I need help in purchasing an amplifier. I have the B&W 704 speakers and a Denon 3802 receiver. I am using my system for two channel stereo to listen to jazz CD's. I was thinking of upgrading to the NAD C272/C162 combo or the NAD C372 integrated amp. The other option is the Arcam A 80 integrated amp. Which will be my best option for the money. My listening room is 22x11 feet and I like a good midrange and crisp high end. Thank you
ROTEL 1080 is the way to go. I see B&W's setup with ROTEL all the time at local dealerships. NAD is very warm and will take the crispness out of your high end. I haven't auditioned the Arcam so I can't comment on it.
You say Nad is warm like it's some kind of disease. Nad IS warm but that's how they like it! Lots of customers like that sound too. You can listen to your hifi all night, every night with no fatigue at all.
You're right Sun King - the "warm sound" is NOT a disease! However, there is a sizable group of us that DO want to hear all the ugly detail. It's a matter of personal preference I think. As a performing musician for 15yrs of my life, I can attest that hearing music played at close range is NOT warm and smooth! It is messy, "edgy" , "grainy" and those other adjectives. It only begins to sound smooth when it's projected into the audience. Even that is tainted to a degree today as we mostly listen to electronically amplified music when we go to a live concert. Amplified by who knows what qualify of amplification. Few venues-except for the smallest-offer unfettered live music anymore.
There are raging arguments among the performing musician's world as to the quality and "sound" of various music instrument. e.g. Conn French Horns-which of their models sounds best!? Sound familiar. The sound is also affected by the skill and artistry of the performer his/her self. So-I conclude it all comes down to personal preference. I for one, WANT to here all the messy detail-"warts and all" as they say. So, A warm sounding amplifier would be off my list. Given that, would you say that Rotel should be on my list? Several here have commented that it offers lots of detail. I've heard Rotel described as "crisp", "forward", and "detailed". From your listening experience would you say that is true?
Well put Walter, I totally agree. I've had some very edgy amps in my time and happen to prefer 'warm' at this stage, just because I enjoy the lack of fatigue as I play music a hell of a lot. As for Rotel, I don't think they're overtly bright but they are certainly more forward than Nad with a punchy, direct sound. They can often over-present the bass so if an even representation is required they may not be to your liking. Many people say Nad are weak in the bass and so here I'm stating that Rotel are strong in that department. A brand I've always thought particularly bright are Marantz. Now they are crisp, forward and detailed!
Marantz-unfortunately-doesn't offer a lot of their 2-channel stuff in the states. So, I'd have to settle for an A/V receiver of sorts. A relative has one-Marantz SR7300. You're right-very forward. Would you say the Rotel is WAY heavy in the bass.....or just leans that way a little??
Hello all, when I drive to my sisters house I pass an audio place and finally decided to walk into it today... They have alot of equipment, but I wanted to look at the nad amps in particular. I was able to get a listening session with the c162 and 272 with my own cds in a dedicated room, cdp was the 542 and the speakers were a pair of tannoy towers... Compared to my denon dra-685 there was much more detail and a much better soundstage. But when in sense mode with a resonable sound level the amp switched to standby (same as in the review from the absolute sound)... Not a deal breaker but a bit puzzling... The pre amp was nice as well, they carried all the nad stuff.... I was impressed really, the cds I used were portisheads dummy and the cure's disintegration.... I know it wasn't my speakers or listening room but I dug what I heard... I suppose this fall I will get the combo.... But always love reading what all you folks have to say about equipment and always take into consideration your opinions...
In my view, Arcam is a little warmer than NAD. Rotel is a little cooler if anything.
Phillip, the B&W's already have a warmish sound. I would match them with something a little more neutral like the NAD C372 or the Rotel 1062 which is also a fine amp.
Now if you'd said an Arcam A90, it would be a different matter...
I just this weekend purchased the Arcam FMJ A32 after months of auditions and research (and time spent on this message board!). I also took the plunge and bought the Arcam CD82T cdp. I was close to buying NAD C162/C272 separates, but decided after several listening sessions that the Arcam offered more for an admittedly higher price tag. I just felt that the Arcam sounded more refined and was more linear in its response up and down the frequency range. The amps that I heard that were clearly better were way, way beyond my means. This Arcam is a 'budget-buster' as it is!
Anonymous
Posted on
I have my 704's powered with the Unison Research SR1... an Adcom pre... it's unbelievable combo. Probably the best sounding set up since I had my Macs. -dave
are there any mods out there for the c370.I have one that is sitting around and would rather mod it out if possible rather than sell it.I do agree with the above statement that Nads lack a bit in the bass department. Gear that was used with it was a 222es sacd player from sony and a set of Q7s from kef. I beleive that this unit could realy sing with some mod work.
I still dont get this NAD is warm rubbish!! Its lowest common denominator hi fi magazine journo catch phrasing. I am a performing musician in a rock blues bands over years so I know how harsh a cranked marshall JCM800 sounds. The reason that sounds edgy is because my ears are being overdriven. The biggest factor even at this price level is how the amp interactts with your speakers, and the speakers the room. Its really all about system matching, and what sound you prefer, since none of this budget stuff sounds anything really like the real thing: I often play along to CD's with my son who is a drummer in my house, and the only hi fi I have heard that came remotely close to sounding like a live group of musicians cost the equivalent of a small terraced house in a south wales village...
Different kit sounds different. In order to describe the differences we use adjectives like warm, cool, lush, neutral, fast, lean, bright, harsh, clinical, slow. They're not accurate descriptions but they're all we have. There is a lack of agreement over what the terms actually mean, so it helps to build a relationship, be it with a reviewer, dealer or audiophile, so you agree the common ground.
By my standards, the NAD presentation is quite neutral. By comparison, the Arcam presentation is a little warmer - or lush. In fact this is a description of the bass being a little more prominant than it is with NAD. That said, Rotel is a little lean or cool by comparison to NAD, meaning it sounds a touch bass-light. This is not the same as sounding a touch bright. Bright indicates that there is a treble emphasis. Rotels don't emphasise treble, just de-emphasise bass a little. It's easy for machines that do this to sound clinical, but the Rotels typically do a neat trick of not sounding clinical. By sounding clinical, I mean the music lacks the emotional conection of the performance. You might admire the performers for their artistry but the music would not move you.
You say the cranked Marshall sounds edgy because your ears are being overdriven. Well, that's not completely true either. Marshall introduce distortion into their amps deliberately to give the particular sound unique to a Marshall. It's the distortion that creates the edge and harshness. That said, if the Marshall produces enough sound to go above 116db at your ear, then your ear's internal components distort causing both pain and harshness in the sound (and eventual damage). The interesting thing is that even at 70db, electronic distortion can make us wince. This depends on the type of distortion. Tube amps typically distort on the even harmonics, which do not hurt us very much and we can even like them (hence the Marshall situation). Transistor amps distort on odd harmonics and we are very sensitive to that.
You're right that most electronics cannot reproduce accurately the whole of a live event. After all, it'd be difficult for a set of 4 drive units to reproduce the same volume, quality and range of a fully fledged orchestra with 90 instrumentalists in it! Therefore, the best HiFi systems (irrespective of price) are those that reproduce the essence of the performance by allowing the intent of the performers, the musical message if you will, through to elicit a similar emotional response in the listener that the performers had wished to impart.
A system that does this doesn't have to be expensive. We all listen to scrappy little radios and poor car systems and yet these inexpensive bits of junk often seem to get our toes tapping or affect us. This is the emotional response we should expect from any system. The odd thing is that, as we build up our systems, refining aspects of the reproduction, we often lose the message, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I believe this is because it's relatively easy to improve the technical aspects of performance - things like imaging, soundstage, 'air' (the sense of space around instruments) - all worthy items to improve and immediately obvious to the ear, but which don't contribute directly to the essence of the performance. Therefore it can be difficult to build systems that perform as well musically as they do in the technical sense.
At the risk of being accused of being flippant (guilty), my "overdrive my ears" was tongue in cheek. 116dB is easily achieved at a fraction of a 100w guitar amp at a distance of about 2ft (as in my house). above 120dB most peoples ears will internally be overdriven ( as anyone who has been to any form of loudish rock gig will tell you - hissing and buzzing for days afterwards etc).
My real point was disamy at using precise langauge to describe a sound, we often resort to cliched descriptions such as those sadly used by what hi fi which reads somewhere betwnee Viz and the Daily Star. Its much easier if instead of "clinical" we use the phrase it sounds detailed but not musical. I'm lost at what you mean by lush? It drinks? Its easy to get confused with obtuse adjectives! Suddenly, like new words to a dictionary, NAD's are all warm, Rotel are all cold, etc etc etc blah blah. The reality is that the majority of those statements are meaningless, and should be ignored by anyone buying gear since they are so so subjective!
Sometimes maybe we get a bit obsessed with what might be described as tonal balance (warm, lush, clinical cold) and miss the real issue of musicality. There are other threads under amps where this is interestingly discussed. Your point about toe tapping to a cheap radio is on the nail. Don't see many threads about how warm my car stereo is..
Dear Convert, As another performing musician - symphonic, jazz, rock, anything to make money! I concur that the labels are - at the very least - confusing. Frank so rightly states that they're subject to individual interpretation. I have been a stereo enthusiast/hobbyist for 54 years. Yet I'm always looking for the best I can afford. Recently, I splurged and spent a lot (relative to my ability to buy!) and created my best-ever system. I've known for years that you can't re-create the live music equivalent. But you can come awfully close for small ensemble classical and jazz - and some vocal music too. But as far as rock, full symphony orchestra, and grand opera, it is simply "not happening" in my opinion. But you CAN get the flavor of the performance. I am of the school of thought that the speakers are the most influential ingredient of all. I spent heavily there with good results. My integrated amplifier cost 62% of the price of the speakers.
supersonic
Unregistered guest
Posted on
My brother had a NAD 3020i many years ago and I remember how I loved its warm sound. 6 months ago I chose a used Arcam Alpha 7 over a NAD C320BEE. After a while I was convinced that I made the wrong choice...I missed the warmness of NAD! Fast forward to 4 days ago, I went to a local hifi shop and bought the NAD C352 without auditioning it. I was pretty confident that it's just what I'm looking for...a powerful and warm NAD. Boy was I wrong!
The NAD sounded so dull compared to my 8 years old Arcam. I don't know enough jargons to describe the sound, let it suffice to say that the music is not involving at all! Everything sounded so "trapped" with the NAD. On the other hand, the Arcam makes me groove with the music ;) Needless to say, I returned the NAD on the same day and I'm so glad I chose the Arcam in the first place! Right now I'm saving money to get the new line of Arcam amp ;)
I am coming to the same conclusion (which seemed to be the way of thinking back in the 70's before the Linn Sondek appeared, which appeared in recommended systems from budget upwards.
To my ears, even decent (£500 - £1000 budget) hi fi equipemnt cannot replicate a real instrument, especially dynamically. I often record our band "un plugged" and the drum kit in particular is so lacking in the real dynamics of the instrument; however, I do also believe that recorded music is valid for what it is rather than what we think it should be, so I get an enormous amount of pleasure from listeing to my recorded music collection.
Supersonic, its great youve found a sound you like, even more credit that you are really prepared to act upon what you hear and not what you have read. That said, you just might find that a new DiVa 80 or 90 might just sound "thin" and "trapped"...which could arguably be the sound of progress! Be warned!!
babeinthewoods
Unregistered guest
Posted on
I currently have a pair of B/W 803s with Naim as my stereo system. Managed to save enough to start putting together something along the lines of a home theatre...thinking between NAD/Arcam for an integrated amp.
Is this the right forum for getting advice for that or are most people out here strictly stereophiles?
No problem with the HT stuff, but people tend to ask about HT receivers in the 'Receivers' thread. The Integrated Amps thread tends to be reserved for 2-channel. Also, this is quite an old topic. You may wish to open a new topic in the Receivers thread. When you do so, you should mention what Naim you have driving those 803s.
Incidentally, Naim's own AV2 is an excellent surround processor but usually out of reach for most people.
The A90 is a good bit better than the A80 or A65 and has decent levels of power for what it is. Naturally, you have to like the Arcam sound which is fairly warm, or big in the bass. It's a good amp, if not really to my taste (which would be a Naim Nait5i at similar money here in the UK).
Regards, Frank.
Sam Mosa
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Thanks, Frank. Much appreciated.
I also read your posts on the Rega Brio. Never heard that model before, but I sure enjoyed reading your postings.
