"NAD, NAD, NAD all NAD as if all the other AV receivers don't matter" - written by one forum writer. Every HT BBS forum I came across have at least 5 NAD fanatics hell-bent on spreading the gospel of NAD. I can't understand it myself why other brand owners do not have this fervor of defending their chosen brand. Perhaps it is time to know why NAD matters. NAD owners - it is time for YOU to explain.
John A.
Posted on
I have one. I like it, and am really pleased I got it. So I recommend it. People here ask for recommendations. That is all there is to it, as far as I can see.
Hawk
Posted on
Louis:
This is a bulletin board and we share our thoughts. Why don't you share yours?
anon
Posted on
All I have to say is GO-NAD
Max
Posted on
Hello, H/K is god in the receiver world, dont mess with H/K please.... Max
Kar
Posted on
I agree with Max.
Max
Posted on
Hello, We are the H/K cult!! nuff said....
G-Man
Posted on
Most people that own a particular brand always seem to have a bias in favor of it--as long as it didn't cause them a lot of trouble. And in the audiophile world many people like what they read about (as far as sterling reviews are concerned)in Stereophile, The Perfect Vision, etc., even when they have never heard or seen the component. That won't stop them from writing or talking about it as if they have spent ten years with it.
TWN
Posted on
I think the fact is NAD really made a good line of receiver at a reasonable price. I had a 742 and really happy about it, so if someone ask for my opinion, of course I will say NAD is a good choice!
Another point I can think of is the high current capacity of NAD receiver. While most of the receiver in the market (e.g. Denon, Onkyo, etc.) cannot handle 4 ohm speakers very well (even if they could), NAD actually performing very good with 4 ohm speakers.
Certainly, I do think there are still improvement to be made for NAD products (speaking of function mainly), nevertheless, for the sound quality, it can really beat all the other brand in the same price range.
JOE
Posted on
NAD matters because it is the best. I have tried other receivers and my ears hurt after about 10 minutes. NAD makes you listen with enjoyment for hours on end.
Audio Economist
Posted on
I have a T752. I spent months auditioning other receivers. It came out on top. It is that easy.
Audio Economist
Anonymous
Posted on
Kar and Max:
You seemed to be one and the same person. Why don't you start writing a thread named "H/K cult" and make one hundred responses using different names?
Max
Posted on
H/K is god...nuff said..again
P.S. SHHH, I love NAD too!! gotta love the old Marantz USA too!
Anonymous
Posted on
Anon:
I am not Max. I just happen to be a new HK owner
Kar
Posted on
The above post was from me. Sorry to have posted as anonymous
LOUIS
Posted on
Quote: This is a bulletin board and we share our thoughts. Why don't you share yours?
Dear Hawk,
With all due respect sir, a BBS is not only for sharing thoughts but also for seeking advice. In case you don't get my drift, I am also looking at the NAD while wondering why it inspires a kind of fanaticism. In other words, don't shoo me away because I am a prospective NAD buyer.
LOUIS
Max
Posted on
Hello, Ok Kar lets do what anonymous said, we can start a post called H/K cult and post a hundred responses using different names!!! Ya right, I would never do anything that lame.....sorry anon your funny comment was just that, "funny", and nothing else.. it meant nothing to anybody..... very stupid and immature comment........ MAX
P.S. sorry John I had to do it!!! he launched the first missile...so I sent S.A.M....
Anonymous
Posted on
Quote: "your funny comment was just that, "funny", and nothing else.. it meant nothing to anybody..... very stupid and immature comment........ MAX
Look who is having a completely vacuous and infantile reaction.
John A.
Posted on
Louis,
I can see how Hawk might have thought your first post was a bit negative: "NAD fanatics hell-bent on spreading the gospel of NAD".
Look, one thing I have noticed here recently is the same, long post from an "Anonymous" who has a story about buying an NAD full of faults, and all the NAD units at his dealer have all the same problems. I took him seriously first time, and sort of apologised for my recommendation. But he re-posts after a month, and it is the same post. And it ends "I am taking it back to tomorrow to see what the dealer has to say". Then he doesn't follow up. I think there is a good chance the whole story is made up. I cannot see a motive, though. If all the units had the same fault, why didn't he get the message and buy something else?
There are several reports of quality issues with NAD that are the same - the guy never comes back with what the problem really was, or makes any real sense.
So, against "NAD cult" you could consider "NAD defamation".
If you are going to buy a receiver, try to audition an NAD. Listen and see what you think. Buy what you like. If someone tells you you don't know how to listen properly, tell them to get stuffed or something.
NADs are not to everyone's taste. They have almost no add-on features like special surround effects, and the on-screen display for set-up works, but looks clunky and crude on the TV, like going back to command line interface on computer. You get little pops when you switch channels in surround mode. NAD say all the money goes on sound quality, not crap no-one needs (not in those words). I am inclined to believe them. I replaced a Sony stereo amp with an NAD receiver just to move to Home Theatre. I was not expecting a great difference in sound quality on stereo, but that is what I got, the improvement was enormous and immediatly apparent. That sort of thing can generate some brand loyalty.
Other people have similar experiences with other makes, sure. Then we get into "H/K is god"; "GO NAD!" and all that.
I agree with you, that stuff doesn't help anyone much.
John Ashton
Posted on
Hello,
Why are we fanatics for NAD av receivers? Easy: Pure and simple. Powered by passion. NAD's slogans say it better.
John Ashton
To others: Please do not make this site inflammatory. Thanks.
Max
Posted on
Hello, Ok you people seem to have no sense of humour what-so-ever. First off, the whole H/K is god thing, its a joke man, haha funny, you know, a joke?? When I write that stuff I am smiling and laughing. Maybe I should just stop posting and giving my useful input, would that make you happy? Max
Hawk
Posted on
Louis:
If I misunderstood your point, I apologise. Fact is, I have a Denon, but I became an NAD fanatic when I attended a double blind test of receivers held by a local dealer. We were not told what receivers were involved, but were only asked our (yes, there were several of us) opinion of what we heard. Now, everything was played through the same speakers using the same source material (both musical CDs and DVDs were used). The four receivers involved were the NAD 742, the Onkyo 700, the Denon 2802, and the H/K 525, which we learned only after having heard all of the units for a significant amount of time and had ranked them. The unanimous choice, based upon the sound quality, was the NAD. To my ears, it wasn't even close. I could hear musical detail I was unable to hear in from the other receivers and on DVDs, I could hear sounds within the soundtrack that were either muffled or non-existant when played through the other receivers. It was rather amazing since the NAD was tboth the cheapest and lowest powered of the four. Yet, it sounded more powerful and dynamic than anything else we heard that day.
Thereafter I began to take the time to listen to the 752 and 762 (at another dealer) and absolutely fell in love with the sound quality. I believe tha NAD sounds more like quality separates than they sound like a receiver. They certainly run rings around my Denon 3803, sonically speaking. Now, I found one other receiver that I like as much--the Marantz 7300. In that case, I took a pair of my speakers to the dealer and listened to the 7300 using both my speakers and my CDs and DVDs, so I know what an improvement I was getting by using the Marantz.
I often recommend NADs based upon my experience that they sound better. If that makes me a fanatic, so be it. Often times, I recommend the NAD because the person seeking help has 4 ohm speakers and can't figure out why his current receiver is shutting down. NAD and Rotel are the only sub $2K receivers I know of that are rated to handle a 4 ohm load, and the Rotels start at about $1500, so that leaves the NAD for those of us with thinner wallets. However, an examination of this board over the past 3 months will show that I have also recommended (in no particular order): Rotel, Marantz, Denon, Onkyo, Pioneer Elite, Outlaw, and H/K, each numerous times. I do try to find out what a person wants out of a receiver and tailor my recommendations to their needs. I have often posted that one size does not fit all and no receiver is right for everyone.
When I first started reading this forum, there were a lot of posts from a couple of guys named Phil Krewer and hip4ster (or something like that), who argued endlessly over which was better, the Denon or the H/K. It was all pretty pointless (although ocassionally pretty funny--I loved "Phil needs a hug!"). I thought I could raise the level of the discussion by sharing my expereinces with people and I have posted the story of the double blind demonstration a number of times (sorry to bore those of you who have already read it). So I am not one of those who is just trumpeting the brand that he owns. In my case, I made a mistake. The Denon is a good unit, but it is just a receiver. Now I want an NAD (since I can't afford quality separates) because I want better sound quality than what a receiver will give me.
John Ashton:
Thank you for appealing to all not to sink these threads into something inflammatory. I enjoy this site and would not like to see it sink to the level I see on some other audio BBSs.
Yes, thank you John Ashton. BTW I am "John A.", and neither of us is the other. I will use both of my names here from now on.
Some people, especially Hawk, have done extensive comparisons, are "in the market" themselves, and are kind enough to share what they have learned. I just report my own experience, which is wholly positive as regards NAD. I have T760 receiver (few years old; great sound; reliable) and T532 DVD player (new and great). Also an NAD 100 stereo pre-amp from before the flood. It has worked like a charm for years and is still in occasional use.
K Mac
Posted on
Hawk,
I noticed in another post a few days ago where you responded to a question about recommendations for a receiver in the $400 - 700 range. Your first choice was NAD 752, with Outlaw 1050 as a runner-up. I wondered why you didn't have NAD 742 as runner up.
I also appreciate John Ashton's call to keep the discussion focused on what we're all here for - to learn and share experiences - this site has been a big help to a relative "newbie" such as my self.
Hawk
Posted on
K Mac:
Don't know as I don't remember the post. I do love the 742 and think it is a great buy and I do love the Outlaw, as well. Both are quality units and both have great sound for that price range. Maybe I just forgot to include it?
I would also suggest that I have seen more posts on this board with people who were satisfied with the 742 than perhaps any other unit. The sound is simply unbelievablely good for the price.
Anonymous
Posted on
Hello all:
What a provocative title! I thought Louis' motive could be one of the following: 1. to lay down the bait for other manufacturers' owners to be more assertive (i.e. spark more brand loyalty perhaps); 2. provide a wider acceptance for NAD products (it indeed has a small but loyal following) ; and 3. open still the opportunity to bash NAD in its quality issues (see post of John A. above for example). There are other probable motives of course. Me? I actually own an old T770. While it is not perfect (what is?), it has served me years of enjoyment. What we are here for is that we have our own parameters for our choice and everything is relative to his or her satisfaction. When you do make the decision, go on and extract the most out of what you have chosen. Nobody coerced you from making your choice (after all, it is your own money). I do believe that some products do inspire fanatical devotion. But that is only the stimuli; the response is actually on us humans. We cannot question this because it is part of our human nature. Please let us pursue this enjoyable hobby and to make this forum as an avenue for us to share ideas, not to bash each other (thanks, John Aston!).
Anon
Posted on
Damn! I just saw in NAD's website that the T762 received the following awards from The Perfect Vision: 1. Editor's Choice 2. Receiver of the Year 3. Product of the Year More fodder for NAD owners to crow.
P.S. This thread sparked my interest in the NAD!
Odnerolf
Posted on
I owned a T752 for a few weeks now.
First the bad news: 1. the fan can be a bit noisy in loud passages; 2. the unit can get real hot when driving loud passages; 3. a sudden static-like noise when switching surround formats; 4. audio drop-out of a split second at the beginning of a song; 5. doesn't do video upconversion; 6. only 5 channels of amplification; 7. speaker binding posts relatively close to each other; 8. sombre looking; and 9. it has but just a couple of bells and whistles.
BUT...
I love it for what it does because the music is miles away better than the other receivers (sounds like eparates). The above are but miniscule nitpicks that I can live with.
Duhh.. does that qualify me as a NAD fanatic?
ODNEROLF
Anonymous
Posted on
THANK YOU ALL. NOW, I CAN SEE THE LIGHT.
John Allen
Posted on
Congratulations and thanks to Anonymous of Sept 25. That is really what it's all about.
We seem have a few NAD recommenders. None seems very fanatical to me.
You pays your money and you takes your choice.
Adam
Posted on
I second John Allen's post pointing to Anonymous of Sept. 25. It is really about your choice so you better have to justify your purchase(rationality). NAD's products are generally very good and right on the money and it is easy to see why many so-called "audiophiles" like it. But they also have their share of rotten luck consisted of a few clunkers and bad production runs.
Future NAD
Posted on
NAD Lovers,
I am currently using Denon 1603 for MMGs, and thinking of switching to NAD. When Maggies other surrounds and center are released, I will complete 5.1 system with HSU VTF 2 subwoofer. Which NAD should I go with? T752 or T762 in terms of power requirement. I assume musical quality is very similar between these. Any suggestions?
Hawk
Posted on
Future NAD:
I have looked at this problem for some time. I ordered a pair of MMGs last spring and found them to be the best speaker I have ever owned. I love their detail and their "air"--the real sense that I have the performers there in front of me. Unfortunately, my wife insisted that she wanted something much smaller and I returned them at the end of my 60 day trial period. I have regretted it ever since.
While I had them, I spent a great deal of time looking and listening. My Denon was just not happy driving them (I swear I could smell ozone every time I used them), so I experimented with several receivers.
I ended up looking at NAD--better sound and they easily drive the 4 ohm load of the MMGs. For two MMGs, the 752 is plenty of power, and I also think it is capable of handling the full Maggie mini HT system). It has 80 wpc x 5 and Sound & Vision measured it at 92 wpc x 5. Now what you need to remember is that rating and test is into an 8 ohm load. So, when driving the almost pure 4 ohm load of the Maggies, you are looking at about 150-160 wpc x 5. That is more than enough to drive the MMGs and related speakers.
Future NAD
Posted on
Hawk,
Thanks. Now I can be assured to get the NAD. Of course, your power explanation applies to the case where I have one more speaker i.e. subwoofer, right? I feel sorry to hear that you had to return the Maggies, too. BTW, since then what is your main speaker setup?(Only if you are willing to reveal!) Good luck.
