My responses have only been relative to the NAD components I own. I chose the PE versions due to the large amount of headroom of these amps and that I was interested in their older gear.
Does NAD Gear Lack Soundstage?
- Thread starter Nordfors
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nad soundstage depth
My only experience with NAD was in the audio store back in the late 70's or early 80's. I didn't like the way they sounded at all. I also didn't like the way they looked at all (boring plain industrial to my eye) versus the high quality silver faces of the time (which I strongly preferred because the receivers looked much higher quality than the NAD -- it wasn't really so much about the silver color, but the overall perceived quality of other receivers in that era). I don't know to what extent the NAD's boring looks put me off the sound, I'd like to think not at all, but it was literally 4 or 5 decades ago so who knows 
.
Given that several have felt they lack soundstage -- maybe I'm not wrong for that late 70's early 80's time period. NAD might be like Adcom, where some models don't sound that great while other models/eras do sound great.
.Given that several have felt they lack soundstage -- maybe I'm not wrong for that late 70's early 80's time period. NAD might be like Adcom, where some models don't sound that great while other models/eras do sound great.
My thoughts are that when looking at 2.0 or 2.1 systems it seems from my recent experience that new components are better on average. One of the reasons might be that over time the electrical components like capacitors, transistors, etc. migrate from their original specifications. It seems like new audio components get to take advantage of design, component and build improvements that have occurred over the decades. Even small, inexpensive, minimal looking designs seem to produce sound quality that is beyond the sum of their parts, IMO. This is reflected in DACs, amps, disc transports, streamers, etc. At the lower end of audio gear the bar has definitely been raised ALOT in recent years. I am not sure about this occurring in the higher tiers of audio gear.
It stands for Power Envelop. NAD developed the PE amps to put out high wattage power over short periods of time. This allowed to amp to simulate one with much higher power levels. The reason this works is that most music only requires these high power bursts for short periods of time. The PE amps could produce anywhere from 2-4 times the rated power of the amp over short time periods.
JyriK
Active Member
Sorry, but that is a load of horse manure.
Yeah, but to be fair -- those people are really weird
Just kidding -- it's great there's a variety to choose from -- what's ugly/boring to us is attractive to others. Leak came out with a new production vintage look amplifier -- I really don't like the looks of those either, but I know there are many who like them a lot.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Two opinions can be right or wrong either in unison or individually.
Nordfors
Member
I've actually grown quite fond of the NAD aesthetics. They look military grade. Serious. It's different, and the variety and originality is cool. The green button really makes it. If it had a mic input I'd have to rig up one from an ol CB. It'd be perfect.
Bradbrews
Super Member
This thread compares the preamp in my 3300 to some others.
I deleted my earlier post when I realized it wasn't some sort of industry standard term, rather than what is was - a manf. product line. Curious- did they use monster over-rated caps or some sort of power storage circuit....or hocus-pocus? I am not being annoying- I am curious.
This video explains the general design of PE amps. It is somewhat light on the details but does explain the general idea and reasoning why NAD went this route. Basically it is a dual rail design utilizing low and high voltage rails.
Nordfors
Member
Excellent point. For sure I've noticed differences in the 3d quality of soundstage accross all brands. Recently I was taken back by a Kenwood KR5200. Modest little thing with an absolutely immersive, deep and wide soundstage....in my room with my speakers. All my Pioneers are decent to very good, and the mid to late 70's HK's VERY good. Again, the NAD sound is thick and shimmery to me. Nice. And my unit is doing a wonderful job at my work, where people are all over the place in the space, moving around, busy. But in my limited experience (my and my friends pieces plus the mentions of others) it had me wondering if others found this to be true for them, the rather flat soundstage. I have a new to me set of KEF104ab's I'm looking to drive with more power and a nice NAD 7175PE is available........hence opening this discussion, but you know, I really value soundstage. What can I say? All I know is that after years and years, I'm not sure I even understand the elctrical alchemy needed to make great soundstage, but I like it when it happens. I used to think it was just get quality gear and then the speakers make the soundstage. Its a journey I guess.
Coincidence? NAD - National Association of the Deaf
What you are saying is that you avoid the Audio Science Review Forum like a plague.
I'm not sure if "NAD lacks soundstage" because when I owned a 7140, I always used it with a Carver C-9. So soundstage was never an issue. However, at some point I just didn't like the 7140 as much. Owned it for 30 years and then one day moved on and went back to Technics. I like the Technics stuff better. And the whole "3 dB of headroom" stuff... Well that is pretty much just marketing. Does it work? Yes, it does. But instead of buying a 40 watt amp with 3 dB of headroom why not just buy a 90 watt amp to begin with? And I am not playing any cannon shots on my system either. I play music and usually at less than a watt. So the Technics does exactly what I want it to do and I love the sound.
YMMV...
YMMV...
I guess what I am trying to say is get what you want and enjoy it. Don't rely on the marketing people to tell you what is good or not. My 7140 had what was supposed to be an excellent tuner in it, but in the end I found that I liked the sound of a cheap Technics tuner much better. A little old cheap analog Technics tuner. Unfortunately there are no good radio stations to listen to these days so it now sits in the closet. Oh well...
ConradH
Lunatic Member
What is sound stage in technical terms? If you have two channels that match in terms of phase, bandwidth and THD (no doubt I'm forgetting something), how can they display any significant difference in sound stage? Asking for a friend, so you don't think I'm a troublemaker. 
I have a nice NAD pe receiver, too arthritic to go see which one, and my complaint is that the switches were hard to clean and keep clean, plus it seemed to develop low level noise, for the second time, that I haven't had time to track down. Either a small signal transistor going bad or maybe the switches again. I like things that remain trouble-free for long periods of time and so far this has yet to prove itself. OTOH, I like the look and, working, I was pretty happy with it.
I have a nice NAD pe receiver, too arthritic to go see which one, and my complaint is that the switches were hard to clean and keep clean, plus it seemed to develop low level noise, for the second time, that I haven't had time to track down. Either a small signal transistor going bad or maybe the switches again. I like things that remain trouble-free for long periods of time and so far this has yet to prove itself. OTOH, I like the look and, working, I was pretty happy with it.