# NAD T757 vs Onkyo tx-nr626



## fiezdude (Jan 28, 2014)

Hey guys, Some Quick advice on a receiver option. I have two options of choosing between a Nad and Onkyo. Not sure of Nad but i have some experience on the Onkyo. What would you recommend.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

Sort of an odd comparison, one is almost twice the price of the other. In that price range you might look at Denon as well. There are several models. It depends on what you're looking for. 

I can't recommend an AVR without Audyssey, which I believe eliminates the NAD.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

gazoink said:


> Sort of an odd comparison, one is almost twice the price of the other. In that price range you might look at Denon as well. There are several models. It depends on what you're looking for.
> 
> I can't recommend an AVR without Audyssey, which I believe eliminates the NAD.


Actually NAD uses a customized version of Audyssey which is supposed to be even better than the Audyssey. Trinnov found in Sherwood is also reported to be better. However, these are just subjective claims based on individual reviews in uncontrolled test environment.

Both NAD and Onkyo suffer from QC problems so I would not venture there. If I were you, I would kick the tires on Yamaha, Denon, Marantz, and Pioneer and see which RC works best for you. In terms of dynamic power delivery, Yamaha's RX-A series are at top of the heap.


----------



## fiezdude (Jan 28, 2014)

3dbinCanada said:


> Actually NAD uses a customized version of Audyssey which is supposed to be even better than the Audyssey. Trinnov found in Sherwood is also reported to be better. However, these are just subjective claims based on individual reviews in uncontrolled test environment. Both NAD and Onkyo suffer from QC problems so I would not venture there. If I were you, I would kick the tires on Yamaha, Denon, Marantz, and Pioneer and see which RC works best for you. In terms of dynamic power delivery, Yamaha's RX-A series are at top of the heap.



Sorry for sounding nubish on this but whats QC problems?


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

fiezdude said:


> Sorry for sounding nubish on this but whats QC problems?


QC stands for quality control. As much as I like NAD, they have issues with units malfunctioning. Onkyo are known for premature failures ( too early tell on newer models to see if the problem has been rectified) of their HDMI boards based on excessive heat build up in the chassis. Denon, Yamaha, Pioneer, Marantz, and Sony seem to be the least problematic of the bunch.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

3dbinCanada said:


> Actually NAD uses a customized version of Audyssey which is supposed to be even better than the Audyssey.


That's interesting. For using a "customized version" thats supposed to be even better, they keep a pretty good secret. It's not mentioned on the product web page, or the product data sheet, though plain-old Audyssey is mentioned in the manual. Nothing about it being customized, or better though.


3dbinCanada said:


> Both NAD and Onkyo suffer from QC problems so I would not venture there. If I were you, I would kick the tires on Yamaha, Denon, Marantz, and Pioneer and see which RC works best for you. In terms of dynamic power delivery, Yamaha's RX-A series are at top of the heap.


Agreed on the Quality Control issues from Onkyo at least, no experience with NAD, at least in recent decades. I'm impressed with the build and feature set on Pioneer. Denon, Marantz, same company, slightly different features and builds. Low end units from Denon have had some QC issues as well, but only the low-end ones.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

gazoink said:


> That's interesting. For using a "customized version" thats supposed to be even better, they keep a pretty good secret. It's not mentioned on the product web page, or the product data sheet, though plain-old Audyssey is mentioned in the manual. Nothing about it being customized, or better though.


From page 20 of the T787 manual;
"NAD engineers have done extensive research in this area of room acoustics, and along with Audyssey engineers developed what we believe is the ideal ‘in room’ response curve. We include this NAD EQ, along with an Audyssey developed EQ as the two best choices. The response curves shown below typify NAD EQ room correction process." 

I believe this was a colabrative effort between Paul Barton of PSB and NAD....Hoping I'm not confusing this with Anthem's ARC... :whistling:





gazoink said:


> Agreed on the Quality Control issues from Onkyo at least, no experience with NAD, at least in recent decades. I'm impressed with the build and feature set on Pioneer. Denon, Marantz, same company, slightly different features and builds. Low end units from Denon have had some QC issues as well, but only the low-end ones.


I think most manufacturers' low end stuff may suffer some QC problem. I know the lower end Yamahas were using IC amps but have recently switched to discrete devices on their low end models.


----------



## mdrums (Jan 1, 2007)

I have had NAD and Onkyo/Integra product before. NAD has always done well. Less bells and whistles but great stuff. Onyko has more bells and whistles and sounds great when it works....ket hear is when it works. Too many HDMI issues and some motherboard type issues I've had in the past and many are well documented on various forums.
If you need the bells and whistles then I'd look at other AVR's from Yamaha, Denon, Marantz, Pioneer, Anthem, Cambridge.


----------



## rab-byte (Feb 1, 2011)

mdrums said:


> I have had NAD and Onkyo/Integra product before. NAD has always done well. Less bells and whistles but great stuff. Onyko has more bells and whistles and sounds great when it works....ket hear is when it works. Too many HDMI issues and some motherboard type issues I've had in the past and many are well documented on various forums. If you need the bells and whistles then I'd look at other AVR's from Yamaha, Denon, Marantz, Pioneer, Anthem, Cambridge.


Agreed when your talking SQ and power, clean smooth sounding power, NAD is up there. Onkyo IMO is the Swiss Army Knife of AVRs today, sony right behind them, with more badges and features on the box than comparably priced products. Onkyo however runs hot. They always have. The HDMI board issue with Onkyo was mostly due to heat issues as I understand it. 

I do agree with expanding options. The Avantage line from Yamaha has really become a standout for power and performance.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

3dbinCanada said:


> From page 20 of the T787 manual;
> "NAD engineers have done extensive research in this area of room acoustics, and along with Audyssey engineers developed what we believe is the ideal ‘in room’ response curve. We include this NAD EQ, along with an Audyssey developed EQ as the two best choices. The response curves shown below typify NAD EQ room correction process."


That's just a slightly different target curve (and not shown), Audyssey has to have a target to work toward, apparently NAD has thrown their own version in. You do have some flexibility with target curves on any AVR with Audyssey Pro capability and the pro cal software kit. However, the T787 is very different from the T757, which apparently doesn't have the extra curve.


3dbinCanada said:


> I believe this was a collaborative effort between Paul Barton of PSB and NAD....Hoping I'm not confusing this with Anthem's ARC... :whistling:


Got it: *here.*

The Barton/NAD target is between flat and Audyssey. You could probably come fairly close by using Audyssey Flat and tweaking the tone controls a tiny bit. 

It's interesting the number of opinions on what that target should be. The Stereophile article points to the high end target as yet another attempt at Re-EQ (ala THX), to bring the home experience closer to the theater. The problem with any of this is, home video releases have, for the last several years, been randomly re-mastered to include somebody's idea of Re-EQ already. Hence, the Audyssey Flat setting, which is what you'd pick if ReEQ had already been done in post. Back when the original Home THX spec was written, theatrical tracks were transferred straight to home video, and they came out slightly bright in a flat equalized home system, and ReEQ was born. The fact that transfers are randomly re-equalized today makes this a confusing mess. You pick the curve based on what you hear, there aren't even any indications on a BD box as to what's been done.

So the Barton/NAD curve is another compromise between the Audyssey curve, THX ReEQ, and Flat, except he boosts the low end a bit too.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

gazoink said:


> It's interesting the number of opinions on what that target should be. The Stereophile article points to the high end target as yet another attempt at Re-EQ (ala THX), to bring the home experience closer to the theater. The problem with any of this is, home video releases have, for the last several years, been randomly re-mastered to include somebody's idea of Re-EQ already. Hence, the Audyssey Flat setting, which is what you'd pick if ReEQ had already been done in post. Back when the original Home THX spec was written, theatrical tracks were transferred straight to home video, and they came out slightly bright in a flat equalized home system, and ReEQ was born. The fact that transfers are randomly re-equalized today makes this a confusing mess. You pick the curve based on what you hear, there aren't even any indications on a BD box as to what's been done.
> 
> So the Barton/NAD curve is another compromise between the Audyssey curve, THX ReEQ, and Flat, except he boosts the low end a bit too.


I hear you loud n clear about the different mixes in home video. Bass is the most noticeable to me. There are some movies like the Undworld series where the bass slams you into the back of the chair ( which I enjoy immensely but my better half is not so keen on it ) and other films where you expect serious bass and its just there. :rant: From the mids and up I don't notice that drastic a difference. I have three curve setting on YPAO.. flat, natural, and emphasys based on the front speakers. I leave it on flat all the time.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

3dbinCanada said:


> I hear you loud n clear about the different mixes in home video. Bass is the most noticeable to me. There are some movies like the Undworld series where the bass slams you into the back of the chair ( which I enjoy immensely but my better half is not so keen on it ) and other films where you expect serious bass and its just there. :rant: From the mids and up I don't notice that drastic a difference. I have three curve setting on YPAO.. flat, natural, and emphasys based on the front speakers. I leave it on flat all the time.


Yes, there are differences. 

The Theater > Home translation is ReEQ, and it's only really at the top end. The bass differences aren't normally included in that translation, but depending on where the content was "mastered" for home video, and how responsible those people are, they might have messed the bass, or they might not have a calibrated monitor system. Anything could happen. The industry really should go back to straight transfers and let the translations be handled in the home AVR where they can be best dealt with on a per-case basis. But that's a lot to ask for.


----------



## fiezdude (Jan 28, 2014)

Nad seems to be winning this race.... ?


----------



## fiezdude (Jan 28, 2014)

fiezdude said:


> Nad seems to be winning this race.... dde2c


JK


----------

