NAD T 787 & T 777 Modular AV Reciever Preview

[admin]

NAD has built a reputation on "audio quality first". Their latest generation of modular receivers (T 787 & T 777) once again proves they are living up to their heritage as evident by their beefy power supplies and full disclosure of amplifier power. NAD has done a lot to make sure that their amplifiers and components will give you all the power you need without any distortion. For video...well, the receivers will pass the signal unmodified. The seven HDMI inputs and two outputs are a great improvement for the company as is the inclusion of Audyessy MultEQ XT room correction. These products don't come cheap. However, the fact that NAD provides an upgradable path via their "Modular Design" approach will likely ease audiophiles concerns about future obsolescence. The question is whether the rest of the public will value their sound quality as much as the hard-core audiophiles. NAD knows their fan base well and NAD owners rarely seem displeased with product performance or feature sets.

Discuss "NAD T 787 & T 777 Modular AV Reciever Preview" here. Read the article.

 

[3db]

I support NAD in their decision not to offer video scaling. I rather leave it up to the display to handle that and the money saved on not providing the scaling is better serverd in the power supply or amplifiers. Besides, with the new up and coming 4K, it will soon render the current version of video scaling provided by all other manufacturer's obsolete.

 

[PENG]

I support NAD in their decision not to offer video scaling. I rather leave it up to the display to handle that and the money saved on not providing the scaling is better serverd in the power supply or amplifiers. Besides, with the new up and coming 4K, it will soon render the current version of video scaling provided by all other manufacturer's obsolete.

I absolutely agree. I never use those video features and when I did, I saw no benefits unless I put in the test discs. Many of us are forced to pay for at least 3 video processors in our TV, BDP and AVR when many of us only use/need one, what a waste.

 

[DS-21]

***However, the fact that NAD provides an upgradable path via their "Modular Design" approach will likely ease audiophiles concerns about future obsolescence.***

They're going to have a lot of ticked off owners, when they discover that the cost of the "upgrade" will purchase them a competitive or superior new product from someone else... (and for not much more, the replacement product from NAD...)

IOW, they'll be just like the last round of "modular" NAD product owners.

 

[Solid-State]

They're going to have a lot of ticked off owners, when they discover that the cost of the "upgrade" will purchase them a competitive or superior new product from someone else... (and for not much more, the replacement product from NAD...)

IOW, they'll be just like the last round of "modular" NAD product owners.

Hey DS-21 why does your vBulletin acount here resolve to DS1121 and not DS-21...

weird

Are you guys using username alias here? and why? and how is it possible an non admin's username could be aliased like that.

 

[DS-21]

Hey DS-21 why does your vBulletin acount here resolve to DS1121 and not DS-21...

weird

Are you guys using username alias here? and why? and how is it possible an non admin's username could be aliased like that.

I can't answer the question, because I'm too computer-illiterate to even understand it!

But definitely not an admin, and no aliases of which I know.

Maybe the dash messes things up?

 

[3db]

They're going to have a lot of ticked off owners, when they discover that the cost of the "upgrade" will purchase them a competitive or superior new product from someone else... (and for not much more, the replacement product from NAD...)

IOW, they'll be just like the last round of "modular" NAD product owners.

Superior in which way? Bells and whistyles? That's never been NAD's concern. Definately not from an audio perspective.

 

[DS-21]

Superior in which way? *** Definately not from an audio perspective.

Why not?

Certainly, for instance, a box with a newer/better room correction system is "superior from an audio perspective."

NAD's hardware is just commodity audio parts like everyone else, from Sony to Boulder.

At least one of their previous AVRs was just a rebadged versions of someone else's.

The only unique selling point (besides snob appeal) NAD offers is their own target curve for Audyssey, which I believe differs from the stock Audyssey target curve mainly in delete-optioning Audyssey's infernal "crappy speakers compensation midrange notch," though their might be other differences (more bass?) of which I'm not aware.

 

[cpp]

DS-21

NAD's hardware is just commodity audio parts like everyone else, from Sony to Boulder.

if that's the case I wonder where they are getting their stuff from for their new M51 Dac.

 

[Sugarbear]

I can't remember the cost of the modules exactly (can someone shed some light here?) but I seem tor recall them to be expensive enough to nearly offset the benefit of starting with a cheaper receiver manufacturer and fully upgrading every three years.

 

[3db]

Why not?

Certainly, for instance, a box with a newer/better room correction system is "superior from an audio perspective."

NAD's hardware is just commodity audio parts like everyone else, from Sony to Boulder.

At least one of their previous AVRs was just a rebadged versions of someone else's.

The only unique selling point (besides snob appeal) NAD offers is their own target curve for Audyssey, which I believe differs from the stock Audyssey target curve mainly in delete-optioning Audyssey's infernal "crappy speakers compensation midrange notch," though their might be other differences (more bass?) of which I'm not aware.

The thing uis, Auddessy is probably as far as its going to go from an audable difference so that point is rather moot. Video upconverting? A waste of money and sure to be obsolete soon. The only thing I can think off is maybe a network upgrade card but network components are dirt cheap to begin with so I'm guessing that the network card upgrade if there is going to be one is going to be relatively inexpensive. I'm interested to find out which model was rebadged model? I'm betting its going to be an entry level model just liek that of Denon, Yamaha, etc

 

[DS-21]

The thing uis, Auddessy is probably as far as its going to go from an audable difference so that point is rather moot.

Not sure what you mean by that. Certainly, room correction technologies can improve - note that even the top NAD stuff only has XT resolution, not even the best Audyssey has to offer today! - and loudness compensation programs can be refined, etc.

Video upconverting? A waste of money and sure to be obsolete soon.

Maybe. Don't know, don't really care about video generally.

The only thing I can think off is maybe a network upgrade card but network components are dirt cheap to begin with so I'm guessing that the network card upgrade if there is going to be one is going to be relatively inexpensive.

Smart consumers know that the underlying hardware cost means nothing when one's talking about proprietary parts. NAD can charge whatever they like for their new "modular" bits. And in the past, they have.

Modularity is good idea in theory, and itmakes for good marketing copy. But it is simply false economy in practice.

I'm interested to find out which model was rebadged model? I'm betting its going to be an entry level model just liek that of Denon, Yamaha, etc

I don't remember the brand, but it was their top "non-modular" unit. It was originally sold through a CI vender whose name escapes me. There is more on AVS.

 

[Ziontrain]

It was the Proficient M80 which was cloned by NAD, Harman Kardon and several other "boutique" brands. I think NAD called their version the NAD 747 or something.

More on it here:
Just received a proficient M80 - AVS Forum

 

[3db]

Not sure what you mean by that. Certainly, room correction technologies can improve - note that even the top NAD stuff only has XT resolution, not even the best Audyssey has to offer today! - and loudness compensation programs can be refined, etc.

Comments were made on this board about the toip of the line Audyssey onlt giving subtle improvements over XT. That's what I'm driving at. The curves may draw out better in paper/computer screen but the actual hearing improvement gains becomes less and less effective. It just becomes academic at this point.

Smart consumers know that the underlying hardware cost means nothing when one's talking about proprietary parts. NAD can charge whatever they like for their new "modular" bits. And in the past, they have.

Modularity is good idea in theory, and itmakes for good marketing copy. But it is simply false economy in practice.

Not much difference in swapping out a new pre/pro as far as I can see.

 

[DS-21]

Comments were made on this board about the toip of the line Audyssey onlt giving subtle improvements over XT.

People make comments about a lot of things. Many of them are utterly without merit. That doesn't mean much.

That's what I'm driving at. The curves may draw out better in paper/computer screen but the actual hearing improvement gains becomes less and less effective. It just becomes academic at this point.

No, we're talking actual differences here. Unlike the "differences in sound quality" between a $2500 NAD piece with no room correction engaged, and a $350 Pioneer/Onkyo/Yamaha with no room correction engaged.

The bottom line is, the measured differences between them are such that it's clear there will be a sonic difference between them. One cannot say that about the preamp stages, or DACs, or amp stages. So the room correction system is really the most important section of a modern AVR or pre/pro, because it's the only one that impacts the ultimate sound of the system even if competently designed and non-broken.

Not much difference in swapping out a new pre/pro as far as I can see.

Yes, actually a big difference. Think about it rationally. If choice A is "buy a new part for x" and choice B is "send your 'modular' part away to be upgraded to the new whatever, and be without your system for n days while it's being done, at a cost of .9x" then frankly choice B is irrational.

Actually, now that I think about it, the "upgrade" is actually quite a bit more expensive than just buying a new part, because one has to factor in that purchasing a new box will in fact give someone two boxes. So the real "module" cost is the cost of the module + the opportunity cost for not having an old unit to sell.

And there's no functional benefit to modularity either. To "upgrade" one still has to disconnect everything, lift a box off of its shelf, put a box back on the shelf, and reconnect everything.

The bottom line is that this modularity nonsense, at least at the upgrade prices NAD has traditionally charged, is simply false economy.

 

[3db]

People make comments about a lot of things. Many of them are utterly without merit. That doesn't mean much.

That's how much stock I'm putting into your arguements in this thread.

No, we're talking actual differences here. Unlike the "differences in sound quality" between a $2500 NAD piece with no room correction engaged, and a $350 Pioneer/Onkyo/Yamaha with no room correction engaged.

The bottom line is, the measured differences between them are such that it's clear there will be a sonic difference between them. One cannot say that about the preamp stages, or DACs, or amp stages. So the room correction system is really the most important section of a modern AVR or pre/pro, because it's the only one that impacts the ultimate sound of the system even if competently designed and non-broken.

Some of the measured differences will be less than a 1 db as you move up in complexity of Audessy. If you think you can hear less than 1db in measured differences, go right ahead and believe in the placebo affect. Your choice.

I'm of the old school that an or a receiver's most important feature is its power supply and amplifier capabilities. If they can't drive the load loudly enough for a given room, then all the room correction in the world won't help you make it sound good as teh receiver begins to destroy the speakers.

Yes, actually a big difference. Think about it rationally. If choice A is "buy a new part for x" and choice B is "send your 'modular' part away to be upgraded to the new whatever, and be without your system for n days while it's being done, at a cost of .9x" then frankly choice B is irrational.

Actually, now that I think about it, the "upgrade" is actually quite a bit more expensive than just buying a new part, because one has to factor in that purchasing a new box will in fact give someone two boxes. So the real "module" cost is the cost of the module + the opportunity cost for not having an old unit to sell.

And there's no functional benefit to modularity either. To "upgrade" one still has to disconnect everything, lift a box off of its shelf, put a box back on the shelf, and reconnect everything.

The bottom line is that this modularity nonsense, at least at the upgrade prices NAD has traditionally charged, is simply false economy.

Actually, if you are to swap out a pre-amp, with a new one, you'll have the old pre-amp sitting doing nothing unless you puchase another amp to use that pre-amp.

 

[DS-21]

Some of the measured differences will be less than a 1 db as you move up in complexity of Audessy. If you think you can hear less than 1db in measured differences, go right ahead and believe in the placebo affect. Your choice.

Given that 1dB differences are well within JND's at an awful lot of the frequency spectrum (depending on how wide the differences are, too), I would say that anyone who doesn't think her/his ears can resolve such differences shouldn't bother with expensive audio kit...

I'm of the old school that an or a receiver's most important feature is its power supply and amplifier capabilities.

Based on the accumulated weight of listening tests, the old school view is simply incorrect.

If they can't drive the load loudly enough for a given room, then all the room correction in the world won't help you make it sound good as teh receiver begins to destroy the speakers.

While that's true, the fact of the matter is even cheap AVR's these days have a solid 50W+ per channel. Yes, some people with very hard-to-drive speakers may need more power, or a stiffer PS. But most will not.

Actually, if you are to swap out a pre-amp, with a new one, you'll have the old pre-amp sitting doing nothing unless you puchase another amp to use that pre-amp.

Think about it like a rational human being, and not an audiophool.

First, we're talking about receivers, not preamps. But let's leave that aside for a moment and assume arguendo we're talking about preamps even though clearly this thread is about a new NAD receiver and any person with the observational skills to notice a thread subject would know that.

If you swap out a preamp, you have an old one to either use, or sell. So the cost of a new "upgrade module" is thought of by an intelligent person as the cost of the module plus the resale value of your old piece.

Never mind that upgrading is a hassle, because one loses use of the piece while it's being upgraded. By contrast, a parts swap does not suffer from the downtime problem.

Which is all to point out that the NAD modular model is just a bad deal on every level. A silly sales gimmick that really offers no benefit to the end user.

 

[Sugarbear]

Actually, if you are to swap out a pre-amp, with a new one, you'll have the old pre-amp sitting doing nothing unless you puchase another amp to use that pre-amp.

I could be wrong but I think the point he's making is that once you have two, you can sell the one you don't want.

So, the price for a module should be compared not only to the price of a fully upgraded unit, but the difference between the cost of an upgraded unit and the amount you can sell the old unit for.

Since NAD's modules were (are?) so expensive, there's no economic benefit to their kind of modularity (and no other kind of benefit that he can think of).

Made sense to me.

EDIT: Sorry - I wasn't quick enough on the draw.

 

[3db]

Given that 1dB differences are well within JND's at an awful lot of the frequency spectrum (depending on how wide the differences are, too), I would say that anyone who doesn't think her/his ears can resolve such differences shouldn't bother with expensive audio kit...

Who's the audiophool now?

Based on the accumulated weight of listening tests, the old school view is simply incorrect.



While that's true, the fact of the matter is even cheap AVR's these days have a solid 50W+ per channel. Yes, some people with very hard-to-drive speakers may need more power, or a stiffer PS. But most will not.

Clipping and distortion due to weak power supplies cannot be cleaned up and many of us have power hungry speakers. I'm glad you are able to speak for the majority.

 

[DS-21]

Who's the audiophool now?

There's a difference between foolishness and having a basic understanding of the limits (and abilities) of human hearing.

I repeat, if one can't hear a 1dB difference over a sufficiently wide bandwidth, one should not be wasting money on expensive audio kit.

Clipping and distortion due to weak power supplies cannot be cleaned up and many of us have power hungry speakers. I'm glad you are able to speak for the majority.

I am only able to speak for reasonable, rational people who make reasonable choices. If you fail to live up to that standard, then I do not speak for you.