Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Got my Nad T773 today

So far, I'm not really that impressed with it's sound. I need to play more. But coming from 13 yr old Carver pre/pro, I find the nad missing a lot in the bass dept, and a little too much mids for my liking. The detail is there in the highs, but it sounds a little tin'y.

I used to turn off my sub when playing music because the 80's had enough on their own. With the NAD, there is no bass in the 80's. Everything set to +10, I've switched between large/small...just not impressed.

I'm surpised just how high I have to turn this thing up to hear it as well.

I must say, I'm really kind pissed off. I'm wondering if the Denon 3805 would have been a better choice now.

It does sound good with movies. Seperation is very well done.

In reply to:

---

So far, I'm not really that impressed with it's sound. I need to play more. But coming from 13 yr old Carver pre/pro, I find the nad missing a lot in the bass dept, and a little too much mids for my liking. The detail is there in the highs, but it sounds a little tin'y.

I used to turn off my sub when playing music because the 80's had enough on their own. With the NAD, there is no bass in the 80's. Everything set to +10, I've switched between large/small...just not impressed.

---

http://www.touristfilms.com/images/Amp_Sound.pdf

Maybe you were expecting too much.

you might be right.

I do really like it for movies. which is what this amp will be for mostly, so I may keep it. It has a lot of other things going for it as well, I won't list them right now. It's just that I feel my 80's are now a little under utilized compared to what my carvers used to put out. If I had any money left, I'd get some sort of eq that could accept digital inputs. But the only one I know of right now is the behringer pro, which is well over 300 US for an eq with a bunch of stuff I'll never need. Not to mention it's a little odd looking.

I find the sound great, whether movies or music. I use the front channels of the NAD to run the zone 2 speakers and run my fronts through and Anthem MCA 3 amp. I get excellent bass out of mine. I love the sound in stereo without the sub as well. I am not sure if it is the Anthem amp or the receiver though. I must admit that the Monitor Audio S8's that are run off of the NAD front channels have excellent bass.
Everyone has a different idea of what sounds good though. If you are not satisfied, at the cost of that unit I would return it. From there though, it is either HK, Rotel or seperates, as they are the most reputable. With the 3805 you will not get the same power, with all channels running, as you will with the NAD, HK or Rotel.

Maybe take a look at a seperate amp such as I use, to power your mains when you really want to turn it up.

Good luck, Troy

thanks. It's not that I want ear bleeding volumes. I'm just looking for the right sound. I don't like it when I have to turn the amp up just to get bass.

I connected an older Kenwood 7030 eq to it yeterday. Of course I can only do one source with the eq. I can connect it to the tape loop, but for some reason, the sub won't work through the tape loop, and I can't change to any of the sound modes. I expected the dolby digital to not work, but why the pro-logic, ears, advanced stereo and so on won't work through the tape is beyond me.

If I keep this, I am definitely going to look at getting an eq. Probably a behringer by the looks of it. I just can't seem to find any other eq on the market that allows a digital connection. I was hoping to get away with no eq with this setup.

I got 30days to make up my mind about this thing. I wish I could audition a 3805, or something while I had it. But there's no good hi fi shops around which means I have to get everything mailed.

took some time today to try a few things. Keep in mind my main concern right now is two channel music.

First thing I did was hook my old Carver tfm-15 poweramp, and CT17 pre-amp back up and start comparing back and forth. Absolutely no contest. I could care less if the sub was on at all with the Carvers powering the M80's. There's more bass with just the 80's on, then the nad with the 80's/sub together without turning the sub to insane levels of course. even at low volumes I can watch the 80's woofers bounce around easily with the bass cranked. not to mention every picture on my wall hanging on for dear life. With the NAD, I can turn it to insane volumes and there will be min movement on the woofers and my pictures are very safe. Honestly, anyone running the t773 on the m80's, you have no idea what your 80's are capable of.

That being said, I presisted to find out if it was indeed the Carver amp, or the preamp making the difference. I expected that the ct-17 preamp was just better. So, I used the NAD as the preamp, and used the Carver tfm-15 to power the m80's. Low and behold, very similar sound to using just the NAD for everything, but the mids were a little less pronounced, and highs a little different, but the bass was similar. Very hard to describe, bottom line was, very little difference and not enough for me to warrent using the Carver power amp all the time. So the NAD power amps are quite fine.

So, it's the NAD's preamp that's the pos. Little harsh I know, but for 2 grand, I expected a lot more and feel let down. Honestly, I don't think I'd even would have bought the 80's if I already had the NAD before hand. You just aren't getting the sound they are capable of. You end up relying on sub to do all of the work.

I tried playing with crossover settings. Little to no difference. Turning the speakers to large/small....same thing, no difference. There's just no bass to be found in the 80's using the nad.

So, i get to pay to send this thing back I guess. But where do i go from here? This is a pita. The room will be done in a weeks time, ready to mount screen and everything after it all sitting packed away for months. And now, I still have no amp.

My qs8's will be here Monday, as will the vp-150. I get to try everything again with those.

I have no idea what to do now...none.

I know you've written that you checked the settings... but it just doesn't sound right to me that the NAD would be that anemic in bass. I'm guessing it's a defective model or, like I said, there's still a setting involved.

Any differences, if they're there at all, would likely be subtle...

missing something? yeah, I'd hate to say it because I always hated them...but a darn loudness button would do great right about now.



well, thankfully that eq I got is still pretty good. I basically dropped the highs, mids, and raised the bass and tweaked the tin'y sound of the mid range, and voila. Just gotta turn it up a tad more. Gorgeous sound yet again. Now I'm finally happy....well, sorta. Now, it's still not the amount of bass I had with the carver which was overpowering sometimes, but it is enough.

I didn't want to equalize the crap out of it, but here we are, and i think i finally have the music sound sound I'm looking for. But I'm back to the problem of I can only eq one source, and no digital.

Almost there..... And my pictures are now scared again...with no sub on. Let the 80's sing!

I would agree. The NAD has ample power and the pre section is as good as most in this price range. My NAD has zero problems with pushing bass.

Do you have soft clipping on or off?

soft clipping on and off.....no difference.

keep in mind that my Carver preamp in it's day was 1799 Canadian.

This is where i get lost as to what to do next. I am more experienced with seperates and not digital receivers. If what you guys say is true, and I'm sure it is, but no yamaha, denon, any receiver short of rotel and better is going to be any better then this nad. Rotel is $$$ for this kind of power/.


As far as power is concerned.....that is a non-issue with this nad. Sound is the problem(or at least mine), and everyone has a different opinion of what is good. There has never been anyone that walked into my home and thought they have ever heard a better "sounding" stereo without getting into insane amounts of money at least. I had something special with the Carver combo i think.

In an ideal world, i would have the multiple receivers here all at once, trying them all. But, my world ain't ideal.

any other suggestions, pass them along. I think I tried everything, but outside of hidden menu's somewhere....there's nothing left. Cables are all 12awg too. I even tried some 14's. Speaker cables are only at best 6' away from amp anyways.

I just wonder if the Carvers aren't exactly flat. I mean no offense, it's just that recievers from the 70s sound different to me than receivers from the '00s. I haven't done a back to back, but I'm pretty sure that things have gotten flatter. Perhaps you prefer that earlier sound. Again, I don't mean to insult or say that you don't know what you're talking about or hearing. Just pondering...

no insult at all, but I wouldn't call them flat. And they are just over 10 years old, not 30.

I've always prefered more treble/bass in my music. I'm not a fan of muddy bass/lots of mids. Blame it on my ears from being a dj for about 12 years if you want. I like my music to sound like a live performance. Probably why I still prefer two channel stereo sometimes over 5.1 music. i don't like the tin can effect that some receivers are known for. When I said I dropped my higs/mids, and raised my bass, that is not making it flat. Actually its an old eq trick if you will. Drop everything equal except the problem area, it'll make in my case the bass seem louder, and you'll just turn the volume up a little more then usual and it should fix the weak point.

I just listened to return of the king, and some star wars stuff. The nad is quite amazing for movies. Maybe i can just eq my music, and leave the movies alone.

I feel really bad for my neighbors this weekend. I bet their not impressed with the new Nad at all.

My Father really doesn't like my NAD C320BEE because it sounds "thin" to him, compared to his old Sansui integrated (which he still uses). He also said that the NAD could use a loudness control. newf, I find your similar statements interesting. Sounds fine to me with my M60s, but then this is my first real stereo.

my first ever amp was a sansui. Ironic. It was actually a decent amp when it worked.

I have to say this seems really odd. I believe strongly that different amps can make a fair difference and that different preamps can make a small difference, but I can't believe that even a world-beating pre-amp could have this much effect.

I don't know if the Carver pre-amp has a loudness button, but could you humour me and check one more time ?

I sure am glad my Nads work fine.

I am not sure whether you are hearing the same sound quality as I do using my NAD. I usually listen to music without the sub. I find it is not required as my M80's put out more bass then I need all on their own. My kids listen to the sub more often, because they listen to more of the dance/pop type of music, but the sub is not really required, until I start watching movies.

In reply to:

---

I've always prefered more treble/bass in my music. I'm not a fan of muddy bass/lots of mids. Blame it on my ears from being a dj for about 12 years if you want. I like my music to sound like a live performance.

---

I get what your saying here but I don't think your being fair to the NAD. If you want to take every piece of music you own and try and get that "Live" feel from it, would you not be better off just listening to live recordings? The NAD is considered by a lot of people to be reference class when it comes to audio and the guts pertaining to the stereo side in it are very close to NAD's stand alone stereo pre that is world renowned. I still don't like the EQ option. It's just something else in the signal path that to me at least is just getting in the way. Sorry but I have always been in the less is more camp when it comes to the signal path. Hell, I recently pulled my Behringer out my sub set-up and I'm working with things in the room to flatten out the curve. Incredibly time consuming but if I can pull the Behringer out of the loop, it was time well spent.

If you like a more lively sound for lack of a better term I would strongly suggest you try out an Adcom amp if you haven't already. If you like the edge the old Carvers have, you should really like the Adcom's. The Adcom sound isn't for everyone but if you like a signal to be sent a little "Hotter" on the treble side with the bottom end still there, try one out......and yes I'm also in the camp that say's amps don't all sound the same!

link



Oh yeah, that elevated treble peak really stands out.

Oh hey, ever owned one?......and one cute little graph done more then 15 years ago on one model, doesn't represent the whole line. But nice try.

Jeeez, were you trying to be a smart%ss or did I read your post wrong?

Relax!

Neverhappy, which behringer do you have? I'm thinking about finding one somewhere if I keep the nad.

Buy the way guys, I don't HATE the NAD. I love it's power, simplicity, a remote that just simply works no matter who's using it, the picture quality for it's video section is sharp and just how it should look, ands beleive it or not I really like how it looks. Although, I do not recommend anyone lifting it in hard to reach area's.....very heavey. i like it's feel for quality as well, the feel of the buttons, the smoothness of the volume knob, and has some connectivity options on the back for future upgrades that really peak my interest. I do wish that nad would let customers upgrade the firmware though, that is just plain stupid to have to send back a 50lb box everytime there is a major firmware change.

I'm going to talk to the store tomorrow, see what other options i have before settling with the nad. They do sell Rotel, yamaha, NAD among others. I'm hearing good things about the yamaha 4600 at 4 ohms as well. Even if it was paired with a power amp for the 80's. But that's getting very $$$. I've had some suggest getting the 2400 as a pre, and a nad for the fronts as well which would still be under 2grand.

Right now though, as it is with my eq through the nad, I'm loving it. But I need this eq for an older setup that is in another room with some cerwin vega d9's that'll be used for dance music for the women when entertaining while me and the guys take over the media room and maybe xbox a bit . how's that for a long sentence.

Anyways, I'll have my vp-150 tomorrow, and qs8's. So I get to adjust everything again. I'll be making my decision this week. Meantime, I need to find a eq just in case i need it.

newf: I am also giving a very hard look at the Yahama 4600. Two questions:

1. Can you give me a few links (other than the Yahama website and audioholics) to find out more about it?

2. I downloaded the manual and was looking to see if it has lip sync correction. I couldn't find it. Doesn't mean that it wasn't there, only that I couldn't find it. If you happened to see it, please give me a page number.

TIA!!

never: just something to think about concerning that frequency chart.

How do you keep THD numbers less than .08%, if you have "spikes" in the frequecy response spectrum?

Like I said, just something to think about.

In reply to:

---

Neverhappy, which behringer do you have?

---

I have the DSP1124P.

In reply to:

---

I do wish that nad would let customers upgrade the firmware though, that is just plain stupid to have to send back a 50lb box everytime there is a major firmware change.

---

I posted on this before but I will say it again, you are right on the money. In today's age NAD's current policy is backwards. I can't believe that they expect people to shell out money for shipping if they don't happen to live near a NAD dealer. Heaven forbid you didn't buy your NAD from your local dealer as a lot of dealers under the NAD banner will only service what they sold. At the end of the day, your right, it's stupid. Very stupid and not a very friendly policy towards the people that buy NAD products.

other then avsforum, audioholic, and random reviews here and there, the rest I've heard through friends in the business....yes, I actually talk to people in person sometimes

I'm not sure about the lip synch, but I seem to recall that coming up in a thread over on audioholics. They reviewed the 4600 to haved upwards of 210watts at 4 ohms. not bad at all. The yamaha is a sweet receiver, and has plenty of options for the future. I'll be asking my hifi shop tomorrow for a price. I'm scared to know.

In reply to:

---

How do you keep THD numbers less than .08%, if you have "spikes" in the frequecy response spectrum?

---

I hear what your saying. My point is and was, I don't put a great deal of stock in charts. I have owned many an Adcom amp and I always thought they came off on the brighter side for whatever reason. A graph is just a graph with conclusions drawn by one. My ears on the other hand are again my conclusions and mine only, but I have heard enough stuff in my day to know when a piece of equipment adds something to the path. Whatever it is and I can't explain it, I personally don't like the sound of older Adcom amps.

Anyway, it's not the graph that is the problem, it's the way it was presented that I took issue with. If people want to base what they think they know on a piece of equipment based solely on a graph, so be it but have a little etiquette in the way you present your side. But then again presenting a graph isn't presenting there own thoughts, it's presenting someone else's findings.

Not to turn this into more then it needs to be but a graph does not tell the complete story. That is all I'm trying to get out there.

totally agree. You can make a graph show whatever you want. Spend enough time around them and you'll see.

There's only one test that matters.....your ears.

In reply to:

---

There's only one test that matters.....your ears.

---

That's a fact

newf: OK, then you have looked the same places that I have.

Go to the pricegrabber.com and do a search on the Yahama receiver. I did it a couple of weeks ago and only two dealers were listed. I did it last week and I think 5 or 6 were listed.

If nothing else, it will give you a price spread.

I've heard an older adcom. it was in the same series but lower.. I think a 535. the same speaker set was used with an old marantz integrated since the adcom was being sold.

To me, they sounded the same. The measurements say so, the ears say so, science says so, who am I to disagree with those three?

Thasp: that was the point that I was trying to make with the THD numbers. You just can't have those very low THD numbers without a flat response for the frequency/ power curve. If that curve is flat, you can't hear a difference, because there ISN'T a difference.

The issue, in my mind, is whether the manufacturers have found a "loophole" to "fudge" the numbers?

We had a similar discussion on the warm and bright thread.

I don't think they fudge the numbers because I don't think there's any difference.

Sure, changing from a cheap surround receiver to a nice rotel may allow for some more grunt on a low impedance speaker, but the drastic differences being discussed here.. pretty funny stuff.

I'm glad we can amuse you.

In reply to:

---

There's only one test that matters.....your ears.

---

Yes, so the next time you try to convince someone they're wasting their money on BOSE, hold your tongue and remember this saying

neverhappy, or winterpeg. Your Nad remote, the htr-2 or whatever it's called. There's a small connector on the inside of the battery cover. It has 8 pins, two pairs of 4 in parallel. Was I supposed to a cable for that? It's for connecting to the pc I guess for updates?

I didn't get the cable with mine, so I'm not sure.

Well, I'm guessing that's what it is for. On the nad webpage you can get the software to connect to it. But there is no cable. If I knew the pinouts, I"d make one.

I would imagine the cable can be purchased separately. It doesn't surprise me given NAD's upgrade policy that you would have to buy the cable.

That is the first I seen of the 8 pin receptor.

I think it may be for programing more codes into the remote to control different audio or video devices, which currently are not installed into the remote. I believe that I read that somewhere when researching or setting up. I'd look it up if I had time but this new yard business is keeping me way too busy.

Troy

well, seems my Dealer, West end Electronics in NFLD is quite awesome.

I may have the option of switching to a yamaha 4600. I've read very little on this amp, but I know it has a huge power upgrade from previous amps, and it's connection options are crazy. Add in up conversion, lip synch capabilites, and dsp modes out of the ying yang, and my interest is peaked. I'm just wondering if the eq in it will do what I want.



Now, I have to start reading all over again.

I would be very interested if you get the Yahama 4600. I have been looking at that one very seriously. On the lip sync, it appears to have only one setting (variable) instead of a setting per input.

I have been considering it with a pair of Outlaw M200s for the fronts.

Let me know what you think and how you evaluate it.

going to get dealer to send 4600 to me. I'm keeping the nad to test side by side. Dealer is being awesome with helping me find somethiing that makes me happy.

Newf,

I know you're a NAD guy. Did you see the photos of the new NAD equipment?

I am looking forward to your report on the Yahama.

the new nad stuff looks killer. Can't wait tell it gets released.

yes, the new nad stuff looks gorgeous. i can imagine how $$$ it is though. But unless it has room correction/ built in eq, I don't care.

But, I may be moving over to the 4600 anyways. But, all the shipments for the 4600's are stuck in BC due to a port strike. It might be 3 weeks before i see it. Meantime, i get to play with the NAD.

yes i would like to find out how much the new units well go for. By the way they look i imagine the price well be up from there other units. Hopefully not much. But i like the new look.