NAD vs Arcam Receiver Comparison

E

EdR

Audioholic
<font color='#000000'>I stopped by my local high end audio store to have a look at the NAD T773 receiver which had also made my short list.  They only sell NAD and Arcam receivers, and suggested that I might also want to consider the forthcoming AVR-300.  I asked to compare the NAD, which they had with the AVR-200 which was sitting right next to it in their sound room.

For the record, the speakers were Linn Ninka's, all listening was done in direct stereo mode.  I didn't catch the CD player, but I'm sure it was good, and I listened to the same jazz cd on both receivers.  The connections to the CD and speakers were direct, he went behind and unplugged one and attached the connectors to the other, that is, no switching matrix.

Now, I'm somewhat new here, and the fact that I'm pleased as punch with my Cambridge Soundworks Towers might lead some to assume that I have a 'tin ear'.  Not really the case, and if anyone is interested, I'd be happy to talk about how a spent a pleasant day several years ago shuttling between a CSW showroom and a high end audio store doing a detailed comparison between those Towers and Paradigm Reference Studio 80's, in which the Towers held their own (in other words, IMHO they're a hidden gem in an otherwise undistinguished line).  In any case, I'm more than a bit of a cynic about overblown claims of audio goodness, and given the quality of the two receivers in question, fully expected to have to listen to the sales guy expounding on differences that I would pretend to hear.

NOT SO!!  I  don't impress easily, and the Arcam managed to impress me.  The soundstage more than doubled in size compared with the NAD and also dramatically increased in depth.  The amount of detail was stunning, given everything else was the same, and as I'd listened to the NAD first, I had thought it very good indeed in that regard, for about five minutes it was, indeed, the best receiver I'd ever heard.  These weren't subtle effects, unless one considers being hit by a truck to be 'subtle'- it was immediately and dramatically obvious.  As it was a 5.1 set up in the room, my first thought was that he'd snuck in a surround DSP mode, so I walked around and listened to all the speakers.  Nope, just pure stereo.

Anyone have any opinions or ideas as to why this should be?  I would not have expected two units are about the same price point, actually the NAD as more expensive than the Arcam I was listening to, to be so dramatically different.</font>
 
G

Guest

Guest
<font color='#000000'>Ed,

Interesting. So you liked the Arcam better? I have been pondering in my dilemma over a new receiver too and today I was at a shop here. I was looking for the NAD (T763 or 773). I spent a couple hours there and the owner gave me a lot of personal attention (slow day). He has been in business for 30 years and was very knowledgable and seemed to have strong integrity.

Anyway, he told me the only other brand he would consider to the NAD at that pricepoint was Arcam. But I didn't listen to one. I'm still on the front end but interesting to hear your comments of the Arcam superiority.

And to others out there this was one man's opinion who has been in the business for a long time so please don't take my comments personal. I am sure there are other good receivers out there for consideration.</font>
 
goodman

goodman

Full Audioholic
<font color='#000000'>I don't know why the Arcam sounds so much better than the NAD. &nbsp;Better amps? &nbsp;Shorter signal paths or noise isolation? &nbsp;Better DACS? &nbsp;And considering the listening that you do before you buy, you apparently do know what you're talking about. &nbsp;However, as good as the Arcam must be, you should read the review by Gene Della Salla of the Denon AVR-5803 on this web site, go listen to one before you buy, and then make your decision. &nbsp;The Denon probably has more features than the Arcam, and may sound just as good. &nbsp;Denon also has a successor ready for the 5803, I believe it is the 5804. &nbsp;Good listening.</font>
 
E

EdR

Audioholic
<font color='#000000'>(responding to buckeyshine)

I'm trying to tell you, listen to them.  It wasn't even opinion, and I was 'preprogramed' to like the NAD better as I'd heard nothing but good about it.  Like I said, the difference was about as subtle as being hit by a truck.  

So much so that I'm a bit suspicious that something was 'dinked' with, but it wouldn't have made any sense.  I could have walked out of there with the NAD today, and the AVR-300 isn't even being delivered yet ( &quot;maybe&quot; March), so it simply wouldn't be very good business for the sales dude to convince me to wait several months over boxes in the back.

I simply would not have believed that there would be such a difference in receivers, everything else being the same.  It's actually more than a bit puzzling.  To put it another way, if I'd been blindfolded, I'd have thought he'd switched speakers, and to a pair of at least twice the price.</font>
 
A. Vivaldi

A. Vivaldi

Audioholic
<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I simply would not have believed that there would be such a difference in receivers, everything else being the same.  It's actually more than a bit puzzling.  To put it another way, if I'd been blindfolded, I'd have thought he'd switched speakers, and to a pair of at least twice the price.
</td></tr></table>    Did you consider the possibilty that the Linns were the right match for the Arcam but not the NAD? I used to have Quad speakers with my NAD integrated amp, and my system sounded like crap. After switching to the much cheaper PSBs the difference was like you said, &quot;about as subtle as getting hit by a truck&quot;. If your convinced that the difference between the two was that much better than by all means go with the Arcam, but I'd ask to hear some different speakers first, if you don't plan to buy those Linns. Be cautious of systems you listen to if you won't or can't buy the whole set up, because once you get it home and hook it up to your stuff it may not sound the same. I've learned the hard way on this one.
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jeffsg4mac

jeffsg4mac

Republican Poster Boy
<font color='#000000'>I used to be an NAD junkie back in the late 80's early 90's I had a 55 watt intergrated, the famous 2200 powertracker, the 2600 monitor series, and one of their hometheater receivers the 7600 I think it was. All of them had problems with relays going bad after a few years and the receiver my dad still has but it has other issues. I will not buy another piece of NAD equipment again.</font>
 
E

EdR

Audioholic
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
A. Vivaldi : <font color='#000000'>Did you consider the possibilty that the Linns were the right match for the Arcam but not the NAD? I used to have Quad speakers with my NAD integrated amp, and my system sounded like crap. After switching to the much cheaper PSBs the difference was like you said, &quot;about as subtle as getting hit by a truck&quot;.</font>
<font color='#000000'>Excellent point, and no I did not. &nbsp;The receiver I (think at the moment) want, the AVR-300, isn't going to be available until March/April, and I will do quite a bit of listening once it's in before plunking my two grand down.

I suppose I assumed that given the level of the store- run and staffed by people who love audio and carrying only high end equipment, I mean, Paradigms are their 'budget' line of speakers, and they dumped Martin Logan because they didn't like the sound- that they'ed selected speakers that would work well with the electronics in their demo room, as that particular room had only the one set of speakers and all the electronics.

Unfortunately, my speakers (the CSW Towers) aren't available in any store here, so that's not an option. &nbsp;However, this shop sells Paradigm, which previous direct comparison showed me are similar in overalll tonal balance, so that should be a decent trial- along with a reasonable return policy should the receiver really suck when I get it home.

Thanks for pointing that out.</font>
 
J

Jessjosh

Enthusiast
<font color='#000000'>I am very interested in the Arcam AVR-300 which is not out yet. &nbsp;I believe that the present AVR-200 would not be suitable for my B&amp;W 802 speakers. &nbsp;As I have stated earlier, I do not have room for separates and am looking for the best receiver out there for classical music listening and to a lesser extent movies. &nbsp;Arcam seems to have a great reputation and just possibly the 300 might be a great receiver. &nbsp;I have been thinking also of the Yamaha Z-9 receiver. &nbsp;It is much more expensive so how to compare it to the Arcam I don't know. &nbsp;Anyway, any suggestions? &nbsp;Thank you.</font>
 
porksoda

porksoda

Audioholic Intern
Follow up?

Any of you gents who purchased nad773 and/or avr300 from arcam have any follow up info based on your inhouse setup?

Arcam still recommended?
 
porksoda

porksoda

Audioholic Intern
Duffinator said:
porksoda, I'm also interested in the Arcam AVR 300. I started this thread a while back:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8977&highlight=arcam+avr300

I have done some extensive auditioning side by side with same dvd/cd player same cables and same speakers for hte nad 773 and arcam 300.

In my opinion the arcam is more refined very warm and creates a wider stage. If you asked what do i mean be refined... many factors... the arcam sounds a bit richer/warmer/detailed.

Nad is great lots of power but its a runner up, not my number one.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top