Archive through April 18, 2008
|
Silver Member Username: James_the_godDoncaster, South Yorkshire England Post Number: 643 Registered: Jan-05 | I'm sure theres many who have owned older NAD amplifiers around here. I'm fond of the character the NAD 3130 has. I'm using one(I bought for my dad, which fused and I've now fixed so will be his again soon) and prefer it to my own modern amp. Its more dynamic, more detailed and isnt bright plus has a bass eq button to boost frequencies below 60hz by half an octave. Quite ironic how I thought my current amplifier was the perfect one...which it just isnt. The NAD has attack!  I'm wondering if modern NAD amps are any similiar, namely the new NAD c315bee which catches my eye for its nice price. Is there much competition between the new and old NAD amplifiers? ThankYou! JJ |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12451 Registered: May-04 | . "The NAD has attack!" I would say that's one thing NAD's do not have. |
|
Silver Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 849 Registered: Feb-07 | I have owned both new and old NAD amps. I have an old 2150 from maybe the early 90's (?). It sounds better to me than my newer C272, and has less power. |
|
Bronze Member Username: BetamaxCanada Post Number: 38 Registered: May-07 | Competition between new and old NAD amps? There was a three-legged race, but it was canceled due to rain. Poor NAD...the Rodney Dangerfield of hifi. "I don't get no respect. When I was born, the doctor held me the other way round and slapped my face." |
|
Silver Member Username: James_the_godDoncaster, South Yorkshire England Post Number: 644 Registered: Jan-05 | "The NAD has attack!" "I would say that's one thing NAD's do not have." Then I suppose the cambridge audio 540a is far to laid back, sort of boring.. What amplifiers would say do have attack in you're opinion Jan? Frank, sorry I didnt understand what you're trying to say. Also, nice to know that I'm not imagining older NADs sound fantastic. |
|
Silver Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 851 Registered: Feb-07 | I wouldn't say my old NAD sounds fantastic, but it's much more musical sounding than my new NAD. |
|
Silver Member Username: James_the_godDoncaster, South Yorkshire England Post Number: 645 Registered: Jan-05 | What would you say is lacking in you're newer C272? Isnt that a power amp though? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12457 Registered: May-04 | . "Then I suppose the cambridge audio 540a is far to laid back, sort of boring.. What amplifiers would say do have attack in you're opinion Jan?" I've never heard a Cambridge amplifier. If you're asking me for sepcific brands and models that have "attack", I'm going to disappoint you again. I no longer spend my days listening to audio gear other than my own. If I were to suggest any amplifier, I would tell you most solid state gear capable of producing a group of good looking square waves over the broadest frequency range would probably have good "attack". It takes a good power supply and a wide power bandwidth to accomplish that. Almost any well designed/executed tube based unit will have better attack than most solid state gear. It's just a "start/stop" thing. Quite a few sand amps can get the attack right but can't match tubes for the decay part. However, a crumby output transformer on a good tube design will not allow for leading edge transients. This scenario is becoming increasingly familiar as the Chinese recycle old tube designs with new crumby parts. Still the problem becomes, how does an amplifier - tube or solid state - prove it has "attack" when you connect it to a speaker load? Misjudge the load the amplifier works into and no amplifier sounds its best. So, other than trying a product with multiples of speakers and multiples of sources, suggesting any product lacks this or that is a bit fruitless. That said, since 1978 I've never heard a NAD product that impressed me with its "attack". Warm, rolled off and what many consider "musical" they are. They are, IMO, no more capable of "attack" than a house cat trapping a fly. If anyone likes NAD, that's fine with me and you should ignore my comments. But I've never met an ex-NAD owner who didn't believe they heard their music for the first time when they bought something else. . |
|
Silver Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 852 Registered: Feb-07 | "But I've never met an ex-NAD owner who didn't believe they heard their music for the first time when they bought something else." I concur. Then again, I went from NAD to Bryston. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1374 Registered: Jun-07 | lol that makes two of us David, not a fair comparison.lol. J.Jarvis- I think the new NAD material is definitely a step up in sound quality compared to their offerings in the last 5-8 years. I can't say for sure if the brand new stuff sounds better than the old stuff. They use be an actual Hi-Fi company back then, engineering, and building their stuff by hand in Britain. Now they are owned by a marketing company(Lenbrook) which claims the NAD stuff is still engineered by them, but now built in the republican of China. There is something said in having your stuff built in house IMO. I agree with Jan Vigne when it comes to the characteristics of NAD's sound. I don't see NAD as an amplifier with a whole lot of attack, unless you mean bass, which the typical NAD sound has a lot of, and slams hard. I think the NAD sound I would consider warm, a bit laid back and fluid. Overall IMO I have not heard a single product that matches NAD in the Price/Performance ratio. You stick a 600 dollar amp beside a 600 dollar NAD and the NAD will sound much better almost everytime. And I can still say that, now that I officially own a full two channel Bryston setup. So I am not being bias. My best advice J.Jarvis would be to go pick up a 315bee, bring it home, and if you like it better than the CA, then keep it. Have fun.Cheers. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1375 Registered: Jun-07 | Also, my dealer swears by the NAD/Monitor Audio combination J.J. Perhaps the synergy with the NAD in your system is better than that of the CA. Just a thought. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12458 Registered: May-04 | . "They use be an actual Hi-Fi company back then, engineering, and building their stuff by hand in Britain." Sorry, NAD was never a manufacturing company. They have always been a marketing company. NAD began life in the late 1970's when the proliferation of Japanese crap hifi was filling the face plates (no remotes back then) with button and knob technology and the sound of the product was suffering for the addition of all the geegaws and WTF circuitry. A group of fairly well to do audio enthisiasts in England got the idea of returning to the simplicity of several classic bits of hifi. They had no designers or engineers and so they hired a few. They explained what they wanted and had a some knock ups made to test. When they were satisfied with the product they found a manufacturing facility in Asia to build the stuff at an economical cost - not by hand. With a fair amount of indirect oversight and quality control - BINGOBANGOBINGO! - they had an integrated amplifier on the market. It was cheap and since it has the virtue of simplicity in circuit design and layout it sounded reasonably good for the money. Actually the original 3020 had a pretty good phono section in it. Not great by any means but far more competent than the Asian crud that was on the shelf alongside the NAD. For quite a few years this is how NAD existed. They had a loosely constructed design team that turned out what the marketing people wanted. The difference was the marketing people had far less influence on the final product than was the norm from the Japanese companies who were all marketing. NAD has had multiple factories produce their products through the years and even had different plants making different parts of the line concurrently. This has been one of NAD's constant problems. They really have no one who builds NAD other than the low bid for the "best quality". . |
|
Bronze Member Username: BetamaxCanada Post Number: 39 Registered: May-07 | Jarvis, my point was that NAD gets little respect in hifi forums, perhaps less than it deserves, then again perhaps not. I see NAD as mid-level gear -- it sounds decent, better than many, and I could live with it, but but there's better out there (admittedly, for a lot more money). If you look at my profile, you'll see I have all NAD electronics. I bought it a year ago, when I decided to get back into hifi after a 10-yr hiatus. The NAD gear was all well reviewed and I wanted to buy a complete system without spending too much money all at once. Now, after a year, I'm going to start upgrading a few pieces, starting with a Bryston amp. I've been happy with NAD in general, and because it is decent gear, I'm in no hurry to upgrade anything and can take my time -- that means a lot to me. It also keeps it's value fairly well, and I can sell it without taking too great a loss. It's good gear -- but not everyone in hifi forums will think so. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1376 Registered: Jun-07 | Well said Frank S. Jan- Thanks for the insight, I was not aware of that. Now that I think of it, all old NAD gear is marked "Made in Japan". That would explain it. lol love the BINGOBANGOBINGO!!! |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 2643 Registered: May-05 | Just so we're all on the same page when it comes down to what attack actually is - From Stereophile's Glossary attack - 1) The buildup of sound when an instrument is bowed, blown, struck, or plucked. 2) The ability of a system to reproduce the attack transients in musical sound. Poor attack makes a system sound slow. attack transient - The initial energy pulse of a percussive sound, such as from a piano string, triangle, or drum head. The way I interpret it is the leading edge of a note. If it doesn't have good attack, the note can be blurred, fuzzy, over overly smooth in the very begining of it. Decay is basically the end of it, and the same way in my understanding. I wouldn't say NAD has good attack nor decay. It sounds overly and artifically smooth to my ears. When I owned NAD, I knew something was missing, but couldn't describe it. Actually, something was added - longer attack and decay times IMO. A demo with an excellent Naim dealer about 2 years ago showed me how wrong NAD is in this regard. They didn't have nor mention NAD. When I came home and listened to my gear it became painfully obvious. The worst gear in this regard to my ears is Marantz. It sounds way too slow, warm, and laid back. Nothing they make, including their multi-thousand dollar gear, sounds natural to me. It sounds like people think a stereo should sound, not how live music sounds. There's a huge difference. I'm not trying to bash NAD. Its very good for the money. You can do far worse (Marantz IMO). But it has no sense of PRaT - Pace, Rythym, and Timing. I think attack and decay are probably the core of what PRaT is. If this doesn't make real-world sense to you, go out and hear a Naim, Linn, or Rega system. Bryston's got in spades too, yet very few really mention it when talking about PRaT for some odd reason. To a lot of people who aren't used to a PRaT system, it'll sound very edgy, sharp, and aggressive. The more you listen to it and compare it to live music, the more realistic and true to source it sounds. Some love it, and some hate it. Everyone's system has different objectives and goals. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 2644 Registered: May-05 | "But I've never met an ex-NAD owner who didn't believe they heard their music for the first time when they bought something else." "I concur. Then again, I went from NAD to Bryston." "lol that makes two of us David, not a fair comparison.lol." That makes three of us. Its definitely not fair to compare NAD's C series gear to Bryston, but what about NAD's M series? Their $2800 M3 sounds awful compared to my comparably priced B60 (when brand new). NAD's house sound is flawed to my ears. Its very acceptable in their lower priced gear, but their M series gear makes no attemp to address the attacks and decays IMO. The improvement is in hifi stuff, not music stuff. Frank S has an NAD and a B60 on the way. I'd love to hear his thoughts on this subject after he gets to know his B60 better. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1912 Registered: Nov-05 | Imo, the MF A5 has the attack and decay that, to some degree, was missing from my C272/C162 combo. That and PRaT is now very much alive in our present Naim/MF/Quad set up. However, the NAD combo was very good value for money (here in Aus) and it performed much more musically with the Rega Apollo and Cd5i as the source than it did having the NAD CDP introduce the signals. Not in the same ballpark as the present gear for sure. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1378 Registered: Jun-07 | Yup, NAD is very good 'Budget' gear. And 'budget' I would say sums it up. Like Stu said, sounds good for the money, but thats about all they try to do. I think NAD's best stuff is their AVR's, not because it sounds better than their other stuff, just cause it sounds just as good. And that is saying something when its coming from an AVR. Stu-Can't wait to get the Bryston pre in my hands as well. The Attack should improve greatly once again in my system. Frank- Your getting a B60? Game on!!!! |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1379 Registered: Jun-07 | Stu- Would you say the M3 vs the B60 is a personal preference? I would personally rather own the B60 as well. But I have always enjoyed what the M3 sounds like when I have heard it. |
|
Silver Member Username: James_the_godDoncaster, South Yorkshire England Post Number: 646 Registered: Jan-05 | ThankYou for all of you're replies and input. I suppose that synergy can change overall sound resulting in different opinions on characteristic sound from different people. Maybe the Nad doesnt have attack then, just more than my cambridge audio (which Ive sold and posting today). In my case, the NAD does infact have better synergy with my speakers as you mentioned Nick. The edgyness of my MAs has gone and I infact like the warm, rolled off dynamic character of the NAD. Says "London/Boston/Tokyo" on the back. The problem always boils down to money. For me its best value for money I can possibly get. This is why I'm seriously considering purchasing a t-amp. The Winsome Labs Mouse which was extensively reviewed on 6moons audio. I fear however that it will simply reveal my monitor audios true character and leave me wanting for the warm character of the NAD. I have another objective if possible, to eliminated use of my subwoofer for a couple of reasons. Currently its turned off and is fine. One things for sure, I WILL be purchasing a new amplifier for myself. I just need help. It seems Bryston is highly favoured! And the price? Jan, what you said about tube amps is interesting. I'm only put off by not knowing if I'm really getting a quality tube amp without the crumby parts and chinese manufacturing quality. Why Frank, do you think NAD gets less respect than it deserves? My lack of knowledge in the true meaning of attack isnt my fault but thanks for explaining, helpful information Stu! I've not had the luxury to listen to high end equipemtn from Naim, Linn, Bryston, let alone tube amps or t-amps. I'd appreciate further help with careful consideration to price/performance... Should I endeavour with the Winsome Labs Mouse t-map. thats had me interested for quite some time. If I dont like it, I can consider some warmer sounding speakers or just sell the amp on. Should I give my dad his old NAD 3130 back to him (I have to anyway) and simply buy one for myself (watching one on ebay right now). Should I go for the new 315bee NAD. Should I consider tubes/hybrid, Jolida seem to be my first name to come to mind and sort of affordable. Maximum budget around £350/$700 ThankYou JJ |
|
Silver Member Username: James_the_godDoncaster, South Yorkshire England Post Number: 647 Registered: Jan-05 | Naim nait 3 and Naim nait 5? Opinons please? http://www.chinese-hifi.co.uk/Jolida.htm |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 224 Registered: Jul-07 | "Jan, what you said about tube amps is interesting. I'm only put off by not knowing if I'm really getting a quality tube amp without the crumby parts and chinese manufacturing quality. " A little research will get you lots of options. Some very reasonably priced. However you need a plan or you'll end up mismatching your amp and speakers. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1381 Registered: Jun-07 | J.J. If the NAD/MA combo, at this point in your life is providing you with musical pleasure. Then by all means, buy the NAD, sit back and enjoy the music. If you really enjoy the combo, then there is no point in buying another brand of amp. Cheers. |
|
Silver Member Username: James_the_godDoncaster, South Yorkshire England Post Number: 648 Registered: Jan-05 | Well said Nick. Thought someone might say that. Still a curious mind would remain curious on what else is out there. I'll give it a think, but I'm willing to say I think theres more chance I'll like the warm sound of tubes as opposed to not liking them. Chris, what kind of plan? |
|
Silver Member Username: James_the_godDoncaster, South Yorkshire England Post Number: 649 Registered: Jan-05 | Would anyone be able to give any input on how Jolida tube amps perform in the bass department, mostly subbass? I'm pretty much decided upon a full tube Jolida 202a but I'm worried the bass will be too light? |
|
Bronze Member Username: BetamaxCanada Post Number: 40 Registered: May-07 | Nick, lol, yes I'm getting a B60. I bought it on Audiogon and it'll take a while to get here, but I'll be sure to post my impressions when I hook it up and A/B it with my NAD gear. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12461 Registered: May-04 | . " I'm pretty much decided upon a full tube Jolida 202a but I'm worried the bass will be too light?" Why? |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1384 Registered: Jun-07 | Frank S- The B60 will plow through the NAD and reveal detail you have yet to hear. Congrats. We are all excite to hear about the A/B demo. J.Jarvis - " I'm pretty much decided upon a full tube Jolida 202a but I'm worried the bass will be too light?" Im with Jan on this one. Why??!! Have you heard the Jolida 202a? I just don't understand why you would purchase a product, that your not even sure your going to like over a product that you have sitting in your setup now and love. Is it because a lot of people on this forum don't care for NAD?? Who cares what we think. Did you not love the presentation that you got from YOUR NAD/MA combo?lol. That would reason enough for me to just buy the NAD. Just my opinion. There is so much stuff out there J.J that once you find the presentation that you love, you just need to close the shutters and stop looking. Have fun, and enjoy the music. A time will come when your ear changes and you will get the upgrade bug, but buy what you know you will love and can live with. Cheers. |
|
Silver Member Username: James_the_godDoncaster, South Yorkshire England Post Number: 650 Registered: Jan-05 | Purely on reviews Jan and Nick. But who knows- reviews I've learnt are not the be all end all as I've found. I love the combo yes, but I want to experience some tube sound. I like warm sound and if tubes are like that I may be even happier. I'm not saying I dont like the presentation, Im simply curious as to whats out there. I appreciate what you're saying though. Put it this way..I thought my cambridge audio was good.. Quickly changed my opinion on that when I heard the NAD. |
|
Silver Member Username: James_the_godDoncaster, South Yorkshire England Post Number: 651 Registered: Jan-05 | p.s. That answers the not enough bass part of the question. For the rest of it is because mainly its at the top end of my budget for a tube amp. I'm also now considering the cheaper Jolida 102b. Second reason is because damn they look good. Only partially agree with you're comment on closing the shutters Nick. I'm only young and see opportunity to explore products.  |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 225 Registered: Jul-07 | "Chris, what kind of plan?" What, fundamentally, are you trying to accomplish. Within the confines of budget, sound qualities, and synergies with existing components, what are your options ? There is quite a difference between Jolida, CA, & NAD. If the Jolida is in your sights there must be a reason. But Jolida is surely not the only brand that shares similar objectives and qualities. |
|
Silver Member Username: James_the_godDoncaster, South Yorkshire England Post Number: 652 Registered: Jan-05 | CA is clean and open but not enough bass and grunt. Bass, grunt, dynamics, warmth and detail is what the NAD has which is why i like it. How would you describe Jolida? |
|
Silver Member Username: James_the_godDoncaster, South Yorkshire England Post Number: 653 Registered: Jan-05 | I think what I should as you is which out of CA, Nad, and Jolida would you go for and why? And what brands share similar objectives and qualities ? |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 226 Registered: Jul-07 | "I think what I should as you is which out of CA, Nad, and Jolida would you go for and why? " It's irrelevant what I see in these brands. First, I've recently gone through the exact exercise you are embarking upon now and chose none of those products. However, it's entirely likely we don't share the same view of what "right" is. If you like each of the amps you listed for different reasons, you need to decide which "likes" are most important to you. In your price range you won't find anything that does everything in an exceptional manner. However, you can find amps that offer tremendous fidelity, and a wonderful listening experience. I chose a Vista Audio integrated for my own reasons, and I absolutely love it. But discussing my reasons won't help you decide what YOU like. Once you can articulate that, people can offer more options and guidance. But if you just ask people for what they think is good, you'll get a million answers, none of which may help you. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12462 Registered: May-04 | . JJ - You've never heard the Jolida? |
|
New member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 1 Registered: Apr-08 | I'm an NAD dealer, but I tried carrying Naim and also Rega and a few other British amps and it all depends on POV. Some people say NAD doesn't have "PRaT". IMO, PRaT is marketing speak for an amp that is bright and has no bass. Old NAD amps had PRaT. There is not such thing in engineering as PRaT. Amps don't deviate sufficiently in the time domain to not have or not have this. But add a little edginess and you magically have "PRaT". NAD isn't to everyone's taste, but I'd rather have an NAD M3 than any Linn, Rega or Naim amp I've heard. So, i find it funny to see NAD called a 'marketing' company and then act like PRaT is some viable, wonderful attribute that an amp should have. Talk about marketing based! May I have more pixie dust, please? |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 10064 Registered: Dec-04 | Atta boy, JA. Welcome to the forum. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1386 Registered: Jun-07 | lol I like this guy. Welcome John. Hey man, I love the NAD sound. And I love the M3. So im staying out of this one. Soon your going to have at least 5 people come along and argue that PRaT is the be all, end all. I have read on multiple sites that PRaT is NOT engineering material. So I dunno...I am staying out of this one.lol. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1387 Registered: Jun-07 | John, what else to you carry? Just curious. |
|
Silver Member Username: James_the_godDoncaster, South Yorkshire England Post Number: 654 Registered: Jan-05 | Thanks Chris. I was hoping I could find an easier solution than demoing every product out there. Truth is to get a proper idea of how an amp sounds, I'd have to take them all to my room as it'd sound completely different in a shop (as I've found). My local hifi shop doesnt stock the new nad c315 I mentioned as a possibility. I havent heard a Jolida amp, the UK really isnt the place to stock such equipment in all honesty. I know of no UK dealers with Jolida let alone places to demo them and if there is any I doubt they'll be at all close. John, I found you're post interesting. Are you saying that older Nad amps are bright or did I misunderstand? I've only heard bad things about M series Nad amps but since I've not heard it I'm not saying a thing. I like ONE model NAD amplifier built in 1986. Maybe I'll like others. I'm feeling at a point where all I can do is buy a bunch of amps try them out, form an opinion, keep one and sell the rest. If only! So heres the list: -A vintage NAD 3045 -A new C315BEE -A Jolida just because its tube. -Winsome Labs "Mouse" Digital T-amp. -And if none live up to it another NAD 3130, for myself, but I doubt it'll come to that. You see whilst I like the 3130 I still think my accidental find in liking this amp means there could be amps which create music in a way I prefer even more. One thing I miss about the CA is the 'airyness' it had. But thats it. So could I have some comparative views on Jolida sound please as I dont have any chance of hearing one. Thanks |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 228 Registered: Jul-07 | JJ, let's take a step back. It doesn't have to be so daunting. But you have to start by deciding what you want. -A vintage NAD 3045.... Why ? -A new C315BEE .....Why ? -A Jolida just because its tube ....Why else ? -Winsome Labs "Mouse" Digital T-amp....Why ? What sound are you looking for ? Even if you can't demo anything (hard to believe) you should be able to narrow down your choices based on need and want. What are you going to hook the amp up to ? What is most important to you musically ? You don't have to demo every product out there. Narrow down what to listen to by deciding what you want. Then read, read, read, and listen to as many options as you can. It will become clear to you in time. Don't jump at a piece of gear just because you read something good about it. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 2645 Registered: May-05 | John. Do you sell a variety of cables? Do these all sound the same, or do they sound different regardless of what engineers tell you? If PRaT is marketing speak for "bright and no bass," what is marketing speak for rolled off highs and flabby bass that isn't very deep? Is it warmth? Are you saying that differences in attack and decay times are so small between components that they're inaudible? If so, how does one component sound slow, maybe even to the point of being lazy, whereas another sounds fast? You didn't mention Bryston. Using the same ancillaries, how come my B60 sounds faster than an NAD M3, yet doesn't sound edgy nor rolled off in the bass? How come the NAD dealer and three customers all said that the B60 sounded better in every single aspect than the M3 when I brought mine in to audition CD players? If you hate Naim, Linn, and Rega as much as you imply you do, why did you try carrying them? Why didn't you become an authorized dealer? Did you not want them, or did they not want you? Just curious. Hell of an enterance. |
|
New member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 2 Registered: Apr-08 | Stu, Everyone has their own tastes. Bryston is good gear, but kinda pricy compared to NAD. What is 'fast'? An amplifier than can do 50 or 100kHZ is blazingly fast. By definition, if it can reproduce those frequencies, it is "fast" enough. Now, add in some upper frequency artifacts, like the old Aural Exciters, and you have the *appearance* of faster. I'm going to guess though, having not heard a B60, that it's wimpy little transformer and power output makes it seem "faster" to people and some people think that equates with better sound. Not me. Besides, if you think one amp "sounded better in every single aspect", the bias is so thick that you probably can't see your computer screen. You don't want to compare an M3 with a B60, you want to compare it with maybe a 7B or something and you'll probably notice them sounding more similar, if not indistinguishable. IOW, people probably preferred the lower quality product because they wanted to, the same reason they usually do. As for Naim and Rega, I did it because people demanded it and while we sold a lot of Rega Planets (I didn't think they were as good as an NAD, personally), the Rega and Naim amps just didn't cut it or sell. Rega is a bit eccentric, but Naim is downright daffy. Linn? Goodness, talk about cheap, low grade electronics sprinkled with pixie dust. Awful, dramatically overpriced stuff, IMO. I'd never try to sell that even if people begged me to. Just my opinionated opinion ;) |
|
Silver Member Username: James_the_godDoncaster, South Yorkshire England Post Number: 655 Registered: Jan-05 | Right Chris. We shall definately get somewhere in this post. I dont want to go wrong. What I'm after is something detailed and musical. Not bright. But this is exactly where the problem is because this is completely subjective as it depends on what these words mean to different people and what speakers one has. Secondly. My Monitor Audio BR2s are great speakers but I think naturally, they're a tad bright and midrange isnt as warm as some speakers such as wharfedales I've owned and heard. -A vintage NAD 3045.... Why ? Just for curiosity and nothing else, it wouldnt cost much I'm guessing. The 3130 cost £70. -A new C315BEE .....Why ? Fantastic reviews, smallish size. -A Jolida just because its tube ....Why else ? Attributes such as WARMTH, SMOOTHNESS, MUSICAL SEDUCTION all take my fancy. O and the brilliant wow factor looks. -Winsome Labs "Mouse" Digital T-amp....Why ? The 6 moons audio review where the amp rivalled nuforce amps costing a good couple of thousand and its small size so I can put it on my desk right where I sit! I didnt say I couldnt demo, just nowhere with Jolida I know of. If I went with Jolida it'd have to be imported. I've read so much I really have, so so many forums, searches etc. I wont jump, I shall take as long as it takes to get it right. The amplifier needs to have a good range to drive my BOOKSHELF speakers without need for my subwoofer (I want to sell this to do away with integrating speakers which taints the sound and will fund my new amplifier). The amplifier must be capable of delivering good solid bass/subbass too without dominating, I dont want my music to sound thin. Personally I think a thin sound is uninspiring and boring, which I guess is why I bought the subwoofer in the first place because my CA wasn't delivering the bass I craved. A large soundstage and good imaging are things i ALWAYS look for when playing music. (Yes I know concerts dont necessarily have imaging and imaging is down a lot to file formats). So is my problem just the amplifier or the speakers too? I've been considering some wharfedale diamond 9.2s for the midbass I loved in the diamond 9.1s and the midrange which was special and the well balanced tweeter. To be honest though, if an amplifier can have so much influence on sound I think my speakers should be fine with the right amplifier. Rock and metal (primary music) sounds detailed and more "live" on my monitor audios than on wharfedales. Infact most music sounds more "live" with my MAs. So theres my input in as much detail as I can give to help you help me. JJ |
|
New member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 3 Registered: Apr-08 | Nick, I've sold a lot of most everything over time (Meridian, M-L, Audio Innovations, Adcom, Parasound, etc, etc), but NAD is the one company I can't imagine not selling. It's not everyone's everything, but it's pretty close for me. I have an M3 driving Revel Studio2s and it handles them effortlessly and is nothing like being too warm or flabby. I'd just take NAD detractors with a grain of salt and buy what you like. I prefer an amp that seems warm to one that seems fast because, to me, it's not adding anything. |
|
Silver Member Username: James_the_godDoncaster, South Yorkshire England Post Number: 656 Registered: Jan-05 | Also, on a final note, lets say I get bored easily. |
|
New member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 4 Registered: Apr-08 | JJ, some of the older amps were a bit bright or unrefined, but then again, they had a 'punchiness' about them that was enjoyable, especially for the price. My attitude is that you can get "PRaT" on the cheap and you can get "refined" on the cheap, so why spend a lot to get it. I have a few Audio Innovations Altos that I just love - smooth, refined, enjoyable. Not too "PRaTTy", but I don't care. Besides, speakers are so colored, it's hard to hear much of any amp through them except in ones' imaginations. Digital active speakers are the future and when people hear a good DAS, they won't give a flying crap about amplifier 'sound' any more, trust me. |
|
Silver Member Username: James_the_godDoncaster, South Yorkshire England Post Number: 657 Registered: Jan-05 | "Digital active speakers are the future and when people hear a good DAS, they won't give a flying crap about amplifier 'sound' any more, trust me." Thats about one of the most alarming things I've heard in this forum. Could I ask why you say this and what DAS examples you be referring to? What about active speakers in general, perhaps an example being QUAD 11l/12l active speakers? |
|
New member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 5 Registered: Apr-08 | Why is that alarming? NHT's Xd, while discontinued because so few people trust powered speakers, was better than just about any speaker I've ever heard under $20K and most of them over $20K. Of course, just about any decent speaker with DEQX driving it is. OT, of course, but amplifiers are 100 to 10,000 times as good as speakers are. We need speakers to be better before we even have a serious fight over the sound of the amps. It's like fighting over the color of a woman's hair |
|
New member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 6 Registered: Apr-08 | BTW, guys, I thought this back and forth was pretty boring, so I thought I'd liven it up. Heheheheh |
|
Silver Member Username: James_the_godDoncaster, South Yorkshire England Post Number: 658 Registered: Jan-05 | Interesting way to put the last bit there. Must make my girlfriend the best speaker in the world then Did a quick search on the NHT Xds and brought up a 2.1 system? I presumed it would be 2.0, I'll stick by my view on subwoofers tainting sound. I doubt speakers will become better though, engineers would have figured that out already I'd think. Therefore the relation to amps stays as it is, speakers driven by external amplifiers gives people choice. I personally think experimentation with equipement and good ROOMS/LISTENING AREAS are more important than redesigning speakers from the ground up so to speak. |
|
New member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 7 Registered: Apr-08 | Rooms are always important, but digital active speakers, done well, are just in an entirely different league. Meridian made a good stab, but they do one thing wrong - they think that DSP will make up for cheap drivers. It makes them sound *better*, but it doesn't turn plastic into magnesium. And, of course, DSP allows you to tailor much of the speaker's sound to taste and room. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 2646 Registered: May-05 | "I'm going to guess though, having not heard a B60, that it's wimpy little transformer and power output makes it seem "faster" to people and some people think that equates with better sound." "Wimpy little transformer" as follows -  "...people probably preferred the lower quality product because they wanted to, the same reason they usually do." Lower quality? If the sole criteria of quality is number of watts, then yes, the B60 is lower quality. If a real-world 20 year transferrable warantee, immediate customer service with a human being, being assembled in a country that isn't a 3rd World country, paying employees a living wage, and most importantly using higher spec and higher quality parts doesn't all equal higher quality, I don't know what does. And as for bias, the shop I brought my B60 into to demo some speakers was an NAD dealer, not a Bryston dealer. It takes an honest and humble person to admit that what they sell isn't better than every single thing out there. Did I mention that I've owned NAD gear for a number of years? I believe I've also stated that the C Series gear is very good for the money. In its price range, its very hard to beat. The M Series gear falls far short of its competition at its respective price IMO. For $200 more, someone could get a McIntosh MA6300. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that the M3 compares with a Mac in build quality or sound quality? I think you're the one who needs to adjust the bias a little here. I have no financial interest in whether people buy anything. On the other hand, you do. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1914 Registered: Nov-05 | Stu - those pineapple slices look a bit off color to me. I see JV getting along with JA really well. Not! |
|
New member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 8 Registered: Apr-08 | I guess it's all relative....... http://www.adnm.com/images/nad_m3inside.jpg |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1388 Registered: Jun-07 | Well, being a full owner of both NAD and Bryston setups I can kind of sit back and relax on this one.lol. Being an Engineer myself I totally respect a company hiring engineers to build a product in house with their bare hands, QA it and ship it. And pay these people a very good salary and keep our economy strong. You see, I am that person. And by being a engineer who builds our products by hand I can fully understand the quality control, and build structure that you just don't get by building the products overseas. I'm not saying I still don't enjoy the sound of a NAD amp. I do. But a product like Bryston, which is built to last a lifetime, by real people, used by the professional industry everywhere, can have something said by its build quality alone, let alone its amazing,detailed,clean,neutral sound to boot. That said, I have heard the M3 a few times now and DO believe it is a great sounding piece of equipment, that is head over heals better than any of their C stuff. Like Stu states, weather you hate NAD's support, quality control or what have you, you can't sit here say their not the best sounding product, for the money. Because they are, hands down. Now I am talking about the C series that is. The M3 stuff is great but have themselves now in a whole other league. They just went from the Rose Bowl to the Supper Bowl of talent. For the money up in this league, its more about preference than what is actually "Better". My preference, personally, would be to own a B60 over the M3. Based on the two different presentations alone. And again, that is just my opinion. The B60 is HIGH quality at the finest. Overall, ive owned every piece of gear NAD C material has pretty much produced, still own NAD for one system, and now own Bryston pre/pro for other system. So I am good for a while.lol Cheers. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 6700 Registered: Feb-05 | That NAD C series gear is the best sounding gear for the bucks is highly debatable, those at Cambridge and Rotel would certainly differ and many others would agree. It's personal choice and system matching that's important. |
|
New member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 9 Registered: Apr-08 | I don't think there's any clear winner between NAD, Rotel, Cambridge, etc either. i just like NAD for its consistent value and design. We do take a lot of business from the Rotel dealer with it though  Of course, if you look at measurements, the NAD and Bryston measure almost identically except - the NAD has triple the power, an order of magnitude lower distortion and more high frequency extension. I still say that many people always seem to pick the brighter or harsher sounding amp as the one that sounds better, as if it is more transparent and more 'detailed'. Of course, I traded in a Krell that everyone raved about and when people started taking it home out of curiosity, everyone brought it back because it sounded so bright and unnatural. finally sold it on the internet. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 6701 Registered: Feb-05 | True, people often don't think about how a piece will sound after hours of listening... One reasons I like the Aura amp I just picked up is that it has some qualities often found in tube amps...warm sound with some of what is often associated with SS amps which is dynamics and detail. I'm very impressed the Aura VA-50. Taking it into a friend's store today where we will get to compare it to NAD with both easy to drive speakers and the more difficult NHT Classic 3's. Should be fun...he will be shocked, he's never heard of the brand. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1389 Registered: Jun-07 | Art- That sounds like a blast. Can't wait to hear what you and your friend have to say in comparison. My father owned a Aura, and loved it greatly. John- Just to clarify, do you think that NAD products are built as well, and sound as good as Bryston products? |
|
Bronze Member Username: LamcamStanton, Ca Usa Post Number: 65 Registered: Nov-07 | I'd owned NAD before (C370), it's good for the money but can not compare to higher brands (Naim, Bryston, Arcam,...) |
|
New member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 10 Registered: Apr-08 | Art - i think so. Both are extremely well engineered and it's more a matter of taste and emotion for most people. Loc - I don't think so. Masters certainly can. And Arcam? I've traded in several expensive Arcams for lower level NAD because people thought it was pretty gutless. I'm not sure that Arcam makes anything as good as an M3 or even the older S300. C series? Fine, it's "just" a good value, but NAD is clearly capable of building as good as it gets. And I'd bet money that a DBT would verify that. |
|
Silver Member Username: James_the_godDoncaster, South Yorkshire England Post Number: 659 Registered: Jan-05 | Well. Guess what I spent my day doing? Spending money. Yes I did. I bought a bus ticket. Then an amplifier after some listening sessions with my own music comparing a few amplifiers. I bought a Marantz pm6002. It has warmth and detail with the bass I was after so now I can sell my subwoofer. Its dynamic in a different sense to the NAD 3130 and benefits from a more open soundstage. I like it very much, I'm looking forward to its performance in my room once its passed its "breaking in" stage. So I guess Stu, that we can disagree somewhere on our view on Marantz. I will say that the bass can be bloated if turned up too much. I have it a level where the bass dial is at 9 o clock and the loudness button is on. This sounds good to me when I tried it in the shop and sounds good right here in my room. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12465 Registered: May-04 | . "And I'd bet money that a DBT would verify that." The ever dubious refuge of audiophiles wishing to sound as if you should believe them. JA - Do you ever sell anything more expensive than NAD? Or do you always downsell to the cheapest product? You know, to do your client a favor. "Hellsbells, it's good enough for me, why should you want anything more? I can't hear PRaT, why should you want it?" . |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 229 Registered: Jul-07 | JJ, I hope the Marantz works out for you. "NAD is clearly capable of building as good as it gets." Capability and execution are two different things. And if the objective of the design does not align with any given Customers, how does it serve them ? It is a gross over-simplification to presume that no matter what the question is, the answer is the same. |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 230 Registered: Jul-07 | Oh, and the "my transformer is bigger than your transformer" argument isn't very compelling. Besides, my brother can beat up your brother. |
|
Bronze Member Username: BetamaxCanada Post Number: 41 Registered: May-07 | John, I believe you're right when you say that people tend to mistake 'brighter' with 'better'. However, there's a difference between brightness and improved clarity & soundstage -- and it's in those attributes where I find NAD somewhat lacking. As for what most people like -- my experience is that most North Americans like anything that has a lot of power and mid-bass, with forward treble -- your basic 'boom and tizz' sound. That's why those 'loudness' switches on cheap amps were such a hit. However, the fact that a lot of people like something doesn't persuade me of its value, nor does the fact that a lot of your customers prefer NAD over other brands. I bought a Bryston B60, and when it arrives I'll A/B it with my NAD 162/272, both with headphones and with speakers. If the NAD sounds better, I'll keep it and sell the Bryston for what I paid for it. I don't think that likely, but I have no vested interest in either outcome and will go with whatever sounds best to me. I'll post here when I get the amp... |
|
Bronze Member Username: BetamaxCanada Post Number: 42 Registered: May-07 | Just to clarify -- I'm not suggesting that NAD has a 'boom and tizz' sound; I like NAD precisely because it does approximate a fairly neutral, natural sound. And I don't like a lot of hifi gear out there because it doesn't. But some of the more expensive hifi gear really does a much better job of reproducing sound authentically than NAD. |
|
Bronze Member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 11 Registered: Apr-08 | Jan, no 'audiophile' has speakers good enough to resolve all of the transparency of any amplifier. Most people around here have really low resolution mass market type speakers or ones that are so bright, they need a surround preamp with speaker/room correction or room treatment more than they need an audiophile amp. Besides, I thought DBT was the last refuge of an objectivist scientist type. i don't know any local audiophiles who have done all the requisite work needed to even *feel* the need for something better than an M3. What I'm saying is, put the M3 in a DBT with 3 different speakers and *any* SS amp at any price. If you can tell that another amp is better even 75% of the time, you da man. |
|
Bronze Member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 12 Registered: Apr-08 | Chris H, I never said that an NAD, any NAD is *the* answer. Most people need to focus on other things though, besides their amp and the M3 more than gets the job done. The transformer argument is more compelling than "some guys said......." |
|
Bronze Member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 13 Registered: Apr-08 | Frank, let us know. I don't know if the cheaper NADs can beat the Bryston or not, though I imagine some people might prefer them. But there's not doubt that the M3 measures better than the Bryston and that doesn't even mean that people will prefer it. I'd say 95% of all amp preference is based on internal bias, sales person bias, demo system, roon environment what you ate that day, etc, etc. Bottom line is, I sleep really well at night selling NAD and enjoy it in my own system. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 2648 Registered: May-05 | John, Be carefull when pointing to the sound and build quality of the NAD S Series integrated amp. It was designed and built by Gryphon, not NAD. As an NAD dealer, you should be well aware of this. Unknowing people may fall for it, but I know better. The NAD S Series integrated amp was by far the best thing to ever wear an NAD badge. You really didn't answer the important questions that I asked earlier. The only arguement you make is that NAD is better than Bryston because you say so. "IOW, people probably preferred the lower quality product because they wanted to, the same reason they usually do." Hence the reason why all those people you state traded in their expensive gear for NAD gear? You seem to claim NAD is so much better than all these brands and everyone trades in gear that costs multiples of it for NAD. Curiousity question - Is there better made and/or sounding gear than NAD? As for great engineering and manufacturing, care to explain the humm and hiss that plagued NAD AVRs for all those years? |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 2649 Registered: May-05 | "But there's not doubt that the M3 measures better than the Bryston" According to which measurements? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12466 Registered: May-04 | . "Jan, no 'audiophile' has speakers good enough to resolve all of the transparency of any amplifier." Awww, I see someone's nose growing. |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 231 Registered: Jul-07 | "The transformer argument is more compelling than "some guys said......."" Funny, I thought you were making both arguments. |
|
Bronze Member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 14 Registered: Apr-08 | Stu, I've only heard NAD's side on this one, but as I understand it, it wasn't just 'Gryphon designed this amp for us", it was more a collaboration as, at that time, NAD was owned by, I believe, the same parent company of Gryphon. Or something to that effect. I do know what they are virtual twins. And it was an awesome amplifier. But so is the M3 - quieter, more powerful, cooler, more flexible. I'd definitely rather have the M3 than an S300. Look at the Stereophile measurements. Jan, how is my nose growing? It's sheer fact that speakers are no where near the resolution of amplifiers or CD players. "Hearing" your amp through a speaker is like trying to look for your gray car in a parking lot on a really foggy day. "wait, is that it over there? Yeah, I can sort of make it out now" |
|
Bronze Member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 15 Registered: Apr-08 | Chris, no, just pointing out how what is better is subjective and sounding like something has this ridiculous PRaT is usually the sign of something not so hot. But the NAD is a refined brute compared to most waify metrosexual amps. Linn is an amplifier that typifies "PRaT" and they measure very poorly for 3 or 4 times the price. Same thing with most Rega or Naim products, though they're better than the Linns. But I guess that's how you create PRaT. |
|
Bronze Member Username: LamcamStanton, Ca Usa Post Number: 66 Registered: Nov-07 | There is a NAD share holder somewhere here... |
|
Bronze Member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 16 Registered: Apr-08 | Hah! I wish I am just thinking its fun toying with people who believe in PRaT as an indicator of a "good sounding" amplifier as, IME, it's an indicator of a flawed one, at least, when it's not someone's imagination. |
|
Bronze Member Username: BetamaxCanada Post Number: 43 Registered: May-07 | "NAD is a refined brute compared to most waify metrosexual amps" Spare us the cheap rhetoric; you're quickly losing credibility if you have to anthropomorphize electronics according to gender stereotypes. NAD is hardly a brute of an amp, and its degree of refinement is precisely in question here. You were doing better with your argumentum ad populum. |
|
Bronze Member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 17 Registered: Apr-08 | I had credibility? Cool!  If the amp isn't a brute, what is? Aren't too many integrateds that can touch it in the power department. Not that this is everything, but I rather enjoy it when people try to argue that amps that measure no better or even worse in every way are somehow superior based on their unscientific listening habits or beliefs. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 2650 Registered: May-05 | I won't cut and paste them in an effort to not take up too much bandwidth. I opened up both measurement pages, shrunk them down, and compared them sided by side. A few of the scales of the graphs have changed, but not too much. Make sure you look at the numbers on both axises (don't know who to spell plural axis) Stereophile graphs - NAD M3 - http://www.stereophile.com/integratedamps/107nad/index4.html Bryston B60 - http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/597bryston/index5.html The B60's frequency response graph is flatter. Most notably, look at what happens at the begining. The B60's is flat, whereas the M3's is a good bit lower from 10 hz to the 3rd line. The M3's peaks and valleys are more frequent and deeper than the B60's. How is the M3 better in this regard? The M3's 10hz square wave barely goes above 1, and below -1. The B60's goes almost to +2 and -2. How is the M3 better in this regard? The Frequency vs Noise graphs are misleading and can't be compared accurately. They're measured into different loads, and at different output level and impedences. Also, keep in ind that the B60 is rated at 60 watts, so noise and THD will set in far earlier than an amp rated at 180 watts. Also keep in mind the specs they quote are from the manufacturer, not their own. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 2651 Registered: May-05 | You remind me of a dealer I visited a few weeks ago. I went in and asked to hear Audio Physic Yara monitors. He showed me a Revel Concerta floorstander and a B&W 68x (floorstander, not sure which). He said floorstanders are better than monitors, and that monitors are a waste of my time. The audition turned out to be more of a waste of his time, because I let him set the speakers and amplification up, give his presentation, and walked out without buying anything. I didn't have anything better to do that day anyway. He had the Yaras on the floor, but didn't want me to buy them because the other speakers were better because he said so. Just like NAD is better because you say so. With dealers like you and him, its no wonder the small shops are going out of business, and people would rather order online than deal with you. You're giving good and honest dealers a very bad rep. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 2652 Registered: May-05 | PS - I later heard the Yaras at a different store, and they mopped the floor with the same B&Ws. And for a guy who has admittedly never heard a B60, let alone side by side with an M3, you're a little too confident in your M3 is better rant. How are you sure the M3 sounds better? I've heard both side by side and can say that without question nor reservation. Until you have, you need to shut the f*&k up. |
|
Bronze Member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 18 Registered: Apr-08 | Eh, I don't think so. People like what they like. And if they're intellectually honest, they'll say 'hey, I just like this better'. I use the example of my car a lot. I *love* my Mazda5 because it's a better car for me. Is it "the best"? No. Should everyone else buy one? No. Should they buy one because I say it's great? No. It just has unique qualities that appeal to me. Did I say that people shouldn't listen to other amps because it's a waste of time? No. Did I say that no one else builds great amps? No. Did I say NAD is the best? No. I'm saying that NAD is just as good as anything else in its range and some will like it and some won't. I just happen to think 'PRaT' or "faster" ironically falls into the "amps that don't have it are a waste of time" BS that you don't seem to like and people shouldn't listen to the "NAD is lacking" from anyone but their own ears on their gear. Besides, it's far better to be self-deluded than deluded by someone else. At least we agree on B&Ws so we have that going for us Let me put it this way. I like selling and owning stuff that I know is *objectively* good and has a good price/performance ratio. And my sales pitch is "if you like the way this sounds, it's a great product for you and if you don't, well, then it doesn't matter how good I think it is". I do take some offense when people try to tell me that my stuff 'isn't at good' as though that means objectively, demonstrably inferior, as opposed to "not to my taste". When a product doesn't measure as well, then I think the onus is on the proclaimer to prove in some scientific way that the product is better *unless* they are simply saying "*I* like it better". As for the Bryston, I didn't say the NAD "sounds better" or is "preferable" to everyone. I just said it measures better in many if not most ways, so it's hard to understand how it "faster" than the NAD. Brighter or grainer? Perhaps, but I'm not sure you can tell me what aspect of an amp makes it "fast" except imagination or an actual flaw. I also don't think *anyone* needs to STFU. It is a forum, after all. Just a bunch of mostly useless opinions in all reality. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 2653 Registered: May-05 | You keep arguing that an amp that you own and coincedently sell is better than an amp that you've never heard. I could cut and paste the times you said it, but I think you and everyone here knows it. You keep saying the M3 measures better. How so? Which Stereophile graph was better? You still haven't mentioned it, even though I showed where the B60 measured better. You keep ignoring certain questions I ask. The most important one is this - HOW CAN YOU SAY THE NAD M3 SOUNDS BETTER THAN A B60 WHEN YOU'VE NEVER HEARD A B60, LET ALONE A/B'ed THEM? |
|
Bronze Member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 19 Registered: Apr-08 | When did I say it sounds better? I said it measures better in many ways. Personal taste is personal taste. They might sound *identical* under controlled conditions, in which case, the Bryston is the better deal (assuming it hasn't gone up in price dramatically and assuming you don't need the added capabilities of the NAD). People say there are no "stu_pitt" questions, but there are if the question obviously has no answer. It's like asking the Pope how often he beats his wife. |
|
Bronze Member Username: BetamaxCanada Post Number: 44 Registered: May-07 | "I had credibility? Cool!" Well, briefly. No reason why you shouldn't feel good about selling NAD, you're selling most people all the refinement they'll ever need, or perceive, for a reasonable price. I won't argue against the rest, as no one's going to change their mind anyway. Peace out. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1390 Registered: Jun-07 | "The NAD S Series integrated amp was by far the best thing to ever wear an NAD badge" Yup, sure was. And NAD and Gryphon were never owned by the same company. "Ive heard both side by side and can say that without question nor reservation" Yup, me too. And I prefer the B60's presentation. And no, the B60 is NOT bright. J.A- You can ask anybody here, I am the Kid on this forum that has always stuck up for NAD. I like NAD, I like its presentation, and bang for the buck. BUT, I am also the first one to admit, that it is NOT as good as Bryston. Build quality, sound quality are both better on Bryston gear. I own both. The M series is a good product, dibs to whoever NAD has make it for them.lol. Maybe its Bryston???lol kidding. |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 10067 Registered: Dec-04 | This is pointless. Just buy a MacIntosh 6300 and get the real price/performance combo. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 2654 Registered: May-05 | After re-reading, you didn't outright say it sounds better, yet you implied it many times in many ways. And for the third time - HOW DOES THE M3 MEASURE BETTER THAN THE B60? Is this a stupid question, or rather a question that obviously has no answer? If so, I'll stop asking it. You said - "Of course, if you look at measurements, the NAD and Bryston measure almost identically except - the NAD has triple the power, an order of magnitude lower distortion and more high frequency extension." Again, Stereophile's THD and noise measurements can't be compared due to different conditions, so please don't quote those unless you have and can show independently published numbers that both have the same parameters. According to the Stereophile measurements that you were the first to point out, the M3 and B60 both start to roll of the high frequencies at the exact same point - the first line after 10k hz (I'm assuming about 20k hz?) Furthermore, the same charts also show the M3's bass rolling off before the B60's. Care to comment on either of those two points? The only objective thing the M3 has on the B60 is power and connectivity. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 6703 Registered: Feb-05 | Well...here we go, it's a preference thing pure and simple. I'd take the Bryston in a heartbeat over the NAD. The M3 is a fine amp for those folks who love Analysis Plus and Nordost cables...fine resolution and air but never gets off the ground for me. I'll take Naim over either of them, just sounds like music to me, but what do I know. Relative to the fabulous B60 vs the NAD...I won't even go down this path very far. The way the Bryston handles bass drivers and thrusts the music forward is to me the way real music IS. Dynamic and living, not static. Naim takes the principle even further and by doing so goes further from absolute neutrality. Bryston is the most neutral gear that I know of that comes close to having that characteristic that I know of as PRaT. Indeed Naim, Rega and Linn are probably flawed in some sense. Probably why they nearly always sound better in an all Naim, Rega or Linn system....however I don't give a shite...if it sounds like music then that is what I want. I've been down the road of neutrality and all it got me was frustated...I missed my music. NAD C series gear represents good value because at it's price it doesn't offend our ears in the way that AVR's do, and as someone said earlier it is as far up the audio ladder as many will ever need to go to enjoy their music. I was just listening to some NAD gear today....it still lacks that excitement that makes music fun to me. Stu...I really think that John has some very interesting points even if we don't agree with him. He comes from a different perspective and seems to like a different sound than many of us...seems like a good person to have contributing here. John, known Stu for awhile here and he is a gentleman...rarely gets fired up and always has a good reason when he does...that Bryston is a hell of a good reason. You may toss the flames now... ! |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1917 Registered: Nov-05 | IMO, PRaT is marketing speak for an amp that is bright and has no bass. Hmmm, our system certainly has PRaT. Funny, it's not bright, but tonally accurate in the high end, and I guess the wonderfully full and controlled bass is just a figment of imagination for everyone who's listened to it. The M3 only gets polite reviews compared to Bryston, MF, Rega, Naim and the list goes on and on. I'm a NAD fan for what the "C" series offers for money and I have the respectable, but not overwhelming M55. But for a dealer to have such an arrogant opinion on the brand shows either a lack of experience or NAD offers great dealer profits. |
|
Bronze Member Username: LamcamStanton, Ca Usa Post Number: 67 Registered: Nov-07 | NAD vs. Naim, Bryston, Rega is like Toyota (NAD C)/Lexus (NAD M) vs. Porche, BMW, Audi,... Good value but lack of interesting. |
|
Silver Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 854 Registered: Feb-07 | I actually had to google "PRat". |
|
Silver Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 855 Registered: Feb-07 | I think what it comes down to for me (and this is just my personal opinion - like so much when it comes to audio)is this: I would rather purchase something that is manufactured in Canada (I'm Canadian, eh?) with a 20 year warranty than something mass produced in China to the lowest bidder with a 5 year warranty. This is assuming the NAD Master series in made in China, I know the C-series - it says so right on the box in my basement. This is in no way to disparage the Peoples Republic of China, of course. |
|
Bronze Member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 20 Registered: Apr-08 | Nick, I think it's safer to say that the build quality of Bryston and NAD are very similar when you take into account price. You can't compare any of the Brystons to anything but the Master series. C series is, what, 1/3rd the price of typical Bryston gear for the same power, so of course, you have to compare a $3000 amp to a $3000 amp. And then you'll find they're both built like tanks. Bryston has no magical power where they can afford to build a $1500 amplifier better than a $3000 amplifier and stay in business. |
|
Bronze Member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 21 Registered: Apr-08 | Stu, you're saying that Stereophile's testing isn't sufficently similar to make any comparisons at all and therefore aren't valid, but you want to comment on them as if they are? I'm confused. But if you look at, i think, the distortion graph, you can see that the NAD doesn't go awol until much further up in the bandwidth. I only brought that up because I figured since the B60 was so "fast", it would surely go much higher in frequency as that is the only indicator we have of "fast". As far as I can see, the differences, where they exist, more than speak for themselves. This, of course, has virtually no bearing on perceived sound quality as much of that is based on brand image rather than any kind of real performance difference. Or do you want to prove me wrong with some money on the outcome of a DBT? I can get dozens of people to say that Bose speakers are the best. Does that make it true? Or would we agree that it's just an opinion and an malformed one at that? |
|
Bronze Member Username: John_ashmanAlbuquerque, NM United States Post Number: 22 Registered: Apr-08 | Art, you are an impeccably reasonable person |
|
Silver Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 856 Registered: Feb-07 | It's all about opinion. My dad thinks his Bose Wave is the pinnacle of audio nirvana, and he can certainly afford much, much better. The NAD C-series is a good entry into the mid-fi world, but it quickly leaves some people wanting more (and spending more), once they realize what they like. Like me. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics