Yamaha RX-V3900 or NAD T785 (Refurb)

[nitin_mehra20]

Hi,

I am divided between the two. They both are costing the same amount, which would be a better buy??

I am looking for 70% audio and 30% HT usage.

Also is Onkyo 7555 a good option for an audiophile quality player?

 

[PENG]

If your speakers are rated 8 ohms nominal, go with the 3900. I assume it is a brand new 3900 vs a refurbished T785 otherwise I can't imagine them costing the same.

 

[nitin_mehra20]

If your speakers are rated 8 ohms nominal, go with the 3900. I assume it is a brand new 3900 vs a refurbished T785 otherwise I can't imagine them costing the same.

I have a pair of B&W 683s. Not sure about the nominal rating on the same?

But in terms of better buy, what should I go for? Both have the nearly the same RMS rating

 

[Lordoftherings]

NAD T 785 is the way to go, all the way.

Hi,

Go with the NAD T 785, this is a monster receiver that retails for $3,800 new.
The Yammy 3900 retails for $1,900 new.
The difference just in price is twice!

The 785 weights 55 pounds vs the 3900 38 pounds.

Nad is an excellent sounding receiver that is a big notch higher than the
Yammy. Also the NAD T 785 have a great special Audyssey Room EQ
implemented, which is light years ahead of the Yammy.

Here we're talking High End vs Middle End. The choice is obvious.
Just make sure that if you have any problems with the NAD, that you can return it for your money back.
The 785 is a fantastic beast. The 3900 is not even in the same league.
Nad is audiophile stuff, period.

Cheers,

_______ Bob

Note: I am not familiar with the Onkyo player that you mentioned.
Is it a blu-ray player?

 

[CraigV]

Hi,

Go with the NAD T 785, this is a monster receiver that retails for $3,800 new.
The Yammy 3900 retails for $1,900 new.
The difference just in price is twice!

The 785 weights 55 pounds vs the 3900 38 pounds.

Nad is an excellent sounding receiver that is a big notch higher than the
Yammy. Also the NAD T 785 have a great special Audyssey Room EQ
implemented, which is light years ahead of the Yammy.

Here we're talking High End vs Middle End. The choice is obvious.
Just make sure that if you have any problems with the NAD, that you can return it for your money back.
The 785 is a fantastic beast. The 3900 is not even in the same league.
Nad is audiophile stuff, period.

Cheers,

_______ Bob

Note: I am not familiar with the Onkyo player that you mentioned.
Is it a blu-ray player?

I'll second that

 

[strube]

I just wanted to toss a little bias into this equation. I hate NAD, I think their quality control is awful. Now, granted, they may have improved since I purchased one in 2004, but I won't ever buy one. They are supposed to be considered "high end" but I would not buy a "high end" GM car either.

The first AVR I had had a direct coupling with the cooling fans in the bottom of the unit so my speakers had a lovely whirring sound whenever it was on. This was on the day I brought it home.

The second one's digital inputs didn't work, and the display would corrupt itself about every fourth time I would turn it on. This was on the day I got it back from the repair. At least the dealer was kind enough to loan me the cheapest Marantz he had on display at the time in between, which worked far better than the NAD ever did...

There was no third one. I got my money back and got a Rotel that served me well until last week when I replaced it with an AVR that had HDMI and Audyssey. I will say that the dealer treated me well though, and I certainly would have bought the Rotel from him if he sold them...

Now, I know I am just one person with two bad experiences, but that is enough for me not to consider them as an option ever again.

 

[Seth=L]

Things to consider.

Strube makes a very valid point concerning the quality control on NAD's products. I've heard from numerous people about NAD quality control issues with receivers. The one in question is a refurbished model, which can mean many things or nothing. It could mean that it was inspected very closely upon repair, or that some goon fixed what he was told to fix and perhaps didn't bench test it properly before packing it into a recondition box. It may also mean the warranty is shorter, however some companies will offer full warranty on refurbished products (just depends on how a company stands behind a product).

The Yamaha is new, so the warranty is known to be good assuming purchased from an authorized dealer. The Yamaha will drive all but the most demanding speakers to reference levels in a large room with no problems. Your speakers would work wonderfully with either receiver and it's unlikely you would run out of power with either one.

The NAD does not support Dolby Digital Plus, TrueHD, or DTS-HD codecs (Blu-ray audio formats that can yield higher fidelity than standard Dolby Digital and DTS codecs). The NAD also has no upscaling or upconversion to HDMI. The Yamaha can convert all manor of video input to a single HDMI output and upscale those sources as well. Both receivers have some type of "auto room eq". While the one on the NAD is better neither can stack up to having a $50 SPL meter and taking a little time to calibrate yourself.

IMHO, the Yamaha is the safest bet. I don't trust NAD as far as I can through a NAD 745 (and that's only a couple feet I'm sure). Any company that adopts an extinct way of rating amplification for marketing purposes is on my list of manufacturers to avoid. No other mass production company uses IHF as a standard for rating output, it's very inaccurate and misleading. I'm not saying they don't make a good product, they very well might. I always remember that there's other companies that make good products but charge unfair prices for them, think Monster Cable.

 

[3db]

Things to consider.

Strube makes a very valid point concerning the quality control on NAD's products. I've heard from numerous people about NAD quality control issues with receivers. The one in question is a refurbished model, which can mean many things or nothing. It could mean that it was inspected very closely upon repair, or that some goon fixed what he was told to fix and perhaps didn't bench test it properly before packing it into a recondition box. It may also mean the warranty is shorter, however some companies will offer full warranty on refurbished products (just depends on how a company stands behind a product).

The Yamaha is new, so the warranty is known to be good assuming purchased from an authorized dealer. The Yamaha will drive all but the most demanding speakers to reference levels in a large room with no problems. Your speakers would work wonderfully with either receiver and it's unlikely you would run out of power with either one.

The NAD does not support Dolby Digital Plus, TrueHD, or DTS-HD codecs (Blu-ray audio formats that can yield higher fidelity than standard Dolby Digital and DTS codecs). The NAD also has no upscaling or upconversion to HDMI. The Yamaha can convert all manor of video input to a single HDMI output and upscale those sources as well. Both receivers have some type of "auto room eq". While the one on the NAD is better neither can stack up to having a $50 SPL meter and taking a little time to calibrate yourself.

IMHO, the Yamaha is the safest bet. I don't trust NAD as far as I can through a NAD 745 (and that's only a couple feet I'm sure). Any company that adopts an extinct way of rating amplification for marketing purposes is on my list of manufacturers to avoid. No other mass production company uses IHF as a standard for rating output, it's very inaccurate and misleading. I'm not saying they don't make a good product, they very well might. I always remember that there's other companies that make good products but charge unfair prices for them, think Monster Cable.

blah blah blah extinct.. get over it Seth. The only valid points your making are lack of the latest audio codecs and non upscaling. The rest is just personal prejudice and NOT to be taken seriously at all.


To the OP.

If you are looking for the latest audio codecs decoding and video scaling, the NAD is not the way to go. It does lack these features as previoulsy mentioned. The Yamaha RX-V3900 is also quite formidable on the amplifier department, not as robust as the NAD but still quite capable. I own the smaller brother, the RX-V1800 and it drives my PSB T45s which are nominally rated at 6 ohms to well past what I can stand as loudness (withoiut sounding harsh or strained) without even breaking a sweat.

Qaulity control was an issue of the earlier NADs but I've also seen quite a few coomplaints about Onkyo's Denons and Yamaha too. Its hard to say if the QC problems of the past have been eliminated with the new models. Time will tell.

 

[pearsall001]

For bells & whistles & other useless settings, by all means go with the Yammie. If you're looking for superior sound quality & robust power...then the NAD is the ticket.

I experienced an issue with my NAD T773 AVR that I bought back in '04. It's true that NAD did go thru a period of QC issues back then but things have been corrected. You can name any audio company you'd like & you can find fault with all of their QC dept. at some point. It's all in how the company handles it.

NAD went overboard with their CS as far as my issue was concerned. My unit was 5yrs old & NAD replaced it with a T765 AVR at "no charge to me" (they even paid for shipping). I repeat, the unit was over 5yrs old & NAD really didn't have to anything at that point. To me that was superb CS on their end. I don't know of too many other companies that would do that with a 5yr old audio product. And let me tell you the T765 AVR is one hell of a quality piece!!! Kudo's to NAD!!!

 

[greggp2]

Your decision really needs to come down to how important HD Audio via HDMI is and how important the video scaling and conversion options of the Yamaha are. If you are 70% stereo usage, than I would say go with the NAD.

The opinions you are seeking are a little difficult to give, if the people giving them don't have B&W speakers. Electronics sound different on different types of speakers. I have B&W's, see my signature below, and I had a Yamaha 3900. Overall the unit is good. It has lots of bells and whistles, although the video upscaler was so so. My Digital sources from cable that weren't HD were never upgraded to even HD quality, but they were a little better.

Any way, in terms of SQ out of the Yamaha, especially for music and 2 channel stereo, the receiver only sounded it's best when in Pure Direct mode. In other words, unless you bypass the internal circuitry of the unit, it didn't sound its best. Also, it is important to note that on my speakers, which I used the Yamaha to bi-amp, the sound was very much loud and in your face, but lacked some of the refinement and dimension that a higher end receiver or separates would have.

The main reason I returned the Yamaha though, was because it made my speakers sound overly bright. I would experience listening fatigue far too quickly when listening to music at any volume levels.

If it were me, I'd go with the NAD. Even Yamaha has QC issues. Check out the Z7 thread and the video upscaling problems that has taken Yamaha 2 months to fix... Every company has QC issues from time to time with products. It is their willingness to correct them that counts and I think that NAD's service level has been improved over the years.

Good luck with your choice...

 

[Seth=L]

Your decision really needs to come down to how important HD Audio via HDMI is and how important the video scaling and conversion options of the Yamaha are. If you are 70% stereo usage, than I would say go with the NAD.

The opinions you are seeking are a little difficult to give, if the people giving them don't have B&W speakers. Electronics sound different on different types of speakers. I have B&W's, see my signature below, and I had a Yamaha 3900. Overall the unit is good. It has lots of bells and whistles, although the video upscaler was so so. My Digital sources from cable that weren't HD were never upgraded to even HD quality, but they were a little better.

Any way, in terms of SQ out of the Yamaha, especially for music and 2 channel stereo, the receiver only sounded it's best when in Pure Direct mode. In other words, unless you bypass the internal circuitry of the unit, it didn't sound its best. Also, it is important to note that on my speakers, which I used the Yamaha to bi-amp, the sound was very much loud and in your face, but lacked some of the refinement and dimension that a higher end receiver or separates would have.

The main reason I returned the Yamaha though, was because it made my speakers sound overly bright. I would experience listening fatigue far too quickly when listening to music at any volume levels.

If it were me, I'd go with the NAD. Even Yamaha has QC issues. Check out the Z7 thread and the video upscaling problems that has taken Yamaha 2 months to fix... Every company has QC issues from time to time with products. It is their willingness to correct them that counts and I think that NAD's service level has been improved over the years.

Good luck with your choice...

This is just pure dribble.

 

[3db]

For bells & whistles & other useless settings, by all means go with the Yammie. If you're looking for superior sound quality & robust power...then the NAD is the ticket.

I experienced an issue with my NAD T773 AVR that I bought back in '04. It's true that NAD did go thru a period of QC issues back then but things have been corrected. You can name any audio company you'd like & you can find fault with all of their QC dept. at some point. It's all in how the company handles it.

NAD went overboard with their CS as far as my issue was concerned. My unit was 5yrs old & NAD replaced it with a T765 AVR at "no charge to me" (they even paid for shipping). I repeat, the unit was over 5yrs old & NAD really didn't have to anything at that point. To me that was superb CS on their end. I don't know of too many other companies that would do that with a 5yr old audio product. And let me tell you the T765 AVR is one hell of a quality piece!!! Kudo's to NAD!!!

I didn't realize that HDMI switching and the latest audio codecs were considered useless?

 

[Seth=L]

blah blah blah extinct.. get over it Seth. The only valid points your making are lack of the latest audio codecs and non upscaling. The rest is just personal prejudice and NOT to be taken seriously at all.


To the OP.

If you are looking for the latest audio codecs decoding and video scaling, the NAD is not the way to go. It does lack these features as previoulsy mentioned. The Yamaha RX-V3900 is also quite formidable on the amplifier department, not as robust as the NAD but still quite capable. I own the smaller brother, the RX-V1800 and it drives my PSB T45s which are nominally rated at 6 ohms to well past what I can stand as loudness (withoiut sounding harsh or strained) without even breaking a sweat.

Qaulity control was an issue of the earlier NADs but I've also seen quite a few coomplaints about Onkyo's Denons and Yamaha too. Its hard to say if the QC problems of the past have been eliminated with the new models. Time will tell.

There is nothing for me to "get over" as you would say.

Nearly every post you make is fanboy for Lenbrook products. I have thrown facts in your face countless times before and you always disagree with no foundry of logic.

You said everything short of upscaling and HD codecs was "personal prejudice". However, later in your post you are uncertain of NAD QC, as am I. I never stated that their QC is bad at the present, but they do have a reputation for it. I tried to be as nice to NAD as I can possibly muster.

Are we disregarding all together that this is a refurbished model and may not come with a full warranty, or are we just ignoring pesky details so we can draw our own conclusions based on a fetish for Lenbrook.

Facts are facts, they are behind on tech and they won't sound any better than the Yamaha unless the user has unusual needs for intense output.

 

[3db]

There is nothing for me to "get over" as you would say.

Nearly every post you make is fanboy for Lenbrook products. I have thrown facts in your face countless times before and you always disagree with no foundry of logic.

You said everything short of upscaling and HD codecs was "personal prejudice". However, later in your post you are uncertain of NAD QC, as am I. I never stated that their QC is bad at the present, but they do have a reputation for it. I tried to be as nice to NAD as I can possibly muster.

Are we disregarding all together that this is a refurbished model and may not come with a full warranty, or are we just ignoring pesky details so we can draw our own conclusions based on a fetish for Lenbrook.

Facts are facts, they are behind on tech and they won't sound any better than the Yamaha unless the user has unusual needs for intense output.

What facts seth, I saw no posts where you've listed URLs showing the difference in power measurements prooving your points. Just dribble as you put it.

Oh gee, did I throw you for another loop? Seems that not very difficult to do with you? My not supporting Lenbrooke based is based OP's needs. Did I not make the qualifications "CLEAR" enough? *shakes my head"

BTW, the latest offerings from NAD does offer the latest audio codec decoding plus "Audessy" room correction built in.

 

[bandphan]

Based soley on Genes review of the Z7 id take the Yamaha.

 

[pearsall001]

I didn't realize that HDMI switching and the latest audio codecs were considered useless?

It all depends on who's doing the buying.

 

[greggp2]

This is just pure dribble.

How is my post pure dribble Seth? Other than you insulting people's posts on this forum and stating your one sided opinions, do you have any direct experience with either product? Perhaps this is how your rankings got so high? Rather than come on here with objective advice, you lurk around and just insult everyone's posts?

Do you have B&W speakers? I do. 802's to be exact and have you used the Yamaha 3900 with B&W speakers? I have, for the past 30 days. So I think my opinion is more than just dribble, it is highly relevant and based on direct hands on experience with 2 products that the poster is considering...

Perhaps you should keep your derogatory opinions about other people's posts to yourself. Unless of course, you have nothing better to do than insult people...

 

[greggp2]

Based soley on Genes review of the Z7 id take the Yamaha.

The Yamaha is a good receiver. Don't get me wrong. But matched with the B&W's, it can be a bit bright and since he is using it for 70% stereo, I think the NAD will give him better enjoyment. Now if you was flip flopped the other way, and was doing 70% HT, than I would agree with you on the Yamaha...

The Z7 is a great unit and the 3900 is a little more watered down than the Z7. Either way, he'll likely be pretty happy, but if it were me, between the two, I'd go with the Nad. Then again for that price, I decided to go with the Arcam AVR350...

 

[Seth=L]

How is my post pure dribble Seth? Other than you insulting people's posts on this forum and stating your one sided opinions, do you have any direct experience with either product? Perhaps this is how your rankings got so high? Rather than come on here with objective advice, you lurk around and just insult everyone's posts?

Do you have B&W speakers? I do. 802's to be exact and have you used the Yamaha 3900 with B&W speakers? I have, for the past 30 days. So I think my opinion is more than just dribble, it is highly relevant and based on direct hands on experience with 2 products that the poster is considering...

Perhaps you should keep your derogatory opinions about other people's posts to yourself. Unless of course, you have nothing better to do than insult people...

I find it unlikely my rep is high because I insult people.

I don't wish to insult people, and I apologize for doing so. That was a lame/quick response to a post I found uninformative.

3db, certainly you didn't forget that I PROVED that IHF standard was no longer a valid way to rate amplifier output. I can't believe you would forget something like that. I see no good reason to dig up the information again as it would prove a waste of time to show you anything that would discredit NAD's way of rating amplifiers, because you will simply disregard it as you did last time. I stand against companies that rate their gear based on "audiophile" preferences. Thinks like ACD, which are completely useless, are pointless ratings that give the consumer a false idea of how things are to be rated. NAD may produce a very very high quality product, so does Monster Cable. Just because they both produce a quality product does not negate the fact they use marketing BS to direct their products at people that aren't knowledgeable enough, or just like to spend money on brand merchandise that they believe is a higher tier product. I'm sure if you had enormous amounts of expendable funds you would purchase the most exotic audio equipment you could logically afford to purchase, and you would convince yourself it was better than a product with the same operational specifications at a lower price. Enjoy wasting your money.

 

[greggp2]

I find it unlikely my rep is high because I insult people.

You still haven't answered the question as to how my post was "dribble"...