Like

NAD T761/T742

 

New member
Username: Loomis

Post Number: 1
Registered: 02-2004
I was pretty much set on getting the 742 for budget reasons, but now have the opportunity of getting a 761 demo for $399. What do you think?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Smitty

Post Number: 22
Registered: 12-2003
JR,

I bought a 742 back in the fall. It's a great receiver that is fine for my needs (5.1 and plenty of power for my speakers/room dimensions/hearing). Personally I'd stay away from the 761 considering various user comments from sites like audioreview.com but others on here probably have a different opinion, certainly the 761 has more power. One of the reasons I bought the 742 was that it didn't seem to have as many issues as the 752 and hasn't had it's firmware updated (hopefully this means the software isn't as buggy) and of course being $300 cheaper also helped!
 

Bronze Member
Username: Gatt767

Post Number: 26
Registered: 01-2004
If I was in the position of choosing, I would go for the T761. First, the amplification within this receiver is better then the T742 as the unit is able to drive even 4 ohms load speakers, 2ndly it offers more connections at the back then the T742. Do remember that about 3 years ago, the T761 was Nads Tog dog.
The only omission is that the T742 is able to decode PL2 while the T761 will decode only DD,DTS and Prologic
Please find below a review of the T761

http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=1879
 

Unregistered guest
JR,

Do not buy the NAD T761. It is a faulty unit. Notice that they discontinued it shortly after it's birth. I have been through 4 of them for different reasons. The reason I've actually come to this site is because I've snapped and I'm looking for a different solution. The first one I received blew-up after shortly after connecting everything. I sent it back, received a brand new one, totally stoked. Plugged it in and nothing, not even powering up. Sent that one back, received another new one. Reconnected everything, used it for about two days. Blew that one up. Sent it back and they actually custom made me a new one. Upped the wattage and replaced fan unit with one from a higher end unit. They did a bunch of custom things that I'm not going to go into. Great service, right? Well the only reason they did this is because my friend who works at Dolby laboratories got it for me, and NAD has a contract with them. They use NAD products at their work benches. So believe me, they would do anything to keep that relationship happy. So don't expect to get that type of service. Anyway to continue my story. I've had this last unit for about a year, was very happy. Just last week, my left channel started going in and out. I've also noticed that the quality of sound has decreased. You should read through these reviews at this site to really understand the issues with the T761.

http://www.audioreview.com/A-V,Receivers/NAD,T761/PRD_125205_2718crx.aspx#review s

I love NAD sound, and the fact that it's a standard at Dolby Laboratories should tell you something about NAD. This model though, no. To finish this long boring story, I will stick with NAD but I'm going to get my friend to upgrade me to either the T763 or the T773. Read the reviews, they are not as bad as the T761.

Good Luck.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Gatt767

Post Number: 28
Registered: 01-2004
had a t750, t751 and now a t762 and none of them gave me any probs. Seems you had a very unlucky story with NAD
 

Unregistered guest
Robert,

Yeah, I personally think it was this one model that had so many problems. It is sad.
 

Silver Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 228
Registered: 12-2003
JR,

I faced a similar decision about a year ago, between T760 and new T742. I went for T760 and do not regret it. It has lots of power and wonderful sound. I do not miss Prologic II because EARS is at least as good, probably better. NAD introduced Prologic II later, not because it was better, but because the market wanted it.

In any case, test the unit, and listen for hum in surround modes. If there is none, it will be OK. In the T760, at least, there was a known issue with a capacitor occasionally burning out in the DSP board. The cap was rated to 80 C and upgraded to 110 C in later models in consequence. I was able to upgrade myself. I do not know if the T761 has 80 or 110 C caps.

It is essential you get a warranty with an ex-demo model.

Having said that, my decision was based partly on power rating. In fact the 5 x 60 W in the T760 is such a conservative estimate I am sure the 5 x 40 W in the T742 would have been just fine.

BTW these receivers have superb DACs. The badge does not say "DTS 24/96" but that is what the DACs will do - it didn't need saying a couple of years ago.

So I agree with Robert. But consider, even if Jason is correct, note NAD takes care with customers, even with non-current models. They keep component spares in stock for older models, and find replacement equivalents if necessary. There is nothing that can happen that cannot be put right. Not so some other brands, where a simple component failure can make the whole unit a write-off.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Landroval

Post Number: 16
Registered: 02-2004
"BTW these receivers have superb DACs. The badge does not say "DTS 24/96" but that is what the DACs will do - it didn't need saying a couple of years ago."

I believe that 96kHz/24bit DAC's doesn't automatically mean that it can decode DTS 96/24. New H/K's have 192kHz/24bit DAC's but the lower-end models (230, 330) cant decode DTS 96/24. 430 and 630 can. Also the cheap Sony DA1000ES can do that.
 

Silver Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 236
Registered: 12-2003
Landroval,

Point taken, thanks. This came up recently on another thread. But I note even my T760 says "Crystal Sigma-Delta ADCs and DACs with 96kHz/24 bit resolution". So, if the DVD-player will read PCM format at 96kHz/24 bit (not all do), then it is giving a data stream to the receiver which it can decode at that frequency and sample size. Or so I assume....?

DTS has that 96/24 specification. It sounds terrific (better than Dolby Digital), so I doubt I am losing anything.

Also, DTS is the only digital sound format the receiver itself needs to decode at 96/24 (DD and CD are lower). So I can't see much point in the receiver having 96/24 DACs if they are not for that purpose. Maybe with Prologic and EARS, where the receiver has to be able to begin with A-to-D from an analogue source, processes, and converts back with D-to-A? But then, why not utilize the 96/24 DACs when the input is digital, too?

When you move to DVD-A, it is the player's DACs that do the conversion, and the receiver is then working on an analogue signal, and keeping it anlaogue. So what is "DTS 96/24"? - check the DTS tech spec, and that is what "DTS" is, and has been for some time.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Landroval

Post Number: 17
Registered: 02-2004
First of all ordinary DTS 5.1, DTS ES 6.1 and Dolby Digitals are 48/24 formats. DTS is less compressed than DD so it sounds better.
DTS 96/24 5.1 is quite new and it is meant for DVD-Video. I haven't seen any titles with it, at least not here in Finland.

DTS homepage tells us this:

"DTS 96/24
DTS 96/24 offers an unprecedented level of audio quality for multi-channel sound on DVD-Video, and is fully backward-compatible with all DTS decoders. "96" refers to a 96kHz sampling rate (compared to typical 48kHz sampling rate.) "24" refers to 24-bit word length."

Required Hardware:
"DTS 5.1 and DTS 96/24 decoding inside"

DVD Features:
"The disc is encoded with DTS 96/24 and is playable in 96/24 with any DTS 96/24-equipped hardware. Fully compatible with DTS-capable 5.1 hardware, and backward-compatible (at 48/24) to all DTS-equipped hardware"

And from the detailed specs:
"Full backward compatibility with all existing decoders. (Existing decoders will output a 48kHz signal.)

Digital 96/24 output through the S/P DIF port. DTS 96/24 allows the use of external, very high quality D/A converters and associated analog electronics.

Hardware features:
Devices carrying this logo handle DTS 96/24 decoding."

So it seems that DTS 96/24 needs support from the decoder. 96/24 DAC's wont be enough.
Compared to 5.1 96/24 DVD-Audio i think DTS 96/24 is DTS-compressed (?), while DVD-Audio is uncompressed and because of that it will sound a little better.
 

Anonymous
 
let's assume the 773 can't do 96/24. How much of a difference would an average audio head notice betwen 96/24 DTS and regular DTS?? Thanks guys
 

Silver Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 243
Registered: 12-2003
Good point again, Landroval. Thanks. The answer is, I don't know if I am hearing DTS in 96/24. I always thought that's what DTS was. I have never seen lower values specified for DTS. So I don't quite understand why it is now necessary to state it. What was DTS before - what is the spec of Anon's "regular DTS"?

DTS claims a lossless compression method. The DVD-A specification permits one kind of compression, called MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing). That, too, is claimed to make no audible difference.

"How much difference...?" Good question, Anon. My DTS, whatever it is, is really impressive, and I have it on some DVD-A discs presented in 96/24. Discs with 48/24 and 44/24 sound great, too, better than CD, but they seem to me to play at lower volume levels than 96/24 discs, which seems to make sense. I cannot yet play DVD-A tracks as such. I am interested to know if that, too, really gives any improvement.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Landroval

Post Number: 19
Registered: 02-2004
DTS 96/24 technical specs sheet says pretty clearly how DTS-signals are coded and decoded.

A) When 96/24 LPCM stream is encoded with proper hardware, you get a package with "DTS Core" and "Extension bitstream". I believe the extension can also be used to make DTS 5.1 to DTS ES 6.1.

B) When that package is put to an 96kHz decoder, it is first unpacked to core and extension data, then the core audio components and residual components are reconstructed, and finally recombined to the original 96/24 LPCM signal.

C) When a legacy 48kHz decoder is used all data from the extension bit stream is ignored. The unpacker understands only the core data wich is moved to the core decoder wich outputs reconstructed 48/24 LPCM.

So probably you're not hearing DTS 96/24. Also DTS 96/24 != DVD-A. When speaking of DTS of any kind it's always DVD-V.
 

Silver Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 247
Registered: 12-2003
I have a service manual for my modest T760. The AC3/DTS Board has a Crystal (TM) M101 chip at 12.288 MHz. The DAC is the expensive item and usually the limiting factor. This seems to be the same audio DAC as in the 24/96-capable T532 DVD player. I cannot see why NAD would use a DAC capable of 24 bit 96 kHz and then not use it.

But you are right, Landroval, I still do not really know. How to find out?

I have not heard of a "legacy" 48 kHz DTS, but I am new to all this. When did DTS move up to 96 kHz? 48 kHz would be good enough for Dolby Digital but not DTS, I think.

You are correct about DTS being DVD-V, but my point is that the sample size and frequency are the same as those DVD-A - for multichannel, at least.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Landroval

Post Number: 20
Registered: 02-2004
"I cannot see why NAD would use a DAC capable of 24 bit 96 kHz and then not use it."

I dont know. Maybe it's for future systems that require 96 or 192 DACs. Without i-link/firewire or DTS 96/24 decoder it seems useless for now. Although I think that DVD-V can have 96/24 stereo sound in PCM so that could be one use.

"I have not heard of a "legacy" 48 kHz DTS, but I am new to all this. When did DTS move up to 96 kHz? 48 kHz would be good enough for Dolby Digital but not DTS, I think."

It's very simple. DTS and DTS ES are 48/24 while DTS 96/24 is 96/24.
The difference in DTS and DD sound comes from the compression, DD is more compressed so it loses more of the original masters data than DTS. I dont believe DTS to be lossless, but SACD is and DVD-A probably also. Partly because of that they sound better than DVD-V audio tracks.

I think you should ask NAD if they can help us. They should know what their hardware can and cant do.

I just read reviews of Queen "A Night At The Opera" and "The Game" DVD-Audio + DTS 96/24 albums (www.dvdcritiques.com). They said that you dont need a DTS 96/24 decoder to play the DTS track, because any DTS decoder can decode it but only in DTS "classic" -mode. That is what I have been saying. But they also said that they couldn't hear the difference between DVD-A 96/24 5.1 and DTS 96/24 5.1 decoded properly in 96/24. But well, most people cant hear the difference between CD or 320kpbs MP3.
 

Anonymous
 
Here is a thread from another board you may want to check out:

http://soundandvisionmag.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=28676&forumID=40&catID=1&s earch=1&searchstring=&sessionID={9F534FFA-ECF5-4A90-B3C3-0B4974D45576}
 

Bronze Member
Username: Landroval

Post Number: 21
Registered: 02-2004
Thanks for the link. I dont believe that there is no difference between 48 and 96. DTS 96 is something between DTS and DVD-A in sound quality, and I think it's nice to have that with movies.

On the other hand it is true that there are very few DVD's with DTS 96, for now. On this side of the ocean even DTS is rare and DTS ES only available in LOTR extendeds as far as know. Also the new digital TV system (still no HDTV for Europe, thanks a lot...) will probably have Dolby Digital. DTS 96 will probably be available in DVD-V music discs, but DVD-A is for that.

I'm so puzzled with this DTS 96 thing because I'm going to buy a new receiver, and I wouldn't like it to go outdated any time soon. On the other hand my old receiver supports only Dolby Digital, so even DTS will be an upgrade.

I dont know if I should go the T743 way, because it's only 5.1 and no EX/ES/96. SR5400 would have all that, and HK AVR230 is 7.1 upgradeable, but with no DTS 96. So hard to decide.
 

New member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2
Registered: 02-2004
Landroval,

I too am in Europe and we are a bit behind US for the video part or A/V, no question, but even they are behind Japan as regards HDTV (terrestrial digital broadcasts in Japan) and some other things. But PAL is better than NTSC, I think.

In my opinion DTS always gives much better sound than Dolby Digital, other things being equal. DTS takes twice as much space in the disc, so it comes at the expense of extensively multi-lingual soundtracks. The LOTR "Extended" is so much better than the "Theatrical", and needs two discs instead of one for the whole movie. I think that is true everywhere. The Extended versions are worth waiting for (TTT: Standard, August; Extended, November).

It is still possible that DTS 96/24 is what we already have, and NAD just does not say so. It would be worth checking with NAD before deciding on a purchase. As regards whether to get a T743, I think 5.1 is stable; the extra channels have no real benefit and will not catch on. I would be really suprised if the T743 rendered DTS in less than 96/24. Logically, the only sensible step up from 5.1 will be 8.1, so you have center speakers at each edge of the sound field. But centre speakers do not improve over stereo, unless they are playing a specially recordered channel. So I cannot see 8.1 taking off. It will be a huge increase in cost for a very marginal benefit.

Anonymous,

Yes, interesting link, thanks. I am just wondering whether tacking on "96/24" after "DTS" , whether on discs or players, is marketing hype - just to give the impression of something new, or to emphasise the fact that the recording is at the highest resolution that the format "DTS" will permit. Like when CDs carried "DDD". It didn't really need saying. Except to distinguish between "ADD" etc.

Re that link, Anonymous, and thanks. When we had just got our receiver, put on "The Mummy Returns", and tried both formats, with no preconceived ideas or background information, the superiority of DTS sound to DD was immediately obvious. DTS always sounds better; clearer, more balanced. The difference is especially obvious with the hybrid DVD-A/DVD-V discs we have. If DVD-A is really a step forward again, it must be really something.
 

New member
Username: Lyons

Post Number: 3
Registered: 02-2004
Message to all--
My name is Dan Lyons and I am a reporter at Forbes magazine. I'm working on a story about NAD and would like to hear from customers about their experiences with NAD gear. You can reach me by phone at 781 391 7849 or by email at dlyons@forbes.com.
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Shop Related Deals

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us