Receiver Assistance

dave7002 · Oct 26, 2005

I'm confused and need expert help. I'm installing a new system and cannot make up my mind regarding the receiver. My choices in order of priority are: Nad T763, Yamaha RSV2600, Marantz 8500, Denon 3806, Onkyo 803. I've researched available data, and seem to lean toward the NAD, even though it does not have the features. Forget about demos, I'm in Birmingham! Could I get some of the experts out there to weigh in with some opinions? Thanks!

MacManNM · Oct 26, 2005

dave7002 said:
I'm confused and need expert help. I'm installing a new system and cannot make up my mind regarding the receiver. My choices in order of priority are: Nad T763, Yamaha RSV2600, Marantz 8500, Denon 3806, Onkyo 803. I've researched available data, and seem to lean toward the NAD, even though it does not have the features. Forget about demos, I'm in Birmingham! Could I get some of the experts out there to weigh in with some opinions? Thanks!

I think sonically they are all going to be very similar, i would go with whichever one has the features you like most, I gues trust in the brand would be my 2nd factor.

3db · Oct 26, 2005

Between Yamaha Denon and NAD

I would choose NAD if sound mattered more than features . I won't even look at Denon because of their ridiculous mark-up here in Ontario,,,,, imagine paying 1.5 times more for a receiver and knowing its not any better than a comparable Yamaha unit.

I've heard Yamaha and NAD on PSB T55s and I have to admit that the NAD was just better. Not that the Yamaha was bad becuase it certainly was not.. Its just that the NAD had tighter control of the bass and the soundsatge was just that bit bigger and the nuances and details a little more defined than the Yamaha. So the delemas you face are sound over features and reliabilty. Yamahas have had bulletproof reliabilty but NAD on the other hand is a little flakey on their quality control.

I can't comment on the others in your list.

dave7002 · Oct 26, 2005

Thank You

Valued input from a seasoned professional. NAD certainly has a great reputation though I have no experience with them. They are committed to upgrades, while it does not appear as Yamaha has the same level of committment. Warranty is 2 years NAD versus Yamaha traditional one year.

Audioholics · Oct 26, 2005

dave7002 said:
They are committed to upgrades, while it does not appear as Yamaha has the same level of committment. Warranty is 2 years NAD versus Yamaha traditional one year.

Hmmm. Ever notice how Yamaha doesn't typically need updates or warranty repairs, though?

3db · Oct 26, 2005

Clint DeBoer said:
Hmmm. Ever notice how Yamaha doesn't typically need updates or warranty repairs, though?

Yup Thats a dilemna. Choosing better sound over reliability

chas_w · Oct 26, 2005

I thought the warranty on Yamaha receivers was 2 years (?)

t3031999 · Oct 26, 2005

Yamaha receivers have a 2 year warranty.

And I haven't heard of many problems with them anyway. At least I haven't had any with my yamaha gear.

dave7002 · Oct 26, 2005

Another Professional Reply

Since I've never been a Yamaha owner (Denon and Integra) I've had no experience regarding reliability, and there is very little research data available on Yamaha's historically....the AV Guide report on the 2500 was ok, but not overwhelming...that's why I"m here at this site trying to get input to help me make a decision regarding the units I'm focused on. Thanks.

gene · Oct 26, 2005

Yup Thats a dilemna. Choosing better sound over reliability

Of course this is a subjective opinion, but certainly valid for your case.

Its easy to see how for $1500 Company A that offers no HDMI, ILink, THX, etc can produce a slightly meatier amp section than Company B that gives you all of the latest surround formats, and better processing and better reliability.

Its a trade off, though if a more robust amp is needed, simply adding it to a better processor after the fact is usually a better option IMO.

the AV Guide report on the 2500 was ok, but not overwhelming...that's why I"m here at this site trying to get input to help me make a decision regarding the units I'm focused on

You are aware we do very comprehensive receiver reviews right?

http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/index.php

dave7002 · Oct 26, 2005

Your Response then is?

So I interpret that as Yamaha over NAD?

Audioholics · Oct 26, 2005

Not really. Just figure out what you want. If a more robust amplifier section is important, the NAD may have an edge. But if you want the newest features and an amplifier section that is certianly no slouch, then Yamaha would be a strong contender (among others).

We don't try to sway one way or the other as much as clear up misconceptions and get people to see the whole picture, instead of focusing on one single thing. The end result is that you have to choose based on the information presented (hopefully by people who know what they are talking about).

3db · Oct 26, 2005

gene said:
Of course this is a subjective opinion, but certainly valid for your case.

Its easy to see how for $1500 Company A that offers no HDMI, ILink, THX, etc can produce a slightly meatier amp section than Company B that gives you all of the latest surround formats, and better processing and better reliability.

Its a trade off, though if a more robust amp is needed, simply adding it to a better processor after the fact is usually a better option IMO.

You are aware we do very comprehensive receiver reviews right?

http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/index.php

I tend to agree with the exception of THX certification. That is meaninless to me because there are many amps/receivers out there that are not THX certified and perform as good as the ones with THX certification . I see THX has more of a money grab than anything else and the exta cost of the certification is passed generously onto us consumers.

dave7002 · Oct 26, 2005

Hdcd

I noticed that the Yamaha 2600 or 4600 are without HDCD, while NAD and Marantz support. Should this be an issue for me? Simply rely on the DVD/CD to provide?

jcPanny · Oct 26, 2005

Hdcd

I think you would be hard pressed to find media in the HDCD format as well as a CD player that supports it. I looked into this feature when I noticed that several HK receivers support it. It is my understanding that the capabilites of SACD and DVD-A are superior to HDCD and the media and players are more readily available.

gene · Oct 26, 2005

I tend to agree with the exception of THX certification. That is meaninless to me because there are many amps/receivers out there that are not THX certified and perform as good as the ones with THX certification . I see THX has more of a money grab than anything else and the exta cost of the certification is passed generously onto us consumers.

While I am certainly no flag waiver for THX and am not the biggest fan of their post processing, and certainly not into their certification of cables and acoustic treatments, their certification on processors/receivers do ensure a few very important things:
1) Compatability with other THX gear
2) Correct bass management
3) No major operational bugs when decoding DD/DTS

While some receivers/processors out there do perform well and aren't THX, some don't and many have firmware bugs, especially bass management ones.

PENG · Oct 26, 2005

The NAD does seem to have more robust amps and power supply but to say they sound better is highly subjective. To me, adding an amp to the Yamaha is a better alternative. Even the robust NAD amps cannot beat an entry level Outlaw or Adcom amp.

3db · Oct 27, 2005

agreed

PENG said:
The NAD does seem to have more robust amps and power supply but to say they sound better is highly subjective. To me, adding an amp to the Yamaha is a better alternative. Even the robust NAD amps cannot beat an entry level Outlaw or Adcom amp.

This whole audio thing is just that, subjective. I heard the two side by side and I perceived differences that made me choose the NAD over the Yamaha.

Ohh don't go there *chuckles* To me seperates have always been the better audio path but this view is not shared so enthusiasitically. I think for the money that you cannot beat the combo of the Outlaw pre-amp/7125 (amp) combo from a sonics perspective.

But getting back to the disscsuuion, the poster origanlly asked which receiver to get. NAD, Yamaha, Denon, Marantz, etc. And like I said, if he values sonics over features, and want to take a chance on quality control, NAD beats the Yamahas and Denons. I couldn't comment on the others as I have not heard them

dave7002 · Oct 27, 2005

Pioneer VSC74TXVI

Thanks for your reply. Now another receiver to throw in for consideration. Any opinions of the Pioneer Elite series versus the Yamaha RX-V series?

PENG · Oct 27, 2005

3db said:
This whole audio thing is just that, subjective. I heard the two side by side and I perceived differences that made me choose the NAD over the Yamaha.

3db said:
I would choose NAD if sound mattered more than features . I won't even look at Denon because of their ridiculous mark-up here in Ontario,,,,, imagine paying 1.5 times more for a receiver and knowing its not any better than a comparable Yamaha unit.

I've heard Yamaha and NAD on PSB T55s and I have to admit that the NAD was just better. Not that the Yamaha was bad becuase it certainly was not.. Its just that the NAD had tighter control of the bass and the soundsatge was just that bit bigger and the nuances and details a little more defined than the Yamaha. So the delemas you face are sound over features and reliabilty. Yamahas have had bulletproof reliabilty but NAD on the other hand is a little flakey on their quality control.

I can't comment on the others in your list.

3db said:
Yup Thats a dilemna. Choosing better sound over reliability

So if you agree that it is subjective, the original poster should go and listen for himself, instead of taking your words for it and assume that NAD sounds better to him. I am sure to many others, including me, Yamah and Denon sound just as good as the NAD. To some, Yamaha/Denon may even sound better. If he was to choose reliability and features, then based on your previous posts, Yamaha is the way to go.

As for the external amp thing, I just thought the poster may be interested in comparing the cost of a Yamaha (has a clean prepro section according Audioholics) plus a 2 channel amp and that of a NAD receiver that has a robust amp section.

Receiver Assistance

dave7002

Enthusiast

MacManNM

Banned

3db

Audioholic Slumlord

dave7002

Enthusiast

Audioholics

Guest

3db

Audioholic Slumlord

chas_w

Full Audioholic

t3031999

Audioholic

dave7002

Enthusiast

gene

Audioholics Master Chief

dave7002

Enthusiast

Audioholics

Guest

3db

Audioholic Slumlord

dave7002

Enthusiast

jcPanny

Audioholic Ninja

gene

Audioholics Master Chief

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord

3db

Audioholic Slumlord

dave7002

Enthusiast

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord

Latest posts

Sitemap

Sitemap

Site Information

Site Information

HTML