|
Daniel Benatar | Hi all, I'm looking to buy new AV and speaker, and looking for your advice on what to buy: Yamaha rxv 3300 or the NAD T762. I would like to have final decision between these two systems. Can you write your opinion ? Thanks, Daniel |
|
Anonymous | I would not buy the 3300. Go for the NAD T762 |
|
Hawk | Daniel: I have compared these two receivers at two different stores through a number of different speaker systems. The NAD is, hands down, the better receiver, with better DACs, a better DSP and a much better power supply. It resolves Dolby Digital soundtracks better, providing dialogue or other sounds clearly that are either muffled or non-existant when played through other receivers. And, if you are going to use this for music, the NAD blows the Yamaha away. In short, if you want better sound, go with the NAD. |
|
Anonymous | Get yamaha rx3300.It's very close to their flagship RxZ1.It plays hard and loud.Better than harman kardon and NAD.If you love music and movie,get it for yourself |
|
elitefan | The NAD is a much better receiver sound-wise than any Yamaha could hope to be. The only downside to the NAD is not many inputs. Why are you limiting your choices to these 2 receivers? |
|
Daniel Benatar | Thanks Elitefan, can you please advice on other very good receiers ? I just checked the three Denon 3803, Yamaha rxv 3300 and the NAD T762, bottom line, the NAD sound quality was the best, please advice ? Thanks, Daniel |
|
Hawk | elitefan: I might agree with you about the 752, but from what I have seen of the 762, it has a lot of inputs (e.g., 3 component video inputs, etc.). What are you thinking of, specifically? Daniel: I would agree that the NAD sounds better than those other two receivers. I have the Denon and I am going to have to unload it before long since I want the NAD. IMHO, the sound is what matters most. If you buy on features, as I did, you regret it in the morning. |
|
elitefan | Hawk, What I am refering to is that the NAD only has 6 analog inputs which is not enough for my system now let alone future expansion. As yousaw on another posting this is a concern of mine in general. Maybe some people can get by on only 6 inputs but I have alot of components and need lots of inputs. Sound is of course the most important factor but flexibility is also to me. By the way, what about the cooling fan noise on the NAD? PERFECT VISION'S revue of this receiver said it was audible. |
|
elitefan | Daniel, Being elitefan I would of course look at the Elite vsx45tx or the new vsx55txi or if you have the money the 47tx. |
|
| Daniel, Can't comment on the NAD, but after extensive research and listening to various receivers on the same room, same speakers, the Yamaha excelled in the music department (Denon was just as good in home theater). The level of detail is amazing, you can clearly differentiate the various instruments and vocals. I've had mine for about a year and has been a solid performer. Visitors (who own very expensive systems) are impressed as to the clarity, volume, and overall effortless performance of the 3300. The biggest drawback is its weight (very heavy). Many glass entertaining centers are not rated to such weight. I have a good EC (Bello) and I am still concerned. I know I provided no feedback on the NAD, but I can assure you I am very happy with the Yahaha. Best advise I can provide you, is to test both receivers with the speakers you intend to use since it may make your decission a lot easier. Good luck |
|
Anonymous | Daniel, Check this out. http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/RECEIVER/RX-V2400.htm |
|
Sam | I own a Yamaha RXV-3200 and am generally happy with it. Short version - NAD probably does musical sound slightly better. Yamaha probably is more functional, but will deliver sound that's very acceptable (for this price point) as well. Both are good products. Pick what you like and don't worry about other "opinions". (No one else has to listen to your system but you.) Don't worry about home theater processing so much - there's not that much variability between processors. (Yamaha probably does it a little better though.) Music is more difficult to produce well, but most people don't know recognize the differentiating factors between good, better and best. So if you're not sure about the musical differences, then don't worry. Few others really do. Conclusion - I would give very serious consideration to the NAD. Longer version - One recommendation for you is to decide what's most important for you to get out of your system - sound or functionality. NAD, as a company, has a slightly "better" reputation for sound quality than Yamaha. It's reputation is as high-quality lower-priced audio equipment for those who want good sound, but not yet willing to pay for separate components, etc. NAD is focused on a niche consumer. Yamaha is focused more on functionality for the mass market, and they deliver it well with very respectable sound, as well. Bear in mind, both receivers probably perform well in both areas. The key is just for you to be happy with it. I agree with the individual who suggested listening to the receiver that you want on the speakers that you'll use. I also suggest that, if possible, you try to listen to it in your actual listening area. Most people drastically underestimate the importance of speaker placement and room accoustics on the actual sound that they'll hear. (For instance, I'd like to upgrade my receiver to separate components, but I've come to the conclusion that I'd never be able to enjoy the sound difference that the additional $4,000 that I'd spend for imaging and soundstage. This is because of the speaker placement limitations in my living room.) Finally, the heavy weight of the Yamaha is a good thing, not a negative at all. The strength of the Yamaha is its power supply, and that's why it's so heavy. (It's also why I bought the Yamaha.) The Yamaha's relative weakness is its preamp from a music perspective, but 99 people out of 100 would never hear the difference, and noone can hear the difference in the current room configuration. |