NAD T753 or Arcam AVR 200
|
Anonymous | I'm in the market for A/V receiver and I'm considering both models.Could anyone give suggestions? Speaker will be Paradigm studio 20 and this system will be 80%music and 20%HT. Thanks |
|
Silver Member Username: MarkuspToronto, ON Canada Post Number: 128 Registered: Apr-04 | It depends on whether or not you need video switching. If you run your video outputs from you cable and dvd player directly to the tv, the Arcam AVR200 sounds great and I prefer it greatly to the NAD T753 (even though they roll off the same assembly line). If you need video switching via component video, then the choice is clear - Nad T753 as the Arcam does not have any component video inputs or outputs. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1177 Registered: Jan-05 | The ARCAM has little of anything. Sure, they sound good, but they do absolutely nothing because they have no features. |
|
Zorro Unregistered guest | Paul, How dare you make any recommendations when all you have auditioned in your little town is your piece of S**T Yamaha, before you even give your opinion "LISTEN" to other gear, how can you make an observation of something that you have never even seen or heard? You are an ignorant idiot! |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1183 Registered: Jan-05 | The next time Im in the market for a new receiver that looks like a toaster, and has about as many features, I'll be sure to look closely at the ARCAM. It finished so far down my list of preferences, that it wasnt even worthy of my personal audition. It was cut from consideration well before I was ready to audition the finalists in person. If I compare the ARCAM to professional golfers on the PGA, the ARCAM was the amature who made the player roster by special exemption.....and it/he missed the weekend cut by 30 strokes. It/he should have stuck to local club events because he was outclassed when trying to compete on the big stage. |
|
Silver Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 757 Registered: Feb-05 | Totally misguided Paul. Any Arcam will outperform a Yamaha. If a person is looking for frills then by all means get a big box store receiver but if you want a receiver that has the balls to drive any speaker to it's strength you need to move up and out to the better stuff like Arcam, NAD, and Rotel. These are the receivers that trade frills for thrills. You've moved on with your sub and inevitably you'll get the itch for other improvements. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1189 Registered: Jan-05 | It looks like a toaster, and has absolutely no functions. I never commented on the sound, since it was never worthy of an audition, but Im quite capable of commenting on it's 'toaster' appearance, and having no functions. Not only is the the butt-ugliest and chincyest looking thing on this planet, it has no functions either. If this chincy receiver were a golfer, not only would it be a short knocker, but it would be 'SHORT & CROOKED'. What you call frills, I call funcionality. I guess if you're used to a hunk of junk like the ARCAM, just about any receiver on this planet would seem frilly by comparison. |
|
Silver Member Username: MarkuspToronto, ON Canada Post Number: 130 Registered: Apr-04 | Wow.... Looks like companies only need to design functionality and DSP modes into receivers and they can forget pumping in any money into R&D re: sound quality and sonics to please purchasers such as Paul. Who needs actual sound quality when you have 30 dsp modes to screw it up anyways. Hope you didn't spend too much money on speakers... |
|
Silver Member Username: MarkuspToronto, ON Canada Post Number: 131 Registered: Apr-04 | The Arcam AVR200 is a great sounding receiver that may meet the needs of some while not meeting the needs of others. If music listening is a priority but you still want to enjoy movies as well, you could do far worse than this receiver. Video switching will be a bone of contention for many people as they find it far easier to switch inputs on a receiver and progam the appropriate functions into their universal remote than having to switch video inputs on the tv as many tv's lack discrete input modes. My point of the previous post is that functionailty is an important factor in choosing a receiver but it is not the end all be all. For some, sound quality is the main thing and one can always buy a video switcher etc. to compensate for missing functionality. I for one do not much like Yamaha receivers as I find their 2 channel music permance to be lacking and also feel they can sound fairly harsh / over-agressive for movies. Furthermore, I wish they had put their money into quality amps and sonic performance as opposed to giving me 30 DSP modes that I will never use. Again, this is just me. I have my own idea of functionality and sonic quality and what I am willing to live with in a receiver. I won't slam a product I have never heard and I will have an open mind and listen to many different products, even if they may lack a feature or two I would like. I stumbled upon the Cambridge Audio 540R this way and so you never know what you will discover. You are just cheating yourself otherwise. |
|
New member Username: Rock_bobPost Number: 5 Registered: Oct-04 | Hi Anonymous, Your speakers should be compatible with either recevier, however the best advice is to adition each receiver in person. If you visit the NAD Electronics website, you can look up dealers in your area at : http://www.nadelectronics.com/dealers/index.htm I have owned NAD for more than 20 years and have been very happy with the sound and performance. Happy shopping. Rock Bob |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1190 Registered: Jan-05 | Some of you continue harping on DSP modes, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. The ARCAM does absolutely nothing, and has virtually no functionality. I mean c'mon....no component video switching??? Im talking about bare bones vanilla functions, and the 'toaster' cannot even do those!! How can this toaster 'outperform' other receivers when in reality, it cannot even perform the task 'at hand' in the first place?? Wouldnt the unit have to be 'function compatable' to even make a comparison??? If 2 channel stereo is your thing, and you demand no additional functionality, the ARCAM may be a good choice. If you like stripped down, Plain Jane, and watered down, this is the perfect choice. This receiver is the closest modern era component comperable to 1970s technology, when the 'average Joe listeners' entire setup process consisted of plugging the unit into the wall. |
|
Zorro Unregistered guest | My dear Paul, How would you know about the quality of the sound? You just watch movies for Christ Sake,I mean a Big explosion makes your day right ? LMAO You don't buy good gear just to look at it, you seat on your favorite chair close your eyes and enjoy the sound coming out of your components. Get Real mean you know nothing |
|
Silver Member Username: JohnnyMissouri Post Number: 549 Registered: Dec-03 | The reason people make such a big deal about DSP modes is that for most who consider sound quality the priority, DSP modes are a useless waste of money. This money could be better spent upgrading the power supply, processors, etc. I have a grand total of ZERO DSP modes on my NAD, and I don't miss them at all. I am glad that they aren't there. To me, the overall sound quality is much more important than being able to listen to music in a simulated concert hall that sounds like crap anyway. Perhaps it would be more beneficial for the reader if you would list some specific features that the Arcam is missing...besides the component video switching...which some (including me) don't need if they only have one video device that uses component. You seem to be able to bash the Arcam pretty well, but you don't provide any concrete evidence to back up your claims, and that doesn't get anyone anywhere. It is only a 5.1 receiver...hence no nead for Dolby Digital EX, DTS-ES, or Pro Logic IIx. It has OSD. What else then is it lacking? Besides all of the useless DSP functions of your prized Yamaha. Be specific...no more "toaster" comments please. Is it that hard for you to believe that some may value sound quality over features? |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1192 Registered: Jan-05 | Zorro, Can you read??? I'm leaning towards "NOT". Please copy and paste the link where I made a single reference regarding the finer points of the ARCAM sound quality. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1193 Registered: Jan-05 | The comments already noted above are enough to render that overpriced 'tomato-can' obsolete for me, IMO. For anyone interested in anything other than 2channel music, they'd be much better off with any of these three if they want a quality system for movies..... 1.Yammi2500 2.Dennon3805 3.Pioneer56 All will leave that featureless tomato-can in the dust and would make a much wiser decision. |
|
Bronze Member Username: BritthoFrisco, TX USA Post Number: 12 Registered: May-05 | Anonymous, After hearing the NAD753 with Paradigm studios last week as well as listening to the NAD 720BEE with Rega's I must say that the pairing of Paradigm studios with the NAD753 is pretty sweet. There is a refurbished 753 for sale at Spearit Sound for $749. Just scroll down the page until you find it under receivers. Don't get the T763 though as I am leaning on that one  Just kidding for $999.00 the T763 is also a really great buy. Read up on the site about what "refurbished" really is and you may feel like saving a few bucks. I have not listened to Arcam yet but if you need Componet switching take a look at Rotel as others have suggested. As I am finding out though NAD seems to be the best bang for the buck if you are listening to music 70% of the time or more with your equiptment. Good luck! Britt http://www.northamptonaudio.com/specials.htm |
|
Silver Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 759 Registered: Feb-05 | Not really Paul. Some movies watchers are interested in having their movies sound good not just loud. Mine sounds both. I can reach ear splitting SPL's (if I cared to) with near pristine reproduction of the movie soundtrack. Being a movie buff I would think that would interest you. What features do these other receivers have that you need that aren't on the NAD, Arcam, and Rotel. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1206 Registered: Jan-05 | Art, I never said ARCAM sounded bad. I just said that it was a bad receiver because it has very few functions that it can perform. Plus, it's butt ugly, and overpriced. For those that want to pay for an underpowered little 69watt receiver, that's up to them. Yea, ok.....ARCAM users swear it's way power underated.......LOL OK, whatever. Im sure the secret ARCAM 'skulls' society know the little 69watt arcam really has more power than the YammiZR9 that claims more than double, but we'll keep it our little secret. |
|
Bronze Member Username: BritthoFrisco, TX USA Post Number: 15 Registered: May-05 | http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?ddmiscrcvr&1122038645 I found an even better price for the NADT753 than I posted earlier. I wonder if Anonymous is even reading up on the replys or if the thread has taken a turn for another direction...But $698.00 for the T753 is really pretty good unless you can find a demo for less. |
|
Silver Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 763 Registered: Feb-05 | Arcam makes sevral receivers, which vary in power. Same for NAD. Anonymous asked for a receiver to match Paradigm Studio 20's. He needs an accurate receiver that does well for music that's why I would suggest Arcam, NAD, or Rotel. |
|
Silver Member Username: JohnnyMissouri Post Number: 550 Registered: Dec-03 | Paul, To steal one of your quotes, "can you read"? Obviously you have no knowledge of the Arcam receiver that you keep bashing since you seem to be unable to produce one shred of evidence to support your claims other than the lack of component switching an now apparently a supposed lack of power? If that is all that is important to you, then you should be happy with your Yamaha. When push comes to shove, I would bet that the Arcam will put out more real power than your Yamaha. Yamaha is known to grossly inflate their power ratings, and I doubt that the Yamaha you hold so dear would be any different. To me, a Yamaha receiver would be worth little more than an oversized paperweight because they are underpowered, over featured, and I just don't like the way that they sound. This forum is supposed to be a place where people can receive logical advice on audio equipment. Your baseless claims help no one. So, back to the topic at hand. I think that either the Arcam or NAD would sound awesome with your speakers. I have heard NAD and Paradigm many times, and they really do compliment each other well. Unfortunately, I have never heard Arcam and Paradigm together, but knowing the unique characteristics of each, I think they would make an excellent match. It really then comes down to features. Like someone said earlier...if you don't need component switching, and you don't want 6.1 sound, then there really is no difference feature wise between the two. |
|
Bronze Member Username: BritthoFrisco, TX USA Post Number: 16 Registered: May-05 | The Arcam AVR250 has a component video out now that this model is available. So if you like the sound of the Arcam and want the video switching of the NAD753 why not go with the AVR250 which is the sucessor to the AVR200? Or am I missing something??? After hearing about this receiver on the site I will certainly give the AVR250 a listen before pulling the trigger. So I visit the site and see that there is only one dealer in the US. Oh well so much for that option. And they have the AVR250 for $1600 bucks. Yeah I'm going to have to pass on that one. |
|
Silver Member Username: JohnnyMissouri Post Number: 551 Registered: Dec-03 | Brittho, You may be a little confused. There is only one DISTRIBUTOR of Arcam products in the US. There are multiple dealers. From the Arcam website, click the link of the distributor listed (in Indianapolis I think). Then, when you reach the distributors website, go to their dealer locator and use your zip code to find any in your area. You will find that there are many dealers in the US. |
|
Silver Member Username: SmittyCanada Post Number: 204 Registered: Dec-03 | Another thing to watch out for if you're buying a receiver that's getting a bit long in the tooth is compatibility with other devices. From my experience I've run into problmes with how the receiver reacts to a muted or unlocked digital audio or analog video signal. I had a NAD T742 that worked fine for S-Video switching, however when I upgraded my DVD player it no longer handled 'blank' signals properly. This resulted in the S-Video out from the receiver dropping the signal and the TV displaying anything from a blank screen to a distorted screen (for a second or two). I had a similar problem with its handling of the digital audio signal from my satellite receiver. In that case there would be a loud noise when switching between a DD2.0 or DD5.1 channel and a non-DD channel. I also had a NAD T752 for a short period of time and it exibited none of these problems. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1215 Registered: Jan-05 | Yea, Im sure that weakling little 69watt tomato-can is 'really' much much much more powerful than it's rating. suuuuuuuuure....... I love it when boutique equipment owners try to self rationalize to themselves to make themselves feel better. LOL...keep dreaming. Im sure that ugly tomato can is worth every penny, and much pore powerful that it's puny stated value.(tongue in cheek) |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1216 Registered: Jan-05 | LOL Jonnie Yea, Im sure........ Quote: OWNER OF OVERPRICED BOUTIQUE GEAR WITH NO FUNCTIONS:"Yes, Im sure my $1200/20 watt receiver is much much more powerful than a 130watt receiver made by all other manufacturers. It's a proven fact that boutiques understate their values, but everybody else overstates". Sincerely, Dumb-Selfrationalizer |
|
Silver Member Username: SmittyCanada Post Number: 206 Registered: Dec-03 | Hmmm...remind you of anyone? Guess Who |
|
Silver Member Username: KanoPost Number: 511 Registered: Oct-04 | Arcam is as boutique to Yamaha as Porsche is to Toyota. We both know who has the better build quality under the hood now don't we. Your Yamaha is great for home theatre but will barely (if at all) meet the needs of people looking for the best musical quality out of a receiver. This is where NAD, Rotel and Arcam deliver. For my personal needs all the frills and features of Yamaha would go unused. An SPL meter and test disc eliminate the need for set-up and EQ functions. I just plain don't like DSPs. I used to use the HK Logic 7 for watching cable, but the majority of the time a straight 2 channel connection is preferable, with the exception of watching sports, where I find that particular DSP does a great job of using the centre for the announcers, the fronts for on field sound and the surrounds for crowd sounds. Your Yamaha suits your needs well and I'm happy you made the right purchase. But try to be open minded when it comes to other people's use which may not entirely centre around home theatre use. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1217 Registered: Jan-05 | Im sorry that everyone doesnt share your glorious opinion of overpriced, underpowerd, and zero function receivers. If you want to throw away $1500 on the worlds ugliest receiver that neither has power, or functions, that's your business. This forum was created to express ones views, and oftentimes those views will vary from one person to the next. If because I believe the ARCAM brand is a fraud and selling overpriced trinkets makes me a troll.....then so be it. |
|
Silver Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 767 Registered: Feb-05 | Take one look inside of the NAD T763 at the huge Holmgren toroidal transformer, if that doesn't cure ya of boutiquegearitis nothing will. NAD...power, performance, and features...unbeatable. Paul read the specs...you may be surprised. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1218 Registered: Jan-05 | Kano, I wont dispute your '2 channel' statements because I dont listen to music, and dont really care either way because of my lack of interest in music. Sound aside, the arcam is overpriced, underfeatured, and underpowered, so I wouldnt bother ever listening to it in person. Any of Pioneer, Yammi, or Denon offer much better receivers in the $1000 price range than does ARCAM anyway. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1219 Registered: Jan-05 | Art, My opinion of NAD is that they make quality musical receivers, but bad HT products. Since my use is vitually 100% for movies, I wouldnt touch a NAD with a 10 foot pole. You couldnt give me one for free. |
|
Silver Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 768 Registered: Feb-05 | But it ain't so, I own one I know. Having owned other HT receivers I know that this by far the best that I have owned. |
|
Silver Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 779 Registered: Feb-04 | Paul, What makes NAD bad for HT? |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1224 Registered: Jan-05 | They have too many quality control issues for my liking. I'd prefer to buy a HT receiver from a manufacturer who knows what they're doing, rather than one who knowingly allows defective products to flood the market like NAD has done in the past. |
|
Silver Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 769 Registered: Feb-05 | They used to have some quality control issues. What made it a significant issue is NAD's good reputation. Talking to dealers that I know that sell both NAD and Marantz they have stated to me that Marantz has significantly more QC issues especially the SR8400, SR7400, SR8300, and SR7300. One dealer told me that the return rate on some of those Marantz models approached 50%. The truth is that all HT receiver manufacturers have been flying by the seat of their pants, introducing new models long before they are ready for prime time out of necessity. technology is moving fast and companies are forced by the competition to make unwise moves. Just like the other companies NAD has been guilty of that. Comparing two functioning units to each other NAD is hard to beat. Arcam and Rotel make some pretty damn good gear as well. |
|
Silver Member Username: SmittyCanada Post Number: 207 Registered: Dec-03 | I'm going to have to side with Paul on this one. If you're looking for 100% HT, NAD would not be my first choice, they are 'Music First' after all and that's what you're paying for. I had an NAD T742 and T752 and while they were both excellent for music, the HT side was good but I thought HT was better with a CA 540R I later purchased, it just had more punch or something. Now, maybe the T753 or T763 are better, but now you're getting into the $900+ range. Honestly, if you're looking for 100% HT I would take a good hard look at the Pioneers, Yamahas, HKs and Denons in the $500 and under price range. Most of these receivers can be purchased at places with very liberal return policies, what have you got to lose? |
|
Silver Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 771 Registered: Feb-05 | One of the dealers I mentioned (Stereotypes in Portland) carries Arcam, NAD, Marantz, Cambridge and Integra. More QC problems with Marantz and Cambridge in fact she quit carrying the Cambridge receiver in the store pending the release of their new receiver. Again I've owned several HT receivers the processing is pretty much the same the power supplies and other parts (casing, isolation etc) is where they differ. When we say a receiver is more musical than the other we are saying that it sounds better. The NAD T742 or T743 have lesser power supplies than the other NAD's and by the time you get to the T763 it has a huge Holmgren toroidal transformer. The Cambridge is a fair comparison to the T743 and if I were in that price range those are the 2 that I would consider. But remember when you prefer a receiver like the Cambridge you are preferring a more musical hence better sounding receiver. The others that you mentioned are not in that same league. |
|
Silver Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 772 Registered: Feb-05 | Put another way; when looking at receivers if the processing is the same but the power supplies differ which would you buy. If you want to drive your speakers to there potential you will chose the receiver with the better power supply. That is where NAD, Rotel, and Arcam differ form the mass market big box receivers. Smitty be on the lookout Cambridge is supposed to have an exciting new receiver out soon. |
|
Silver Member Username: JohnnyMissouri Post Number: 552 Registered: Dec-03 | I am not here to bash anyones receiver choice. As someone said earlier, Paul, if you did your research, listened to a few different receivers in your price range, and decided the Yamaha was best for you, then congratulations. I am happy for you. However, I think that what a lot of us on here are trying to get across to people is that there is a lot more out there. There are multitudes of people who walk into a Best Buy or Circuit City and simply buy something because some 18 year old with a summer job tells them that it will sound good. It is nearly impossible to correctly audition something in a store like that, so I really can't understand why someone would buy audio equipment from them anyway. It is merely an education thing. How many people have put down $500 on a receiver at Best Buy not even knowing that they could go to a true audio dealer and get something much better for around the same amount of money? I mean, I used to be one of those people. I was VERY close to buying a $300 Sony receiver at Circuit City a couple of years ago because it "said" it had 100w x 7, and that was good enough for me. When I asked the salesman about the receiver, he said "well, it has a lot of power, so it will sound great". Luckily I had a revelation and decided to do some more in depth research. After a few weeks and some selling on Ebay, I ended up with the NAD T762. Wow...what a difference! I am not in any way saying that mass market brands like Yamaha, Pioneer (not Elite), etc are all bad. Depending on the situation and the model involved, they may be the perfect choice. I simply want any "newbies" to realize that there are many other great brands out there that are generally accepted as being on the next level of sound quality. Paul, I really hope you didn't buy your Yamaha without first listening to some other brands like NAD, Arcam, Rotel, Elite, Marantz, etc. Perhaps that is why you are so critical of brands such as this, because you realize you may have made a mistake and want to legitimize YOUR purchase? And Paul, no matter how much you may want to avoid the issue, it has been proven by MANY sources that a lot of the mass market brands DO heavily over inflate their power ratings, especially in their lower end models. And, I am sorry, but in the past, Yamaha has been one of the worst at doing this. Onkyo is another. For example, Sound and Vision magazine tested the Yamaha RX-V440, rated at 75w x 6. In their tests, they found it to actually output only 34w x 6. That is only HALF of what Yamaha says it will achieve. How do you explain this? Same thing with Onkyo. April of 2004 S&V tested the Onkyo TX-NR901...at one time this was their flagship receiver, rated at 110w x 7. When tested, it only output 50w...and that was with only 5 channels driven. Once again, less than half of what it is rated at. Just 6 months ago, Sound and Vision tested the new Denon AVR-2805, rated at 100w x 7. It only actually got 82w with only 5 channels driven. While I am certain that 82 watts would be plenty for most, it is still a 20% drop from what Denon says it will get. Now, compare that to brands like NAD. When S&V tested the NAD T752 (rated 80w x 5), the found that it actually got 93w x 5...that is a 15% INCREASE!! So, you can make jokes, and critisize all you want, but these power falacies are known, and proven. I have not seen any test reports on the Yamaha model you have, but chances are, it won't meet the power rating you say it will, and the brands you keep bashing will likely exceede what they publish. I realize that there is a LOT more to a receiver than power, but why would you want to buy from a brand that has to resort to these types of false advertising to sell their product? Makes you wonder what else they "fudge" on? |
|
Silver Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 787 Registered: Feb-04 | This forum is divided by gear (speakers vs receivers) and others divide by use (2-channel music, home theater). Part of the problem is that Paul doesn't care for music and likes playing the clown a little, and pokes fun at people who do like music. If we had a 2-channel discussion group, Paul wouldn't participate in it. Paul, I partly enjoy your posts because I know they half tongue-in-cheek. But perhaps you could limit yourself to more positive HT posts rather than 2-channel bashing posts? Just an idea... |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1238 Registered: Jan-05 | Jonny, It's a given that many low-end 'bottom of the barrel' in the 25lb lightweight class exaggerate their ratings so they can all claim 100wpc. Please, tell me something I dont know. And yes, I also consider the $500market in the same regard. Not until you get into the $1000 price range to you even begin to get into the 'real' receiver cagegory. There isnt a receiver that I would own at either Circuit City or Best Buy so you can save your 'big box' rhetoric for someone else. Peter, Did you say music?? What's that?? HEH |
|
Silver Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 788 Registered: Feb-04 | Did you say music?? What's that?? It's what some of us listen to when the kids are sleeping. :-) I guess I switched from 90% HT/TV, 10% music to 40% HT/TV, 60% music. Depends on my mood. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1239 Registered: Jan-05 | Jonny, You might also want to read-up on the topic of "all channels driven". The receivers you quoted dont claim to be 'all channels driven' at that power rating. So why the big suprise that they arent, when they dont even claim to be?? |
|
Silver Member Username: JohnnyMissouri Post Number: 553 Registered: Dec-03 | I am quite well versed on that topic my friend, but my point is that the "average" person who goes into a "big box" store doesn't know this. All they see is "100w x 7", and that's it. In fact, at the "big box" stores, I don't even think that the "info card" specifies whether it is all channels driven, or what the frequency range is, or anything. All it says is "100w x 7"...plain and simple. The average person sees this and nothing else. It is not a big surprise to me that they aren't listed with all channels driven. It doesn't make it right though. There should be some sort of standardized rating system, so everyone will know exactly what they are getting. How many people have been put off of HK receivers (which sound great) at Circuit City because they are rated at only 50w when some piece of crap Sony receiver is "rated" at twice that, when in reality the HK probably has more power? You should try listening to music sometime. I really is nice. Maybe that will help take some of the edge off? |
|
Silver Member Username: SmittyCanada Post Number: 208 Registered: Dec-03 | Wow this is a popular thread! Art, that's the first I've heard of QC issues with Cambridge, in fact two dealers I spoke with claimed they had zero returns, but then again so did three NAD dealers I spoke with about NAD receivers...so who knows? Hopefully I won't run across any problems. I had heard they were working on the 640R but my I think it'll be awhile before I give in to the upgrade bug again...the receiver I really wanted to try was the Outlaw 1070 but it hasn't been released yet. Certainly the T743 and 540R are in the same price range but after owning a T742 and T752 I don't think I could give up the extra power. What I like about the CA540R besides its 'sound signature' is that it has the power of the T753 but the price of the T743, it could certainly use a few more options though. I sent a friend of mine who was looking for a new receiver for 100% HT to check out an NAD T752/Paradigm combination...he was less than impressed with the sound and bought a Yamaha RX-750 instead which he's thrilled with. Would I have done the same? Highly unlikely, but it just goes to show that not everyone prefers NAD/CA/Rotel etc. over a $500 receiver. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1240 Registered: Jan-05 | Johnny, Do you really think it matters?? You say 'it doesnt make it right', but Im here to tell you that it doesnt matter. The question you should really be asking is..... "Are individuals really that naive to think it really matters as it relates to HT-surround applications???" Do you really think your 'back' 6th-7th channels in a movie soundtrack have the same power needs as the front 3 channels??? LOL C'mon...... What about the surrounds??? Do you really think your 4th-5th channel output will require anything more than a small fraction of the fronts/center power requirements??? In reality, 'all channels driven' doesnt exist in the real world of movie tracks, so why should you care about the topic??? Even during loud movie segments, the surround and backs still only use relatively small amounts of power. IMO, those who go 'on and on and on' about the topic havnt really sat down to think it through, because if they had, they certainly wouldnt care about it. As it relates to music???.....Well, quite frankly, I dont care. As if I ever listen to that stuff anyway...... |
|
Zorro Unregistered guest | Guys! Can we all just ignore Paul, I mean, we all know how ignorant and childish he is so, why even bother trying to explain anything to him? Will he ever be mature enough to at least try to be civilized and open his mind to other ideas? Of course not. He is just here to annoy people, I can respect that he has his way to view things and he has the right to do so but, his attitude towards everyone else is just pitiful. He shows no respect for others. He is so brain dead that it would be a lot easier to ask a rock to move! |
|
Silver Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 780 Registered: Feb-05 | Well said several times Johnny. And I agree with you as well Smitty. Different receivers meet different needs. I wasn't putting down anyone's choice just trying to make sure that folks understand that there are choices outside the BB stores. |
|
Bronze Member Username: BritthoFrisco, TX USA Post Number: 17 Registered: May-05 | Thanks Johnny for the hint to finding dealers. It is a bummer that the Arcam is $600.00 over my budget.  I was suprised to see the one location in Indianapolis but now knowing that this is the address for the distributor then it makes more sense. The site to me made it seem like this was the one and only dealer when searching though. Not really intuitive imo. I still bet that "anonymous" has not even read any of the replys yet. When he does he will get an eye full. |
|
Silver Member Username: JohnnyMissouri Post Number: 554 Registered: Dec-03 | No, anonymous probably left the forum a couple of days ago...since he/she asked a pretty simple question and somehow it got turned into all of this. This thread is supposed to be comparing NAD to Arcam...it stopped doing that a LONG time ago. But, I guess that is to be expected on these things from time to time. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics