Like

NAD reciever geeks represent!

 

New member
Username: Canadianwannabe

Oz, Ontario Edsterland

Post Number: 1
Registered: May-05
I wanna get a lowly T743 for HT. Currently have a C370 driving my Paradigm Studio 40.v3's for stereo and it is sonic nirvana. C370 is destined to mate with some Maggies im my den. Will the 743 make my Paradigm's sing, or should I look for more power?
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 553
Registered: Feb-05
You can use the T743 but the T753 sounds better and the T763 uses the Holmgren Toroidal transformer and really sounds better. If you can sfford it I would move up a bit. I have Studio 40v3's and a little more current than the 743 has would be better. But if the T743 is what you can afford by all means get it. The NAD's beat most of the other receivers on the market.
 

Silver Member
Username: Smitty

Canada

Post Number: 200
Registered: Dec-03
The Canadian MSRP for the NAD T743 is C$1000. Other receivers in that price range that tout musical ability are the Cambridge Audio 540R for C$940 (much better than the previous generation NAD T742 or NAD T752 for HT but it has a different musical sound than NAD - not quite as heavy with the mid-bass but the highs are more open IMHO of course ;) the features are also quite limited) or for a bit more but still less than the C$1500 NAD T753 would a fully warrantied demo Arcam AVR200 for C$1300 from:
http://emerald-audio.com/factory.htm#arcam

Alternatively, you could hold out for the upcoming Outlaw 1070 receiver.
 

Silver Member
Username: Petergalbraith

Rimouski, Quebec Canada

Post Number: 628
Registered: Feb-04
Hard to get a good price on NAD in Canada. I actually ordered a T742 (or was it a T743?) for my Mom last fall from the US, and a week later got a T753 in Canada from ebay, a manufacturer refurb with full waranty for about C$600.

Otherwise it's www.ecost.com or www.etronics.com
 

New member
Username: Canadianwannabe

Oz, Ontario Edsterland

Post Number: 2
Registered: May-05
Hey. Art, Smitty, Peter. Thanks for your prompt replies. I think I'll take my time and save my pennies for the T763. I love my 40's so much that I don't want to risk underwhelming them. When I first brought them home I hooked them up to an old H/K surround reciever (AVR 20 II) and all my favorite vocalists disappeared. Seriously, the H/K banished all vox humana to the netherlands. Everyone from Aimee Mann to Ziggy Marley. I love the Canadian sound. But I want those vocals to pop out at me, front and center. Dig?
 

Silver Member
Username: Smitty

Canada

Post Number: 201
Registered: Dec-03
Definately stick with NAD if you like forward sounding vocals.

Being in Ontario I'd suggest checking out Red Ball Radio in Belleville:
http://www.redballradio.com/

The carry the new NAD line but as well they sometimes have refurb T762s for sale with a 90 day warranty up on eBay.ca, these usually go for C$600-C$700.
 

Silver Member
Username: Jamesp

Mansfield , TX USA

Post Number: 121
Registered: Apr-04
I hate to be a NAD basher but I must speak up. I have a NAD T752 and have had too many problems with mine. Many others are reporting trouble as well. I love the NAD sound but hate their reliability. You may want to consider a B&K or Rotel receiver if it is within your budget. Who know's you may get lucky if you decide to go with NAD and you may not.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Agimat

Post Number: 83
Registered: Aug-04
Smitty,

Have you listened to the Nad T753 and Arcam 200?

Thanks
 

Silver Member
Username: Smitty

Canada

Post Number: 202
Registered: Dec-03
larz,

No I haven't. I had an NAD T742 for about a year and a half and an NAD T752 for about two weeks. The T753 and Arcam 200 were out of my price range so I didn't actually listen to those. I currently own a CA 540R.

Smitty
 

Sean5646
Unregistered guest
Gents-How well would the rotel rx-1052 go with my new paradigm studio 40v3's

 

New member
Username: Ht_addict

Post Number: 4
Registered: May-05
[quote]James P wrote: I hate to be a NAD basher but I must speak up. I have a NAD T752 and have had too many problems with mine. Many others are reporting trouble as well. I love the NAD sound but hate their reliability. You may want to consider a B&K or Rotel receiver if it is within your budget. Who know's you may get lucky if you decide to go with NAD and you may not.[/quote]

Problem with this statement is that you mostly hear from those who have problems, than those who don't. Now I'm not saying there aren't problems, ever manufacturer has their precentange of defective units. Its a given. Its your responsibility to make sure you get the problem fixed. I picked up a T773 from a fellow HT nut a couple weeks ago, it had a hiss/hum problem. Took the issue up with NAD and they replaced the unit with a new one. A1 service.

ht_addict
 

New member
Username: Jb007

The HagueEurope

Post Number: 5
Registered: Jun-05
Hi,

I currently need to decide between the NAD T-763 and the Yamaha RXV 2500. Will be used mainly for music, but nice theater sound is welcome as well.

If you have input on this please do let me know.

Many thanks...
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 884
Registered: Feb-05
I used to have a Rotel/Studio 40v2 setup and it was very nice but not as nice as my present NAD/Studio 40v3 setup.
 

Silver Member
Username: Joe_c

Oakwood, Ga

Post Number: 475
Registered: Mar-05
just put a bid in on a NAD 7220pe for music listening. What do you guys think? I have $65max right now, how high would you go??
This is going to power my bohlender/graebner z-1's when I get them.
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 903
Registered: Feb-05
Only one problem with the old NAD receivers is that the LED displays had a bad habit of going out. Sounded great though. I used to have one many moons ago. It powered my Paradigm Monitor 3's. I saw your bid, good luck.
 

Silver Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 965
Registered: Mar-05
joseph,

I probably wouldn't go over $200 max, probably between $100-150 is where it'll end up. Just a wild guess.

 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1363
Registered: Jan-05
Bender,

That's a nobrainer.......

Go with the yammi:-) The Yammi reputation and dependability worldwide far exceeds the NAD. That's why you find Yammi gear in professional record studios, and not NAD.
 

Gvenk
Unregistered guest
It might be a lost cause to get Paul have an informed opinion but so as not to get others misled, the use in professional studios has more to do with whether a company has products designed for professional studios (in form factor, for example rack mountable, power/connectivity/etc). Yamaha has a professional audio unit, NAD is a consumer audio vendor (primarily). We wouldn't buy Yamaha consumer audio gear for record studios either and use in professional recording studio has no bearning on the quality, fit and purpose for a consumer hifi equipment. we use a lot of old and new TEAC equipment too but not something I would recommend for their consumer grade equipment.

There are Yamahas that are better than some NAD units and there are NAD units that are better than than a lot of Yamahas (they make many, mnay more).

There are other reasons to evaluate between the two specific ones. Use in recording studios isn't one of them.
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 906
Registered: Feb-05
Paul is right it's a no brainer! You figure out why. I'd buy a Yamaha instrument, used to own a Yamaha dirt bike, but I'd pass on the receiver. It's true that Yamaha has a worldwide reputation, but then again I've never ridden an NAD.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1372
Registered: Jan-05
Hey, c'mon......

If you were looking for a builder to build your new home, who would you hire???

1.A large builder who's been in business for generations, and has experience building everything from large commercial skyscrapers down to single family dwellings.

or....

2.A small home builder with only 1 crew who started their home building business 'yesterday'.

Lets face it, when it comes to HT, Yammi is the expert, and NAD is the novice who began their quest 'just yesterday'. If I were to build a home, I'd select builder option 1. You're kidding yourself if you think their vast experience building 'professional-grade components' has no value to their consumer electronics division. I dont know about you, but when I buy HiFi gear, I prefer to buy from someone with experience, and who knows what the heck they're doing.

 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 907
Registered: Feb-05
You are right Paul. I certainly do buy from folks with experience in HiFi not the kids at BB or CC. And no one with any experience that I know would take a Yamaha over an NAD, no one.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1375
Registered: Jan-05
That would depend on your intended use and which model.

Most of the NAD components discussed in this forum are entry level components far below the <$1,000 pricepoint, and I wouldnt trade any of them for my Y2500.

Im assuming your comparing 'beginner' NADs verses 'beginner' Yammis since that's what much of this forum has focused on. Comparing those to my receiver would be pretty irrevelent since they're in different classes.

And what's your obsession with BB and CC???? Do you think you will find the 2500 on the shelf in either of those 'box' stores?? Good luck with that.....
 

Silver Member
Username: Joe_c

Oakwood, Ga

Post Number: 476
Registered: Mar-05
"I currently need to decide between the NAD T-763 and the Yamaha RXV 2500. Will be used mainly for music, but nice theater sound is welcome as well."

MUSIC Paul, you know that thing you know nothing about except in your car. Yami would be brighter for that material. Couse nothing would beat a yami with a pair of cerwins crankin' some Nora Jones. Whew! just gets me all fuzzy thinkin' bout' those red rubber surrounds. Quality stuff.
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 909
Registered: Feb-05
Honestly the Yamaha in question has a very good reputation for HT but for Music and movies it has to be NAD. Buy from a good dealer and you won't have to worry about anything. If you are unfortunate enough to get a hum just remember it is just as likely a setup issue as anything. Trust me Joseph once you see the transformer in that NAD there ain't no goin' back
 

Silver Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 973
Registered: Mar-05
Paul,

by your "bigger/older is better" logic you should buy nothing but Budweiser pisswater. We all know they're a lot bigger and been around a lot longer than tiny little "newbies" like Sierra Nevada...
 

Silver Member
Username: Joe_c

Oakwood, Ga

Post Number: 481
Registered: Mar-05
The flippin guy wanted $50 bucks to ship it. I told him that I was not going to pay that and he retracted my bid. It's all good cause I put a bid on a 3240 anyway(better one).
 

Silver Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 982
Registered: Mar-05
$50 does sound a little excessive. Then again I paid $100 to ship my NAD amp, pre/pro and tuner in 2 separate boxes...figured he probably made an extra $20-30 on that but the final price was still quite attractive to me.

yeah, you definitely want to get a firm shipping quote before you bid, whenever they don't provide a shipping calculator.
 

Silver Member
Username: Joe_c

Oakwood, Ga

Post Number: 482
Registered: Mar-05
I now have found an integrated 3240 I'm bidding on hope this one works out cs it seems like a doozy.
 

Silver Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 988
Registered: Mar-05
Good luck! There's plenty of great vintage NAD gear out there though.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1386
Registered: Jan-05
Joe,

Did you say music?? Whats that??

Hmmm....Im guessing that's the noise that comes out of my Vintage early 80s Sony boombox in the garage that I use once a year when I do my annual spring garage cleaning???
 

Bronze Member
Username: Canuckinapickle

TorontoCanada

Post Number: 89
Registered: Jan-05
I picked up my NAD gear at a store near Yonge and Eglinton in Toronto. The service was amazing and I think I got a great deal on my T753 at the time. (it was less than what the fellow above said the MSRP was for the 743!). Anyway.. moral of the story -- shop around or go to a store where the sales staff are not at all pushy and give you all the time in the world to make your decision. This store was like that and I've been back time and time again.
 

Maui
Unregistered guest
And Paul since you do not know s h i t about music you should not give advise to someone who is looking for a "mainly music" set up.....stay on the HT section .....
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1411
Registered: Jan-05
Maui,
Do you have any GMAs for sale? Im looking for a couple of small nick-nacks for use as decorations ontop of my SVS.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 1006
Registered: Mar-05
Don't worry Paul, we all love you very much!!!
 

Silver Member
Username: Joe_c

Oakwood, Ga

Post Number: 485
Registered: Mar-05
1hr left on the NAD and its MINE!!!
 

Maui
Unregistered guest
Sure you can put any decorations on your SVS and CV's, after all those boxes that you call speakers would serve very well as coffe tables !
 

Maui
Unregistered guest
Joseph,
Sorry to deviate your thread....hope you win the NAD! You are going to be very happy with it !
Cheers!
 

Silver Member
Username: Touche6784

Post Number: 431
Registered: Nov-04
cheers? what happened to being from maui? wouldnt it be mahola? maybe another fruitcake imposter.
 

Maui Mahola
Unregistered guest
imposter...impostor...same thing...lol
 

Silver Member
Username: Joe_c

Oakwood, Ga

Post Number: 489
Registered: Mar-05
Prolly paid too much but oh well
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 1024
Registered: Mar-05
congrats Joseph, do write a detailed review once you receive it an set it up.

so how much was the damage, if you don't mind my asking?
 

Silver Member
Username: Joe_c

Oakwood, Ga

Post Number: 492
Registered: Mar-05
well it was an absolute MINT 3240pe with manual and supposedly bench tested. I paid 220 (shipping inc.) The way I justified it is that I couldn't get an amp with that quality for that price, I would probably pay twice as much or more for one today. So I get it friday its going to have a sony sacd and a sumiko project II turntable hooked up to it ready for the bohlenders which I get next friday. I am also going to try something Jan suggested, I will try an extension cord for speaker wire, see how that works.
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 972
Registered: Feb-05
The black and orange outdoor extension cord from home depot is supposed to be pretty good.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 1038
Registered: Mar-05
$220 shipped is an EXCELLENT deal. Enjoy!
 

New member
Username: Jb007

The HagueEurope

Post Number: 9
Registered: Jun-05
Quote:"Honestly the Yamaha in question has a very good reputation for HT but for Music and movies it has to be NAD."

What if I go with the Yammie2500 and plug it in my old NAD 304 main in to power my front speakers? Is this a viable option to get both, great HT and great music"? ....I'm slightly worried cause I will need to have my NAD on to listen to movies as well, and wouldn't have the option to play HT with 2500 exclusivly....unless I wire both the NAD and and the Yammie to the front speakers, but that would create more resistence which is a no go (plus my speakers are bi wired, that's 8 sets of wires per speaker)... am I making right assumptions here (perhaps a dumb question ...pardon .. I'm a novice (yet enthusiast)
 

Silver Member
Username: Stu_pitt

NYC, NY Pakistan

Post Number: 132
Registered: May-05
Bender - just wanted to say I've also got a 304. I don't know how to answer your question though. The NAD 304 kicks @ss.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1456
Registered: Jan-05
The Yammi2500 power supply is leagues ahead of the NAD304. Please tell me that you're not really considering bypassing an amp that produces an honest(and tested)135wpc in 2-channel mode with a cheap entry level NAD that produces less than 40wpc???

Wow...the people in this thread are causing people to consider the most rediculous things.

I dont mean to knock what you own, but throw that piece of junk in the garbage if you decide to buy the 2500. It would be an insult to the Yammi if you did otherwise.

Those in this thread should be ashamed of themselves for putting thoughts like this into peoples heads.

The 2500 is LEAGUES ahead of entry level NAD garbage. If you want to compare the quality of NAD and the Yammi2500..........keep the comparrisons with units in the same class, and not bottom feeding NAD junk components in the cheap entry level class.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1457
Registered: Jan-05
Do me a favor........dont buy the 2500 if you're going to connect a 'bottom of the line' amp. Buy a cheap bottom of the line $400 NAD receiver instead. It will be much more fitting and will save you $600 too.
 

Silver Member
Username: Johnny

Missouri

Post Number: 563
Registered: Dec-03
Here we are with the name calling again. Here is a revelation...maybe they like the way their NAD SOUNDS!!! Some people actually care about how something sounds...and aren't interested in useless DSP functions. Your "yammie" may have more power, but to me, IT is the one that sounds like garbage...especially with music. I am sorry to burst your bubble, but to me, NAD's "cheap entry level garbage" sounds much better (music and movies) than the Yamaha.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1458
Registered: Jan-05
If he likes cheap bottom of the line NAD components so much, then he shouldnt talk about purchasing the Yammi2500, and 'jacking-in' a junk bottom of the line amp to improve it's sound quality.

He should buy a cheap NAD receiver instead. As for a NAD bottom feeder besting the Yammi2500??? puhhhlleeeease.

get a clue

If someone wants to compare the NAD773 with the Yammi and say it's better, then we have a valid discussion, but to compare bottom dweller NAD components though is a different thing entirely.
 

Silver Member
Username: Stu_pitt

NYC, NY Pakistan

Post Number: 133
Registered: May-05
Paul - Have you heard the 304? It used to be my primary amp, and now is in my office. It has 35 watts, but they go a long way. In college I got many noise complaints from people 2 floors above me in my townhouse.

I haven't heard the Yammi that Bender has, so I can't comment on anything about it. I also haven't tried what he is thinking about, esp. with his receiver, so I have no comment about that either.

I just wanted to give a shout out to a guy with the same integrated as me. I hear very few mention that amp. Mine's about 15 years old and still kicks some serious @ss. If I hooked it up to your CV's, I think the paint would come off the walls!!!
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1459
Registered: Jan-05
There is no way it could handle the CVs. My first receiver was a wimpy 45wpc 2-channel receiver, and they sounded like crap relative to when they have real juice driving them. When I upgraded to a 125wpc Pioneer, the quality difference was huge eventhough the SPL was only marginally increased.

They are thirsty for power, and no 'lightweight' amp will do them justice. Will they go loud driven by cheap junk??....yea sure, but they'll sound terrible. If one thing is certain about the CVs is that they need power to drive them well. Im sure many of the 'first hand experiences' with the CVs where people claim the CVs sounded terrible were because they were driven by a cheap amp. Without a quality amp, the CVs really suffer and really do sound bad.
 

Silver Member
Username: Johnny

Missouri

Post Number: 564
Registered: Dec-03
Put 10 people in a blind test between an NAD amp and a Yamaha in stereo mode, and I think you will have your answer. Just face facts man, the Yamaha's sound like sh!t for music. But, that doesn't matter for you I guess, since you admittedly don't know what music is.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1461
Registered: Jan-05
which models??

Are you trying to tell me that cheap entry level NAD junk will outperform a $1000 Yammi?

If you think your T762 sounds better, then that's fine because it's of comperable quality, and you're entitled to your opinion, but to suggest that cheap entry level NAD "JUNK" sounds better than a $1000 Yammi is reckless and irresponsible to say the least. If that were the case, everyone would be buying cheap entry level NAD garbage, and not the more expensive models or brands.
 

Silver Member
Username: Stu_pitt

NYC, NY Pakistan

Post Number: 134
Registered: May-05
Paul - I have tried the 304 with CV's. I don't know which model though. They all look the same with their sexy orange ring. Being poor kids in a state college, I probably had the highest quality amp on campus (not that I had more money than anyone else by any means), and a lot of people tried their speakers on my amp to see how they would sound when they had money to buy a good amp down the road.

Anyway, the CV's were all highs and bass. Niether one of them sounded very good, but they were very loud. They had no mid range whats so ever. Switching back to my PSB Century 500's - VIVA LA MIDRANGE - proved that it was the speakers and not the amp. They weren't as loud as the CV's at any given volume position, but they sounded well balanced. The PSB played a lot of parts of music that the CV's didn't even try to play.

I would say it was the CV's and not the NAD. Please don't take this the wrong way. I am genuinely not trying to bash your CV's. One or two of my friends still have them from back in the day. They play loud, bass goes real deep, and last forever. If that's what someone is primarily looking for, you can't go wrong at all.
 

Silver Member
Username: Stu_pitt

NYC, NY Pakistan

Post Number: 135
Registered: May-05
To clarify - Niether one of them sounded very good - I was referring to the highs and bass of the CV's
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1462
Registered: Jan-05
As for your 'you dont listen to music, so how could you know' comment, I wont argue because I havent been a music buff since I graduated from college.

However, dont kid yourself if you dont think there are plenty of music lovers out there who chose the Yammi over the NAD who beg to differ. NAD sounding better than Yammi is opinion, and not fact. If it was a fact, then nobody would buy Yammis, and everybody would be buying NADS, but that obviously is not the case.

As with speakers, or anything...........
It's all about personal preference and a subjective choice.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1463
Registered: Jan-05
Stu,
I've never claimed the CVs were audiophile masterpieces. All I know is that for my movie uses, they do very well, and I've recently shopped much more expensive speakers for replacements, and nothing gave me the 'movie theater' effect I so desired. I want speakers that make me feel as though I'm in a real movie theater, and that's exactly what those speakers do for me.(actually, my system makes 'real' theaters sound like dogmeat)

I was ready and willing to spend $3,000 for new fronts, and I didnt find anything that sounded better to my ears. yea, Im sure those were much better at reproducing chamber music, but that's not what I was looking for.

Although I shopped more expensive models, the nicest speakers I listened to in a real 7.1 "HT" setup was a set of KlipschRF-7s serving as fronts. They had a big-ol' plasma playing the incredibles in a professionally designed soundroom. I can relate because I have the same movie, and have a basis to compare. While I admit the RF-7s are better quality speakers, I was not impressed by their performance during the movie.

They had a killer(and very expensive)KEF sub in that room that impressed me very much, and because of that, I went out and bought my SVS the following week. Im telling you this so you will see that I'm willing to change my mind when I hear something better. Previous to that experience, I was an 'anti-sub' guy and often expressed those views in this forum as many of you probably remember.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1464
Registered: Jan-05
Stu,
These 100lb monsters arent light in the mids.......
https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-theater/135531.jpg
You obviously were listening to a lesser model because I doubt any college kids would would risk putting something this big in a dorm, or college atmosphere(in general). Well....at the very least.........very few would risk it. I owned these back when I was in college, and wouldnt do it. I had a boombox in my dorm room instead. I was afraid either somebody would knock down my door and steal them, or somebody would f*ck them up. This was their only model that had dual mids, and they do not lack in the midrange. Later models cheapened the speakers, and eliminated the dual mids.......among many other things.

The funny thing is that my senior year, I did bring my system into my apartment, and exactly that happened. The guy stole all of my components, but didnt get away with the speakers because they wouldnt fit in his car. My roomate busted him, and he was prosecuted, and the story had a happy ending.
 

Silver Member
Username: Stu_pitt

NYC, NY Pakistan

Post Number: 136
Registered: May-05
"As with speakers, or anything...........
It's all about personal preference and a subjective choice."

I couldn't agree with you more. I hate it when people come to these sites and ask 'which one should I buy' or 'what sounds better.' Everyone has their own personal preferences, and that's why I made it a point not to bash your speakers. You probably think that my PSB's are junk next to your CV's. I think the opposite. It doesn't give either one of us the right to attack the other because we have different tastes. A lot of people here don't realize that.

For the record - I don't listen to chamber music on pint sized wine and cheese speakers either. A lot of alternalive rock and alternative metal, a lot of classic rock, and a little old school rap to mix things up a bit. My NAD C320BEE and PSB towers throw out all of the detail and power I could ever ask for without pawning off everything else I own to 'upgrade.' I care as much about home theater as you do about music.
 

Silver Member
Username: Johnny

Missouri

Post Number: 565
Registered: Dec-03
"As with speakers, or anything...........
It's all about personal preference and a subjective choice"

Exactly Paul...so why is it so hard for you to believe that someone may actually want to use their "bottom line" NAD to listen to music over your beloved Yamaha? Take your own advice, and please stop belittling people's systems. To call a lower priced NAD amp, receiver, etc. "junk" is totally belittling anyone who may have those. To them, it may sound wonderful. So why the negative language? Why call it "junk" and "crap"? Maybe you should start practicing what you preach.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1465
Registered: Jan-05
To suggest entry level NADs outperform a $1000 Yammi is reckless and irresponsible to say the lest.

Quite frankly, it's flat out stupid.

As I said before, if you claim your 762 is better than my 2500, feel free to do so, because you have a right to your opinion and I wont belittle you for expressing your opinion. That would be a valid debate because they are in the same class, and similar in quality.

Once you start-in with former, as opposed to the latter, you'll get my 2 cents because you've obviously lost your mind by doing so.
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 254
Registered: Dec-03
Remember,

Paul is 17, he doesn't know any better.

If you use Paul's logic you would buy a Seiko watch over an Audemars-Piguet and a Ford over a Maybach. Why???? Because there are more Seiko's and Fords sold.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1467
Registered: Jan-05
Johnny,
Entry level receivers are cheap for a reason. They are cheap because they are cheaply made. Those things that are made cheaply, some people call them junk.

You make it sound as if the indivuduals who are shopping in the 'bottom of the line' market do it by choice for quality reasons, and not because of budget restrictions. People buy that stuff because they have no other choice, not because the quality of a $300 reciever is so impressive.

Dont get me wrong, because I can respect those who shop in the entry level market, because having a cheap receiver beats having no receiver. Lets try and not confuse by the issue by suggesting people shop in that market for quality reasons.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1468
Registered: Jan-05
LOL......

yea, I guess that means I bought my CVs when I was 'negative 3'.
 

Silver Member
Username: Joe_c

Oakwood, Ga

Post Number: 498
Registered: Mar-05
Paul I have no doubt that the 2500 would out crank the nad but I have also got no doubt that that NAD would sound warmer and crisper than the yami could ever be. For home theater and movies where clipping usually is alot more forgiving, that 2500 would crank all day long and sound quite louder than the NAD. But you put a jazz record or sacd on that same speakers (not cv's , they are the timex of the speaker world, I don't like Audemars personally Ben, I have a uylesse nardin 1846 and love it though) with the modest 40wpc and 100+ watts of "clean" headroom, I am sorry , no comparison.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1469
Registered: Jan-05
Actually, you can completely adapt and adjust it's output above 65hz accross the entire frequency range. Im not talking about changing channel levels either. I'm talking about equalizing the output of each of the 7 channels to my personal preferences(above 65hz). In fact, I can make the Yammi sound as warm as I want. I just happen to not like warm, because to me, warm is dull and boring. That is something the NAD cannot do. With NAD, you have to take what they give you. If anything, I would characterize my settings as inbetween.

Is the NAD crisper??? That's a matter of opinion. As far as power and headroom goes, I guess it depends on which models we're talking about. The Yammi has about as much power or headroom as any receiver in the $1K price range.
 

Silver Member
Username: Smitty

Canada

Post Number: 212
Registered: Dec-03
To re-iterate what Paul said (well almost):

Used Cerwin Vegas D-9s are cheap for a reason. They are cheap because they are cheaply made. Those things that are made cheaply, some people call them junk.

You make it sound as if the indivuduals who are shopping in the 'bottom of the line' market do it by choice for quality reasons, and not because of budget restrictions. People buy that stuff because they have no other choice, not because the quality of a $300 pair of speakers on eBay.

Dont get me wrong, because I can respect those who shop in the entry level market, because having a cheap pair of speakers beats having no speakers. Lets try and not confuse by the issue by suggesting people shop in that market for quality reasons.

Sorry Paul...I couldn't resist ;)
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1470
Registered: Jan-05
Actually,

I paid $750/pair in 1985 dollars which happened to be a fair amount of money way back then. While I hardly consider that 'high end', they were hardly considered cheap either. In 1985 you could buy a brand new Corvette for about $24,000. whoah...how the times have changed.
 

Silver Member
Username: Stu_pitt

NYC, NY Pakistan

Post Number: 148
Registered: May-05
Paul -

"People buy that stuff because the have no other choice, not because the quality of a $300 reciever is so impressive"

"I was ready and willing to spend $3,000 for new fronts, and I didnt find anything that sounded better to my ears."

These kind of contradict each other a little, don't they Paul? It may be - but highly unlikely - possible for a $300 integrated amp to sound better than a $1000 H/T receiver. The reason why? In the integrated you are only paying for two channels of amplification and a per-amp section. You aren't paying for processors, DSP modes, 5 or 7 channels, LED displays, shiny front panels, and whatever other bells and whistles that come with the receiver.

The 304 is solid. Mine has worked flawlessly for almost 15 years now. I don't think the cheapest parts available at the time would have given me 15 years of daily use, 10 or 12 of them being driven pretty hard. Just because it was $300 15 years ago doesn't make it cheap. How much did the top of the line Yammie receiver cost 15 years ago? Does anyone still have the top of the line Yammie receiver from 15 years ago?

Like I said a couple of time, I haven't heard the Yammie receiver that is beling mentioned. Have you heard the 304 Paul?
 

Silver Member
Username: Smitty

Canada

Post Number: 213
Registered: Dec-03
Yea, the only thing that hasn't changed since 1985 is tax brackets. It looks like the CVs can be had for $375 now on eBay according to the reviewer after you:
D-9 Reviews Hey! You only paid $700, not $750! I must say though, that most of the reviewers really like these speakers.

I was trying to point out that on the one hand you're arguing that $300 receiver couldn't sound as good as a $1000 receiver and on the other hand you claim the (currently valued) $375 CV speakers are better than a $6000 pair.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1471
Registered: Jan-05
Stu,
I understand your point, and it's a valid point, however it's irrelevent nevertheless because I've openly admitted several times that the expensive speakers in question had more refined musical quality than my own. My only beef was that they didnt deliver the desired big 'theater stage' that I was seeking. For movies, mine sound better. Since I dont listen to music, the rest didnt matter.

Im not the only one that feels that way because there was someone who owns both the D9s and RF7s who stepped in to defend the RF7s in different thread because he took offense to my comments knocking the RF7s. In doing so, he ended up agreeing with me because he still uses his D9s exclusively for movies, and he uses the RF7s for music exclusively. In the end, we both agreed the D9s were better as it relates to movies. He simply misunderstood my statements because he thought I was knocking the RF7s musical quality in my origional statement.

Smitty,
There's a thing called sales tax. Ever hear of it? BTW, the $750 I paid was a good deal. Since you found the D9 review page, you'll also know that for those who bought the speakers 'NEW' back in the '80s, that many paid much more than myself. The going rate was anywhere between $700-$1000 for new pair of D9s, and you would have seen that without leaving the first page of reviews. In light of that, it sure makes your response look pretty stupid, doesnt it??

So....
You can get a used pair of D9s for $375?? Sweeet!!! Hey, you should look up my old receiver too while your at it. It was a Pioneer VSX9500-s. It listed at $1200, and I bet you can pick one of those beauties up for about $10 on ebay ....."LAUGH". I still have mine, but it's resting easily down in the basement. If I ever do retire my D9s, I'll use it to power them in the garage:-) Then I'll be able to retire my Sony boombox that I use in the garage once a year for my spring garage cleaning.
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 997
Registered: Feb-05
I would argue that many of those speakers do sound better for movies than the CV's they're just not louder.
 

New member
Username: Jb007

The HagueEurope

Post Number: 10
Registered: Jun-05
Stu,

I know exactly what you're talking about!!

Paul,

my NAD 304 is no bottom feeder, I assure you. Have you ever heard any NAD at all?? To be honest I only found out through Stu's response that that thing only had 35 watts. I bought it second hand years ago, with no instructions included, nor have I tryied to reaseach how strong it was. This is manly because I was and still am confinced that the 304 is a monster (judging by the ease it drove different sets of speaker I tought it to be 100watts AT LEAST). ....Paul ...I have never been able to completly blast the NAD (never put voluem to max) - it just wouldn't be possible....the building would collapse.

BTW. the Yamaha 2500 arrived yesterday. Installation will be completed today (will report to you on my impression tomorrow). Until know I am impressed with all the bells and whistles to be honest, the instruction 'booklet' is as thick as a telefonebook. I can't believe there is no option for banana pugs on the back of the 2500 though (only included in the U.S. version). When I came to pick it up I tricked a sales guy buy pretending I was about to decide on a purchase. Asked him if I should chose between a HK or my 2500 in the same price range... he told me: 'that was a no brainer..HK is much better as it has seperate power sources (whatever that meant)' ..I asked him to give me a test round and I must admit that the HK had a wider range of frequencys, but I found the sound irritating (especially if I would have to listen to it any longer). The Yamaha sounded better, yet I liked my 'bottomfeeding' NAD better, but I will really need to test this on my setup at home. The JBL fronts I have play very heavy base (need to adjust my old NAD to lower settings), the Yammie migth just be the perfect combination.

I will report finding as soon as available ;) If I am not satisfied I will go for the NAD 763
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1543
Registered: Jan-05
The 'nanna plugs plug directly into the back of the binding posts on the 2500.

As for the 304???...........LOL, c'mon give me a break. If that model were any lower, it would be beneath your feet. That model is the epitome of no power 'bottom of the line' junk. Yea sure, I bet those are really good watts.....all 35 of them.
 

Anonymous
 
Paul

I am embarassed for you. I guess this is the only life you have is to come on here and make ridiculous statements just to get some attention.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1544
Registered: Jan-05
Does NAD still produce a 20WPC amp too??? If so, then I apologize for claiming the 35WPC was the 'bottom of the barrel' because that would have made my claim incorrect. I'll bet that 'little' NAD is very underrated, and WAY better than most 50WPC receivers....LOL
 

Anonymous
 
I am surprised with your taste you don!t have Bose speakers, they would be a perfect match for your Yamahahaha receiver.
 

Anonymous
 
Old Milwaukee, Yamaha and Bose. It just doesn!t get any better than that.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1546
Registered: Jan-05
Somebody please tell me yet again, how the little 35WPC NADs arent underpowered wimps, but hugely underrated.

I always love it when those who own 'nothing' poweramps self rationalize how it's secretly something much more than reality.

........."Psssst, hey did you know my little 35wpc NAD drives my thirsty 4ohm speakers much better than a $2,000(place any non-NAD Amp brandname here). Yea, it's true, and I bought it for $10 on ebay. What a bargain!"
 

Anonymous
 
Somebody please tell me again how bad Yamahahaha is for music.

Did you know my Yamahahaha has good soundfields such as hall, jazz club stadium or whatever they are called on Yamahahaha.

That is why you can!t find anything that sounds better than your CV speakers because the sound will only be as good as the source. Listen to a real receiver and speakers and find out what you are missing.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Jb007

The HagueEurope

Post Number: 11
Registered: Jun-05
I'll tell ya...

Paul,

it's official now. I tested the 2500 yesterday, and music sounds steril ('pure direct' my a55). My old NAD which you're cutting down without any experience of your own (which I consider a fact now), is driveing my fronts reproducing much warmer sound, with more depth.
I'll give you one thing... the HT experience is great with the 2500. I watched Star wars on it yesterday, and it blew me away. But from the musical perspective I will not be able to live with the Yamaha!

I am therefore seriously considering going for the NAD 763, and giving the Yammie back!
http://www.superfi.co.uk/extras/NAD/NAD_T763_brochure.pdf#search='nad%20763'

Unfortunately, the return policy for the NAD is slightly less flexible. Can anyone with actuall experience advise if stated NAD is acceptable from the HT perspective (musically it will be fine, I'm sure)? Your feedback is much appreciated.

Paul,

please no more reference to music and what you think of NAD. You could give me advise on the 2500 though. Do you have a tip for me to tweak the Yammie a bit to get a warmer sound out of it (I haven't finished checking out all the options yet). As stated earlier the 2500 rocks from HT perspective (e.g. night mode is very usefull), but as things stand at the moment I wouldn't be able to live with it musically.

I will be honest!! If I manage to get decent music out of the 2500 I will take everything I said back. (9 days left to return the 2500)

p.s. bannana slots are only available on the U.S. model Paul
 

bumblebee
Unregistered guest
Bender,

Keep the 2500. The T763 is good but HT is Yamaha's forte.

And keep your NAD integrated. Your old NAD may be at par or may even be better for music than the T763.
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 313
Registered: Apr-04
Bender go for the NAD.......much better sound and musical for the times you may want to listen to a musical DVD or something. If you like NAD then don't be swayed by those that only believe in what they have.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1553
Registered: Jan-05
I recommend you sell the Yammi, and replace it with one of these beauties.
http://www.cyberaudioshop.com/nad/c300.htm

The two of you were meant for each other. You can then take the $950 change from the trade-in, and buy yourself a quality pair of hearing aides. The only problem with that is that once you get your hearing fixed, you'll be stuck with a cheap amp, and no money left for an upgrade.

BTW, read your manual.......
You can equalize each of the 7 channels individually from about 65hz on up if you prefer to alter the output from one thats rich and alive, to one thats warm, stale, & boring.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1555
Registered: Jan-05
Did anyone ever consider the reason the Yammi is universally considered better for movies because movie soundtracks are typically much more demanding than those for most music soundtracks???

Gee....could it be the yammi is better all the way around, but you're all too deaf to take notice because you're all unwilling to remove the NAD tainted earmuffs??
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 257
Registered: Dec-03
Paul is 17 and his only knowledge of hi-fi comes from what he sees at Best Buy!
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 317
Registered: Apr-04
The Yamaha maybe your choice but that does not mean it is ours! Why are we deaf and you are not? Are you Edsters brother or something? Some of you have got to stop trying to push the only products you know down everyones throat and go educate yourselves more by trying multi brands!

As far as I remember, Yamaha was not considered a make to die for! I have visited many shops over the years and I think I have only listened to their stuff a few times and found it.......well, japanese sounding! I suppose some people like that sound and that is their right but go and listen to other brands and learn to compare more instead of critisize other peoples tastes!
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1558
Registered: Jan-05
Since that's the case, would you please show me a link that shows BB selling the Yammi2500.

Good luck with that....

Let me guess........you have no clue about what you speak?? Apparently not based on your last clueless statement. That receiver is a cut-above what you'll find selling in those stores, as well as most NAD lightweights being discussed in this thread. You'd have to step-UP in class to the NAD773 to even begin to compare apples to apples with the 2500. Everything below that is small potatos.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1559
Registered: Jan-05
Danman,
when I hear silly claims coming from individuals, I'll call them out on them. That's just how it is. When individuals claim their $10 25watt NAD components are in the same league as a $1000 yammi, I refuse to look the other way as long as Im reading comments in this forum.

If you want to compare components in the same class such as the 773 to the 2500, then OK...fine, but lets not be ignorant by trying to compare the 2500 with cheap bottom of the line ECONO components.
 

Anonymous
 
The reason the Yamaha is considered so good for movies is because it is so bright sounding. Bright sound equals a lot of detail.

I would be curious what all channels driven ratings are for the NAD 743 versus the Yamaha 2500.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1562
Registered: Jan-05
Yep.......and warm equals dull & boring.

BTW, how is all channels driven relevent to movies??

Are you trying to suggest a cheap 50wpc NAD 'secretly' has more power??
LOL........puhlease.

I have seen tests where the Yammi was tested in 2channel mode and it tested out at around 135wpc which is roughly what it's rated at. I havent seen an all channels driven test, but I dont think it's really relevent to movies, so I'm not losing sleep over it. The surround and back power requirements are significantly less because they'll never drain even a fraction of that amount of juice.(even during loud movie instants)

If you dont think the Yammi will have vastly more power where it's needed, and when it's needed during movies, you might consider putting down your medical mariju@na long enough to take another look once you finally have sobered up.
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 320
Registered: Apr-04
I agree that a 25 watt/ch NAD is not a good comparison however, I don't think that was the point.

It is obvious that you have a Yamaha and you like it but there are so many 1000$ + amps that will make it look rather bright in comparison. I don't want to knock your equipment so please do not think that is my goal however, you seem a little one sided and not very familuar with other brands.

A 773 will easily go into 225 watts of dynamic power without breaking a sweat. I do not own a receiver and I am not interested in multi-channel listening at all however my 2 C272's barely get higher than 10 o'clock without making the basement shake! I have rarely been able to get this type of sound and power without going into higher end stuff. I am also in bridged mode on both amps which makes my amp 440 watts in 8 ohms and 700+ in 4 to 2 ohms!

I have friends that own Yamaha models and they don't seem to be capable of doing this at all! They are bright and thin bass wise BUT I suppose like someone said, this may be good for movies whereas NAD would be considered the best of both worlds.
 

Silver Member
Username: Joe_c

Oakwood, Ga

Post Number: 536
Registered: Mar-05
amen
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1567
Registered: Jan-05
Danman,

Ok, please tell me that you do realize that the figure you're talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the RMS figure that I was discussing???

I figure it's either one of two things....

1. Either you knew it, but you still piled on with that info in spite of knowing your number has nothing to do with RMS.

or
2. you're so clueless that you have no idea what RMS really means, or know the definition of it because you wouldnt have said what you did had you known.
And no thanks, DO NOT GOOGLE IT FOR MY BENEFIT as if it would in some way to prove that you already knew. You need not google it up for my benefit.

Let's try to stick to apples to apples......

The 773 is a robust receiver with a comperable power supply to the 2500. Heck, with it's $1700 pricetag, it had better. I never said the 773 was a weak lightweight, nor do I think that to be the case.

 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1568
Registered: Jan-05
PS....

I took option 1, so you dont have to prove anything by elaborating about RMS.

As for thinn and light on the bass?? What??

I guess that depends on what you're running off that 'alleged' amp. I'd be willing to bet that my setup would destroy the majority of systems being discussed in this thread in THAT category......

Of course, keep in mind that you're talking to someone who's running a nasty SVS PB12Plus/2.

light on the bass?

LOL...I think not. I dont claim to own a 'snob approved' system, but that is one area where my system would blow through cheese-n-wine pretenders without breaking a sweat.
 

bumblebee
Unregistered guest
Paul,

Yamaha rate their amps w/ 2 channels driven. NAD does it conservatively. Check the power consumption if you are able.

**********

The T763 is more powerful than the 2500, but that is not to say that the 2500 is lacking in anyway. The T763 will do better w/ music but the 2500 will do better w/ HT (excellent pre/pro according to audioholics.com). The T763 is an all arounder while the 2500 excels in HT more than it does w/ music.

Let the ears decide.

 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 326
Registered: Apr-04
I agree that a 25 watt/ch NAD is not a good comparison however, I don't think that was the point.

That is what I printed! Where did I say anything about RMS??????

Your SVS is not considered when I said light in bass. You are the guy that owns those nasty Cerwin Vegas! Now those don't exagerate bass I suppose? How many speakers do you see with 15" woofers these days!?? "I guess that depends on what you're running off that 'alleged' amp. I'd be willing to bet that my setup would destroy the majority of systems being discussed in this thread in THAT category......" Your quote!

What makes you think that we would like your sound? How many systems have you owned? It is obvious you love big bass by the sounds of that huge sub of yours and those overblown CV's however being sarcastic about thinking that you own what is considered untimate, may be overstated for 99% of us. As long as you like it, that is only what counts but to use your lack of audio experience to say it's better than what we all own is a little,,,,,,,ahhhhhh stupid!


 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1570
Registered: Jan-05
Yea bee...
I understand what you're saying. Music you say??...Maybe one of these years. Wouldnt that be sacreligious and insulting to your HT by whoring it out for music purposes??

Danman,
You might want to reread what I said a little more closely because you misinterpreted my message entirely.

When I spoke about 'THAT' cagegory, I was only talking about my sub and bass in response to your comment regarding the Yammi being light in the bass department. I, in fact, believe that the receiver is largly irrelevent providing you own 'any' quality built receiver along with a quality built sub. If those are both present, you'll never be yearning for more bass, that's for sure. If you are, then you better get a better sub.

And yes, it will blow pretty much anything in it's class out of the water. Yea sure, there are better and much more expensive Subs out there, but you know what I mean. If anyone has a sub that can kick mine into the dirt, I'm all ears, and I'll gladly oooh and aaaaah over it given the opportunity.

As for everything else??? I never claimed my setup was anything that it wasnt, nor made any false claims or expressed any delusion that my beloved CVs were audiophile material.

When those who own entry level receivers/amps think their components are better than components in entirely different classes, I'll offer my 2cents. You can count on that.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Jb007

The HagueEurope

Post Number: 12
Registered: Jun-05
Jo Paul,

why not compare the Y 2500 with the NAD 763? Down here the 763 costs more in retail than the 2500. Suggested retail price Yamaha is 1,199 Euro. The NAD 763 is suggested to retail 1,799 Euro. (don't laugh, I realize there is a huge price difference between U.S. and EU). I cut a deal on the Yamaha and got it for 1050 Euro, the NAD is priced down to 1000 which makes it a bargain. It's not about price at all though, but what you get for it. Just because something is expensive doesn't mean it's proportionally supperior to 'cheaper' goods.


The 2500 powersupply is inferior to the 763, but then again that is not a priorety either. It's about what sounds good and what not.

Yesterday I continued my tests with the 2500. I find that a lot of the functions are actually useless (e.g.: The equalizer presets). I have the impression that you pay for all thouse different options and for all the conntection possibilities at the back (who the hell needs all those optical ins?). Less attention was paid to its analog components, which are vital in creating acceptable soundstage. The NAD does have high-end components and the soundstage of higher end modles that cost as much as a new car. The NAD is the perfect compormise I came to believe.

BTW.. I think I am pretty much done going through the 2500's instruction booklet. I did manage to get better music out of it now but it still lacks acceptable soundstage in pure direct mode.(my 'bottomfeeding NAD 304 integrated has no problem with this at all). Im looking for an allrounder. For 1000 Euro I would expect a receiver to be able to do both.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Jb007

The HagueEurope

Post Number: 13
Registered: Jun-05
QuoteBumblebee:"The T763 is an all arounder while the 2500 excels in HT more than it does w/ music."

Hi Bumbelbee,

do yo think that from the HT perspective the 763 will do allright, or will there be worlds of difference compared to the 2500?

please anyone join in in this!! ... I would like to hear as many (educated) opinions as possible before I chose to swap to the NAD 763. (I do like the 2500 with movies!)If HT with the 763 is crap, I will need to rethink my strategy! (and please.... stop waisting your time attempting to reason with Paul...his mind is & was set...but hey.. ignorance is bliss)

thx, B
 

Bronze Member
Username: Jb007

The HagueEurope

Post Number: 14
Registered: Jun-05
Qutoe Danman:"I have friends that own Yamaha models and they don't seem to be capable of doing this at all! They are bright and thin bass wise BUT I suppose like someone said, this may be good for movies whereas NAD would be considered the best of both worlds."

Hi Danman,

So you can confirm that the NAD 763 is acceptable from a HT perspective?

thx
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 331
Registered: Apr-04
I certainly do Bender. You would be very proud to own this unit especially if you are into music. Wonderful all around sound. Yes......the best of both worlds and for a manufacturer to achieve this is an incredible feat at these prices.
 

bumblebee
Unregistered guest
For simplicity, I'll give the T763 8.5 for HT/music. The 2500, a 9.5 for HT and 7.5 for music. Still, the ears should decide.

I'd keep separate systems for HT and music. I get the best of both worlds this way.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Jb007

The HagueEurope

Post Number: 15
Registered: Jun-05
Bumblebee,

I would like to use separate systems for music and HT, but want to use the same set of speakers. I don't think it's wise to attache two diferent soundsources to the same speakers (if one is off there will be additional interverance). How did you approach this dilema?
 

Silver Member
Username: Joe_c

Oakwood, Ga

Post Number: 538
Registered: Mar-05
I approached it the right way and have two totally different setups for HT and music, speakers and all.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1061
Registered: Feb-05
Use the AVR as yet another source component hooked up to the video or aux on your pre and to power the center and rears. Leave the AVR off completely when listening to 2 channel. I go from the L/R front pre outs on the AVR to the video in on my NAD C162 pre. The C162 pre has 2 sets of pre outs. I use 1 set to go to the power amp and the other to go to the sub so that I have use of the sub for both 2 channel and home theater. I have to set the pre amp volume control to a set mark when I calibrate the home theater and return it to that setting every time I listen to it. It's key to remember to turn it back down before returning to 2 channel use or you can blow your fronts. It's a bit of pain but well worth it to me for better 2 channel music performance. There is no compromise this way. You don't hear the HT setup at all when playing music. Many of us don't have room for 2 completely different systems. Having gone from 2 systems to this setup when I moved I can tell you that there is no compromise.
 

Gvenk
Unregistered guest
If you want to stick with a receiver (i.e., integrated unit) then my recommendation would be to separate the H/T and music usage. I have not been able to find a satisfactory single solution for both (NAD, H/K, Yamaha, et al notwithstanding) using integrated receivers. The speakers set up is another issue that comes in the way of this unless you have the space for audiophile quality speaker set up where you also want the video.

If you can afford to go to separates then a set up is possible as Art has suggested above. It is possible to use the NAD receivers as a separate audio component (integrated for music, separate audio amp for video) because of their connectivity but you will still need a good a/v pre/processor/switching unit for H/T use.

I don't think the NAD receivers are a good solution for pure H/T use for more reasons than sound quality.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1572
Registered: Jan-05
You know what's funny??

Only a few months ago, I was the "ANTI" sub person on this forum. Hey, I'm willing to change and adapt!!

You guys knock my CVs and continue on about how I'm closed minded, and wont consider other alternatives, or listen to other opinions, but that's hardly the case. I freely admit and agree that they arent the most refined speakers for musical purposes, but that's not how I use them.
For my uses, they work rather well, and they kick butt, and as soon as I find something else that 'wows' me more in ways that I'm looking for, I'll buy it!!

I mean c'mon....
Im the anti-sub guy who on a moments notice spent $1350 on a new sub once I was finally 'wowed'.

As it turned out, I didnt buy 'that' model, but ended up getting something much better:-) The same goes with speakers.....if I see something that 'wows' me, I'll probably get it(within reason).
 

Silver Member
Username: Joe_c

Oakwood, Ga

Post Number: 540
Registered: Mar-05
go look at some psb platinum towers Paul.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Fable

Post Number: 24
Registered: Jun-04
"That model is the epitome of no power 'bottom of the line' junk. Yea sure, I bet those are really good watts.....all 35 of them."

At first, I'd like to clarify that I'm not comparing NAD and Yamaha eventhough I'll give you some thought about the well above $1000 Yamaha that I listened to at Tweeter. But first:

Paul, you claim to have been through college. What's your major? A receiver with more wattage doesn't mean more power. Do you know how the they measure "Watt"? it's equals Volt times current. Volt is roughtly the power the system needs to generate to push electrons through and current is roughtly how fast electrons flow. Japanese receiver/amp always have high watt but low in Current and Current is the main factor to determine how your receiver/amp performs. You want high CURRENT and not high watt. This is why the HK rated at 75 watts can pump out more juice than the Denon rated at 100 watts. Having said that, the NAD at 35 watts can be as powerfull as the any Japanese receiver/amp rated 100 watts.

I had a chance to do side by side comparision on Denon, Yamaha and Pioneer Elite at Tweeter. My opinion is that the Denon has slightly better soundstage than the Yamaha; Denon sound is full and coherent and less harsh than the Yamaha in music. The Yamaha has better soundstage than the Elite but much harsher than the Elite in music. As for the purpose of this thread's original author, he should avoid the Yamaha at all cost. Note that all the models I described cost more than $1000.

Again, low wattage doesn't mean less power.
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 332
Registered: Apr-04
Dexter, you have nailed it. NAD always lists power as "continuous" or "dynamic" never RMS. Clean power is what counts.
 

Silver Member
Username: Joe_c

Oakwood, Ga

Post Number: 542
Registered: Mar-05
my NAD 3240 (over 14 yrs old) rated at 40wpc has way more "power" than my denon 1804 rated at 90wpc. Don't get me wrong I could probably get louder with the Denon, but the NAD is so freakin clear and has way more headroom. Now, for movies, the denon rocks but thats what I bought it for. After hearing these two side by side and knowing Paul has never heard anything above "tweeter" specs, I know he has no clue of the power these little amps hold.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1576
Registered: Jan-05
yea..Based on what you said, Im sure those teeny-weeny little NAD 25WATT amps are better.

LOL

Thanks for the info.
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 334
Registered: Apr-04
Japanese products have always been overrated when it comes to power. I am talking clean power!

I think Paul you are obsessed with one brand because you have not demoed anything other than these types of products. I recently listened to a NAIM 5i at 50 watts per channel and it was the loudest 50 watts I have ever heard. The word is headroom! Dynamics and continuous power are also key factors, not just the RMS number!

I think you should get more educated when it comes to audio gear instead of only basing your facts on what you own as being all that! Even we know and can conceive that us NAD GEEKS have equipment that can be beat by other more upscale brands. We are all very happy you love your sound and gear but get off the Yamaha Hourse and get out and listen to some other brands for God's sake.............there is more than Yamahoo and Cerwin yukkies!
 

Zorro
Unregistered guest
Danman,
You are wasting your time with Paul, he is pretty much.....how can I put it.....well.....just brain dead...He does not know anything about music and tries to act as if he did....easier to ask a rock to move !
 

LOL
Unregistered guest
Quit the bickering, guys! Go try the new Panasonice XR55 digital receiver (approx $250) that just became available. You'll forget about
Yammis and NADs!
 

Zorro
Unregistered guest
Yeah Sure...
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 339
Registered: Apr-04
Right LOL..........watch me..........I'm off to buy one right now!!!!!!! Can't believe I paid good money for my NAD gear to listen to music! What was I thinking??????????? I mean, hey, 250$...GOSH I could also maybe buy a LADA to bring it home!
 

bumblebee
Unregistered guest
In fairness to Paul, I'm pretty sure he knows about power, watts, RMS, headroom etc. 35 wpc is indeed teeny especially compared to those $2000 amps (and his 2500 is really impressive), but 35 wpc is quite a lot of power already. But, let's not forget, POWER ISN'T EVERYTHING.

Paul chose his gears for ONE purpose. And that is HT. Hence, the CV's and the Yamaha. And that monstrous sub. That's how Paul wants his HT.

As for music, NAD does it well, if not superbly, for the price. Specs aside, that's how we NAD geeks want our music.

In this hobby, everything is SUBJECTIVE. Whether for HT or music, it's the listener's preferences that matter most.
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 340
Registered: Apr-04
Bumblebee you are very right. I know that 35 watts is weak in comparison to his 2500. It is only that he does not understand the notion of music. Most people on this thread like to listen to some music DVD's and even DVD Audio. If I did that on his system, I don't think I would enjoy the sound as much. Therefore, judging an amp solely based on dialogue, bombs, gunfire, bangs and whatever else is by no means considered "audiophile" enough to knock what NAD does with their gear. When a receiver can do both with ease, this is a sign of a good design whether that be NAD or another brand.

By the way Paul, I was NEVER knocking your sub! That is one great beast.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Moorejh

Post Number: 27
Registered: May-05
Got my NAD T 773 in today. Awesome looking peice of equipment. I could believe how big the box was and how heavy it is. I cant wait to hook that baby up!!!
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1581
Registered: Jan-05
I'm just waiting to be 'wowed'.....

Like I said before, if I see something I want, I'll get it.

Not to rehash things, but I spent $1350 on a sub on moments notice. As soon as I find front speakers that have the same effect, I'll own them too.

'Wowing' me isnt just that easy though. Like I said, I've auditioned many speakers for my theater, and none impressed me. As soon as one does, you cant bet I'll get myself a pair. Until that time, I'll keep what I have.

As it relates to movies, whoah....W E A K...

I have yet found anything "NEW" worthy of calling itself home in my HT. Eventually, something will, but I'm still waiting. From what I see, my old 20YO behemoths are the best movie theater speakers I can find. Eventually, I get something else, but not before something 'wowes' me, and I'm not easily impressed.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Jb007

The HagueEurope

Post Number: 16
Registered: Jun-05
Jay More,

please let me know what you think of your new toy (NAD 776).

I was gonna go for the NAD 763, but am now considering spending a bit more (7.1 here I come). Only read good things about the 776. Most people are euphoric about that thing. How much did you spend on it?
 

Silver Member
Username: Joe_c

Oakwood, Ga

Post Number: 545
Registered: Mar-05
How did you audition that sub? It's hard to see how an internet purchase wowed you.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Moorejh

Post Number: 28
Registered: May-05
Bender, I got it for $1430.00 delivered to my door from saturdayaudio. I am waiting for all of my speakers to come in to hook it up. You can also get a refurb for around $1299.00 with a warranty from spearitsound.com. I decided to go with a brand new unit for a couple hundred more.

Paul...You need to step into the 20th century. I can understand you being loyal to that crap you have but you really show your maturity when you bash someone's equipment just because its different that yours. I cant speak for those antiquated speakers of yours bec I haven't heard them since around 1985 when I graduated from high school, but for your beloved Yamaha...Are you kidding me. Last weekend I was able to audition a Yammy RXV-2500 versus a NAD T763 (one model under mine). I don't know how to break this to you but if you think the Yammy was even in the same league then your hearing aid battery must be getting weak. There was no comparison. Not even close. The NAD was effortless and clean. This was the first time I really understood what a difference in soundstage meant. That demo did it for me. I was also considering the HK7300 but I don't think it would have been able to change my mind after hearing the NAD. Plus I didn't want a receiver that was as big as my son's car in the den.
 

Silver Member
Username: Joe_c

Oakwood, Ga

Post Number: 548
Registered: Mar-05
But Jay, the bigger the amp and speakers the better the quality right??
 

Bronze Member
Username: Moorejh

Post Number: 29
Registered: May-05
Not in my opinion
 

Silver Member
Username: W00b

Post Number: 146
Registered: Mar-05
paul.. if you weren't on this forum, it wouldn't be near as interresting. i am totally with Paul if he does believe that older is better.. im sitting on a pair of AKAI speakers from 1984 running through a 9 band equalizer and i have yet to find a pair of recent speakers that sound as good. they sound good for everything i have put them through aswell.
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 348
Registered: Apr-04
As long as they sound good to you, that is all that counts just don't start knocking down other peoples choices and we won't yours!

Golden Rule to AUDIOPHILE 101:

YOUR EARS!!!!!!
 

Silver Member
Username: W00b

Post Number: 147
Registered: Mar-05
i don't think half of this thread would even be here if Paul hadn't started to knock NAD, but through all of this knocking i have gained more knowledge of NAD than i would have if paul wasn't here.. this is what makes good conversation.. not 1 thread with 2 replies, a thread is supposed to be a good conversation, and this is one hell of a thread. the car audio forum needs someone like Paul.. haha
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 353
Registered: Apr-04
We just have to be careful not to go too far that's all!
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1585
Registered: Jan-05
I agree with Dustin. You need to add a little excitement to these forums. If it was 100% backslapping and congradulating each other for making wise buying decisions, and blowing sunshine up each others @sses, this forum would cease to exist because it would be no fun.

What's more fun?? Would you rather have a polite thread with 3 replies, or a thread with 50-100 because someone goes against the grain??
 

Silver Member
Username: Joe_c

Oakwood, Ga

Post Number: 552
Registered: Mar-05
I was kidding Jay. jeeeez
 

Bronze Member
Username: Jb007

The HagueEurope

Post Number: 17
Registered: Jun-05
agree...

good to have you on this thread Paul.

Found the 773 on internet for 1299 Euro now (which is a good deal I think). My girlfriend wants to keep the Yamaha 2500 & and I'm sending her bits & pieces of this thread to to confince here over to dark side... Hehehe
 

Bronze Member
Username: Jb007

The HagueEurope

Post Number: 18
Registered: Jun-05
are there worlds of difference between the NAD 763 and 773

as far as I can see you get an additional 10 watt per channel and an additional channel (6.1 to 7.1). Are there any other improvements involved? Do you realy need to go 7.1 or is 1 backspeaker sufficant?
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1115
Registered: Feb-05
That's about it Bender. I went with the T763 as I intend to stay 5.1. The T763 is the best buy of NAD AVR's IMHO. I paid $1120 from a great brick and mortar dealer.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ht_addict

Post Number: 12
Registered: May-05
"are there worlds of difference between the NAD 763 and 773

as far as I can see you get an additional 10 watt per channel and an additional channel (6.1 to 7.1). Are there any other improvements involved? Do you realy need to go 7.1 or is 1 backspeaker sufficant?"

Think future use. Not to mention for now if you have a 5.1 setup you can use the 2 SB channels to biamp your front mains.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Jb007

The HagueEurope

Post Number: 19
Registered: Jun-05
Not sure if anyone will read this... but to conclude my Yamaha rxv 2500 experience:

This Saturday I brought back the Yamaha (including Yamaha DVD player), to the dislike of shopowner. Later on that day I purchased the NAD 763 for a cool 1000 Euro. For the money I saved I got a high end DVD player from Denon (which is supposed to be very good with Audio).

Once home it took 30 Minutes and I was ready to go. The setup procedure was selfexplanetory, controls are intuitive. Popped the first CD in and the moment the first sound came out of the speaker I knew that I made a good swap. I now know the meaning of 'SOUNDSTAGE'!! There are worlds of difference between the Yamaha 2500 and the NAD 763!! I'm very happy that I stuck with NAD... And BTW no quality issues at all... no humm etc.. (2.00 software was on it already so I guess its a more recent productionline). Love the direct controls on the remote.. you can change speaker levels on the fly!!!

I'm a happy camper....

(and a newborn Yamaha basher)
 

Silver Member
Username: Joe_c

Oakwood, Ga

Post Number: 673
Registered: Mar-05
Good, let Paul know.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Jb007

The HagueEurope

Post Number: 20
Registered: Jun-05
I did ; )
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 398
Registered: Apr-04
Wonderful choice.............Don't you love those salesmen that get pi$$ed of when you return something?
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Shop Related Deals

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us