NAD T 747 A/V Receiver First Look

[admin]

The NAD T 747 A/V receiver exemplifies their principle of simplicity, form and function while also providing the raw power to sonically please its listeners and satisfy the speakers it powers. The T 747 is fully capable of decoding all of the latest HD formats such as Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD, while also supporting legacy connections and Faroudja DCDi processing and upscaling to full 1080p resolution. With 4 HDMI inputs and 3 Component video inputs, the T 747 should provide enough connectivity to all but the most sophisticated installations.


Discuss "NAD T 747 A/V Receiver First Look" here. Read the article.

[rnatalli]

I'm a fan of NAD and Cambridge Audio, but they need to get their prices down. For $1,299, one could get something like the Onkyo 707 combined with an EMO UPA-7 which is a better overall system IMO.

[Seth=L]

Hooray for NAD, for trying to curve their approach toward the future and without selling their soul like another company around here.

I'm a fan of NAD and Cambridge Audio, but they need to get their prices down. For $1,299, one could get something like the Onkyo 707 combined with an EMO UPA-7 which is a better overall system IMO.

I think that NAD relies on the fact that their receivers are considered to be above mass market and that their performance with complex loads on average is better than competing models from other manufacturers. This could be different on the T 747 as we haven't seen it on the bench yet. They, like many other manufacturers, may have sacrificed performance for features. What is what is hard to tell, we'll have to wait and see on this one.

[3db]

Hooray for NAD, for trying to curve their approach toward the future and without selling their soul like another company around here.



I think that NAD relies on the fact that their receivers are considered to be above mass market and that their performance with complex loads on average is better than competing models from other manufacturers. This could be different on the T 747 as we haven't seen it on the bench yet. They, like many other manufacturers, may have sacrificed performance for features. What is what is hard to tell, we'll have to wait and see on this one.

I'm keenly interested in the bench tests as well. I would hedge a bet that NAD will stick to its principles and deliver on the power. We'll just have to wait and see.

[diegs]

The spec sheet states the T747 chassis weighs 29lbs and the shipping weight is 36lbs. The article/executive summary states the chassis weighs 36lbs. Maybe a typo. If the chassis weighs 36lbs then I'd guess the amp section is very robust. However if the chassis weighs 29lbs its not more special than any other mid level receiver.

[Seth=L]

The spec sheet states the T747 chassis weighs 29lbs and the shipping weight is 36lbs. The article/executive summary states the chassis weighs 36lbs. Maybe a typo. If the chassis weighs 36lbs then I'd guess the amp section is very robust. However if the chassis weighs 29lbs its not more special than any other mid level receiver.

If it weighs 29 pounds that's a sharp decrease in weight for them.

[3db]

The spec sheet states the T747 chassis weighs 29lbs and the shipping weight is 36lbs. The article/executive summary states the chassis weighs 36lbs. Maybe a typo. If the chassis weighs 36lbs then I'd guess the amp section is very robust. However if the chassis weighs 29lbs its not more special than any other mid level receiver.

Consider that the Yamaha HTR6250 which is rated at 90x7 where as this NAD is rated at 60x7 is a full 10 lbs lighter than the NAD. The Denon 790 which also rated at 90x7 is still 6 pounds lighter than the NAD.

[Seth=L]

Consider that the Yamaha HTR6250 which is rated at 90x7 where as this NAD is rated at 60x7 is a full 10 lbs lighter than the NAD. The Denon 790 which also rated at 90x7 is still 6 pounds lighter than the NAD.

I'm comparing price fields, not comparitive wattage output scenarios. Neither of those receivers are anywhere close to $1299. Also, Yamaha and Denon are both known to use a different rating standard than NAD on their receivers. I'm also questioning the weight comparison to similar models from NAD that proceeded this model. Many manufacturers have shed pounds and power in favor of features, hopefully NAD found a way to shed weight, but not power.

[3db]

I'm comparing price fields, not comparitive wattage output scenarios. Neither of those receivers are anywhere close to $1299. Also, Yamaha and Denon are both known to use a different rating standard than NAD on their receivers. I'm also questioning the weight comparison to similar models from NAD that proceeded this model. Many manufacturers have shed pounds and power in favor of features, hopefully NAD found a way to shed weight, but not power.

Since I know NAD is always more expensive,, I try to rate by power . Anyway, like you,I've been waiting for Audiholcis to do some testing on Yamaha and now NAD but they'r back logged out to ying yang. Hey, maybe we could apply for the job as testers for Audioholcis and releive them of some backlog!!

[Seth=L]

Since I know NAD is always more expensive,, I try to rate by power . Anyway, like you,I've been waiting for Audiholcis to do some testing on Yamaha and now NAD but they'r back logged out to ying yang. Hey, maybe we could apply for the job as testers for Audioholcis and releive them of some backlog!!

You can't compare the NAD to other receivers based on published power figures because they don't use the same method to arrive at the ratings.