He always does. You replied to Hawk with "Hawk--you don't offend me, but you do offend scientific thought". That was my trigger. It may have been a misunderstanding, and I apologise if so. I read your comments and think we would find we agree on a lot of things, some quite strongly. I wandered off topic a bit because I kind of object to the idea that there is "scientific thought" whose principles anyone can offend. This will infuriate some casual audio readers and leads many places, but let me quote Richard Feynman (from memory) "Science is what you are left with when you have systematically eliminated all the ways in which you might be fooling yourself". I would say science is not a rival faith or ideology (which you may or may not choose) but the best shot you have when you try your best to eliminate self-delusion. Sorry, this is not a philosphy thread. The point is, and it was in support of Hawk, there is an awful lot to the experience of sound that no-one (yet) understands. So write down everything that anyone can currently measure with all known test equipment and you still don't have a complete description of what we hear. That's perhaps another philosophical point. But write down a "real-world" paper specification for an amp or speaker that is (1) easy for the measurer and (2) inspired to produce impressive figures at the least manufacturing cost ...and you have the problem I and others are complaining about, and which I believe Hawk was alluding to: such figures may turn out to be related in some complicated way to subjective experience, or they make not. It depends. But they are not, usually, the point. You can measure some things that do not matter, and may prefer not to measure some things that do. For example, I think you have pointed out that signal-to-noise ratio, once something to think about, is now largely off the scale for digital sources, and hardly matters any more. Getting one over on a rival by pushing the S/N from say 98 dB to 100 dB is a total waste of money. Another example: I wonder if you can remember "wow-and-flutter"? People became neurotic about wow and flutter ( I know I did) because years ago, and on cheap turntables, it was really, really bad. So turntable makers used to do insane and expensive things like quarz-sychro phase locking to reduce the measurable figures without asking whether anyone could hear the difference (they couldn't), or whether there were trade-offs like resonance from direct-drive motors (there were). And than, as a final act of absurdity, they would fit a stroboscope, as a built-in test device, so you could see speed fluctuations to give you something to worry about even if everything sounded OK. Third example. For this thread, there is this recurring power-ratings issue. The agreed spec, that makers compete with each other over, rests on dubious assumptions: Amp A delivers X Watts to 8 Ohms at 1 kHz; amp B delivers X plus. Who cares? No-one's speakers are ever that test load. And even no-one sane ever listens to 1 kHz sine waves. Then we see some makers disguise the fact that that the figure does NOT apply to all channels driven simultaneously, anyway. Look through a bunch of "Specs" for different receivers and look especially at what they are trying to CONCEAL, and you may learn something, but not half as much as you would by just listening to something beautiful (to you) and familiar (to you). I totally agree with your point that everything has a cause. All I say is we have to admit we often don't know what it is. It is just arrogant to go on and say we know how to measure everything. I am very down on pseudo-science; it is as bad (even worse) that the nonsense it tries to replace. Audio is full of pseudo-science. E.g. I have had many dealers trying to tell me there is a difference between "digital sound" and "analogue sound" and there really is no point in continuing to talk with people who say things like that. Either they are total fools, or they are using language in some special, private way. And of course they don't care as long as they can make a sale. I had better stop this. Here is a wise motto for people baffled by audio specs. Have look for what the DON'T say. And always remember: "Bullsh*t Baffles Brains". Gee I wish we could take this in real time. Hope Hawk comes back. Fraternal greeting from over here. You are in Porgy and Bess country, if I remember.
ronald harris	Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 10:35 GMT ron Am looking for a circuit diagram for a NAD model 306 stereo amp.

« Previous Thread Next Thread »

Enough with the NAD already!

Main Forums

Forum Help

Follow Us