I don't use the NAB for personal reading or study, because I've had the RSV since I learned to read. However, I thought Fr. Neuhaus's criticisms in the recent "First Things" were goofy.
You say tomAYto, I say toMAHto ...
RSV is my main study bible, but I will use all of them sometimes to shed light.
A couple of online favorites (both with the deuterocanonical books:)
http://www.ebible.org/web/indexfr.htm
This is a reworking of the ASV, using the Byzantine Majority Text as its stanardized text, which is cool, I think.
The NET bible (which has lots of translators notes and is elegantly worded, although I don't always agree with their decisions on interpreting)
http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm
RVS is online at:
http://etext.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html
As a lector I know exactly what he is getting at. The NAB language only its translators can love. Reading it outloud is hard, because its English style is flat at best and much like that of someone to whom English is a second language. I recall when it was first published, Wm. Buckley commented on its banality. You use the RSV. So do I. From time to time, when I had to deliver a particular bad line, I would substitute another translation. They say that lectors should says it as if we meant it? How can we do that when we don't know what it means, even with a commentary to help?
When you take a line like: Hail, Full of Grace, and turn it into You who have found favor with the Lord (or however the NAB renders it-I can't bear to look) you do violence to Catholic Tradition for no good reason. There is no valid reason to reject translating kecharitomene as Full of Grace whatsoever, and thousands of years of tradition to argue against it. Will they be changing the Rosary next?
Is it possible it is willful violence? Sure. Should we be surprised?