Why does NAD sound so sliky smooth? Are they just baass? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Why does NAD sound so sliky smooth? Are they just baass?



stevef22
03-17-2008, 10:42 AM
I had a NADT760 receiver as my preamp connected to a marantzMA500u amplifier. The sound was awesome!!! Why does NAD sound so nice?

basite
03-17-2008, 10:53 AM
the sonic signature differs from brand to brand...

the yamaha to the nad will make quite a difference, yamaha is bright, agressive and tight, while NAD is more laid back, warmer sound.

also matching is important...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

Ajani
03-17-2008, 11:03 AM
the sonic signature differs from brand to brand...

the yamaha to the nad will make quite a difference, yamaha is bright, agressive and tight, while NAD is more laid back, warmer sound.

also matching is important...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

Agreed.... Yamaha and NAD have different approaches to sound.... NAD likes the laid back inoffensive sound, while Yamaha tends to be about excitement.... either can sound acceptable depending on the type of speakers you match them with... Seems NAD works best for your setup...

SlumpBuster
03-17-2008, 01:07 PM
Why does NAD sound so nice?

They soak their power supplies in 12 year old scotch as part of the manufacturing process.

Actually, it's just quality and simplicity. Whether it's NAD, Rotel, Arcam, Anthem, ect. or even Yamaha, Onkyo, or Pioneer, once you cross a certain quality threshold, everythings starts to sound much nicer.

aevans
03-17-2008, 02:30 PM
NAD's early power envelope stuff was really harsh to my ears, it sounds like they changed the game up a little.. also the output impedence on the NAD may be better suited to the marantz if you are looking for scientific reason for the differance.

stevef22
03-18-2008, 09:38 AM
Thanks for the info. I really like NADs sound when hooked up to my Cerwin Vega Vs12 speakers. I guess the laid back NAD sound helped the bright and bassy Cerwin Vegas mellow out. NAD sounds better then Yamaha IMO. I cant believe NAD is up there with ROTEL, I thought Rotel was lightyears ahead in quality???

hermanv
03-19-2008, 07:43 AM
I had a NADT760 receiver as my preamp connected to a marantzMA500u amplifier. The sound was awesome!!! Why does NAD sound so nice?They do it just so we can all have these forums :thumbsup:

If it all sounded the same, there'd be nothing to discuss.

Impact over smoothness, warmth over resolution, neutrality over pleasing, or visa versa? Welcome to the wonderful world of audiophilia or "my system, can beat up your system".

PDN
03-19-2008, 06:09 PM
My high end audio senior sales person (he really knows his business) puts it this way when it comes to amps and A-V receivers:

For pure music reproduction, Rotel is the best in its class followed closely by NAD but Rotel has the build quality and overall superior performance. Then Marantz's standard line would be next being more geared and designed for home theater than for musicality. He sells both Rotel and Marantz. Then comes the mass market lines sold in the Circuit Cities, Best Buys, etc (Onkyo, Yamaha, Harmon Khardon, Denon,). I tend to agree with him but this is just two folks' opinions.

frenchmon
03-19-2008, 06:54 PM
My high end audio senior sales person (he really knows his business) puts it this way when it comes to amps and A-V receivers:

For pure music reproduction, Rotel is the best in its class followed closely by NAD but Rotel has the build quality and overall superior performance. Then Marantz's standard line would be next being more geared and designed for home theater than for musicality. He sells both Rotel and Marantz. Then comes the mass market lines sold in the Circuit Cities, Best Buys, etc (Onkyo, Yamaha, Harmon Khardon, Denon,). I tend to agree with him but this is just two folks' opinions.


And those of us who know Marantz, know that this is a false statement. If Marantz is known for anything it musicality first above everything else they do.Just check the history of Marantz and you will see its always been mono and two channel sound first that they got their reputation, not hometheater. Your sales man is selling you a line of bull.

pixelthis
03-19-2008, 10:43 PM
Thanks for the info. I really like NADs sound when hooked up to my Cerwin Vega Vs12 speakers. I guess the laid back NAD sound helped the bright and bassy Cerwin Vegas mellow out. NAD sounds better then Yamaha IMO. I cant believe NAD is up there with ROTEL, I thought Rotel was lightyears ahead in quality???

CERWIN VEGAS???

CERWIN VEGAS???

Does your Caddy have a PINTO engine in it?

DUMPSTERS were invented because CERWIN VEGAS wouldnt fit in a standard US trash can.

AND hooked up to NAD and MARANTZ equipment!!!!


RUN dont walk from your house RIGHT NOW.
ITS ABOUT TO GET STRUCK BY LIGHTING:1: :1: :1: :1:

stevef22
03-20-2008, 11:09 AM
Does Cerwin Vega really suck that bad? I think they rock! http://www.enigmawebdesign.com/craigsad/setup.jpg

GMichael
03-20-2008, 11:15 AM
Does Cerwin Vega really suck that bad? I think they rock! http://www.enigmawebdesign.com/craigsad/setup.jpg

Don't mind Pixie. Anyone who owns something different than he does, owns crap and doesn't know chit about audio. You'll get used to him.

E-Stat
03-20-2008, 11:43 AM
Anyone who owns something different than he does, owns crap and doesn't know chit about audio. You'll get used to him.
All Steve needs to do in run the tweeters with more power than the woofers! :D

rw

pixelthis
03-20-2008, 11:08 PM
Don't mind Pixie. Anyone who owns something different than he does, owns crap and doesn't know chit about audio. You'll get used to him.

Oh come on now we're talking about a CAR stereo company!

I have problems with "audio snobs" who denigrate stuff based on brand, but
Cerwin Vega!!!

Although if your main interest is rock they might be enough.

There is one good benefit of owning these speakers, when you listen to some others
on your gear you will see what you've been missing

And its not a question of chucking these but WHEN.

Radio shack used to sell these realistic speakers made in Korea, werent that bad really,
I used to own some, powered by a realistic receiver which I thought was okay
because pioneer made it.
Not as good as the Mcintosh stuff I had listened to, (what was?) but I could afford it.

Then I GOT A GROWNUP JOB AND WALKED into a yamaha dealer, listened to a yamaha with genesis bookshelf speakers, nad cassette deck and a pioneer TT.
Paid 800 bucks (about 2400 today) and never looked back:1:

aevans
03-22-2008, 10:25 AM
The vega sound is something that some people like, they are not just a "car audio company" modern audio owes a lot to cerwin vega.. first solid state amp, tons of innovations in low frequency reproduction.. etc. etc.

Vegas sound more like a live gig than a lot of other speakers.. you won't get the pin point imaging or the perfect flat response, but that's not what you get at a concert either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerwin_vega

E-Stat
03-22-2008, 05:20 PM
...tons of innovations in low frequency reproduction.. etc. etc.
I remember hearing the C-V room at a hi-fi show in Atlanta back in '74. They had a large three way horn driven system playing the them from "Mission Impossible" at three digit SPLs. You could feel the wind from the bass rustle your trouser legs!

rw

blackraven
03-22-2008, 05:48 PM
Why do people call the NAD sound laid back. I find it anything but that. Smooth and warm yes but I wouldnt call it laid back and I'm not even sure that term applies to amplfiers.

E-Stat
03-23-2008, 02:46 AM
Why do people call the NAD sound laid back. I find it anything but that. Smooth and warm yes but I wouldnt call it laid back and I'm not even sure that term applies to amplfiers.
Agreed on the first part. I have a T763 receiver which is I find to be rather neutral sounding. Laid back suggests a recessed midrange or top like some old tube gear. As opposed to some very up front and "aggressive" SS stuff.

rw

hermanv
03-23-2008, 10:25 AM
I used to own a T763, one of it's strengths was the lack of of that edgy transistor sound that plagues so many other receivers. It was warm, but consuderably less clear than my main 2 channel system. While perfectly acceptable for home theater, I tried and could not use it for active music listening.

So when people say laid back, they might mean a less than stellar resolution. That would be consistent with many NAD reviews I've read. The semantics needed to describe shortcomings of electronic music reproduction are still evolving.