What Receiver?

[Andrei]

My brother has his eye on a NAD T787 receiver. He has a 5.1 system in a small man-cave, but his existing Pioneer receiver does not cut the mustard. As a result he does not need vast amounts of power. He tells me that audio quality is the priority.

Is the NAD a good bet?

I know nothing about receivers as I am a 2-channel man but unfortunately I am the 'go-to guru'. I have suggested he hang-fire until he looks at brands like Marantz and Anthem but that is a bit vague. He can get the NAD for the equivalent of £2,000 but his budget could go above that. Any suggestions?

[Macca]

My experience has been that there is not an awful lot of difference between any of them. Does he want better SQ for watching films or for listening to music? Or both. What source(s) is he using? What speakers and sub. He's probably better off chucking the money at the speakers or front end or both to get a noticeable improvement, unless they are already both top notch.

[istari_knight]

I have no idea on the current models but the old NAD/Arcam shared design AV amps/receivers were awful & full of bad design decisions. I've always liked Denon/Sony ES AV amps.

[Andrei]

My experience has been that there is not an awful lot of difference between any of them. Does he want better SQ for watching films or for listening to music? Or both. What source(s) is he using? What speakers and sub. He's probably better off chucking the money at the speakers or front end or both to get a noticeable improvement, unless they are already both top notch.
Ahh! I had suspected as much about the sound quality. Not entirely sure of the rest of the system. Jamo speakers, Velodyne sub, not sure of the source but he will be getting an Oppo 95 or Oppo 105. It is for Bluray movies and CDs. I have persuaded him that if he had 5.1 channels at his disposal he should be playing SACds.

[Macca]

Oppo and Velodyne get my approval. Jamo speakers tend to vary from dismal to outstanding depending on the model so that may well be the weak link. The receiver would be the last thing I'd change unless he is in need of more power.

[Ali Tait]

If it were my money, I'd buy a processor and three Temple Audio Gold amps or similar Class D amps. They are small enough to tuck away, much cheaper to buy and run, and will sound better than any but possibly the most expensive receivers IMHO.

[Macca]

yes but processors tend to be high end only and consequently expensive. Unless you know of a budget one? In which case I would be interested myself.

[Ali Tait]

I don't, not my thang. I'd imagine some receivers must have pre outs though?

[Macca]

Yes, some do.

[Ali Tait]

I daresay the OP could buy something like this-

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/TAG-McLaren-AV32R-Home-Cinema-Pre-Amp-Processor-/181265409211?pt=UK_Sound_Vision_Home_Cinema_Receiv ers&hash=item2a3442a4bb

and enough Class D channels to do the job, still save a fortune on his budget, and get better sound to boot.

[Andrei]

If it were my money, I'd buy a processor and three Temple Audio Gold amps or similar Class D amps. They are small enough to tuck away, much cheaper to buy and run, and will sound better than any but possibly the most expensive receivers IMHO.
Three amps? Is this for the receiver to run the Front Left and Front Right and the three Class D amps to run the center channel and two surround?

[Ali Tait]

I'm assuming it's a 5.1 system?

In which case you need 6 channels of amplification if you were just using a processor. These amps can be very small, on the order of a couple of packs of cigarettes.

Or they do mono blocks, you could buy 3 pairs, but that would be getting a bit pricey. The Mini T amp is only about £50, so three of those wouldn't break the bank.

[Andrei]

Yes a 5.1 system. I was assuming you were talking monoblocks, hence a bit of confusion re the number of amps. But now that I think of it 5 monoblocks could be interesting (the sub is active).

[Ali Tait]

Aye could be, though would cost more.