NAD or H/K

JohnHa · 12-25-2003, 03:00 AM

I'm debating between getting an H/K 630 or a NAD T763. I'm wondering which would be better to go w/ ascend acoustics speakers, if it really makes a difference. I will probably only be using 6.1, so the 7.1 fuctionality of the H/k won't be of much use. I'm just wondering about an overall quality comparison of each. Has anyone done an A/B test between the two, not necessarily on ascend speakers, but just in general? If so, what were your findings. Thanks a bunch everyone. Ultimately, between these two, which would you pick, and why?

Ozzie_Sheikh · 12-25-2003, 09:48 AM

I have never heard a NAD before, but I went off the recomendation that the H/K line goes well with Ascend Speakers. I ended up getting a AVR430 for the holidays and I am extremely pleased with its performance with these speakers. I would still love to try out a NAD, but I am happy with I recieved. You best bet is to find a local NAD dealer and take your speakers up their and give it a shot. See if you like it. You can always see H/K @ CC or HHGREGG.

ChrisLazarko · 12-25-2003, 05:16 PM

I like both NAD and HK. If you can demo them go take a listen, I liked them both, but I didn't hear them with Ascend.

JasenJ · 12-25-2003, 10:51 PM

I have pretty much the same question, except at the lower end of the spectrum. I'm considering an HK AVR130 or 230 vs the NAD T743. Unfortunately, the NAD T743 lists for $700 which pricewise puts in on par with the AVR330 or AVR430 - depending on whether I go mail order (which I'd really rather not do).

I'll be replacing an 11 year old Luxman R-341 and drive Paradigm 5se Mk II speakers in front. I'll have to add surrounds and a sub as the wife (and budget) permits

. I'm not really interested in 7.1. Since I'm just starting with a "real" home theater receiver, I'm happy to stick with 5.1 - I think.

I really enjoy the "smooth" non-electronic sound the Luxman puts out. Many other receivers I've listened to (Yamaha) sound harsh and "brittle". NAD has a reputation for "smooth" musical sound, and I've been pleased the times I've listened to their products. Circuit City is the biggest retailer of HK, and they are not exactly known for their auditioning rooms.

With the price difference between the entry level HKs and the NAD, I could almost get a PDR-10 sub or surround speakers. But if the quality difference is there, I'm willing to pay for it.

Opinions? Advice?

- Jasen.

CurtisSC · 12-25-2003, 11:55 PM

I own a HK 525 and Ascend speakers (I help moderate the Ascend Forum )

I am very happy with the sound. I had the CBM-170's as my mains, and now use the CMT-340's. The HK is great with both.

I recently added an ATI AT1505 power amp to the mix, which made the bass more authoritive. I didn't think the 525 was lacking...I just wanted to head towards seperates.

Also recently got to hear my CMT-340's connected to a NAD C372 integrated amp, and that sounded very nice.

Good amount of Ascend owners are happy with HK and NAD. I do not think you can go wrong in either case.

**HTF Ads**

Nick.H · 12-26-2003, 05:14 AM

Please do a search of the forum before posting, this has been covered before.

David G Greene · 12-26-2003, 07:40 AM

I use JBL's with my HK. I LUV 'EM!!!!! :b

BTW,I never heard of a Harman Kardon AVR5550.

JasenJ · 12-26-2003, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Please do a search of the forum before posting, this has been covered before.

OK, I did a search. None of the HK vs NAD threads I found discussed the new NAD Txx3 models vs the HK AVRx30 models. Currently, NAD's site has pretty sparse info on the Txx3 models. So asking here seems like a good idea. Perhaps you could provide a link?

- Jasen.

JohnHa · 12-26-2003, 10:02 PM

I think I'm going to go w/ a NAD T753 or T763 then. As near as I can tell, H/K and NAD both make equally good products. The H/K seems more modern and flashy looking, the NAD receivers look more simple, traditional, and solid. In other words, they don't look as plastic-like, if that makes sense. I have heard that NAD receivers are very well made and weigh quite a bit, and this makes sense, if you are judging by their looks. I've also heard that NAD highly underrates their recievers, meaning that a receiver that says 70wpc, could actually run well over 100wpc. I've also heard great stories about NAD's tech support too. I also like the fact that you can get a kit for the remote that allows you to connect it to a computer and program macros w/ some proprietary software. That's very cool.

JasenJ · 12-30-2003, 03:08 PM

I just finished reading the HK AVR230 and NAD T763 manuals. (NAD still doesn't have manuals or any info about the T743 on their site.

)

Here's some things I learned - anyone with info countering any of this please chime in.
1. The HKs manual is 52 pages long; the NAD 32.

2. The HK allows all inputs to have independent volume trim, bass crossover, and speaker setup (large vs small & which speakers are active). The NAD lets you have 5 "presets" of all settings, but not to set things per input.

3. The HK allows bass crossover for the subwoofer to be set separately for the front, center, and surround channels. The NAD does not have any crossover setting.

4. The HK allows bass crossover to be set at 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, or 200Hz. I couldn't find in the NAD manual what the bass crossover frequency is.

5. The HK has more surround modes than the NAD. (Not a zillion more like a Yamaha, but a few more.)

6. HK provides a list of remote codes for their multi function remote. NAD provides codes for their own components. Both remotes can be pointed at another component to figure out the codes, but NAD has this disclaimer: "However, since we can only ensure the completeness or accuracy of NAD code-libraries, we cannot support the HTR 2’s operation with other-brand components."

7. The NAD remote is a "learning" remote.

8. The HK remote can be used as a primitive SPL meter to automatically set up the speaker levels. NAD provides instructions for using an SPL meter.

9. The HK allows the front display to be dimmed & turned off (not sure if this applies to the glowing volume knob). The NAD does not.

10. The HK can be set to turn on at a set volume level.

There are many other differences, but those are some of the ones that stuck out and seemed noteworthy. Going purely from the manuals, the HK seems like a better product, with more setup flexibility than the NAD, and more attention to little details. Keep in mind, this is a comparison of products that are a couple of rungs apart on the pricing ladder (the NAD being higher up).

Of course, the real proof is in the listening. NAD has a rep for very nice sounding products. I haven't had a chance to A/B NAD and HK, but given the price differences for products at about the same power/feature level I'd expect the NAD to sound better.

I really kind of had my heart set on an NAD T743, but if the sound is minimally better than HK's and the HK has better features & flexibility; I'm now leaning toward HK.

- Jasen.