Like

HELP! Nad T753 (v.2) vs. H/K 330

 

Stateless
Unregistered guest
Help me, please. I'm buying a new receiver for my Bose Acoustimass 10 II ( = no powered sub). It's a choice between the Harman/Kardon 330 and the NAD T753 v.2. How big is difference in power (7x55 for the H/K vs. 6 x 70 for the NAD)? Since I only have a 5.0 speaker system, the H/K gives me the opportunity to have a second room with stereo, whilst the NAD only will give mono. Beside, I like the many low-pass-filter options of the H/K, since they are quite usefull my speaker system. The price is the same for the two here in Norway, so it's only a question of wich one is the better... Can anyone give me an advice?
 

Stateless
Unregistered guest
And, I almost forgot: the performance in music is very important. And which one is has the warmest sound (I'm heading to the store to listen myself, but anyway...)
 

New member
Username: Newbuyer

Post Number: 6
Registered: Feb-05
Definitely go with the HK.

The NAD fanclub around here will disagree immediately (obviously), but you now have at least one objective opinion.

:-)
 

New member
Username: Newbuyer

Post Number: 7
Registered: Feb-05
P.S. - I really do recommend the HK in this case, but the "objective opinion" comment was just my feeble attempt to kid the NAD folks around here - please be nice!

:-) :-) :-)
 

Silver Member
Username: Jonmoon

Post Number: 184
Registered: Dec-03
I would say they are both good and choose the one that sounds better. My opinion would be that the NAD sounds better for music. They are both conservatively rated for power so the NAD T753 should have some more headroom for power over the HK. Probably can't go wrong either way. Those of us who do like NAD (I'm included) will tell you it will sound the best.
 

Only Mike
Unregistered guest
H.K.
mz
 

Unregistered guest
I lived with each, a NAD T752, HK525 and Yamaha 1400, for a week in my listening room two years ago. The NAD won out; it sounded the best for music.

If you want warm, the 525's sound was warm - way too warm. The first adjectives that popped up was smeared and cloudy; the lower mids and bass weight was solid, the mids and treble too thin. It was a major disappointment.

The 1400 was great; some in my family preferred the Yamaha overall for sound - punchy, smooth and solid from top to bottom, only very slightly thin sounding vs. the NAD. The Yamaha 2400/2500 has picked up a great deal of interest on this board lately and has good reviews on the net.

Yes, the NAD sound had the fullest weight and depth, very good for music. To me, the sound is almost dead neutral, just very slightly opaque. The 1400 drained off almost all the "brightnes" of my previous Yamaha and still retained great detail in the mids/treble.

Both the Yamaha and, of course famously, the NAD drove my 4 ohm speakers without a hitch. The HK heated up immediately, even at medium volume driving the speakers.

Even 2 years ago, I was concerned about reported NAD QC issues. Purchased the NAD over the internet under one condition: I was provided with a 10 day money back guarantee, no questions asked - it would have have cost me 30 bucks freight to return it; the guarantee was verified by the sales manager via email before the purchase was completed and sent in writing on delivery. Obviously, I ran the heck out of the NAD for 10 days.

Fortunately and over 2 years later, the NAD has performed without a hitch. Suggest you be forewarned regarding the many QC headaches experienced by other NAD AVR owners. If you confirm a money back guarantee on the NAD, and you are impressed with the sound, maybe it's your cup of tea.

My ears and just my opinions.
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Shop Related Deals

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us