My 12yr old NAD receiver recently broke and I am deciding whether it would be better to fix or buy new. i am thinking of buying something simple and inexpensive - like a Sony (gasp) because it has a low distortion ratio and I dont need all of the other inputs. my house is too small, as are my kids, to set up dolby and multiple speakers.
i want this mainly for music not dvds. am i better off getting the NAD fixed or is the sony good enough? Or if I want great sound, but don't need all of the additional inputs - what brand/model should I look to buy?
If your receiver is 12 years old, by all means replace it. Old electronic components are best not repaired, and should be considered disposable. Based on your comments, Im assuming it isnt a high end receiver anyway......
I'd recommend an entry level Pioneer, or Yamaha. I feel they offer the most bang for the buck. The entry level Sony receivers have a terrible rep, and I would avoid them at all costs.
Thanks for the advice Paul. I loved the NAD and I think it was considered mid-fi at the time I bought it.
One other question, the sales clerk told me not to buy the yamaha or pioneer. the Yamaha - he said - I would be paying for additional inputs for surround sound I didnt need and the Pioneer he thought had a poor distortion ratio.
I would be happy to shell out a few hundred more bucks if I thought I was paying for improved quality and not additional inputs I won't use. what do you think?