I have 2 NAD C272s. I was previously using them in stereo mode, one to drive my fronts, and one to drive my surrounds.
Lately I've gotten into 2-channel listening a lot more and I figured it was a bit of waste having all that power from a 272 driving my rears while watching movies. So I decided to try running these in mono to drive my fronts.
So now I have them bridged, one each driving my Paradigm Monitor 7s at (according to the owners manual) 300 watts.
I can actually hear a difference now running them in this configuration. As some of you may know, I was previously not 100% satisfied with the sound of these amps, but running them in mono somehow seems to change the nature of them. Instead of them sounding a little restrained (almost choked) and muffled as they had before, they sound open and crisp.
I know I'm not imagining it, because even my wife noticed a difference. We were listening to Evanesence and she remarked how clear the vocals sounded.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. I just wanted to share this since I again like my 272's.
Now if I could just get the auto-sense to work....
Good to read David, but forget the auto-sense. It makes no sense. LOl!
After swapping my C162/C272 for the MF A5, I know what you mean about the restrained (choked) sound of the C272. I was thinking of doing the same by adding another, but space constraints made me seek the alternative of which I can say I'm extremely happy.
Anyway, I'm glad it's not just my ears that finds the NAD sound less than perfect. I'm happy with my rig for the time being after this tweak, though. At least it'll keep me from spending some money for a little while. LOL.
The MF A5 is fair chunk of coin compared to a 272, is it not?
Jan I read a recent review on the new 315bee that claims its the 3020 sound but better. If that gives you any hope at all in bringing back at least a slight liking of NAD again. haha. Jan, may I ask, what was the last NAD product you listened to? Just curious.
Honestly, I was never that impressed with the sound of the 3020 or the 1020 pre amp, both of which I sold and (temporarily) owned. This issue of stop/start has been something that has bothered me since the first time I heard NAD, which would be the 3020 integrated. I thought the 3020 was a good product when it was introduced because of its straight forward, no frills approach to features at a time when the receiver market was becoming more and more obssessed with selling the front panel and the tuners included in receivers were less and less listenable - early digital tuners, you know. The idea of selling - and using - an honest 20 watts was intriguing and made sense to me compared to the cheap watts pushed by the receiver manufacturers of the day. So, as an alternative to a flashy Yamaha receiver (when Yamaha had already begun their slide toward mediocrity), the NAD integrated for less money was an interesting concept.
Unfortunately, Advent had lost its leadership at that time and no longer offered an alternative. Kloss had gone on to build projection TV's and the other designers from the original firm had moved on to Boston Acoustics. Hollman had begun his own company, APT, which later floundered when he moved to LucasSound to work on THX. And that left the little Advent Receiver as a discontinued product. But that receiver was far better sounding than the 3020 and had sold for about the same amount of money. The Advent Receiver's phono stage was considered exceptionally good and could hold its own with the best of the day. Not so the NAD 3020's which possessed a good phono section when receivers were selling IC based pre amps. The Advent Receiver's tuner was, and still is, one of the best tuners designed for metropolitan use. The 3020 didn't have a tuner. The Advent Receiver had 15 watts of exceptional sound quality and high current for its size. The NAD featured 20 watts but could peak at higher with "soft clipping". But by then the Advent Receiver was no more and the NAD was affordable. Particularly at the time of CD's introduction NAD's softness was a benefit.
The last NAD product I heard was the T-752 receiver I owned. The first and only since I sold off the 1020 in the early 1980's. I used the T-752 as a pre amp/processor when my older HK receiver ran out of inputs for HT use. The NAD receiver fed to my HK/Citation five channel amplifier because I just didn't like the sound of the NAD's power amplifier section. The T-752 bit the dust during our tornado season this past year after multiple surges over the course of a few months finally got past the Panamax protector. I didn't consider the two year old NAD to be worth fixing, so I bought an Outlaw HT pre amp. I think the power amp section of the NAD still works - the part I like the least - so eventually it might end up feeding some multi-room house speakers.
That's my partial history with NAD. I've heard NAD on and off through the years at shops. I listened to the M Series components at a shop this year. Same thing. There is something about the NAD sound that is immediately not musical to my ears. OK for hifi. Not musical if that's what you're after.
Somebody tell me what they like about the NAD sound.
As far as sound goes, I like the warmth of NAD, how the highs roll off a bit so when I listen to music for more than an hour, I dont feel tired. The midrange is open and airy. I know there is much better out there for two channel listening, but for A/V receivers I have only heard one that topped my NAD, and that was an Arcam 350. The biggest problem I have with NAD is their manufacturing. In order to get a NAD product that sounds good you have to listen to 5 different NAD products. Their Integrated Amps, Receivers and A/V receivers all sound different now. And then different within each line as well. Almost like their product lines are all made in different factories or something. I know what you mean when you say you feel NAD has abandoned their 2 channel roots a bit, as their A/V receivers are their best sounding products they have now. For Home Theater buffs, its hard to top a NAD A/V receiver. Specially when they sound pretty good as a two channel pre as well. But when it comes to critical two channel listening, I don't think NAD are as good as they use to be. Thats why I recently purchased the Rega Apollo, and by X-mas will have a Rega Cursa pre. Leaving the NAD just for theater duties.