I originally posted this buried in another thread. It may help others to make a decision so here is a "repost".
Regarding NAD receivers, would like to add this spin. I recently home tested the following 3 receivers with same speakers, Snell E.5 Towers (a true 4 ohm load), same room acousics 13x18 open on 1 end, same interconnects.
1)H/K 525: The dog of the lot, very disappointing,even checked the connections 3 times thinking I must be missing something. The sonic qualities were overly warm producing a thin, smeared and dark sound. The display lit up like the Hong Kong shoreline and would, however, make a great night lite.
2)Yammie 1400: Surprisingly good. Sonically robust, punchy, smooth and balanced at normal listening volume. At high volume, however, the piercing treble was strident on saxophones and Julia Fordham's wonderful (soprano?) voice.
3)NAD T752: Superior sonically in every way. The overall sound STRUCTURE with a full-bodied width, height and depth of soudstage,is amazing. With a very slightly warm presentation, it is unparalleled at providing the balanced, seamless layers of complete sound that an amplifier should. Detailed, pin point imaging is included.
NAD's are quirky machines that have QC control problems. If they ever got their act together, they would be dangerous. However, what you get is entry level audiophile stuff on a limited budget. End result, the sonics are so good that alot of us put up with their pitfalls.
NAD are well known for good stereo music and not on Home Theater use. If most of the time you'll be watching movies, it will be great to use the Yammy receiver. Basically, choosing the right receiver depends greatly on the person's preference. Cheers!
NAD originally made their mark in the high fidelity with amps for music. With the onslaught of Home Theatre popularity, several years ago they got into HT multi-channel receivers.
Yamaha has been a market leader in HT for a long time and definitely carved out their niche there.
While it wasn't stated, the post implies that NAD is weak in HT and I personally disagree (if mis-interpreted I apologize). I tried the NAD T763 in my home w/ my Paradigms and because of it's sound quality it sold me. I now own a T773 because of that.
This was AFTER testing a Yamaha RX-V2400 in my home. In reality, because of the price points these probably aren't fair model comparisons but I don't feel bad in making it when Yami states their specs at 120 watts x 7 and the features are somewhat comparable.
I am probably 75% Home Theatre/25% Music so my lean is towards HT and I am a former Yamaha RX-V2092 owner.
Personally, I find little benefit in all of the manufacturer's proprietary sound formats. I think it is more market hype than real world benefits and tend to generally prefer standard Dolby Digital, DTS, etc. versus all of their psudo custom sound formats. I say generally and again, just my opinion.
Ewan is definitly correct that it's all a matter of personal preference.
I would say I have to disagree with Ewan also. While you do make good points about how listening to home audio is a matter of personal preference, I couldn't disagree more about NAD not being suited for HT. It seems to me that if a receiver sounds warm and detailed in music, why would it not sound the same way in HT? Does the sound suddenly change when a DVD is inserted instead of a CD? In my opinion, music calls for much greater clarity and detail, so it would make sense that something that sounds good in music would also sound good in HT. I listened to Yamaha in HT and was very disappointed. I for one would rather buy a receiver that puts their money into producing quality sound as opposed to producing countless numbers of useless (in my opinion) simulated surround fields.
Once again, these are just my opinions and not intended to bash any one...just simply a difference of opinions.
Ewan is full of &$*
Unregistered guest
Posted on
I pretty much disagree with most of what that guy "Ewan" says. It's my opinion that he does not know squat about HT or Music electronics. I find his comments short and inaccurate. Again there are some on every forum, but this guy seems like a troll.
I disagree with Ewan as well, but he's entitled to his opinion. Although he should back up something once in a while.
Anonymous here
Unregistered guest
Posted on
I'm not against NAD but have read from these forum about the NAD T-752 bug problems thus sacrificing their known high quality. Most of us has his own listening preferences but I disagree on Johnny's statement that what is good in music is also good in HT. What a way of thinking? You are saying this because you are a NAD fanatic. But I would agree then that its simply a difference of opinions. Am currently using RXV-1400 to power my surrounds and rears. Rotel for the fronts and centers.
If you want to disagree with me, then that is fine, you have that right. But, if you are going to present alternative viewpoints, at least back them up. Can you explain to me why you think that something that is good for music will not sound good in HT? You are right that I like NAD...I have one, and thus I know more about it than any other brand. Any quick search of the threads will show you that I also recommend many other brands as well...depending on the situation. Nothing irks me more on this forum than anonymous posters who give no worthwhile or substantiated information whatsoever...rather they spend their time insulting and degrading other dedicated and respected members of the forum. Quit wasting our time. If you can't find something useful to say, then please, do us all a favor and don't say it at all.
I agree Johnny with you. In general terms, a receiver which sounds good in music, will be able to cover Home Theather applications in a very good manner
R.J
Unregistered guest
Posted on
I understand that the Yamaha is bright for HT but i think that there is a difference between a brigh receiver like a Sony ES and a bright, detailed and accurate receiver like Yamaha.
ok guys, let me explain my word on NAD's HT performance. I compared this with a YAMMY in watching movies that's why I came up with this post. Sound of Yamaha is accurate and detailed against NAD. Am not telling that NAD is not suited for HT. In fact, it is far better than DENON, ONKYO, H/K, MARANTZ and PIONEER. What more details do you want? If you find little benefits on manufacturer's proprietary sound format, for me it means a lot. I like a receiver that can mimic a lot of sound field. Based on my experiences, I agree with what Anonymous says.
Ewan, What models of Yamaha and NAD did you compare?I got exactly the opposite results myself between the RX-V2400 and the T763 in my home. Just my opinion of course but if you compared comaparble models to this and liked the Yami better then more power to you and enjoy your extra $$. It was night and day to me.
Now the Yamaha Z series may be another story. I haven't compared that caliber of Yamaha so have no idea.
RJ, The Sony DA5ES and the 4ES/7ES that followed were very detailed. So Sony ES does have exceptions, but in general I agree with you their models are sometimes great, and sometimes a flop.
No doubt those Snell E.5 Towers are hurting the HK receiver. The HK AVR lines are true 8ohm amplifiers. I do not mind the sound at low volumes but I am running into the same problems as listed above with my HK AVR230 and new Ohm Acoustics (6 ohm speaker) and the new models are easier to drive than their older speaker line. I may hold onto the receiver for a while, as it will make a decent pre-amp once I get a solid amplifier for these speakers.