The NAD we received as a wedding present 18 yrs ago just died. I am at a loss to know what to replace it with. We are not audiophiles; I input all of our CDs [about 300] into iTunes and we were running them via a grape iMac to Airport Express to the receiver. It worked fine. I see where there are some receivers [a Pioneer 700 watt 7.1 channel for example] that has something that "improves sound quality for compressed music files." Should I be looking only for that??? Most of the receivers don't mention MP3s at all. Oh, we'd be ok spending up to $500. Thanks for any suggestions.

I think those Pioneers only process WMA files.
That's what they seem to tout, anyway.
Once I saw WMA, I tuned out the rest of their mktg spiel.

Most receivers in that price range are probably decent enough.
Although, if you don't watch DVDs through that system, it might be more cost-effective to get a 'better' so-called 'esoteric*' stereo receiver for the same $$ rather than 7.1.


* Do they still use that term in HiFi?

---

I am not Ryan Seacrest, and I do not approve this message.

Yup. Most music does not use surround sound. It is still stereo (with few exceptions, such as superaudio CDs, which are far and few between).

Therefore, get a better receiver for your buck if you will not be watching DVDs/movies (audio) through your amp/receiver. Stereo (2 channel, or 2.1 if you count the subwoofer) is still great for most people.

Can't say much for the improving compressed music. Kinda hard to improve on something that ain't there. (i.e. - digital zoom - never use it, or enhancing resolution - adding in pixels is a bad idea for the most part).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2006 02:31PM by Spiff.

You're probably better off buying a used piece of gear that was high end 5 or 10 years ago. You'll get a great piece of gear for a nice price.

A friend just gave me a new in the box refurbished Pioneer Elite VSX-97 receiver. That's right, he got it and never took it out of the box. Now he doesn't need it. I'm happy to work with a great piece like that.

---

---------------


In the words of DharmaDog: "it may or may not be utter horse@#$%&, but it shouldn't be dismissed simply because it doesn't agree with your opinion."

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Trying is the first step to failure. -- Homer Simpson

Have you looked into repairing the unit? High-end gear like NAD is usually worth fixing.

---

Unpaid Social Liaison

Ditto what mick e said. Although NAD stuff has always been considered budget audiophile and not true high-end, it's definitely worth looking into repairing it.

---

It is what it is.

I had it cleaned about 5 years ago to fix a scratchy sound on the volume and I thought it might be time for a new unit. I didn't realize the thing about surround sound is really only for dvds. [like I said, we're not speaker heads!] Maybe I will look into getting it fixed again. Thanks.

I had a 5.1 system and then "downgraded" to 2.1. Now, I wouldn't go back. I mostly listen to music so for me home theater system was just a bad choice. I did not even have the rear surround speakers connected most of the time. I wrote "downgraded" because I went from 6 speakers to 3 but the sound quality went up from 3 to 6 I would highly recommend fixing the NAD receiver or getting a new/used one that's a true stereo receiver.

"A good receiver has a series of TUBES!!!"

---

I am not Ryan Seacrest, and I do not approve this message.

Quote
maurycy
I had a 5.1 system and then "downgraded" to 2.1.

No such thing as a "2.1" receiver.

---

It is what it is.

The latest series of NAD A/V receivers (T743, 753, etc.) have surround sound, and I believe an "optical-in".

Pick up a used NAD receiver (1-2 years old) with this input and run an Optical cable from your Airport Express to the receiver.

It will sound much, much, much better. Plus, you have the capability to use it for home theater in the future if you want.



At the 18-year mark, it is worth it to buy a new NAD receiver, versus repairing it. You can even try and sell it on the Audiogon website, while you try and pick up a newer one.

Several can be found on [www.audiogon.com], or just buy a used or demo model from a place like [www.spearitsound.com]

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!

Quote
maurycy
I had a 5.1 system and then "downgraded" to 2.1.

No such thing as a "2.1" receiver.

That's why I haven't said receiver but used word system

Quote
maurycy

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!

Quote
maurycy
I had a 5.1 system and then "downgraded" to 2.1.

No such thing as a "2.1" receiver.

That's why I haven't said receiver but used word system

Honestly there isn't a 2.1 anything. The .1 refers to the subwoofer channel, which isn't present on a stereo receiver/amp, which is, by definition, two channels, not three.

---

It is what it is.

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Honestly there isn't a 2.1 anything. The .1 refers to the subwoofer channel, which isn't present on a stereo receiver/amp, which is, by definition, two channels, not three.

Yes, stereo receiver only has two channels, but do not tell me that referring to left and right channel plus subwoofer I cannot call it 2.1 system. My stereo receiver has separate output for subwoofer.

Thanks for all the input; I'm checking out Grad's links right now.

Quote
maurycy

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Honestly there isn't a 2.1 anything. The .1 refers to the subwoofer channel, which isn't present on a stereo receiver/amp, which is, by definition, two channels, not three.

Yes, stereo receiver only has two channels, but do not tell me that referring to left and right channel plus subwoofer I cannot call it 2.1 system. My stereo receiver has separate output for subwoofer.

I've never heard of a stereo receiver with a subwoofer channel, but apparently yours is, in fact, a 2.1 receiver. I stand corrected.

---

It is what it is.