Debating switching from Yamaha to NAD

[sakete]

I had mine professionally set up, and the guy , whos done thousands , said it sounded pretty damn good? Have you got the nad?

A subjective impression is not a good way to compare gear.

And if I were selling gear I'd say the same

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Well, measurements of the T758 v3. Not great:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-nad-t758-v3-avr.8912/

@PENG Does anything else, besides DAC, measure well on that site?

Maybe people listen with just DAC, not pre-pro, AVR, Amps, speakers, but just the DAC.

He wrote: “A $9 Apple dongle easily outperforms what these devices produce”.

 

[PENG]

@PENG Does anything else, besides DAC, measure well on that site?

Maybe people listen with just DAC, not pre-pro, AVR, Amps, speakers, but just the DAC.

He wrote: “A $9 Apple dongle easily outperforms what these devices produce”.

He hasn't measured too many AVRs, AVPs and the likes of. In his chart that ranks by SINAD (THD+N) you can see the following:

- NAD T758 V3
- Denon AVR-4306
- Sony STR-ZA1100ES
- Pioneer VSX-LX504
- Marantz AV8805
- Yamaha WX-A50 (wireless streamer amplifier)

None of them ranked very high on that chart because they are obviously at disadvantage when compared with dedicated DACs that tend to score well on noise and obviously they should, no surprise there.

He wasn't harsh on any of them except the NAD that scored really bad, sitting right at the bottom of the chart for now until someone send him something worse to measure. Amir seems to be an honest engineer who would just report what he found without sugar coating the results. He did not say the NAD would sound bad or anything, he simply presented his findings on the measured distortions and noises and expressed his surprise at why a product from NAD didn't do better.

Understandably, owners of the DUT would generally not be happy, or skeptical of the poor results when their favorite gear did not do well on his bench. I was not happy about it either after I paid over $3,000 for the then Marantz flag ship AV8801, only to be told by Dr. Rich that

"the $250 Yamaha RX-V367 and Marantz AV8801 ($3000) use the same Renesas LSI chip (R2A15220FP). With the LSI analog chip in these products, the sound of the direct mode is relatively constant, although a more robust power supplies, addition a quality output buffer and enhanced DC blocking capacitor quality can make small differences."

but then again, Dr. Rich is another seemingly honest engineer who, like Amir, is not always audiophilically correct. You and I can say that the differences in specs between a popular LSI chip and the better spec'ed MSI or SSI chips are, like that between a ES9006 DAC chip in the RX--A1080 and the ES9026 in the 3080/CX-A5200 won't/or don't make any audible differences, but ESS, AKM, TI will continue to improve their DACs regardless. Consequently, many (obviously not all)audiohlics/audiophiles would likely expect the more expensive gear to use the better spec'ed DAC and preamp/vol control chips, whether they would improve SQ or not and be disappointed or unhappy if they found cheap chips in them, from honest engineers like Amir and Dr. Rich, well Gene too I might add, occasionally...

 

[Topmetom2]

A subjective impression is not a good way to compare gear.

And if I were selling gear I'd say the same

He wasnt selling me anything.

 

[sakete]

Man, even NAD's M17 pre-pro doesn't do very well. And that thing costs $6K. That's just ridiculous. Seems like NAD is trying to coast along on their brand name, but not really putting much effort into their products. For $6K you'd expect perfection.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-nad-m17-v2-pre-pro.8998/

Their power amp, the M27, does measure well:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-nad-m27-pwr-amp.9036/

So conclusion, perhaps NAD is good at building power amps, but not so good at building processors and pre-amps.

 

[PENG]

Man, even NAD's M17 pre-pro doesn't do very well. And that thing costs $6K. That's just ridiculous. Seems like NAD is trying to coast along on their brand name, but not really putting much effort into their products. For $6K you'd expect perfection.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-nad-m17-v2-pre-pro.8998/

Their power amp, the M27, does measure well:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-nad-m27-pwr-amp.9036/

So conclusion, perhaps NAD is good at building power amps, but not so good at building processors and pre-amps.

Yep, I have read many integrated amps, avrs, preamps and power amps measurements all over the map and have never seen one single NAD amp that measured poorly. Cannot say the same about AVRs.

So my guess is, their engineering design/development team might be very practical minded, that they figure people who buy AVRs, AVPs+amps for movies and there is no way anyone, even golden ears equipped, can tell the difference between 0.01% THD+N and 0.1 or even 0.5% THD+N at any frequencies, so why not use cheaper preamp and DAC ICs, and spend the money on the upgrading from Audyssey mult EQ to Dirac Dirac.

There got to be reasons why tell us so little about their preamp/processor section On the power amp section, even Yamaha, apparently has been following the CEA-2006/490A standard for their dynamic rating, while NAD seemingly remain loyal to the 50+ years old and defunct IHF standard, hopefully their test protocol does comply with or exceed the CEA-2006/490A.

 

[sakete]

Yep, I have read many integrated amps, avrs, preamps and power amps measurements all over the map and have never seen one single NAD amp that measured poorly. Cannot say the same about AVRs.

So my guess is, their engineering design/development team might be very practical minded, that they figure people who buy AVRs, AVPs+amps for movies and there is no way anyone, even golden ears equipped, can tell the difference between 0.01% THD+N and 0.1 or even 0.5% THD+N at any frequencies, so why not use cheaper preamp and DAC ICs, and spend the money on the upgrading from Audyssey mult EQ to Dirac Dirac.

There got to be reasons why tell us so little about their preamp/processor section On the power amp section, even Yamaha, apparently has been following the CEA-2006/490A standard for their dynamic rating, while NAD seemingly remain loyal to the 50+ years old and defunct IHF standard, hopefully their test protocol does comply with or exceed the CEA-2006/490A.

Well, it's good that there are sites out there starting to measure these things so we can objectively see how these things are performing. There are too many subjective nonsense reviews out there, and the more objective reviews really help separate the good from the bad. All the nonsense claims about how they sound can be ignored, as pretty much none of the subjective reviews do a scientific comparison with their subjective impressions (i.e. a double-blind test, volume matched, etc.).

 

[PENG]

Well, it's good that there are sites out there starting to measure these things so we can objectively see how these things are performing. There are too many subjective nonsense reviews out there, and the more objective reviews really help separate the good from the bad. All the nonsense claims about how they sound can be ignored, as pretty much none of the subjective reviews do a scientific comparison with their subjective impressions (i.e. a double-blind test, volume matched, etc.).

NAD's AVRs do get help from expectation bias, from their reputed integrated amps and power amps, i.e. by association.

You hit the nail in the head, they can count on the fact that not too many potential AVRs/AVPs buyers would bother looking under the hood and/or seek out the measurements, that are scarce to begin with. And even for those who would in fact check out available measurements, how many bother reading and comparing bench test measurements of competing products, I would say none to very few..

 

[sakete]

NAD's AVRs do get help from expectation bias, from their reputed integrated amps and power amps, i.e. by association.

You hit the nail in the head, they can count on the fact that not too many potential AVRs/AVPs buyers would bother looking under the hood and/or seek out the measurements, that are scarce to begin with. And even for those who would in fact check out available measurements, how many bother reading and comparing bench test measurements of competing products, I would say none to very few..

Guess I belong to the very few then. Granted, I bought a Yamaha without having seen measurements Well, I did see measurements of their top end pre-pro and hoped some of that trickled down to the A20xx line.

I'm otherwise a data analyst by day and I love seeing factual results vs. someone's opinion when looking at gear

 

[PENG]

Guess I belong to the very few then. Granted, I bought a Yamaha without having seen measurements Well, I did see measurements of their top end pre-pro and hoped some of that trickled down to the A20xx line.

I'm otherwise a data analyst by day and I love seeing factual results vs. someone's opinion when looking at gear

I know we have a pharmacist, good to know we have at least one data analyst too.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I did see measurements of their top end pre-pro and hoped some of that trickled down to the A20xx line.

Here is a chart I took from @PENG and shortened a little.

The best AVR full-power-SNR is about 110dBA and best worst-case-1kHZ-XT is about 94dB.

 

[sakete]

And here's a Yamaha:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-yamaha-rx-a1080-avr.9090/

Performs better than the NAD, but otherwise definitely not state of the art.

I wonder how the CXA5200 would fare on that guy's test bench.

 

[PENG]

And here's a Yamaha:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-yamaha-rx-a1080-avr.9090/

Performs better than the NAD, but otherwise definitely not state of the art.

I wonder how the CXA5200 would fare on that guy's test bench.

His findings so far seem consistent with Gene's so there is no reason to believe he won't find the CX-A5100 and A5200 measure except that one anomaly the A5200 had with balanced output.

Based on Audiosciencereview.com's measurements, I would not recommend the RX-A1080 if used as prepro based on the pre out performance. It still beats the NAD T758 V3, but the Anthem pre out has higher output for sure.

 

[PENG]

Well, we are interested in seeing what Dirac can/can't do for both your systems and Dennis' systems.

I think I have just about figured out how to use REW with JRiver so should be able to compare Audyssey XT32 and Dirac Live standalone soon, using the LS50 or R900.

 

[JStewart]

I think I have just about figured out how to use REW with JRiver so should be able to compare Audyssey XT32 and Dirac Live standalone soon, using the LS50 or R900.

With the JRiver WDM driver found under options IIRC?
That’s how I did it with Dirac’s beta with bass management and multi sub.
Will you have a beta or paid version?

 

[PENG]

With the JRiver WDM driver found under options IIRC?
That’s how I did it with Dirac’s beta with bass management and multi sub.
Will you have a beta or paid version?

Beta, there is no paid version yet afaik.
I found some instructions by JRiver, follow it and it seemed to be working.

 

[PENG]

So I guess it is easier to compare the little $1,200 RX-A1080 to the current flag ship $1,300 NAD T777 V3 as they seem more comparable than to the 758 V3 that came far behind in terms of measurements.

By the way, who's power specs are more "honest"?

T777 V3: 45 lbs, 7X140 W FTC, 7X80 W (FBW, @rated THD)
RX-A1080: 32.8 lbs, 2X110 W, 7X?, Audiovision.de measured 96 WX7, 6 ohms, 1 kHz (likely at 1% THD)

Like the HK power myth, same thing here..and oh, where's the cast iron (assuming lead is not allowed) plate? The T777 has much more storage capacitance, yet it only beats the 1080 slightly in the peak power measurements.

Once again, like the T758 V3, it boils down to Dirac Live vs YPAO? Otherwise, the 3080 is absolutely a much better value (flag ship vs flag ship).

@sakete : Have you made up your mind yet, still debating?

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-nad-t777-avr.9210/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-yamaha-rx-a1080-avr.9090/

 

[Deckard71]

1.300$ the 777 v3?? Where??

 

[sakete]

1.300$ the 777 v3?? Where??

Yeah, the t777 is 1800 refurbished, 2400 new.

 

[sakete]

So I guess it is easier to compare the little $1,200 RX-A1080 to the current flag ship $1,300 NAD T777 V3 as they seem more comparable than to the 758 V3 that came far behind in terms of measurements.

By the way, who's power specs are more "honest"?

T777 V3: 45 lbs, 7X140 W FTC, 7X80 W (FBW, @rated THD)
RX-A1080: 32.8 lbs, 2X110 W, 7X?, Audiovision.de measured 96 WX7, 6 ohms, 1 kHz (likely at 1% THD)

Like the HK power myth, same thing here..and oh, where's the cast iron (assuming lead is not allowed) plate? The T777 has much more storage capacitance, yet it only beats the 1080 slightly in the peak power measurements.

Once again, like the T758 V3, it boils down to Dirac Live vs YPAO? Otherwise, the 3080 is absolutely a much better value (flag ship vs flag ship).

@sakete : Have you made up your mind yet, still debating?

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-nad-t777-avr.9210/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-yamaha-rx-a1080-avr.9090/

View attachment 31632


View attachment 31631


View attachment 31629

View attachment 31630

Made up my mind a while back, sticking with Yamaha. NAD is simply overpriced for what you get. Yeah you do get Dirac, but in my room it shouldn't really matter.

I might down the road go the separates route provided there's a multi ch pre-pro that actually measures great and is worth the price tag.