I am interested in purchasing a new receiver and from everything I have read here, the NAD sounds great. I am planning on listening to it this weekend. However, most of the comments I have heard on this site is how great the NAD is for music. I was wondering if NAD owners think that the receiver is equally great for home theater. My uses for this receiver are 85/15 home theater.
Johnny
Posted on
Anon:
You will not go wrong getting an NAD for HT use. I, like you, listen to a majority of HT, not music. I purchased a NAD T762 three weeks ago, and I could not be happier with it. It is true that NAD goes by a "music first" philosophy. However, by nature, this makes it a fine HT receiver as well. To sound good in music, a receiver must be very clean and precise, which the NAD is known for. If you think about it, what are you looking for in HT? Likely it is the same thing: cleanliness and precision. Therefore, the "music first" philosophy transfers well to HT as well. Music calls for much more clarity that HT ever will, so a clean music receiver will ultimately be a clean HT receiver as well. You may have read it already on a different thread, but I have one example from my own HT use to show this point...I hope this doesn't gross you out. In the opening minutes of the movie "Saving Private Ryan", when the soldiers are on the Higgins boats heading toward Omaha Beach, many of them begin to vomit. With the NAD, I was able to hear, very clearly, the vomit hitting the floor of the boat. Now this may not be a sound that is pleasant, but it shows how clear and detailed the receiver is. I never heard sounds like this from my old Onkyo receiver. And this is all with mediocre Polk speakers...if your speakers are even mid-level, you should get even more detail.
Hawk
Posted on
Anon:
The first time I heard an NAD compared to a Denon (which is supposed to be a great HT receiver), it was playing Lord of the Rings, Vol I. What struck me was that the soundtrack of the DVD sounded cleaner and more focused. I could hear conversations in the background clearly through the NAD that sounded muffled and somewhat indistinct through the Denon. The background music actually sounded like music, too. Doing my research, I learned that NAD receivers have the highest grade Crystal brand Delta-Sigma DACs running at 192/24, too. Can't find better DACs anywhere. Great amp, great pre/pro section, what is there not to like about the NAD as a HT receiver? I think it is the best package if you are looking for the best sound out of your receiver.
IMO, the NADs are superb HT receivers.
Anonymous
Posted on
Hawk, I totally agree your opinion about the NAD. However, I have one question. I've never listned to Outlaw 950/7100. In a thread you liked both the NAD and Outlaw. The reason you seem to prefer NAD to Outlaw is caused by the price difference? My understanding is that I can get NAD 752 for $699 and Outlaw for $1,700 (with shipping). The price difference can justify the sound quality difference? I am really curious about this, because it's time to upgrade my old receiver which is 17 years old. Thanks for your input
Hawk
Posted on
No, I don't think the difference in sound quality justifies the difference in price. I would step up to the Outlaws only if I needed a lot more power. It is my observation that the pre/pro of both the Outlaw and the NAD is very close, and both are a huge step up from the usual mass market receiver.
If the 752 has sufficient power for you, I think you will find it does the job very well.
New Guy in the Stereo Store
Posted on
I almost bought the 752 but changed my mind when push came to shove. I plan on keeping my receiver for a long long long time. If you kept your old receiver for 17 years then why not spend two hundred more dollars and get the 762? This is a long term investment, one that is probably worth a few hundred dollars more right?