I'm looking into buying a new A/V receiver for my paradigm mini's and I've narrowed down my choices to these two receivers. Each at only $699, I've heard alot of good things about them. Which one would match better with the paradigms?
Is Gene trying to drive a 4 ohm load? Nuck is partly right they are of about equivalent quality but they both have a history of QC issues. Cambridge claims to have cleared theirs up but my local Cambridge dealer still won't carry them. I believe that Cambridge has probably cleared up their problems and if you get a late model you should be fine. In short it's a wash. Listen and choose. By the way Gene you never said which Paradigms you are trying to drive.
It really is an old thread... My 2cents for all interested in topic:
I didn't have opportunity to listen to paradigms. So I can't tell you how they sound with these two receivers (you should listen to audio equipment before purchase in the first place But I can tell you the difference between NAD and Cambridge Audio in my configuration.
I own NAD T753. It has more power than T743 and uses PowerDrive technology in power supply section. Sound difference between T753 and T743 is minimal as with all NAD receivers. They are all based on same technology.
So for NAD T743 V2 and CA540R V2... Both receivers are designed with MUSIC in mind. Both are nicely build, good sounding and powerfull units. They are both hi current units capable of running low impedance speakers (4ohm min. warnings are at the back of both units). They don't have many DSP surround modes. So, if you are DSP freak you must look at other (Japanese) brands.
Differences: CA540R V2 has lighter and more compact design with power supply based on toroidal transformer with higher capacity and better custom made audio grade low impedance capacitors. CA has better ADC/DAC Codec (24/192 versus 24/92 in NAD) and less noisier volume controller. CA540R is also quieter due to better transformer and nice cooling (only one big low RPM fan versus 4 smaller ones spinning at higher RPMs) NAD has better and bigger display and not so good looking, but very good universal programmable remote. CA540R's remote is nice looking but basic - not universal. CA540R V2 has RS232c port for future software updates but it lacks 12V trigger ports.
Sound wise they are different beasts NAD's sound is warm, laid back and has pronounced mid bass with roll of in higher frequencies. As result it sometimes misses some details... In short: powerfull and dark sound
CA's sound is also laid back and on warm side but with more natural and brighter heights (_not_ Japanese sharp CA540R's bass is more defined (low and quick bass). In short: very balanced and detailed sound (nice for movies too).
It boils down to your sound preferences (and other equipment): "heavier" and darker - NAD, "lighter" and detailed - CA, dynamic "in your face" and more clinical - Rotel (nice receivers and amps)
My report is based on following equipment: Receivers: NADT753 V2, CA540R V2 (owner of both) Source: Pioneer DV565A Speakers: Dali Suite in 5.1 configuration (4ohm speakers), Sonus Faber Concerto (6ohm speakers) Speaker cables: VDH CS122, QED XT350 and QED XT400 Interconnects: VDH D-102 MKIII Room size: 24sqm ---- Music: Jazz, Rock, Classic, POP Ears: mine and others
In my "stereo only" days I used to love NAD. Come to think about it at that time the choices were only between Technics, NAD, Yamaha and Pioneer(In South Africa)
I currently have a CA 540R with two Flying Moles power amps driving the front speakers and before this I had two Yamahas(RX-V450 and RX-V650) and there is no comparison. I also auditioned Denon(1905, 3805), NAD(T743,T753), Marantz(4500, 5500) and the CA's sound really appealed to me.
Thanks Abe! I got my NAD form service and I wrote this quick review.
As I said at avforums.com I intend to post very detailed info about NAD and CA receivers I own. When I was looking for another receiver I had trouble finding good info for CA540R V2.
I agree with you on Japanese models. I had Onkyo once. It was lacking power and had so dull sound... Now they have more power and (to)many DSP modes. They are nice for watching movies, but for music they are still missing "soul". (Compare them to average 2 channel stereo integrated amp and you'll see what I mean).
Rotel and Marantz(?) represent bright exceptions here (my humble opinion )
Zoran, you are right spot on from my seat. Rotel has always represented the best value(NOT CHEAP) for quality products. If not all the features, just high quality power and SQ.(IMHO).
Marantz have come back from the dead. The Marantz lineup is new, front to back, and can present a very good stereo if requested.(7400 w/ Paradigm 40's aud.)
Rotels are still overpriced, here in Canada, the Nad line are super-good.
163-272 is a classic, and can't be beat for the price.(Rotel is more). However, for receivers, I would choose several others over Nad for the noise issues, I have heard severak in the past few months, the problem persists.
Zoran, you are dead wrong about the CA540R. The CA does not have a defined "tight" bass, but just the opposite. There is little lower-end detail, timing is completely off, and sounds like a cheap "all in one" system. It's as mis-forward as British "hi-fi" can be, so mid's and highs are sharp and focused. But forget this amp for any serious listening, especially if you like hearing the air in an upright.
Based paritally on your review, I tried one at home. My suggestion: try these units for yourself before writing about them!
Back the dark/murky AVR200 for now until I can find something else. Marantz? Denon? Forget NAD... I tried two T743's a year ago, both suffered from hiss/hum issues.
Jeff, I won't say that it is you that is dead wrong... But I would say that it is nice to have second opinion. I respect your opinion and I believe you that 540R behaves in your system like you wrote. I don't know how many hours did you use 540R, but out of the box it sounds just as you described. Bright and thin "all in one" system.
Anyway... different system configurations and listening rooms == different sound. I won't go on different sound tastes but some (even) like "British Hi-fi" - it sells.
----- You can brighten up "dark/murky AVR200" if you like. I use QED XT400 with NAD to bring out heights and to widen sound stage. BTW: I do own my XT cables too so I can write about them, can I?
I like British hi-fi. The Arcam a65+ is one of the best things I've ever heard (and I haven't heard the A80 or A90). My old stand-by is an NAD 7240PE, if that qualifies as British.
But the CA540R doesn't at all sound thin. In fact, the opposite. It's fat and sluggish in the bottom end.. . worse than warm, it's all murkiness in the details. Maybe a good choice for those still nostaligic for the days of the "loudness" circuit (because that's what it sounds like). Not a contender.
Thanks for the advice on the QED XT... might try something like that.
Interesting how people's tastes differ! But it does not mean that Jeff is wrong.
I have done a direct comparison with my CA and a friend's HK 335 some time ago and in that case found the HK to be a lackluster under-performer(my friend was not impressed with his HK before that and afterwards sold it)
I also agree that out of the box the CA does not sound good and I actually feel that it needs some warming up before sounding good.
But as a friend of mine pointed out to me, I don't really have a CA setup anymore as I drive my fronts with Flying Mole power amps.
Once again everyone has their own tastes and preferences and that is how it should be else it will be a very boring life
If it needs warming up, it needs it in spades... as I gave it a full weeks worth of "burn in" with little improvement. Cambridge actually puts a sticker on the box begging for "patience"... but mine wore thin after a week. My classic 7240PE sounded good out of the box and has stayed "good" for 18 years. My Arcam A65+ took about 10 minutes to warm up and after that it was gold. Wish I hadn't sold it to go multi-channel, because everything I've tried so far has disappointed on some level (NAD T743, Arcam AVR200, CA540R V2).
I'm very wary on Cambridge Audio. I had the 540R paired with a DVD89 which was *clearly* an el-cheapo DVD in disguise, both in sound and behavior. And they have the courage to reccomend "high quality" cables right on the box! The only thing hi-end about it was the apparent build quality (heavy case, metal chasis, detachable power cable).
Since I only run 4.0 (no sub, no center), I'm starting to think I'd be well served by a dual two-channel system. Bring the 7240PE back out of the closet, maybe pick up a 3240PE on ebay, and use the internal processors and variable volume control from an Oppp DVD/DVDA/SACD player. So I lose surround from select HBO shows and the Xbox 360... not sure that's a big deal. Wouldn't it be cool if there were a DVD player with digital inputs to effectively serve as a pre/pro? Why not?
Aha, another person who "upgraded" from stereo to HT! Okay, I know the term should really be "down graded"
I also went the HT route about two years ago and am already on my 4th HT receiver. As I have stated before, I like the sound from my CA combination compared to the previous 3 which annoyed me, but the most difficult change to make is to go from stereo to HT as the HT systems does not sound like a good stereo setup unless you spend a LOT more money.
I have the CA DVD79 and as you say, the build quality is good, but under the skin it is a different story.
The 540R does sound good in stereo(compared to other HT receivers below $1000, but I am sure that a dedicated stereo amp of the same price will blow its socks off.
Yes you could use your stereo amp with main speakers for HT. Properly set up you will still get a good 3 dimentional image from the two speakers. The wizz of sounds from all ends of the room does wear off after a while
A/V Receivers! This is becoming a touchy subject for me, and my wife thinks I'm nuts with the parade of gear I've brought into the house this year. 18 years of stable bliss with a NAD 7240PE and then I got the bug. First with an upgrade to an Arcam A65+ (which was nice), then I wanted "surround", which is when the trouble started. NAD T743, Arcam AVR200, CA540R... and demos of Marantz, Pioneer Elite, and Integra.
Even the "well regarded" Arcam AVR200 left me cold. It felt like an NAD tweaked to sound like an Arcam. It rolled off the highs for that smooth sound, but was missing the the natural clean & polished sound of their integrateds (dare I use the "musical" cliche?). Arcam gear always feels detailed and polite, easy on the ears at slight expense of dynamics. But the AVR200 displayed the same slightly quirky and unpredictable "dark" sound of my former T743 with the treble deemphasised for "warmth". Hmmm.....
I was pretty enthusiastic about the 540R on first unpacking it. It *felt* sturdy. It reminded me of the first time I unpacked my NAD 7240PE. It seems "high end". On first listen it felt warm and sweet and I thought I had found "the answer". My first disk was the Yes Magnification DVD-Audio. The multi-channel and natural mids of the CA540R had me hooked (even though it's not a great Yes album). But a mid-80's rock album was the first sign of problems... The DVD-Audio of Foreigner 4.
This is an album I enjoyed as a kid, and I have a good idea of how it is "supposed" to sound... specifically, Rick Will's pseudo-funky bass on Urgent (which was murky on the 540R!). Say what you want about Foreigner, but "4" was a masterwork of early 80's rock production. That bass always had punch and was never lost in the mix. So I tried some more rock CDs... Rush's Moving Pictures & Signals, Yes' Fragile and the remastered Tales... again, swiss-cheese low end. The killer was Earth Wind & Fire's "That's The Way of the World". Lots of detail here, and my old A65+ used to pull every nuance out, with a tight controled rhythm (This was with both a CD73T and an el-cheapo Sony DVD). But as on other recordings, the bass was fat, slow, boomy, and lazy... almost not keeping proper time. And background guitars were lost in the fog. This was using the analog out from a CA 540D Azur and the DACs in the 540R. I also tried it with a DVD89 (a complete piece of sh^t). And yes, I verified speaker settings were correct (I'm running a 4.0 system).
In fact, it was the experience with the DVD89 that left we wondering if CA nay be nothing more than high-end clothing for rather ordinary gear. Everything about it's behavior signals "cheap"... unresponsive buttons, slow load times, average to slightly poor audio quality, strange menu system... for $350 one can do *much* better (Pioneer Elite DV45A, for example). Is this the CA design philosopy?
End of the day, I'm done with A/V receivers (for now). I'm going to try an old Arcam AV50 and utilize the DD decoders and 5 channel analog out from a quality DVD pleyer. Let the DVD do the processing! What a concept! Right now I'm considering a Denon 2910 (refurb), Marantz DV6500 (refurb), or Pioneer Elite DV45A (new). I don't need progressive scan, just high-quality 480i with good DACs. Suggestions?
I did that also... didn't make a difference. Though the 540D is pretty nice... quite a bit better than the DV89.
Hey Peter... I'm in the same DVD boat you were in a while ago. I'm leaning towards a cheaper Denon 1920 and using the leftover funds to purchase a used Arcam CD player. What's been your experience with DVD players and redbook?
Here's the extent of my experience (which is very little). I have an old Pioneer DV-333 DVD player (and keep looking at inexpensive universal players from time to time). I auditionned a friend's Rotel CD player about a year ago (forgot the model number) and compared it with my DVD player. For me, there were no jaw-dropping differenes in soundstage or frequency content. The only differences were that (1) the Rotel's mechanism was quiet whereas the DVD player is noisy, (2) when an insrument was played much weaker than other instruments in a recording, I could still pick it out in the soundstage with the Rotel and lost it with the DVD player. I bought a used Rotel RCD-02 last fall and have found it to be similar to the older but more expensive Rotel player I had auditioned before.
I'm sorry, but I don't hear a player's bass as tighter versus another and most other qualifiers that you hear people talk about CD players. Maybe I never will, or maybe I'm limited by my AVR (although I have tried power amps on the pre-outs) and interconnects. Still, I amazed guests with the sound I have; most have never heard anything close.
Nahhh.... it's been the same set of Polk Monitor 7C's (and Monitor 4.5's in the rear) through the entire run of various components. The Arcam A65+ made 'em sing, so that's the gold standard.
However -- I'll admit they aren't the greatest speakers one could use, and are probably the reason I only hear subtle differences when it comes to most (but not all) CD players, and no differences at all when it comes to wire/cable.
LOL -- Audiophilia is a church, and you gotta' believe things are happening you can't always see (or hear).
FWIW, I believe many of the apparent "differences" in CD players are engineered. Take the NAD c521bee, for example. A totally unique sound not at all grounded in "accurate" reproduction of sound. But it's a hell of a $200 fixed EQ setting. Shhhhh.....
A friend and I have an idea for designing fancy-looking cables (cooler looking than Kimbers!) that actually do "shape" the sound. It won't be accurate, but there will be guaranteed differences! Could be huge.
As mentioned previously a friend once stated that I don't have a CA setup anymore I use a set of Flying Mole mono blocks to drive my front speakers(Mordaunt-Short 908) an old Rotel CDP(855) for CD playback, but connected to the L-R direct in on the 540R(No processing on the CA using the Rotel's DACs)
The only time I use the DVD player(CA DVD79) is to playback DVDs and its "okay"
With my current setup quite a few "stereo audiophiles" have been surprised with the sound, but as always there are things to improve, starting with (as soon as finances and wife allows it ) the speakers.
Anyway the idea is to have fun, but its can be frustrating fun sometimes!
Before I packed and sold the 540R (I made money!), I ran the pre-outs to my old NAD7240PE and had none of the before-mentioned problems... so an external power amp would be one solution. I'm hoping a second-hand Arcam AV50 is the solution for me (I'll report back!).
You obviously run out of luck with CA540R Your description of sound reminded me on amps damping factor influence... So I wasn't surprised when I found out that it has quite low damping factor (30~40) by today standards for solid state amps. That means that it has less negative feedback (good) and is more sensitive on speakers (bad). How much trouble amp has depends on speakers it drives. In most of the cases it does OK, but in some cases it fails badly. Generally you should be careful when using 4ohm speakers with large membranes and amp with low damping factor.
I agree with you that for music listening it is usually better to utilize universal players internal decoders. Good universal player and good AV amp should do the job for you.
--------- As I mentioned in my short review, I have no problem with CA540 V2 in my configuration. It sounds really good if you use 6.1 "Direct In" inputs as they bypass DSP. CA540R has no "stereo bypass/pure stereo" for other 2ch inputs. Despite DSP processor and AD/DA converters in signal path stereo should sound good enough for today's average listener - my opinion. (For best stereo results you should use receiver in combination with 2ch stereo amp anyway.)
Receiver's layout is well designed. It has quiet design (one big fan) with minimal wires running around that could pick up internal noise. CA54R V2's build quality is also above average. All components are nicely soldered and are standing upright (no "tornado" traces inside). It uses quality Epoxy PC boards for preamp/DSP board and for some other boards. Unfortunately, boards are populated with Chinese passive components. So caps could be better... (same caps as in NAD - Samxon). As an "old school" engineer I really look and care about those technical things
******* You should always listen to audio equipment before purchasing it! *******
Zoran, your statement about damping factors is very interesting. I honestly always wondered what it was all about and now you have even made me read up about it
I have not been able to find the damping factor of the CA 540R, but will take your word for it I assume that this is at 4Ohms or is it 8Ohms?
Because of your posting I have also found out that my Flying Mole power amps have a damping factor of 200 at 8Ohms which could maybe explain why my first impression was that they control the woofers with an iron fist.
I'm using 6ohm Polk Monitors (7c's front and 4.5's rear). I think sensitivity is around 89db. This shouldn't be a hard load to drive, but maybe it is the CA's "dampening" as you point out. Very interesting.
I originally thought these were 4ohm speakers, but I found my old owners manual... which says 6ohm.
Long story short... the Arcam AV50 is a dream, and is powerful enough with it's internal amps for my small living room. I'm using the analog multi-channel outs and the DVD internal decoder for surround. I only give up processing for non-DVD sources (TV, Xbox), which I can live with, though I might consider an external DD decoder at some point.
I am happy for you Jeff! You have finally achieved your goal.
For CA540R it is expected to have damping factor form 30 to 40 for 8ohm load (NAD's DF is around 60 for 8 ohm load). I have measured damping factor for my CA540R V2. It is from 17 to 19 for 4ohm load (depending on frequency - related to amps output impedance). Tube amps have same low damping factor (many of them much lover than CA's) and they are still considered to be very good and nice sounding amps. Amps with low DF usually have warm and soft "tube" like sound. If you like it, then it is OK, if not then you have to look elsewhere. Warm sound doesn't mean muddy and sloppy bass, it should be well defined. As I stated before it is equipment configuration that you have to test, especially speakers. Speaker is electromechanical device and sometimes represents quite troublesome load for an amp with low DF. It is not only speakers impedance but overall design.
It is really long thread now and I hope that it would be useful for someone out there
The AV50 is a nice amp. I'm surprised there is no longer a market for 5 channel "integrateds", especially with many DVD players these days offering 5.1 analog out.
However, the AV50 is not up to par with more recent designs from Arcam, notably the A65+.
So I'm starting to think about selling and moving back to 2-channel, with a seperate DAC for the squeezebox. The novelty of surround DVD-A and SACD has worn... and I don't watch enough movies to justify the trade-off in sound quality.
Anyone else having experience with the Arcam AV50?
Went back to two channel. Bought a second hand Rotel RA-1060, which I like better than the Arcam a65+ (with a few reservations... the Arcam locked into individual instruments a little better, but the Rotel is far more authoritative and detailed enough).
I don't miss hearing thing whizz about my living room. But now that I know how good two-channel can be, I wonder about the Rega Mira...... (stay tuned!)
