Their new amps licenses out Purifi technologies are good amps. But since they licensed out Purifi technologies, they didn't design it themselves.It seems that every time I read a NAD review, the results are never flattering.
When I was in my late teens and twenties, NAD had the reputation for being a premium manufacturer with state of the art products.
Was I (we) snookered all along or have they completely lost their way?
Back in the "old days," no reviewer had an audio analyzer and since most manufacturers at that time weren't engineering for ultra low distortions, most manufacturers are generally at about THD+N between .05% to .07%. And manufacturer did not have a standard for THD+N measurements, so it was never apple vs. apple, for example, what bandwidth was used, what impedance, which frequency, at what power was the THD+N measurements done at, it was never ever specified looking at the specs.
And also at that level of THD+N, I don't think reviewers were able to tell the difference. At least, I don't have confidence to tell the difference at that level of THD+N at the normal level of volume I listen to. Unless I mute the source crank it up and put my ears next to the tweeter to listen for hissing.
I share your same sentiment that the NAD brand aura was indeed high end. But was it? The only way to find out if NAD was making good performing equipment is to go back and measure their old equipment with a measurement standard.
This is part of the reason why I no longer buy into brand recognition/history/aura, I need to see measured performance and wait to see how it performs with real world reliability.