NAD T778 Audio/Video Receiver (AVR) Review

[Puddingbuks]

The original Hypex spec is not that far off at 5W, but below that, it actually looks much better on the Hypex spec sheet. It's clear that some corners were cut, also visible by the lower quality output coils used vs the ones on the Hypex OEM version. All so that they could make a bit more money. Als long as people keep finding this acceptable and no good alternatives are available, these products will be made and sold.

Can you post pictures of these differences?

 

[voodooless]

Can you post pictures of these differences?

Sure, look here: https://www.avsforum.com/threads/the-official-nad-t-778-thread.3123286/page-38

vs

 

[Brian6751]

Can you post pictures of these differences?

Sure, look here: https://www.avsforum.com/threads/the-official-nad-t-778-thread.3123286/page-38

I believe they are custom modules. Looks like they are the same used in the C368/C388 and C268 that was tested here.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/nad-c268-power-amplifier-review.14287/

 

[3dbinCanada]

I don’t disagree. My point is that although harmonic distortion in most gear is basically inaudible—the harmonics are at such a low level and at such few frequencies that they can be visualized on test gear but not heard by humans—noise is a different beast entirely, because it overlays the entire frequency spectrum. Can you pick it out if your ear isn’t next to the tweeter? Probably not unless the noise is extremely high in level. However, all musical content under the noise floor is obliterated by it. If I am paying a decent amount of money for a piece of gear, I want it to perform better than a $15 phone dongle—and a lot of expensive gear does not.

If you cant hear the noise floor, then you cant hear the harmonics under the noise floor either. To think you can is just fooling yourself. The noise floor doesnt obliterate anything in this case. That being said, NAD's QC is dreadful.

 

[Matyam]

Are you implying that it sounds good, great or something else?

It actually sounds rather good especially with music,dirac being the leveller,ample power, crystal clarity,bluos,upgradeable, one day all av amps will be made this way.

 

[3dbinCanada]

Dude. This AVR is nearly a year old. We just saw the first HDMI 2.1 AVRs recently from Denon.

Yamaha's new line up also has HDMI 2.1

 

[voodooless]

I believe they are custom modules. Looks like they are the same used in the C368/C388 and C268 that was tested here.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/nad-c268-power-amplifier-review.14287/

The C268 measurements are quite comparable (a bit better actually), but still worse in the <5 W range than the OEM reference module.

 

[3dbinCanada]

It’s disingenuous to design a receiver with poor measurements and rely on the room equalization system to correct those deficiencies. Not everyone will use Dirac either. In a well treated room they may prefer less manipulation of the signal in a stereo source. At the very least a receiver should be expected to provide a flat signal response, which the NAD does not.

Room equalization is used to fix room deficiencies, not poor measurements. You appear to mix up the two . They are mutually exclusive.

 

[Billy Budapest]

If you cant hear the noise floor, then you cant hear the harmonics under the noise floor either. To think you can is just fooling yourself. The noise floor doesnt obliterate anything in this case. That being said, NAD's QC is dreadful.

Not just harmonics. There could be fundamentals under the noise floor. For example, during a fade-in. I’m not really concerned about harmonics.

 

[3dbinCanada]

Not just harmonics. There could be fundamentals under the noise floor. For example, during a fade-in. I’m not really concerned about harmonics.

Again, same principle applies. If the signal is below the noise floor that you cant hear, then you wont be able to hear the signal either. Nothing gets obliterated.

 

[Dmitri]

QC is of bigger concern for me. Though I think that NAD has shortchanged their amps, using Dirac to make up for their deficiencies, ultimately...if someone’s happy with the product, so be it. I would not purchase a product with this type of engineering ethic, but that’s me. My hope is their next gen. will at least live up to their own published spec.
One thing ARS does is call out companies that exaggerate their specs for marketing purposes. Consumers deserve honesty and consistent across the board apple to apple capacity for comparison from one brand to another. Not only is spec dishonesty endemic to much of the industry, but it allows for “just good enough“ engineering. As a consumer, I want more than a just good enough sexy box with useless vu meters, under performing amps, noisy fan and broken coaxial inputs, I want the best possible components, build, specs., support and QC I can get for my 3k. No way is this it. For those of you who have purchased this receiver, I hope it remains healthy, that NAD adequately supports it, and hardware upgrades are reasonably priced. Given NAD’s history of QC et al...it would be too risky for me. I really hope I’m wrong. They need prove themselves.

Room equalization is used to fix room deficiencies, not poor measurements. You appear to mix up the two . They are mutually exclusive.

Dirac, along with all else it does, corrects frequency response in the room. If the amp doesn’t have a flat frequency response, which the NAD does not, it will be correcting for the amp deficiency as well.

 

[Brian6751]

QC is of bigger concern for me. Though I think that NAD has shortchanged their amps, using Dirac to make up for their deficiencies, ultimately...if someone’s happy with the product, so be it. I would not purchase a product with this type of engineering ethic, but that’s me. My hope is their next gen. will at least live up to their own published spec.
One thing ARS does is call out companies that exaggerate their specs for marketing purposes. Consumers deserve honesty and consistent across the board apple to apple capacity for comparison from one brand to another. Not only is spec dishonesty endemic to much of the industry, but it allows for “just good enough“ engineering. As a consumer, I want more than a just good enough sexy box with useless vu meters, under performing amps, noisy fan and broken coaxial inputs, I want the best possible components, build, specs., support and QC I can get for my 3k. No way is this it. For those of you who have purchased this receiver, I hope it remains healthy, that NAD adequately supports it, and hardware upgrades are reasonably priced. Given NAD’s history of QC et al...it would be too risky for me. I really hope I’m wrong. They need prove themselves.


Dirac, along with all else it does, corrects frequency response in the room. If the amp doesn’t have a flat frequency response, which the NAD does not, it will be correcting for the amp deficiency as well.

Lots of assumptions made here..... I doubt NAD engineers were like "Since we have Dirac, let's slack on everything else". The measurements also beat what they advertise as far as I can see..

 

[3dbinCanada]

Dirac, along with all else it does, corrects frequency response in the room. If the amp doesn’t have a flat frequency response, which the NAD does not, it will be correcting for the amp deficiency as well.

Not arguing the QC with you as we both agree. My disagreement with your statement is that Dirac is used to fix poor measurements of the AVR which it doesnt. Dirac is a room correction facility to try and solve some speaker placement room interaction anomalies. Its not designed to overcome poor frequency response of the AVR. I agree with you that poor frequency response of the AVR would hamper Dirac's ability to correct. Poor AVR frequency response would also hamper any other room correction facility. They are still mutually exclusive. Room EQ is used to fix room anomalies, not poor frequency response of the AVR itself.

 

[Matyam]

Any nad owners upgraded to full dirac licence ie 20 -20khz,any advantage ?

 

[Matyam]

As a matter of interest what are the highest avr snr you've had,my ancient AX1 was 96db cant remember what my even more ancient 2200 was.

 

[SIY]

Any nad owners upgraded to full dirac licence ie 20 -20khz,any advantage ?

Yes and yes.

 

[Matyam]

Yes and yes.

And how would you quantify the difference for yourself may I ask.

 

[SIY]

And how would you quantify the difference for yourself may I ask.

Take a look at my M10 review in AudioXpress for details.

 

[Matyam]

Take a look at my M10 review in AudioXpress for details.

Ok thanks

 

[Nucky]

I have had the Denon 8500 marantz 8012 and av7705 with lexicon gx7 power amp, Anthem 720, lexicon rv9 arcam 850. Now I have the nad T778 and it sounds better than all of them for music and films. So the measurements don't mean anything to me.