This will give you NAD's authorized dealers in your area. If you buy from them, you'll be assured of getting a brand new, sealed box, NAD unit which will be fully warranted by NAD.
If you elect to purchase from an "unauthorized" e-tailer, you cannot be certain what you will get; it may be a counterfeit NAD unit made in Outer Mongolia, it may be a used/refurbished NAD unit, it probably will not bear a serial number and it definitely will not carry an NAD warranty. If you have a problem with it, chances are you will end up dealing with rude and obnoxious people who couldn't give a rat's rear end about you or your problem.
<laughs> I love these 'anonymous' posts that say things like "you'll be sorry" they crack me up. Thanks Denon, Marantz, HK, or whoever out there posted that! Perhaps it was in regards to buying online but I think they're trying to say you'll be sorry for buying NAD which is totally NOT true. I've always been a NAD fan and the recent addition of a T753 to my system didn't let me down.
I would avoid buying NAD products (or any big brand name product) online because it usually will void the waranty. Be careful of that.
My bet is that the anonymous is probably one of the many people who got stuck with a receiver that didn't work. It took me 4 receivers before my dealer finally would let me buy another brand. After dealing with NAD's customer support (spoke to about 5 people over the course of 3 months), I defintely will not be buying any of their products in the future.
I have not bought an NAD thankfully. I have had two local specialty dealers acknowledge that there has been problems with them so I gave up thinking about buying one.
I own NAD products for a music only system. NAD C 162 and 2 NAD C-270's (Bridged);I am very pleased with this set up. Perhaps the problems with NAD are more with their HT receivers? If you are still interested in NAD products try http://www.saturdayaudio.com very nice people, they are based in Chicago and are authorized dealers so you can get the full warranty.
RogerWW the problems reported have been receiver based. This forum used to be one of the biggest pro NAD places on the net. Hawk was one of the biggest supporters. Havent seen him here in a long time. Maybe because it eventually became a NAD bashing forum. No question, they sound great, but had some quality control issues with the 7x2 series. I have no idea about the 7x3 series.
Thanks Stone, It is a shame that they have had some quality issues. As competitive as the market is, it will be difficult for NAD to regain the consumer's trust but, to be fair, I still believe that they are a very respectable company and they make great products at very reasonable prices. Speaking for myself I would buy NAD products without hesitation, and I would like to think that they are doing everything possible to regain their reputation as one of the better audio equipment companies out there.
Good luck to everyone
Best price I have found 1-800-889-5845 NAD 753 $699, NAD 763 $1049. Good Luck
Wow .. I have had my Nad amp, cd player and tuner for over 20 years.... in daily use .. and have never had a single problem. they are still fantastic and match up with my BOSE speakers wonderfully..
Re NAD questions: First, yes, NAD did have some problems with the 7x2 series - but the 7x3 series seems to have overcome them. I have a 763, and the only problem I had was that, for some reason, the remote control went dead. NAD replaced it - for free. Telephone customer service? Cut me a break! It is just plain gnarly! Getting answers is nearly impossible!
Yes, the Chicago online folk are decent, and from my dealings, and from what I've heard - very honest.
Would I recommend NAD to others? In a minute. I went from an Onkyo receiver to the NAD, and never looked back for a second!
My friend who is the Corvallis, Oregon NAD dealer told me that until recently he was opening every new NAD AVR and testing them because there was such a high failure rate right out of the box. He then told me that he would not sell one to anyone who is sensitive to hums as they all have a substantial hum which increses with volume and he let me hear it with all of his demo AVR's. The good news is that on my most recent vist to his store he told me that the latest production runs have lowered the hum considerably and lessened the QC problems to nil. I was glad to hear that as the NAD AVR's sound great.
Im glad to hear they're getting their quality control issues worked out. I was only trying to be honest with my assessment. You have to admit, when it comes to NAD, the threads seem to be an endless list of problems with one thing or the other.
Yes, Paul they've had endless problems with their AVR's. Rotel had the same problem with the first couple of generations of AVR's. I had the Rotel RSX-965 which had hums, solder joint problems and a host of other problems, but all said it is the best sounding AVR I've ever heard. Far better sounding than their subsequent models.
Need advice on wattage of AVR - My speaker system consists of: fronts: Canton CD300, rated 110-170 watts, at 4...8 Ohms center: Canton CD360F, rated 110-170 watts, at 4..8 Ohms Surrounds: Canton Cd50, 50-100 watts, at same 4...8 Ohms. I was looking at T753 (70 wts/ch), then called NAD support tech, who suggested T763 (100wts/ch). The tech said that 763 produces about 130 wts at 4 Ohms, which would be in the range needed. My understanding was that 100 wts at 8 Ohms amp would produce about 150-170 wts at 4 Ohms.
So, now I'am undecided on what to buy...
Also, is it true that underpowered amp may blow out the speakers - I am using HK avr-130 with 45wts/ch to drive above speakers.
Thanks for your input.
"Also, is it true that underpowered amp may blow out the speakers - I am using HK avr-130 with 45wts/ch to drive above speakers."
only if you push your amp to clipping point. but i doubt if you've gone beyond 10wpc of your 45wpc HK.
You can indeed cause damage to your speakers by playing them too loud with too little power. It is the most commonly made mistake and the most common cause of speaker damage. I have always felt that too much power is better than too little. I want power in reserve. NAD receivers have better power supplies than most mass market receivers, in other words they have reserve power to handle the dynamics inherent in movies and music. If you listen to movies at all loud then you are running considerable risk of harming your speakers with the small HK receiver.
HK is not high current. You don't begin to get good current in a receiver until you look at NAD, Rotel, and Arcam. HK, Yamaha, and all the rest including my beloved Marantz are economy class and their power supplies reflect that.
I think you are mistaken Mr. Kyle as HK is a high current receiver. HK receivers like NAD receivers have large power supplies and higher amperage fuse ratings than cheaper stuff like Kenwood,Sony and Pioneer(not Elite). The HK AVR 7300, HK's flagship model is a sure testament to this with a massive torridial transformer and 2 37kuF caps. E.Ramsey
Check your facts Mr Ramsey. We are not talking about $4000 flagships here. Most of the receivers discussed here are low fi, low current, mass market receivers. They are perfectly adequate for the applications for which they are used, but it is not until you get to their special or flagship models that the power supplies begin to match the hype. For the price of a Denon, HK, or Marantz flagship receiver you can buy a hell of a multi channel amp and processor. Your money, do with it what you wish.
Also to add further Mr.Kyle as far as HK building high current amplifiers for their receivers, this is no hype as they have been doing this for decades. They invented the receiver. As far as Marantz goes,don't misunderstand me they make a fine product but their flagship does cost several thousand dollars and is overpriced. In fact I am considering upgrading my receiver which is a mid-fi HK to a higher end model. I considered NAD and went to an audio shop recently to audition one. This is WAS NOT a brick and mortar store like CircuitC.. I heard the 753 through Monitor Audio towers, I can say fine sound indeed but no better than HK and given NAD's apparent quality issues of late,I think I will buy another HK. E.Ramsey
If you believe that the HK is a high current receiver and sounds as good as an NAD 753 then you've said it all. Also why are you not comparing the HK with the NAD 763 or 773. The 753 is next to the bottom of the NAD line. And most flagship receivers whether they be Denon, Marantz, Integra or whatever cost in the neighborhood of $4000. I don't know if you checked the specs but the HK is not a high current receiver.
Well, HK certainly claims their receivers are high current and does give current ratings. The AVR135 is rated at 25amps. This increases to 50amps for the AVR635. What these numbers really mean I have no idea. I did have an older HK AVR30 rated at 40amps/60wpc and it put out a lot of clean power, at halfway on the volume dial I measured 95dB typically with peaks well over 100dB (from about 10 feet away) with not a hint of distortion. I listened to an AVR525 a couple of years ago when it was time to upgrade to a DD/DTS receiver. At the time I was heavily biased towards HK but didn't like the sound of it all for stereo, it was quite a disappointment. I've heard generally positive comments about the x35 line though.
My 2 channel power amp has more current available than an HK 7 channel amp. Hey, I had an HK receiver in the 70's and I don't doubt that they sound good now. I just believe we should be realistic with our claims about gear.
So your $2000 2-channel power amp may output more current per channel than a $500 7-channel receiver (avr-135). Aren't we surprised. But can you actually disprove h/k's published specs? Note that I don't even see current output on the hafler web page...
And, to get back to my question, you claimed:
If you listen to movies at all loud then you are running considerable risk of harming your speakers with the small HK receiver.
How many more dB over the 45W were you suggesting he purchase?
To think I was listening to music at 90 to 92 dB peaks last night at -30dB in the volume dial...
HK underrates their equipment. If they claim the receiver outputs 45W per channel, it will output closer to 55W per channel, all 7 channels driven at once.
"They are as elusive as all the rest of the mass market brands."
If that were true all their receivers would claim at least 100 WPC. Only this year did they change their power ratings from all channels driven to one channel at a time. I remember when I bought my HK AVR430 that the website had the specs as all channels driven.
I'm not going to claim they output amperage like a dedicated power amp. Apples and oranges... But they have plenty of power and you'll have to try real hard to clip the signal even on their bottem model, the AVR135.
Watts ain't amps. Most receivers are meeting or exceeding their wattage claims. But comparing watts to amps is like comparing horsepower to torque. You might have the HP to go 120mph on a flat surface but if you don't have torque don't try it goin' uphill. The receivers may have the watts to drive easy stable loads to high volumes but the moment you add instability you had better have the current to drive a difficult load or something is going to give.
I'm not going to engage in the kind of discussion where we have to start a post with;
"So Arthur must be right because he says so."
Fine. But let me remind of a few of your statements:
HK is not high current. You don't begin to get good current in a receiver until you look at NAD, Rotel, and Arcam. and
If you believe that the HK is a high current receiver and sounds as good as an NAD 753 then you've said it all.
Sounds like you just said so to me, without any facts to back it up.
An h/k receiver is in the same price range as a NAD (at least where I live), so I wonder why you think it's so much better. I like NADs. I arranged a purchase for a friend and another for my mother. But I like h/k as well and they both drive low impedence loads (4 ohms speakers with lower dips); I tried.
And you still haven't answered how many more dB over the 45W were you suggesting he purchase?
Arthur, I just spent the last ten minutes reading this thread and have come to the conclusion that though you make some good points , the continuation of this thread is fed by your ego not wanting to let other people be happy with their "mass market" amps. Meanwhile you bask in the glory of being able to attain an expensive electronic component. I seriously doubt you bench test all of your equipment with the regulations needed to obtain statistics you are quoting, you, like the rest of us take the manufacturers stats and repeat them(mass market or not), so without being an actual professional tester or an engineer in one of these formentioned companies then you, like the rest of us , may be wrong and "too pround to admit it"
You could not be further from the truth. An NAD or HK receiver costing $1300 + dollars costs more than my $600 power amp and $550 reciver that I use as a processor. A Marantz receiver I might add. I am not basking in any glory. Anyone who has owned a Hafler power amp knows that you take alot of crap from hi-fi folks for it. bumblebee asked a question and I tried to answer it, its that simple. And no I don't bench test my equipment Jim Ott at Northwest Audio Labs does it for me, and I have not quoted any statistics. Don't take this stuff so seriously. Like I said if I were wrong I have no problem admitting it, but in this case I don't believe that I am. Even more importantly as I sit here at work between interveiws with clients who are applying for grants to flee domestic violence, I don't find it all that important. Bye for now.
I'm sorry but if that last comment :"" Even more importantly as I sit here at work between interveiws with clients who are applying for grants to flee domestic violence, I don't find it all that important."" is so caprice it tells everyone in this forum how full of yourself you are. It obviously "is" important enough for you not to concentrate on your work which "is" more important than this you imbecile.
You're a kitchen salesman, and I do feed the homeless. Big deal we all have jobs and they are all valuable. I really don't know why my job upsets you. I didn't mention it to say that I was better than anyone but rather that audio is fun but in the overall grand scheme pretty unimportant. I would hope that you would understand that. This is all for fun to me so I don't have time to exchange flames. And I really mean it when I say that if I'm wrong, big deal, it won't be the first or last time today.
Like Arthur said guys, It's not that important. He must have meant his opinion on this thread, because his statements amount to an subjectivity that is misguided and misinformed. It's doubtful that you really looked at the www.HarmanKardon.com website because you would have seen that HK IS IN FACT a high current amplifier. See http://www.harmankardon.com/technology/default.aspx?language=ENG&Region=USA&Coun try=US. For your info Arthur the AVR 7300 is rated by the following: Stereo: 125W per channel @0.07 THD 20Hz-20KHz-both channels driven into 8 Ohms. Front left & right channels 110w per channel 20HZ-20KHZ into 8Ohms. Center channel 110w-20Hz-20KHz into 8 Ohms. Surround channels each channel 110w-20Hz-20Khz into 8Ohms. This is what's called a full disclosure specification Mr. Kyle as it exceedes the simple,minamalist FTC requirement of Wattage listing for one channel at 1KHz into 8Ohms. It is also suggestive that this is the continuous power into each channel over the full audio bandwith. On the NAD website their power ratings are also "full disclosure" as well. What is also interesting is that on the HK website under the AVR 7300 specifications the maximum power consuption is listed as 1360W/7 channels driven.This is probably a reliable figure because it is subject to UL scrutiny. I realize of course, this is done in a labaratory setting and probably resulted in the power supply catching on fire. I also realize that this amount of Wattage will never be realized in an actual users enviroment without blowing the fuses in the receiver and/or tripping circuit breakers in the users location,but it is suggestive of the highly dynamic quality of the amplifiers and power supply of the AVR7300. The Marantz SR9600,their THX Ultra certified flagship model, on the other hand, could only muster a mere 780W max with no specification of channels driven. So based solely on this it would suggest that the AVR 7300 is a bit more powerful and dynamic than the SR9600, which costs over $2k more! In fact in a recent review by Sound &Vision magazine the AVR7300 " had stellar bench test results-Daniel Kumin". Unlike speaker specs which are agreeably meaningless because the do not take into account the physical factors of the listening room, electrical measurements of an amplifier are quite quantifiable. When it comes to measuring electrical parameters and characteristics of a piece of audio equipment you can forget about the subjectivity of the ear and rely on measurements from instruments. Arthur you have no electrical or electronics background whatsoever, I do. How can you make such a ridiculous statement"HK is not high current, you don't begin to get good current till you look at Nad.Rotel or Arcam. Look Arthur,I have built amplifiers,so you will have to do better than that silliness. I have seen the insides of HK,NAD, Rotel,ARCAM, all of these are made of high quality oversize capacity, parts. This is EXACTLY what equates to a receiver with a "high current" capability. Once again the HK is a high current receiver, this is why the poster nycsi was able to drive his Cantons which have a low impedence dip with little problem,with an entry model HK. In fact Authur, I'd be willing to bet you that the HK will handle most 4 and 6 Ohm speakers on the market provided that they are resonably efficient.What it appears to boil down to Arthur is that you are biased towards Marantz, which is not a high current design amplifier. How did they state it? The Marantz website stated" current feedback amplifier". In other words they are simply stating that they use negative feedback in their amplifiers. Big deal!, so does every other maker, some is mandatory to ensure amp stability. Why couldn't they say something much more impressive like HK said once" We refuse to use ic's any where in the amplifier stages of any of our receivers". I don't know what bias you have against HK but it is surely unfounded sir. E.Ramsey
eric, i think at one point arthur has tried to point out a error in you logic and i will bring it up again. current is measured in amperes not watts. watts is a measurement of power. high current is suggesting that the power supply is able to draw extra current, amps, when difficult loads, low resistance, are presented. lower resisntance requires a higher amount of current to be presented through the same circuit to maintain voltage. i think you are comfusing high wattage with high current which are not the same thing though can be related. i am sure we can agree that a high wattage rated yamaha reciever will sound less satisfying than a lower wattage rated NAD or HK reciever and that would be from higher CURRENT capabilities, not wattage. eric, if i am incorrect in any of my explaination please do correct me, but stop confusing high current with high wattage.
Yes you are completly incorrect Chris,that is not what I am saying. I'm not talking about sound from wattage , you could have all the wattage in the world but if you don't have a good current capabilities your sound will be weak and thin.I've studied OHMS Law extensively and AC power and it's distribution. Of course I know current is measured in Amperes named after Andre Ampere. When I was talking about the higher power consumption in the Hk over the Marantz this will equate to a power supply that is larger in capacity and thus"hungrier" No I am not confusing high wattage with high current that's not what I said. Watts,Chris is current through resistance.I was just trying to point out the diffrences in terms of comparisons between the HK and the Marantz.
Thanks Christopher for trying to clarify my point. This discussion appears to be at a stalemate.
wattage is a function of current. P=I*I*R. the higher the I, the higher the power.
receivers like the yamaha are rated using 2 channels only. the HK is rated for all channels driven. just check the power consumption. the avr135 (40 wpc) consumes 540 watts max, all six channels driven. that's 300 watts (assuming tuner, preamp sections excluded) more than what is specified. surely, the HK will sound more powerful.
Listen guys, in most cases if a receiver has a power supply with a higher allowable power consumption before breakdown, this will allow for a higher fuse rating in terms of amperage. With a higher operational current allowed in one receiver over another this will equate,usually, to a greater potential of current capability within the unit. E.Ramsey
Eric, I am not biased towards Marantz. I just happen to know two dealers who sell them. I buy from independent dealers not big box stores. I have nothing against the big box stores I just feel that I have always received better service from dealers who I develop a relationship with. One of my dealers has been a friend of mine for over 20 yrs. When I first met him he ran a repair shop only. It wasn't until years later that he became a retailer. If you read my posts you would see I never claimed that Marantz is a high current receiver. I mentioned that I have one. I do, I use it as my processor and to power my center channel and rears. Wow, some serious misunderstandin' goin' on up in here.
OK Arthur let's peacefully end this one. All I was saying that HK are high current receivers as their website states. Given the guy powering the fairly difficult Cantons with his entry HK and their high allowable maximum power consumption which equates to a higher amperage fuse rating as I previously stated , i think that there is some truth to this. Any way for the record, the Marantz and the HK are both fine machines and I know I did not directly insult you with namecalling, but I apoligize if you felt I did. E.Ramsey
one last point before i really do move on to a different topic, all these wattage ratings are continous ratings are they not? my hk3480 is rated at 120 wpc, which is a rating derived from a continous even signal. i think we can all agree that music is quite dynamic so we are neve really listening to any specific level of wattage. the ability of a reciever to play not only under a broad range of loads but also to deliver under a very dynamic range of wattages required for listening to music depends on the power supplies ability to provide a dynamic range of current. as bumblebee stated power is a function of current and resistance or voltage and resistance. we cannot change the voltage and we cannot control the load on the speakers so the only thing the amp, reciever has to provide the extra power is current. even if a power supply is rated to provide the avr-125 with 540 watts max that doesnt mean that it will be able to provide 1000 watts of dynamic power at any given point. bumblebee is correct in the wattage rating discrepency on yamaha's part. the reason that they have to keep the ratings to 2 channels is because the power supplies cannot provide enough current to give a satisfactory number for specs. the reason we look at both 4 ohm wattage ratings as well as 8 ohm ratings is to see how well the power supply can react to the higher current needs. the closer the 4 ohm rating is to double the 8 ohm rating the better built the power supply is at providing extra current. ill conclude with that.
Chris, NAD is about the only manufacturer that even rates their rec. into a 4 Ohm load. This however, clearly does not mean that a receiver that is only rated for an 8 Ohm load will not adequately power 4 an 6 Ohm speakers. On the NAD website under the specs for each receiver they state"minimum continous power per channel" this appears to be "rms" power. The max wattage rating of the HK 135 is 540. This doesn't mean that this will ever be realized Chris, it simply means in a lab with the maximum power consumption reached by the power supply before breakdown(fire or explosion most likely) the amplifier was able to briefly, not continously output 540 Watts of power. Remember power in must equal power out. I think this maximum power consumption figure is an important and interesting spec, kudos to HK and Marantz for including it.