Why doesn't NAD get mentioned here more often?

[3db]

Lately I've seen Onkyo make a reprise in this forum with lots of recommnedations for that brand as well as the stalwart Yamaha and Denon and now H/k. Rotel gets thrown in the soup as well but the one brand that I fund curiously lacking is NAD. Any ideas as to why?

 

[AbyssalLoris]

Actually what I'm more surprised about is, why hasn't anyone responded to this question yet? A buncha people here have gotta have an opinion on this.

 

[j_garcia]

I am a big fan of their stuff. I don't own any of their products currently though. I am also a fan of Arcam, but they don't get discussed much here either.

 

[Bluesmoke]

I think it's probably because us guys have a hard time going into an audio shop and asking:

"Hey, do you have NADs?"
"I'd love to play with some NADs if you don't mind before I make a decision."

 

[Adam]

Personally, I know very little about NAD. The closest NAD dealer is over 100 miles away. Seeing as how I'm sometimes too lazy to go three blocks to the grocery store, I don't see me driving 200 miles round trip to audition an amp (I used to, but not anymore).

Anyway, that's why I don't talk about them - I don't have any experience with them.

 

[3db]

I like their stuff as well.

I am a big fan of their stuff. I don't own any of their products currently though. I am also a fan of Arcam, but they don't get discussed much here either.

If I had the money, I'd go with their Ht receiver becuase I've heard my PSBs mated with them and the sound was just increadable.

 

[j_garcia]

If I had the money, I'd go with their Ht receiver becuase I've heard my PSBs mated with them and the sound was just increadable.

I'd love to have one of the Arcam integrated amps for my 2ch system, but they cost more than I spent on the whole rig

 

[Haoleb]

I think it's probably because us guys have a hard time going into an audio shop and asking:

"Hey, do you have NADs?"
"I'd love to play with some NADs if you don't mind before I make a decision."

Well have no fear, Because its actually pronounced N-A-D Which is short for New Acoustic Dimension

 

[3db]

why thank you Haoleb

Well have no fear, Because its actually pronounced N-A-D Which is short for New Acoustic Dimension

Never knew what it stood for. I thought it may have meant Neutered And Domesticated!!

 

[Warpdrv]

Just a stupid thought, but maybe they are just kinda expensive... and to be honest, there are probably more bang for your buck alternatives out there....

Don't get me wrong, they are great products.... But I for one, would rather go with something like Emotiva if I was looking for a new amp...

I currently have Rotel, which is just fine, and I have always marveled at the N.A.D. products, but didn't want to dent my wallet with as many other products are out there...

 

[markw]

In the HT market, their products tend to come in on the high priced side and don't offer as many glitzy features as the mass market stuff. It's HT gear preforms great, but dollar for dollar and feature for feature, most people will go for one of the main stream brands.

Add to that their, lack of heavy advertisng nd limited distribution and you'll find a recipe for taking a back seat to what's available everywhere else.

Now, if this site were more geared to stereo as opposed to HT, you would most likely find it mentioned more often.

Before you think this a dig, check out the "my system" link on my posts.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Before you think this a dig, check out the "my system" link on my posts.

Where do you have room for a tape deck and a TT, a museum?

 

[3db]

never saw that as a dig

In the HT market, their products tend to come in on the high priced side and don't offer as many glitzy features as the mass market stuff. It's HT gear preforms great, but dollar for dollar and feature for feature, most people will go for one of the main stream brands.

Add to that their, lack of heavy advertisng nd limited distribution and you'll find a recipe for taking a back seat to what's available everywhere else.

Now, if this site were more geared to stereo as opposed to HT, you would most likely find it mentioned more often.

Before you think this a dig, check out the "my system" link on my posts.

Kinda makes sense.

Man I need to win a lottery. I never heard my PSBs sing so sweetly as when it was driven by a NAD. I guess I'll hang onto the Technics a lil longer

 

[Alex2507]

Where do you have room for a tape deck and a TT, a museum?

There's one in every crowd.

 

[billy p]

Kinda makes sense.

Man I need to win a lottery. I never heard my PSBs sing so sweetly as when it was driven by a NAD.

I guess that is why they are owned by the same company!! Lenbrook Group Co. http://www.lenbrook.com/

Ps: I've heard that about Rotel and B & W, certain components are made for one another!!

 

[Rob Babcock]

I have an NAD C 320BEE in my computer rig and really like it. At the moment my PC rig is as follows: PC, Stereo-Link USB DAC, C 320BEE, Monitor Audo Gold Ref 10's (normally in my HT rig but I'm staying with my sister right now so they're in my PC rig d/t space concerns). I love the tone control defeat feature, too; with music I take disengage the tone controls but when I listen to books-on-CD-type stuff intelligiblity is often better if I cut the bass a bit since many of those discs have some chestiness.

 

[jostenmeat]

I think it's probably because us guys have a hard time going into an audio shop and asking:

"Hey, do you have NADs?"
"I'd love to play with some NADs if you don't mind before I make a decision."

Although my nads aren't very sexy at all, they are indeed pretty big and heavy. I like that. And they rarely ever break out in a sweat, but when they do, it makes me feel a little uncomfortable. That being said, I wouldn't be embarassed in comparing my nads with anyone else's.



Chalk me up as another owner!

 

[mouettus]

Pretty simple actually:

Too pricey for what they are. EXCELLLLLLENT sounding units. Never heard anything fuller; even Rotel. But for HT, like mike said, dollar-for-dollar is no good. They really lack great features. Especially HDMI (I think their new receiver is 1.1 compliant... horray )

I own a 320BEE by the way powering some RC-10 from Energy and this is my sweetest sounding system ever. Hooked on my computer for music listening only.

 

[Seth=L]

As Mark mentioned, they aren't as up to date on their features. Their newest line of receivers for example while they have HDMI 1.3 they don't process HD audio formats. In fact it appears to be switching only.

They have good drive capability, so if you don't need the latest in processing and features NAD can be a good solution for those that want the simplicity and cost of a receiver with the capability to drive a wider range of speakers adequately.

 

[Janik]

NAD: my 2 cents

Like was said earlier, lovely audio side on the AV receivers, but the video processing leaves something to be desired. It appears this may have been deliberate on NAD's side. A good DVD player can bypass the AVR and HDMI link directly into your HDTV, and therefore you are not wasting money buying duplicate processing capability on the AV receiver.

I've owned NAD in the past, but it seems they are now having some QAQC reliability problems on some units, and they need to get their act together on the customer service side. I don't know what's happening, but I heard a lot of their sales & marketing staff has moved on.

I have yet to hear their new line, (T775)