I Bought An NAD T752 RCVR Today

I finaly took the plunge today and purchased the NAD T-752 Receiver for the HT side of things. So far I really like the sonics on this baby. I will let it break in for awhile before making any further comment. Compared to the SONY ES I replaced it with it is night & day differences. I have a NAD C-370 that I want to integrate into the system now and utilize them together. I will most likely use the C370 for my front main speakers although I am not sure yet as to what the best options would be. Anyone have a system that is set up something like this ? I would appreciate any advice or comments from fellow forum members.

 

Kurt,

you bought a good 'un! I've reviewed the 752 (not on my AudioEnz site, alas) and think that it's a fantastic sounding amplifier. It's one of thee very few AV receivers that I could happily leave in my system and spin my CDs. Usually AV receivers ae removed as quickly as possible!

 

Wow...I just went to NAD's site and read about the T-753 (which might replace the T-752...?). Impressive! It appears to have a stereo analog bypass, as well as a 7.1 channel analog input (which I assume is converted to digital and not bypassed as the analog would be). No phono inputs that I can tell.

The "multi-source outputs" are a cool feature as well...I could use that for playing music elsewhere while the kids are using the TV. Plus, I like that you can re-utilize the receivers internal amplifiers if you want to add beefier external amps, although with the dynamic power ratings they have (as always), I can't see much of an improvement there.

I'm still very undecided as to what I should purchase, since my "analog" side is big (three different tape decks as well as two turntables). I'd prefer my two-channel and home theater system to be just one system but that may not be possible.

 

Well, I have a 762, not a 752, but given that the 762 is the 752's big brotyher, I will weigh in with some comments anyway!

I am pretty sure that the 7.1 inputs are not digitzed. There is no BM or any other processing applied. Its a straight shot through a volume control to the power amps. Can't get much cleaner than that.

Not sure about the stereo analog mode. I know that BM remains available in stereo mode, but I may have read somewhere that it is done in the analog domain.

Having said all that, I find the 762 to be a great piece of gear. Not as many bells and whistles as some of the competing brands, but I find that I can crank it to absurd levels and it stays clear as a bell. And there are some really, really cool features that greatly enhance its flexibility and ease of use.

BGL

 

Really! Interesting. That might make it a candidate over other receivers out there. I've compared Pioneer Elite and Sony ES models in the past, but nothing ever really stuck out to me as being exactly what I wanted. The NAD A/V receivers look impressive.

http://www.nadelectronics.com/av_receivers/index.htm

FWIW, I've always liked NAD's integrated amps and other electronics gear. Their TV wasn't as good (the MR20 my folks had gave an excellent picture, but was unreliable), but that was also not their forté. Had I not ended up going the Hafler route in the early 80's, I probably would have had a NAD setup.

 

Well, as much as I like my NAD, I think that most receivers that have 7.1 (or 5.1) inputs would be direct pass through w/volume control. Only if a receiver had BM on the 7.1 inputs (I think HK is among the few that do on some models) would I suspect that the input would be digitized.

I know I have read posts from users opining that all (or most) receivers digitize the 7.1 inputs, but I think that is misguided conjecture. If no processing is applied, why would ANY vendor do so.

I have also read posts that felt that, because there is volume control on these inputs, then they must be digitzed. Again, incorrect. IMHO, most volume controls are in the analog domain, although they may be digitally controlled.

BGL

 

I guess it would depend on what "processing" the manufacturer would want to apply to the signal. WE know simpler is better ("keep it analog"), but as for arguments for or against the digitizing of the inputs, only the manufacturers could answer that properly. Sad thing is, few manufacturers' customer service staff would even know the answer to this question, let alone take the time to reply. And how many even would report this in their published specifications? I'm only dubious about digitizing because it's so much easier for them to do things digitally...it's easier to do mathematical calculations with digital data than it is to design analog circuitry to do the same thing.

(P.S. I fixed your "quote" in your first post in this thread... )