Hi. My current stereo system consist of a C320BEE NAD integrated amplifier which is in preamp mode with a Golden Theater amp as this amp provides more power than the C320BEE gives with Triangle Antal ESW speakers. Anyway, I love the NAD sound but the Golden Theater amp has a problem (it shuts up at will) and as I can't repair it and will need to get a new system. I was thinking about the NAD C272/C162 combo, BUT my fear is paying for that combo and realize that this COMBO won't sound as good and lovable as my current systems does. There must be something with the "BEE" component on NAD systems that make the difference. Anyway, I was thinking of this combo: get a NAD C325BEE and use it in preamp mode feeded with a NAD C272. This way, I think, I will have the NAD BEE sound I love but with more clean power that will be provided by the NAD C272. What do you think? What I want is to keep the refinement and musicality of my NAD C320BEE with this new combo. What gives the sound to a system: the preamp or the amp? Any insights will be very much appreciated. Thank you again.
The bottom-of-the-range BEE sounds thin and sub-standard compared to the top-of-the-range 162/272 combo! There is no comparison. Both have the 'NAD' house sound though so you will be having your cake AND eating it should you upgrade. By the way, it's the power amp that changes the sound on the NAD classic amps - the extra power gives deeper & fuller bass and an overall thicker sound. Most NAD pre-amps sound pretty much identical.
In theory a power amp shouldn't alter the sound at all, it should just amplify the pre-amp output. This isn't the case though as all equipment colours the sound to an extent (the more you spend the less this is supposed to happen). It's fairly complex but generally speaking more power sounds better, if it is done right! Greater power also affects how the speakers are driven which in turn lends more weight to the bass and oomph to the sound in general with better dynamics etc, this is what will happen should you upgrade your NAD amp. Varying brands and designs of pre-amp sound very different but as we're discussing NAD only, to all intents and purposes their pre-amps sound identical. You obviously like the NAD sound and upgrading within the NAD range will retain that basic sound you like but improve on it!
Thank you again but your response makes me wonder if, as you say all NAD pre-amps sound identical and my NADC320BEE is working fine, if then what I just need to buy is the NAD C252 amplifier and use it with the NADC320BEE (as a pre-amp) since buying the NAD C162 pre-amp wouldn't create any difference at all, since, all pre-amps sound that identical. Thank you.
Well, the benefit of separate pre & power amps is that they have their own dedicated power supply - in hifi terms the effects are subtle but sharing a power supply affects dynamics. Buying another integrated amplifier just to use the power section wouldn't be logical, also the C352 doesn't have as good a power section as the power amp that is the C272. What you suggest would no doubt sound better than your current set-up but it wouldn't be the route I'd choose to go and if that is the case then you may as well sell your C320BEE and just use the C352 as a complete unit seeing how it has a built-in pre-amp.
Oh excuse me, I got the NAD models wrong. This is my last question, I swear. Your insight, really, has been of great help. Given what I have read, would this two systems sound EXACTLY THE SAME?
I'm going to have to disagree here. While it won't be a night and day difference, there will be a difference. No one can tell you what you will and won't hear.
I've found that the weakness in NAD integrated amps is the pre-amp section, not the power amp section. I've done a few experiments along these lines. In the case of the 320BEE vs the 352 and 372, the pre-amp sections are different. There's a big difference between the 352 and 320BEE, and its not soley due to more power. There's a difference between the 372 and 352, but not as drastic as the 320BEE vs 352. If your speakers are driven more than adequitely by the 352 and the room isn't excessively large, chances are very good that you won't hear a difference upgrading to the 372. The same isn't true for the 320BEE vs 352.
A seperate pre-amp will be better, but how much can only be determined by the listener's ears. Since the pre-amp section of the intergateds are not passive, intergated amp uses one power supply for both channels and the pre-amp section. This intriduces more noise into the system. The proximity of the pre-amp section to the power amp section adds more noise.
Pre-amps are very sensitive to noise. Probably the most sensitive component (a phono pre-amp would be more sensitive, but its still a pre-amp). Higher end companies seperate the power supply from a pre-amp to reduce the noise. Companies like Naim, Bryston, Simaudio, and McIntosh, for exapmle try to get the pre-amp's power supply as far away as possible from the pre-amp itself by using two seperate cases for the pre-amp.
The 162 has its own power supply, that'll most likely be much quieter than the integrated amp's. It doesn't need as much current flowing through the system to power up a bunch of different things. It doesn't have as many parts in it to add further noise. Its physically further away, which decreases noise even more.
A integrated amp really only has two advantages over seperates - both sections share a common ground, and some eliminate the need for interconnects between the sections. But, most integrateds have external copper U bars, which can sound worse than interconnects.
A pre-amp does a lot more than switch sources and adjust volume. Too many people get hung up on power amps and make the pre-amp an afterthought. In my experience, the pre-amp makes more of a difference on the system's overall sound than the power amp, so long as the speakers are adequitely driven by the power amp, and the rest of the system is capable of showing the differences.
Is it worth buying a seperate pre-amp to you? Only your ears and wallet can answer that one. A good dealer should be able to set up a demo.
Thank you very much for your information. I actually just bought the NAD C162/C252 combo basically because that will be my main stereo system (matched with my Triangle Antal ESW speakers) since my former amplifier died last week. I will use the all mighty NADC320BEE as a stereo system in the country house. Thanks again for the info, as you see that info greatly helped me finding a solution.
We went through a Nad integrated as pre a while back, and I suggest again that opening the power circuit to the power section will relieve the preamp bits if interference and voltage fluctuations.
Stu I really agree with you regarding the pre-amps role in a system. I recently demo'd a MAC C2200. Initially it was too harsh. Jan suggested some things which warmed it up to where I thoroughly enjoyed it. I felt it clearly out performed my Rogue Magnum 99. Both are tube pre-amps. When I could not work out a satisfactory transaction with the dealer I packed up and returned the MAC.
However. I did not know which one I was going to keep so I screwed the cover back onto my Rogue, the only item of note being the "O" rings I use on my phono stage 12AX7s. I left the cover on after the no deal. Upon returning home from the dealer I returned the Rogue to my system but this time with the cover screwed back on and the tweaks I applied to the MAC now applied to the Rogue, two 5 lb polyurethane coated dumbbells placed on top of the unit and (added this after the MAC left) four 3 lb lead diver weights, one under each of the feet of the pre-amp. The diver weights have two wooden blocks under each of them.
The result was such a reduction in distortion from the pre-amp that I could turn the volume to the point where I would have to leave the room and my MAC amp did not even flicker a protection light at me. Without the weights and with the covers off of the pre-amp I only could turn it up about 70% of that volume and the protection lights on the MAC were blinking away at me. I got fairly much the MAC pre-amp performance out of my Rogue now. Certainly significantly enough to where there is no reason for me to upgrade.
There is a lot to be said about the pre-amp's role in the system.
Ok,so I did install the NAD C162/C272 combo and it was INDEED a night and day difference in comparison with my NAD C320BEE. Even tough the C320BEE drove my Triangle Antal ESW speakers (it always help the fact that their sensitivity (dB/2,83 V/m)is 91) with the C162/C272 the sound is way more CLEAR, CRISTALINE and POWERFUL. It's like getting a boost performance on every aspect of the NADC320BEE and that it's what the C272 did. If anyone have my same fears that with the C162/C272 combo one will lose the "musicality and lush sound" of the NADC320BEE you can rest assured that the tipical NAD sound remains intact but more CLEAR. CLEAR and CRISTAL CLEAN will be the word to describe it. You will think that the C320BEE sounded muddy after hearing the C162/C272 combo. And one thing I found particular interesting is that with the C162/C272 I could listen to all my cds in real FLAT mode (tone bypass) whereas with the C320BEE I did have to turn the trebel and bass knobs. CONCLUSION: The change from the C320BEE to the C162/C272 combo bring a great improvement to my sound system. If anyone is in my same position be sure that that change WILL improve greatly your sound.
ob, if you run with anything other than straight through I will make your friends go home! At some point you have to trust the recordings and just trust the music. Welcome to that point. And play some Johnny Cash to soothe my hangover, huh?
For curiousity sake, have you tried the 272 with the 320BEE as a pre-amp? While some of the differences will be from the 272 having more control over the speakers, IMO the 162 has just as much to do with it.
I just heard the Vincent 331 amp paired to an NAD 162- Wow! Of late I have become increasingly interested in NAD components. I am planning a trip to the RMAF in 2 weeks and want to hear as much as I can while there before making any decisions as to upgrades from my Jolida 1501- The Vincent/NAD combo sounded killer for the modest investment of $1500- and will definitely be on my short list of choices so far- However, the RMAF may completely alter my perspective and bank account balance!
I was looking at the Vincent amp you spoke of. It uses two 6n16 tubes which are soldered to the board. When I asked what I should do if (and when) a tube burns out I was told I would have to send the unit back to their Michigan HQ, I didn't like that idea. Audio Advisor has the 331 on sale for $999, and it does look like a nice amp but those tubes!
That sounds pretty odd to me. Tubes have a far shorter shelf lif than anything else in the amp. Everytime a tube needs to be replaced, you've got to send the amp back? What if you want to upgrade them, or use different tubes?
A big part of the allure to a tube based component is being able to swap out tubes to fine tune the sound the way you want it.
Good point, but the tubes aren't perfect forever. How much fun would it be shipping a big and heavy Mac amp to Binghamton, NY every 5 years or so to have the tubes changed? How much would that cost you?
If you google 6n16 tubes you don't see much in terms of them being applied to audio except in Vincent products. I don't know of there being several different varieties so as to implement tube rolling. I think I read the tubes last 5 or 10000 hrs so that is their thinking, you only send it back every so often. How about: I don't send it back at all?