-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Review and Measurements of NAD M17 V2 Pre/Pro
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Me thinks the truth hits home and hurts
no shot there friend. I don’t have this unit nor any of the units reviewed here. Keep up looking at graphs of crap you can’t even hear, instead try listening to something and actually enjoying it and make a decision for yourself.
Yea, OK. All the while your subjective clan has their wife's hearing from the kitchen changes in the sound of his system after installing a $2,000 power cord, or a $5,000 digital USB cable, while no differences in the data stream or analog measurements reveals any changes in the signal.
Illusion, Delusion, and Confusion reins supreme in the house that Golden Ear built. LOLOLOL
What shit are you taking? What wife and what 2,000 power cable or a 5,000 USB cable?! Stop making shit up man. The only one sounding delusional here is you by these biased baseless comments. Clearly a contributor to the site, please keep your biases to yourself.Yea, OK. All the while your subjective clan has their wife's hearing from the kitchen changes in the sound of his system after installing a $2,000 power cord, or a $5,000 digital USB cable, while no differences in the data stream or analog measurements reveals any changes in the signal.
Illusion, Delusion, and Confusion reins supreme in the house that Golden Ear built. LOLOLOL
Did you read the entire review? I thought it was quite fair. For a $6600 device, it should be better. There are quite a number of the tests that show poor performance. As a frame of reference, 16 bit audio (CD Quality) requires a SINAD of 96. Bluray audio has lossless HD Audio (DTS HD/Atmos/DTSX etc). A $6600 device that can’t clear CD quality audio is a problem in my mind. Does that mean it can’t or doesn’t sound good? No, I don’t think so. It has excellent room eq in the form of Dirac, but it is just leaving a lot of performance on the table and shouldn’t @ $6600. Denon for example has numerous models that perform much better. Regardless, Amir even says as much in the review about “sound”
”Once again as I have noted in the past, the DIrac Room EQ is a major plus here and should in practice produce excellent sound. Just don't go around bragging to your friends that you have a best design audio/video processor. So much low-hanging fruit was left in the design of M17 V2.”
There are a lot of factors that go into purchasing a processor, but performance/engineering is an important factor to many, but certainly doesn’t have to be for everyone.
Why don't you listen to the NAD. This is a way better sounding machine than Denon or Maranzt. They could an never come close to the sound of NAD. Would you like to come close, than you have to modify this for thousands of Euro. It is all about sound and measurements can not capture this.
The sound of Denon or Marantz is poor compared to NAD. This hobby is about listening, feeling. And I owned Denon in the past , but was never blown away by the sound. The same for Marantz. You pay for what you get and that is the reason why these machines are cheaper. Denon or Marantz are more like a Volkswagen and the NAD is more like a Audi or BMW.
The sound of Denon or Marantz is poor compared to NAD. This hobby is about listening, feeling. And I owned Denon in the past , but was never blown away by the sound. The same for Marantz. You pay for what you get and that is the reason why these machines are cheaper. Denon or Marantz are more like a Volkswagen and the NAD is more like a Audi or BMW.
Just a few points..
-I remember the same being said of the NAD T758 V3. People “listening” would say it is the best sounding thing they have ever heard. Very poor amps, poor DAC etc. People would say it sounded way better than anything else even without Dirac enabled. Bottom line, we humans are very susceptible to sighted bias. Without any EQ, I would buy that in some conditions they would sound the same, but not better. Listening is important but you need to be aware that trusting your ears doesn’t always work
-One of the great things this site has made clear is that the relationship between price and performance isn’t as strong as you would think. There are numerous examples of things costing thousands of dollars that have very poor performance.
-Room EQ such as Dirac has a huge impact on sound. Have had Dirac in 3 systems in the past (now just one). If EQing full range it seems to do better than Audyssey in my opinion. However, if you only EQ the low end, not sure you could tell them apart.
-The car analogy may be pretty good actually. Often times a less expensive model can outperform a luxury car. The luxury car however is very very good looking. This NAD is beautiful. I actually have their matching M27 amp and love the look.
This is a Science based website. If you want to tell us which units sound the best, please at least give us the results of your side by side, bias controlled, loudness matched, DBT. Giving us what you imagined they sound like without any controls is useless.
BTW, It's Marantz, not Maranzt, just sayin.
-I remember the same being said of the NAD T758 V3. People “listening” would say it is the best sounding thing they have ever heard. Very poor amps, poor DAC etc. People would say it sounded way better than anything else even without Dirac enabled. Bottom line, we humans are very susceptible to sighted bias. Without any EQ, I would buy that in some conditions they would sound the same, but not better. Listening is important but you need to be aware that trusting your ears doesn’t always work
well the ears are the most important factor when purchasing a product to reproduce sound. The mesaurements are usefull, but should never be leading.
This was a terrible receiver, the sound quality was far from good. This was the first receiver of NAD I did not like and regret buying.
-One of the great things this site has made clear is that the relationship between price and performance isn’t as strong as you would think. There are numerous examples of things costing thousands of dollars that have very poor performance.
Off course, but mostly you get what you pay for. This is no exception for this hobby. There is a reason why one brands costs more than another. Next to this, what is performance ? Should performance not be about how it should sound ?
-Room EQ such as Dirac has a huge impact on sound. Have had Dirac in 3 systems in the past (now just one). If EQing full range it seems to do better than Audyssey in my opinion. However, if you only EQ the low end, not sure you could tell them apart.
Well I have heard Marantz, Denon and NAD without any roomcorrection. Why would I choose NAD if the sound quality was the same and the price of a Marantz or Denon are below NAD. This would be very foolish.
-The car analogy may be pretty good actually. The luxury car however is very very good looking. This NAD is beautiful. I actually have their matching M27 amp and love the look.[/QUOTE]
well the ears are the most important factor when purchasing a product to reproduce sound. The mesaurements are usefull, but should never be leading.
This was a terrible receiver, the sound quality was far from good. This was the first receiver of NAD I did not like and regret buying.
-One of the great things this site has made clear is that the relationship between price and performance isn’t as strong as you would think. There are numerous examples of things costing thousands of dollars that have very poor performance.
Off course, but mostly you get what you pay for. This is no exception for this hobby. There is a reason why one brands costs more than another. Next to this, what is performance ? Should performance not be about how it should sound ?
-Room EQ such as Dirac has a huge impact on sound. Have had Dirac in 3 systems in the past (now just one). If EQing full range it seems to do better than Audyssey in my opinion. However, if you only EQ the low end, not sure you could tell them apart.
Well I have heard Marantz, Denon and NAD without any roomcorrection. Why would I choose NAD if the sound quality was the same and the price of a Marantz or Denon are below NAD. This would be very foolish.
-The car analogy may be pretty good actually. The luxury car however is very very good looking. This NAD is beautiful. I actually have their matching M27 amp and love the look.[/QUOTE]
Science is also about user experience, this might be the most important criteria, which is not captured. So I have heard the brands side by side. And from experience and many with me. can say that NAD is better sounding than Marantz and Denon.
Sorry, but without controls your opinion is tempered by your bias, not the reality. Stop listening with your bias, put your beliefs to the test and do so with scientific controls. Otherwise you waste your and our time.
And yet there were many, many people saying it was the best receiver they have heard (with or without eq). This should tell us a great deal about the reliability of our ears.
But you don't. There are many more things that go into pricing of a product than its performance. I would say that performance does equal sound quality. If you can compare 2 products without human biases (blind testing/level matched) the better measuring one will either sound the same or better depending on the conditions of the test and tester.
Many reasons. It is beautifully made, higher price creates an expectation that it is better, Dirac can be better for some people doing full range correction, bad experiences with other brands etc. Many people that have had negative experiences with Audyssey have only used it with the 2 default curves (flat and reference). In my opinion these lead to very poor room correction. With the app, you can limit the frequency you correct and change the room curve. Without the app, I don't think Audyssey is good. With the app it is quite good. I am not saying the this unit doesn't or can't sound good. I bet it does. I am saying for the price it could/should measure better.
You are right, that this is a hobby and should be treated as such. Glad you are enjoying it.
That is the whole point, I had these brands at home. therefore I could compare them. Can I ask what system you have ?
Comparing at home is good. The results won't have much meaning though (other than to you) if the comparing was done sighted and if the gear was not level matched using a microphone of some sort. Cognitive bias is real and can't be avoided in a sighted test. And if not level matched, the slightly louder one will be picked. When done with blind switching all of the differences suddenly will vanish. It is hard to overstate how much the brain enters into sighted results...
Nice system, enjoy, Marantz and Klipsch. I Can understand your reaction. I had Klipsch before, Nice speaker.
But comparing them without controls isn't going to give very useful information.
Even though this is what most of the industry relies on to sell products... If they matched everything up properly and tested blind, reviews would be a lot more boring.
That makes no sense. You can judge if one machine sounds better than another. This is no rocket science. I have heard Marantz and Dynaudio speakers this weekend and again it did not even come close to the NAD. (I was open to give Marantz the benefit of the doubt due to measurements) It sounded muddy and missed detail. I also heard Mcintosh and Naim. So again you pay for what you get. Anyway let's agree to disagree and enjoy this beautifull hobby. Allways nice to know other people experiences. Rick out
The information you need, is the information to support a purchase. And your ears are the best instrument to know your preference regarding sound.
