Cambridge Audio Azur 640a amplifier
|
Anonymous | Anyone heard the Cambridge Audio Azur 640a amplifier? How does it compare to other amps in the price range? Is it an audiophile grade amp as the specs suggest? Thanks. |
|
Anonymous | Anyone? |
|
New member Username: EdisonPost Number: 115 Registered: 12-2003 | I haven't heard this model, but the company has a solid reputation for offering quality at a reasonable cost. Looks like a good choice for classical music especially. Check out the reviews on: https://www.audioadvisor.com/store/productdetail.asp?sku=CAMB640A I also like arcam and kenwood Kaf3030r (europe). Rotel makes a nice one too, but your choice looks good. I would consider it if I were in the market for one. You might want to hear this digital reciever - new technology that is smooth and quite - great bass! Panasonic sa-xr45 - you can hear it on goodguys or best buy. It's not the most powerful one, but has a pleasant upscale sound. Some audiophiles are replaceing their expensive separates with this. I got a digital amp and I love it - it has a warm sound that is non-fatiguing. Future of amp probably. But your choice looks good at the price. Another option is to buy used on www.audiogon.com Since many audio lovers like to upgrade often, you can get well taken care of units at good prices. Try to hear b4 U buy - matching the components is vital - you can have 3 recommended components and not have it sound good. Ideally U will have a home trial period - many shops will do this. Ask about restocking fee - you don't want to get stock with that. Looks like you are putting together a sweet sounding system for not so much money. I am getting this DVD player to use as a CD player also if you don't have one already - LiteOn Lvd 2002. Some of the newer DVD players do audio well too. Hope you find what you are looking for... |
|
Anonymous | Thanks James for the input. I was unsure about the Cambridge Audio brand as it is new to me but have read some good reviews about this particular amplifier. I guess I'll just have to bring one home for an extended listen. Regarding the receiver, I am interested in putting together a seperate stereo system as I already have surround setup and am happy with my systems performance. I have heard mixed reviews concerning digital receivers and am under the impression that these systems are not as good yet as analogue receivers but will one day be a viable alternative as the incentive for manufacturers to reduce the costs of building/shipping receivers (and passing those savings on to their customers slowly) is a strong one and I have little doubt that one day all receivers will be fully digital. Thanks again. |
|
tom123 Unregistered guest | I'm also interessed in the cambridge Audio 640A. If you have heard this unit, please post your opinion, thank you. The suggested retail of the Cambridge 640A = €529 Please post. |
|
Tony Wood Unregistered guest | I've heard the Cambridge Audio Azur 640 CD working with the 640 AMP, and a pair of mordaunt-short 906 avant speakers at Richer Sounds, Colchester, UK. For A£850, this set up is very, very hard to beat. I've got the Arcam CD72, with an arcam 7r as my pre amp, and a p75+ and p85 powering a pair of mission 750 le speakers. The Cambridge setup is annoyingly close in terms of sound quality!!! |
|
Brett Unregistered guest | From commercial and personal recommendation (personal is a friend who owns $20k B&W floor speakers) I'm waiting delivery on Cambridge Audio Azur 640C and 640A, with Quad 12L bookshelf speakers. All reviews say the components perform beyond their price range, and are very well suited to jazz, vocal and classical music (but perform very well in all areas). In the store I compared against three amps, two cd players and two speaker sets and the above combination was by far the winner. The sound depth was amazing. This directory contains copies of reviews from Watt Hi-Fi and Hi-Fi world. http://www.everestaudio.com/reviews/ I'd love to hear comments from anyone owning this equipment. |
|
Sid Unregistered guest | I tried the Azur 540C for a coupla weeks and found it too ordinary sounding. There was a harshness to it that could be tiring. I liked the build and the remote though so I changed it for the 640c. This impressed straight out of the box. After burn in I think the sound is as good as the reviews claim. What the reviews don't mention though is the noisy transport which has been discussed here: http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=digital&n=79475&highlight=azur&r=&sess ion= These comments ring true with me, and (worryingly)doubts about the longevity of the player are raised. For me though I'm keeping it, you can't get this spec for £250 anywhere else. It's the kind of upgrade that makes all your CDs sound like you've never heard them before. |
|
fabien Unregistered guest | I got Cambridge Audio 640 C a couple of weeks back. Plugged on a Audio Refinement complete and Triangle Zerius speakers. It's great sounding product. Sweet medium and treble, tight and deep bass. Amazing |
|
KevinMcC Unregistered guest | I've got the 640A with a NAD C541I cd player playing through a pair of Triangle Titus bookshelf speakers along with a PSB SubZero Alphai subwoofer. I have it set up in a small bedroom and the sound is very involving. The soundstage is huge using up most of the room. The vocals are right were they should be (in fact they are so eerily close i have a hard time going to sleep because no matter how low you turn the volume down the voice is still singing to you from just a few feet away. For the price the 640A is a solid investment. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 17 Registered: Mar-04 | I took the 640A home for 10 days and have to say I was a little disappointed. It isn't a bright sounding amp which is good in my book, especially when paired with the Q5 speaker and Nad c542 cdp which can tend to overbrightness with certain amps. However, I found the sound dull and uninspiring with a fat tuneless bass. I didn't perceive a particularly wide soundstage and the tone controls were useless. OK, so maybe not many of us use them these days but I like to adjust the tone for certain cds and when listening at low volumes. I found that the bass didn't alter how it sat in the mix regardless of where you had the tone control - it just got boomier or less boomier. The treble adjustment wasn't up to much either. However, all this said, the unit has a good build quality and the remote is nice with a heavy aluminium faceplate. There is also a detachable mains cord. The speaker binding posts are THE cheapest I have ever seen though. Dreadful. They accept bananas but looked made of the cheapest plastic. I'd recommend bananas if you want the amp because I don't think the posts would stand for much wire clamping! For the price I suppose it is ok but I much prefer NAD amplification at that price point. Others who love this amp maybe listened with a different source and speakers but I find both those items of my kit are a good test for a budget amp. The matching cdp is raved about too but I doubt the c542 I was using as a source was letting the side down somehow. Besides, the Azur amp is supposed to be better than the Azur cd player! Just my ten penneth, an opinion and nothing more. |
|
Unregistered guest | I have the speaker and amp combo paired with the 908 avant speakers by Mordaunt Short. This was my first foray into the world of seperates so I cannot speak with any prior knowledge, but I have to say I have been blown away by the performance of this system. There is fantastic control and clarity even when turned up to the highest volume setting. Ihave my set up in a large empty basesment area and with a little delicate positioning of the speakers have managed to eliminate any booming. As I say I am not an expert, but maybe that is a good thing as Ii can just accept that I like em! |
|
Bronze Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 18 Registered: Mar-04 | When I said "boomy" it wasn't a speaker placement thing, more a description of the type of bass. My speakers were in the same position they'd occupied when being driven by a far more powerful and bassy amp, without booming. It's an ok amp for the money! I certainly didn't say it was rubbish, just that it wasn't my cup of tea and for the price I reckon I could do better. I disagree that it's an audiophile amp too, it sounds more like a regular Jap amp to me. One thing it does do well is play rock music. Beats Nad on that front definitely. I found it a tolerant amp, one that will play all types of music. Much like a Jap amp! Good value I suppose and a jack of all trades.....but master ** ****. |
|
Unregistered guest | I must comment on the boomy bass part. Was the amp you had in home straight from box? My dealer gave me a "burnt-in" demo amp for a home try-out. I was actually looking for a more expensive integrated and had tried Densen Beat 100, Audio Analogue Puccini SE, Naim Nait5 and Creek 5350SE at home previously. I am not saying that the Azur was better sounding than those others, but for the price it was unbeatable. It has very balanced sound although a bit veiled. It also lacks any irritating faults (in my system and my preferences...). And now for the boomy bass part... I bought the Azur 640 and when plugging the amp in there was a clear upper-bass boom. I am not a firm "believer" of audio component "burn-in", but here the effect was undoubtable. After a couple of days of intensive use the bass-boom went away, and the combo started to sound same as with the demo-amp. So when auditioning for this amp, ask your dealer to provide you one with some use on it. regards, Timo Tuovinen |
|
Silver Member Username: Lockaudio801Post Number: 116 Registered: Apr-04 | From where we are if your audio/video amp can't juice up at least 100W x 5 for surround playback then your experience would indeed be limited high current design or not. But then this is just an opinion. Best you listen to it with speakers which will suit your fancy as well. Even ferrari's comes to a halt without the gas  . |
|
STEK Unregistered guest | I'm been using the Azur 640A for nearly 2 weeks now and it sounds better by the day! I Listen to mostly jazz and vocals and the clarity is certainly comparable to many more expensive models. Question for existing 640A owners - do you use a pre-amp at all? I know the 640A is an integrated but feel tempted to add in a pre-amp as well. ANyone tried it? |
|
New member Username: Kevinby2003Post Number: 1 Registered: Jun-04 | Hello all I have just bought Cambridge Audio Azur 640A and 640C. Speakers are Klipsch RF-15. I have tried the Telarc Round-up "magnificient seven". Power is good. Speakers received sufficient input from the Amps. I also tried the panio music. When played Franz Lizst Hungarian Rhapsody No. 12, the response and output are very clear and pure. when played Lobo, it's amazing. The human voice tone and music from 2 speakers are also charming. I have been perplexed in rumour, that British Amps + American speakers may have harmony problem. From the type of music I am fond of, I am quite satisfied with the price I paid which exceeded my expectation. |
|
Unregistered guest | I used to own the p500 the predicesor to the 640a and to compare the two the azur is S@*t. i spent £120 on the upgrade and am so pissed off i cant say. my p500 blew up when using a mates dodgy speakers (brought out of a white van) but cambridge stopped making that model so i had to upgrade. i have 2 sets of mission speakers (700's and 702's) and love house and drum and bass, With the old amp the speakers would be pushed to the point where there nearly exploding and the whole house used to vibrate with the bass. Now u can talk over the music and the amp just cuts out with the protection system so easily it takes the piss. Ive had 3 640a's and its the same with all they cut out and u have to unplug it, wait then plug it back in to get the music to come back on(great for parties... not). cambridge u used to have such good amps, sort it out |
|
Silver Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 158 Registered: Mar-04 | You must be really cranking those amps. Have you considered getting something more powerful if you continually listen to very loud bass-heavy music? |
|
New member Username: EasyshasPost Number: 1 Registered: Aug-04 | 640 a+c combo with quads 11 or floorstanding (my preference) FOCAL J MLABS CHOROUS 614 OR EVO 3B? ANY IDEAS ANYONE? |
|
Unregistered guest | I wanted a system that plays, whatever you put in the player, good enough to give you goose skin. But I didn't want to pay too much money (a tight budget) and I wanted a surround system combination. I tried different set ups, Onkyo AV-receiver, Yamaha AV-receiver, Piooneer cd-player, Pioneer DVD-player. Allways with my Dali 606 who are from 2000. But I was never satisfied. It came clear to me that I had to buy a separat hifi system dedicated to music. After having read a couple of reviews I found myself with older Cambridge D500SE cd-player and newer Cambridge Azur 640, still using my Dali 606. The speakers suddenly began to work! Earlier I thought the speakers were bad since speakers are the most sensitive link in a hifi setup. What I like in my setup is the punch in the bass, the relaxed power in the music, the detail, the sharpness of vocals, - all those things what I beleive good hifi is. Also it is of good build quality and has good looks. Of course my setup is pretty cheap in comparison with those that cost 20.000 euro, and they are probably better, but my system give me the goose skin that I wanted and that for only approx 1.200 euro. |
|
Malcolm Unregistered guest | I think the combo 640a and 640 cd works well. I've a pair of the terrific dynaudio 42 mini monitors and the amp drives them well. I tend to listen to my music late at night ranging from pro rock to pastoral english and also many solo singers. My only criticism is that the cd transport is can be noisy and also there is a distintive click when you change racks. I am worried also that the drive does not appear as solid as my marantz 6000 OSE drive. |
|
New member Username: Kevinby2003Post Number: 2 Registered: Jun-04 | The Cambridge Audio Azur 640A & 640C are good choice. According to many word-of-mouth, the sound quality upon new arrival of machine is not that good. But after 150~200 hours, it's turrific. And the sound quality is those quality cost 2~3 times more! I don't prefer AV Amp to play music. Because AV Amps are from "compressed" base; Integrated Amps are analogue base. So Cambridge Azur 640A & 640C are ideal companion set. |
|
New member Username: EasyshasPost Number: 2 Registered: Aug-04 | Finally took possession today of Azur 640A and C and although only a few hours in, they sound fantastic. I do not pretend to be an audiophile but I have listened to a lot of music and I can say without hesitation that paired with my MS 914s , the soundstage is gorgeous.Buy and enjoy! |
|
New member Username: Ca_convertUK Post Number: 1 Registered: Oct-04 | I replaced my trusty NAD 3130 and Sherwood 5010 two days ago. I have been a massive fan of NAD stuff for years, so fully expected to come home with a C542CT and the 542 CD player....oops where the hell did this Cambridge stuff come from?? I spent a while listening to both the 542 and the 320BEE, but ended up with the Azur 640. Agree the bass is not ist strongest point our of the box, but it sure aint boomy, just a tad light, and seemed faster than the NAD's (my 3130 was pretty laid back, although it lots of bottom grunt) Plus I bought the CA phono stage to go with my EB101/K9 and its brought vinyl back to life!! Finally, the CD player. The 640a is a very good amp, the 640c CD player is just bonkers value for money. Ive spent most of today listening the the wall again just to hear all of the background dialogue. I agree also that both need a good run in, as mine were out of the box and initially didnt sound so great, so ive left it all on repeat overnight and powered up. The system sounds amazing for the money, which is the ridiculous part, i spent less than £500 on the whole lot, through the DM303's I have they are starting to sound really great. |
|
cdf Unregistered guest | I have an Azur 640a Amp and I think its great, very clear and great value. However, if you like listening to very loud music (as I do) I wouldn't recommend this amp as it has safety features that prevent damage to the amp. This means that it cuts out if it gets too loud, which gets irritating if you're having parties! I use the azur amp for my bookshelf speakers now and have a seperate amp for my big speakers (and it sounds brilliant!) It's definately worth a look though |
|
New member Username: VwgolfPost Number: 1 Registered: Nov-04 | Hi At the moment I have the 640a & 640c connected to a pair of Mission 781's on Mission Standard stands. To be honest I am not impressed with the sound and feel my components are mismatched. I have seen the review with Azur's connected to the Epos M5's and feel they may be a good match but was wondering if anybody has the same components connected to the Epos 12.2's. I have also noticed the M5's are 4ohm and the 12.2's 8ohm and am interested if anybody can comment on any of these speakers or convince me of a better pair of stand mounts for around £500.00 If anybody has the Azurs with the 12.2's I would be gratefull for any info regarding sound and build quality and wheather the 12.2's would be a worthwhile upgrade from what I have already or if the M5's would be a better choice. Thanks |
|
Bronze Member Username: AmirPost Number: 25 Registered: Jul-04 | Is it possibale that the songs in cambridge audio 640a will sound more good and dynamic than in NAD c352? |
|
Bronze Member Username: AmirPost Number: 26 Registered: Jul-04 | if i have yamaha yst sw320 subwoofer and JBL s36 loudspeakers? |
|
Unregistered guest | I'd like ti buy a Azur 540D (dvd) and Azur 640A (to replace my old Cyrus 2). I have old Energy Pro 22 monitors and Thorens 316. I will appreciate any suggestion or advice. |
|
Unregistered guest | A close friend had a Rotel 900 series CD player and Rotel pre power combo, powering full range tannoys. Not sure of the model numbers but it sounded great. Beat my Cyrus pre/power, Cyrus CD through Mission 752f, and that was a 'side by side all weekend sit down and listen' test. He just bought an Azur 640CD and he said he can't believe how much better it sounds than his $1000 Rotel Cdp. A week later he added a Musical Fidelity X10D and was even more impressed! He's got a good ear...I'm going to buy a 640cdp on his recommendation alone! |
|
ca_convert Unregistered guest | I have to retract my original views of the amp....something was missing, so it was changed for the NAD C352. The NAD sounds clearer and much more dynamic, to my ears the 640a was a bit light in the lower bass. However, the 640c sounds phenomenal for the money, I have discovered that its tracking is far from the best. I have found two cd's which its skips a couple of songs for about 20=30 secondsd. Every other CD player in my house plays then fine (2 Bush portables cost £20, a Sony portable, and the Car CD player) so although i sem to have escaped the dreaded hum, the transport mechanism appears to be cr*p. back to Richer tomorrow for a replacement |
|
ca_convert Unregistered guest | Took it back, got a replacement brand new, cannot complain at the service. I checked the "test" CD's, and on first play was ok, then 2nd 3rd 4th you name it skippety skip. Took it straight back to the shop, and replaced it with a NAD C532. Within minutes realised it sounds noticeably better, so I guess there must have been a problem with that batch of 640's with the laser tracking alignment. Must have had a deleterious effect on sound quality, since the NAD sounds better: I expected it to sound less detailed and warmer. So, Ive come a full circle: started off with the CA 640 a and c, now both replaced with NAD equipment. Ive just also bought what hi fi and read their review of systems...im beginning to wonder how close the relationship is between CA and What Hi-Fi, because good they both are, my experience is that the extra 120 or so quid was well worth it, more than i expected. the 640 has great detail, but I kept changeing discs, and turning it down. The NAD, i leave the songs on, and turn it up. Simple but highly significant difference. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AmirPost Number: 34 Registered: Jul-04 | Ca_convert I dont anderstand the meaning of this sentence: "the 640 has great detail, but I kept changeing discs, and turning it down. The NAD, i leave the songs on, and turn it up" Sory |
|
ca_convert Unregistered guest | amir Simply this: Whe playimg music with the Azur gear I kept changeing the discs to hear what rhe next would sound like without actually wanting to listen to the music. With the NAD gear, instead of playing all my favourite discs 10 seconds of each track at a time I found myself leaving the disc in and listening to the music and not just the sound. I also read somewhere (john A maybe) that a measure of a systems performance is how loud you listen (its far from the only measure of course), and I found that turning up the azur stuff was not that satisfying. The NAD system just invites it. Im not saying that the CA azur gear is poor, its very very good, but my personal tastes it does not suit. The fact that the CD player was clearly not set up correctly probably did it no favours either which is a shame |
|
Anonymous | I am looking for a budget integrated amp & speakers to run a pair of Technics SL1200s with an Allen & Heath X0ne:32 mixer. Although I have read great reviews of both NAD and CA (Azur 640A) gear, is there anything in particular that I should be checking out when looking for an amp for that purpose as I guess my intended usage will not resemble that of a typical user listening predominantly to CDs. How well does the 640a handle vinyl? |
|
nout Unregistered guest | As you will probaply know, the NAD doesn't have a phono input. Cambridge has from what I've read a very good phono section (I haven't tried it), but you have to like Cambridge's sound: a bit bright and at times unforgiving highs. I own a Marantz PM 7200 which phono section in comparison with cd is a bit bland (Cambridge does a better job there, I guess), but the overall sound of the Marantz I like better. The new Denon PMA 1500 MKII seems to have an excellent phono input for both MM and MC (so did the old PMA 1500R). I wasn't particuarly fond of the old PMA 1500R, but this new amp, from what I've read, must be something special. I'd have a listen. |
|
Anonymous | Thanks for the info, however, I will be connecting my turntables via a mixer and so will not require the phono stage as the mixer effectively provides a pre-amp stage. Will this have a significantly detrimental effect on the sound quality even though I am using a professional standard mixer (Xone:32)? |
|
nout Unregistered guest | Will this have a significantly detrimental effect on the sound quality even though I am using a professional standard mixer (Xone:32)? Sorry, I cannot help you with this question, I haven't got any experience with mixers and how it will effect the sound. So NAD is still in the game! Is there a dealer near by which sells NAD and Cambridge? A good dealer will let you take a demo-amp home to try. Although I think NAD will be the better choice of the two (Cambridge and NAD - Denon I haven't heard yet). |
|
New member Username: Ca_convertCardiffUK Post Number: 8 Registered: Jan-05 | Interestingly, I am using the Cambridge 540p phono pre-amp into the C352. IMO this pre-amp is light years better than the phono stage on the old NAD 3130. Unfortunately I did not compare it to NAD's PP5 (I think?) phono pre-amp, which has won a silver award in Hi-Fi Choice 2004 awards... |
|
dr g Unregistered guest | I have a 640a and 640c, hooked up to a pair of KEF coda 70 mk2's, biwired. Amazing clarity, bass okay. All from Richer sounds for approx £700. Sounds infinitely better than my 1990's technics seperates. I haven't heard anyones set up I would swap for mine for the same money |
|
Bronze Member Username: Ca_convertCardiffUK Post Number: 44 Registered: Jan-05 | Bah this upgrading thing is a nuisance. Now I feel the need to change my speakers aswell. Ive found Mission 782's for £170..yes £170 but they are ex dem and I just bet there are none left!! Anyone tried Mission with the C352 and 542 system? I want to replace my DM303's with a pair of floorstanders, then I will be "allowed" to put the speakers in the lounge directly in front of a sofa at ear level... I was also reading that the Epos M5's go well with the NAD gear, but that was What Hi Fi so I'm sceptical. |
|
Silver Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 254 Registered: Sep-04 | Haha! Fighting with the W.A.F. factor are we? Mine likes the floorstanders, until she's trying to sleep! Then they are bain. V |
|
Anonymous | Hi Nout I have the Cambridge 640A, I got it for xmas, but have been reading the reviews of both that and the Marantz PM7200 and am torn. After speaking to Richer Sounds, one of their staff's opinions was that the Marantz was bigger sounding but a bit bright. Give me some more advice please! Thanks Cheese |
|
Bronze Member Username: Ca_convertCardiffUK Post Number: 64 Registered: Jan-05 | Anon (Cheese?) If you can afford it buy both and a NAD C352 take them home, listen to them all for a period of 13 days, and on the 14th day take back the two amps you dont want fo a full refund for the two returned amps. If you use a credit card, then there will no interest charged for that 14 day free home demo(I am assuming you bought the 640a from Richers sounds, and therefore will go back to them) |
|
nout Unregistered guest | Hi Nout I have the Cambridge 640A, I got it for xmas, but have been reading the reviews of both that and the Marantz PM7200 and am torn. After speaking to Richer Sounds, one of their staff's opinions was that the Marantz was bigger sounding but a bit bright. Give me some more advice please! Thanks Bright? I don't like bright amps, so why on earth would I buy a bright amp? I think they meant that Marantz's treble is very detailed, but not agressive in any way. I own a cd player (Marantz cd 5000) which sounds a bit bright and harsh with some recordings, that is: it did sound bright with my old amp (a 70's Pioneer) and with Rotel RA-02 (which I compared the Marantz with). My Marantz PM 7200 actually smoothens the sound of my cd player. In comparison with the NAD c352, PM 7200's treble is more extended, but not bright or agressive at all, in fact NAD's treble is rougher than Marantz's. PM 7200's midds are detailed but not forward sounding, silky smooth to my ears. Cambridge is a bit colder in my opinion, but still a great amp. You're not happy with your Cambridge? Why not? |
|
Anonymous | Hi nout Thanks for the post. Basically, I think I'm afraid of missing out/not making the correct decision! I have had quite an old system, the last amp I had was the NAD 3020i, that's how old! I have Eltax Monitor 5's and a NAD 5420 CD player. I am no audiophile in any shape of form. In laymens terms, I felt the 640 was a bit harsh, a bit bright, and not as dynamic as I expected, lacking a little clout. Was it you that posted that it doesn't beg you to turn it up? I can see what you are saying with that. But not being an audiophile this may be in my head. I have phoned different Richer Sound shops on several occassions and asked them either which amp they prefer, or if they could recommend an amp per se, and each and every chap has recommended the Cambridge. They are the only dealers in the UK to sell Cambridge, so I start to ask myself questions! They have basically said that the Marantz is a little bright, and better for classical, whereas the Cambridge is good for rock and dance which is what I mainly listen to. They also said that the Cambridge has a warmer sounding base whereas the Marantz is a little cold (funny how it totally contradicts your opinion!). I was also considering the NAD C320BEE but R Sounds advised me that NAD aren't as good as they used to be. I also have the Cambrigde DAB 500 and planned to get the 640C. Stupidly, I never listened to the amp before purchase, I just bought (put on xmas present list actually!) because I couldn't be arsed and went on Richer Sounds recommendation and reviews. Any further advice you could give me?! It's all very helpful! Cheesy |
|
Anonymous | ...and my apologies, Eltax Liberty 5+! I gave you a speaker hybrid before! Cheesy |
|
Anonymous | Richer Sounds staff are full of it, period! To say NAD aren't as good as they used to be is utter crap. NAD's budget range of equipment is some of the best available at the price points. They would simply like everyone to buy Cambridge stuff as that's where they make more money. I've compared the 540a to the C320BEE (price comparable) and the NAD beats it in most areas. |
|
nout Unregistered guest | in laymens terms, I felt the 640 was a bit harsh, a bit bright, and not as dynamic as I expected, lacking a little clout Ok, it's the same experience ca_convert has with Cambridge 640a, he got himself a NAD C352 instead. I don't blame him: C352 is very dynamic and warmer sounding than Cambridge. I have phoned different Richer Sound shops on several occassions and asked them either which amp they prefer, or if they could recommend an amp per se, and each and every chap has recommended the Cambridge. Has anyone offered you a listening-session? I'd listen to the amps mentioned, you can take your own speakers with you. I was also considering the NAD C320BEE but R Sounds advised me that NAD aren't as good as they used to be. Hahahaha, that's very helpfull, isn't it? Did they tell you how it compares to Cambridge 640a? (no ofcourse not) NAD C320 BEE is an excellent amp, little less dynamic and detailed as NAD C352, but a bit warmer and smoother. How much did you listen (from christmas till now) to your amp? (I mean to music with your amp ofcourse) Maybe the amp needs a break-in period. For you the safest choice, if you have to replace your Cambridge for another amp without listening first, would be the NAD C352. It is much more dynamic than Cambridge 640a and warmer sounding too. Why don't I recommend my own Marantz? The detailed treble could be too much in your experience. (although it never sounds harsh, not even a hint of agressiveness) If you have the opportunity to compare your Cambridge 640a with other amps before you decide than I'd like to include the Marantz PM 7200. (and NAD c320 BEE too) Take your time, if possible that is. Good luck! |
|
nout Unregistered guest | If you think there is a contadiction in in comparison with the NAD c352, PM 7200's treble is more extended, but not bright or agressive at all, in fact NAD's treble is rougher than Marantz's. I'd say this: my old Pioneer amp's treble wasn't detailed and extended at all, but agressive it was. NAD's treble isn't aggressive by the way, only a few poor records sound rougher in comparison with the Marantz. |
|
Anonymous | Thanks, I've taken both your advice and have just given R Sounds a call. I'm gunna take home the Marantz, the C352 and the C320 BEE and test them all side by side on my system! R Sounds are cool with that even though it was purchased at the beginning of December. Yeah, the stuff about them making most money with cambridge was what I was thinking but wanted to doubt but the more people there I spoke to the more it seemed clear! Little disappointing really but I suppose how the cookie crumbles. I've just been checking in What Hi Fi and they haven't slated but haven't massively rated the C352. "weighty sound with enjoyable detail but the bass can be ponderous" with just 3 stars. Tell me if I sound sad! The only disappointing thing is they don't do the Marantz in silver. But yeah, with the 640 I feel like I want to turn the treble down. It doesn't sound very warm. Trouble is, I aim to buy a new CD player at some point, so will be testing these with a CD player that I wont be using for that much longer! May wait until next xmas for a CD player. Then what do I get??!! |
|
nout Unregistered guest | I've just been checking in What Hi Fi and they haven't slated but haven't massively rated the C352...with just 3 stars What year? A recent copy? It got What HiFi's "amp of the year 2004" award and Hifi Choice's 2004 "best amp for under £500" award. Marantz PM 7200 got Hifi-Choice's "product of the year 2003" award and What Hifi's 2003 "best buy" award...ahum...not that it's important to me I'm gunna take home the Marantz, the C352 and the C320 BEE and test them all side by side on my system! Good one! Keep me informed will you, I'm curious which amp you like best. The only disappointing thing is they don't do the Marantz in silver. Well that's true, I think they only sell silver ones in Japan, but I like it's champagne-colour very much. May wait until next xmas for a CD player. Then what do I get??!! Marantz or NAD? |
|
Anonymous | At Richer Sounds they only do the Marantz in black which is a bit of a bummer. I'm right with the NAD C352 right? It's a copy from March 2004 and they rated it in Oct 2003. But, yeah, I see the same review as yours for the Marantz. What CD player do I get? Well I suppose it would depend on what amp I got wouldn't it? What would you recommend either way? And yeah, I'll let you know what I go for and how I find them! Prob be a couple of weeks time when the operation will go ahead! |
|
nout Unregistered guest | http://www.nadelectronics.com/reviews/C352-0404_framset.htm http://www.nadelectronics.com/reviews/C352-1004_framset.htm As you'll see it was a pre-C352 version that never made it to the market, so you don't have worry they'll sell you one. They only sell the black Marantz? What a shame. For cd players I'd recommennd NAD c542 ($500)or Marantz CD 7300 ($500). |
|
Anonymous | So the C352 has been revamped and I read the review for the old version? I haven't read the review yet but I certainly will do when I get a minute thanks very much. The Marantz being only available in black is swaying me already to the C352 if the review that I read was for the older model and it's actually got raving reviews! I was always pleased with my older NAD equipment. |
|
nout Unregistered guest | The Marantz being only available in black is swaying me already to the C352 if the review that I read was for the older model and it's actually got raving reviews! I was always pleased with my older NAD equipment I don't blame you, looks are important too and I like the NAD-look very much...but I'd listen to the Marantz too. |
|
Anonymous | I've just been listening to Melt by Leftfield and it actually sounds really nice! No harshness in that, really quite smooth! That album sounds nice actually. Really nice! Is there a good song to play to test out a system? I used to know one and can I hellers think of it. I've just been thinking that what if I need to let the amp wear in and if I exchange I will be missing out?! I'll never hang myself. |
|
nout Unregistered guest | Hahahaha Just give yourself some time to listen to music only and not paying too much attention to weaknesses. Amp burning-in is for at least 50% (maybe 100%) just getting used to the sound. If you, in the end, actually like the sound then I wouldn't bother shipping the NAD's and Marantz to your home for a comparison. It'll only complicate things, or you have to feel confident enough not getting confused by it. Is there a good song to play to test out a system? I always use a crap sounding cd (rough treble) and a very good sounding cd. The difference between the two cd's should be obvious, but the crap sounding cd should at least sound reasonable instead of really awfull. You want to listen to music, not to hifi do you? |
|
Anonymous | Hey, I've found this: Suffering from booming bass or tinny treble? Need to know how to upgrade your kit? Fear not: every Friday afternoon between 3.30 and 5.30, real live What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision reviewers will be on hand to give you hints to hi-fi heaven. Call our helpline on 020 8267 5900 May give em a call and see what advice they can give me! The more advice the better I always say! Leftfield are always really bassy, so it's compensating for the harsh treble on my 640. Sounds good tho! Sounds like I want my amp to sound. Can't only listen to bassy albums tho! |
|
Anonymous | Hey, I've found this: Suffering from booming bass or tinny treble? Need to know how to upgrade your kit? Fear not: every Friday afternoon between 3.30 and 5.30, real live What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision reviewers will be on hand to give you hints to hi-fi heaven. Call our helpline on 020 8267 5900 May give em a call and see what advice they can give me! The more advice the better I always say! Leftfield are always really bassy, so it's compensating for the harsh treble on my 640. Sounds good tho! Sounds like I want my amp to sound. Can't only listen to bassy albums tho! |
|
Anonymous | I've just been reading the strings of post and this, that ca_convert posted about the 640a: So, Ive come a full circle: started off with the CA 640 a and c, now both replaced with NAD equipment. Ive just also bought what hi fi and read their review of systems...im beginning to wonder how close the relationship is between CA and What Hi-Fi, because good they both are, my experience is that the extra 120 or so quid was well worth it, more than i expected. the 640 has great detail, but I kept changeing discs, and turning it down. The NAD, i leave the songs on, and turn it up. Simple but highly significant difference. Is spot on. That's EXACTLY what I've been doing! Changing CD's, waiting to be amazed. |
|
nout Unregistered guest | So, you're gonna continue your amp comparison? |
|
Anonymous | Yes. Absolutely. It's looking like the C352, but I need to try them all rather than making the same mistake again and not being arsed to listen! Though it will be a ball ache. I'm not bothered about a BLACK Marantz but it will be nice to listen to educate my ears! But I've been reading reviews for the C352 and I'm sold. And you said if you aren't gunna listen and just buy to go for the NAD. What should I do? |
|
Anonymous | THis is from a review from Oct 05 2004. It would be nice to know whether it was the old or replacement C352: Summary: Bought the amp in the conviction there wasn't anything better for the money. Reading magazines and forums the NAD proved to be the amp to have. Marantz is Japanese and a big company so it had to be crap. (I'd soon had to buy a new cd player too: mine is a Marantz cd 6000 ki) A few weeks later I met an old friend, I visited him at his house and there I saw his HIFI set with a Marantz pm 7000 amp and the same speakers I have: KEF q5's. "Nice amp" I lied, knowing that Marantz amps suck. I listened to some music and I was surprised to find this amp sounded so much better than mine. It could be his cd player that was better: a NAD c 541.( I have a Marantz cd 6000 ki). I decided to bring my amp to his house to compare the two. Marantz pm 7000 is badly reviewed by Hi-Fi Choice, TNT and by many consumer reviewers. (a dull and lifeless amp or a very bright amp) The NAD c352 is praised by everyone. The best $500 amp. I listened both with NAD c540 player and KEF Q5 speakers: the Marantz pm 7000 beats the crap out of the NAD. Better staging, better bass, better treble etc. I replaced the Nad by a secondhand PM 7000 and I'm glad I did. Strengths: good amp if you don't know anything better. Weaknesses: looks sound in comparison with rivals Similar Products Used: Marantz pm 7000 What you think? |
|
nout Unregistered guest | I'd listen first, it's nice to have 4 quality amps in your room too, although it could be confusing. Don't force yourself in hearing differences when listening or you won't be able to hear any differences at all. Maybe invite a friend and enjoy music. I said to buy the NAD blind, not knowing that Richer Sounds has such a great service! (I thought you could only replace the amp for another one) and because you own a NAD wich served you well for many years. NAD C352 is not going to dissapoint you, I'm pretty sure about that. It's up to you, I'd go for the comparison. |
|
Anonymous | I'm not going to go for the NAD 320BEE, it's bound to not be as impressive as the C352. So Im gunna go for the Marantz and the C352 and do a comparisson against my 640A. |
|
nout Unregistered guest | THis is from a review from Oct 05 2004. It would be nice to know whether it was the old or replacement C352 The new one (which is the only one that exsist) the old one was a "test" version only, there aren't any on the market. About that review: I'm speechless LOL |
|
Bronze Member Username: Ca_convertCardiffUK Post Number: 73 Registered: Jan-05 | Anon, Whilst these forums are useful opinions, remember thats all they are. You dont need to be an audiophile to know what sounds good or not to you. If you like the 640 over the NAD stuff then I hope you keep it because your being true to your ears and not a load of half arrsed opinions To this end, dont rule out the 320BEE - if the C352 doesnt sound better then why pay another £100 or so just for the sake of it?? I'd recommend that you just take the time to lsiten to them all over a period of hours, after all you've got them for 14 days no obligation. Have fun! And ignore the What hi fi review of the 352 prototype, thats one of the most ill judged bits of marketing (from NAD) i've seen in years, and what hi fi of all rags to show your knickers too oh dear! |
|
Anonymous | Oh yeah, I appreciate that, they are 'opinions', just that. I'll take a listen and ultimately decide for my self. I can't help to get to know what people have to say, though. I know whether I am a hundred percent happy with something or not, but sometimes am not sure myself what it is or isn't that I'm happy with, not being an audiophile n' all. But this has helped me out no end, so cheers people! I shall keep you updated when I do my test run! ca_convert, would you explain this a little more for me, please, particularly the last bit: And ignore the What hi fi review of the 352 prototype, thats one of the most ill judged bits of marketing (from NAD) i've seen in years, and what hi fi of all rags to show your knickers too oh dear! Cheers. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Ca_convertCardiffUK Post Number: 76 Registered: Jan-05 | Anon, From what I can gather, NAD must have submitted a pre-production sample to What Hi Fi for review, which they critiscised for a dire sound. NAD knew there was a problem with the output stage (which then begs why let a hi fi journo listen to it) which was corrected for production..the rest is history. Why a mistake? well if you had a half finished product, would you lend to a mate whose job it was to tell the world about how good (or bad)these things are? To exacerbate the position, this "mate" works for the tabloid equivalent of the hi fi press, so any editorial discretion was never going to be assured. Of course, what hi fi is aimed the masses, so everyone read it, and were subsequently confused by the whole farcical episode. Just check how many posts there are in this forum alone about this "is the C253CT better than the C352" confusion. Confused? You better be, its how they all like it! |
|
Unregistered guest | Leaving McIntosh 5100 (driving Bozak 302a) and considering either Cambridge 640A, Yamaha RX V650, or what? I've become used to the McIntosh sound but it's beginning to heat up after 37 years :-). Possibly a capacitor(?). Anybody got any suggestions on what comes closest to Mc's sound (heavy transformer, indeed). |
|
Andy Robb Unregistered guest | I've finally got my CA 640 A with built-in optional phono stage working with Project Debut 3 (I had to earth the central heating radiator to kill the hum - not system's fault). The sound stage from vinyl is much more focused than from CA 640 C CD where instruments seem to wander about. Vinyl is definitely dull compared to CD. This was not the case with my old Mission Cyrus One and MC cart on Logic Tempo deck compared to Arcam Alpha 5 CD. I haven't tried the Cyrus amp with the Project deck yet. On the plus side, silence from CD is excellent (at least with volume knob at 1 o'clock). The phono has a hum and whistle that are more sensed than heard at this volume - well below surface noise from vinyl. Speakers are Mordaunt Short Avant 906. |
|
Anonymous | bought the 640a ,quit happy. what cd player can anyone recommend |
|
Unregistered guest | I bought a cambridge audio azur 540a, cambridge audio azur 540c and some mission m71i speakers. I have to say the sound is excellent. this set-up has given a new lease of life to my cd collection. I have never heard any of the hi end hi-fi equipment such as arcam. I am so impressed with this setup, for little(ish) money what can I expect from brands such as arcam? cant wait to graduate, get a job and purchase some hi-end equipment, if it's better than the cambridge gear, than I'm gonna be in for a treat. |
|
Unregistered guest | thinking of pairing a CA 640a with Mission m33 speakers. Any suggestions, folks?? |
|
ozymandias Unregistered guest | I have the AZUR AV amp and although it is really good i do have a few problems with it. I like to listen to music in stereo (as the artist intended) but this amp only allows 2 channel stereo! That means that the surround speakers are not on at all, which is crap. Furthermore when in surround mode none of the tone settings can be adjusted, which doesn't work for me at all. These amps do sound amazing though. I have tried yamahas and Denons before getting to this one. I wanted a marantz becuase they sound spectacular but i was told that the amp would not be bale to power my MS908 avants and 902's sufficiently, it appears that the cambridge can't either. The only thing that had the power (apart from a £500 yamaha that broke so got returned) was a five year old denon. I am considering changing the cambridge for one of the new Denons. What is true of all cambridge amps is that they sound better with time, lots better and they get louder as well. I used to have a Cambridge a5 and nothing sounds better than that. |
|
JamesWH77 Unregistered guest | Just had to step in here after reading about NAD vs Cambridge Audio debate. For what its worth: I used to own a NAD 320 (not the new BEE edition) and it served me well for many years and loved it. Before that I briefly owned a Cambridge Audio A1 (which never felt like a big jump over my old teenager midi system). Going from the NAD 320 from the A1 was a huge jump, and I was very satisfied. That was 5 years ago. Last week I bought a CA Azur 640A. It has absolutely blown my NAD 320 out of the water. Its like having a new CD collection. The jump from the CA A1 to the NAD 320 is comparable i'd estimate (but its been 5 years!) to the the Nad 320 to the CA640A. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AmirPost Number: 41 Registered: Jul-04 | TO James: Hi James how you doing? I have a qustion: Have you tried to compare the 640a against the Nad c352, before you bought the 640a? ) |
|
New member Username: BegalPost Number: 1 Registered: Feb-05 | Hi All, Well after checking out What HiFI and various other reviews I bought the 640A and 640C back in October. I wasn't entirely happy with the sound, although the clarity was amazing... in many ways, unforgiving. For instance, you can hear every squeak and movement on the guitar strings. This week I bought the Mordaunt Shorts MS902 to go with it and they do make the sound a little warmer. It's strange but I still feel there is something missing.. I played David Bowies 'Starman' and the intro just doesn't have the impact it has on other systems I played it on. The shift in the balance of the music just before the vocals drop in goes by almost unnoticed and the base just doesn't sound right. I wish I knew why... it's almost like they're out of phase. Couple of points for info for others - 640C CD Player - sounds good - great to look at. It's sensitive to imperfections on CDs. There is some noise from the transport mechanism which is channelled out through the gap around the tray... Cover this and it's virtually silent (very slight hum from the transformer) I intend to put a seal of some kind to stop this noise. You get an idea of what the drive is like just by opening and closing the tray - a bit clunky! 640A - Looks great - Certainly extracts detail and generally sounds very good, sharp and clear but not warm and comforting. Guess it depends what you like and what you listen too. Not sure about the base. (Someone has said that you can replace the capacitors with bigger ones and there's a big improvement - not sure about that - but if anyone knows the details - please post!) The speaker connections are cheap, plastic and tacky. MS602 speakers - build quality excellent, look good and the sound is very good, and they're not run in yet. I am now suspicious about Cambridge Audio and What HiFi as I would have expected some comment from them about the very poor speaker connections and the noise and 'clunkiness' of the CD tray no matter how good the system sounds. When I upgrade/replace this system, I'll trust my ears, eyes and these message boards ahead of reviews! |
|
anon 1 Unregistered guest | amir_kkk, The NAD C352 completely blows the 640a away. Which amp do you have, by the way? |
|
Bronze Member Username: AmirPost Number: 42 Registered: Jul-04 | Hi Anon. I bought the Cambridge Audio 640a before 3 month. the salesperson was not agree to make the exchanging , i wanted to replace the 640a to nad c352. so after i could not replace the 640a (because it is not provide enough bass)i bought a Subwoofer - Yamaha yst sw320....and it make the sound more bad. with the sub i hearing bomy bass , not deep bass... Do you have any ideas, what i need to do in order to hearing more bass..deep bass? |
|
New member Username: BegalPost Number: 2 Registered: Feb-05 | Hi, I found the comment below about improving the base at - http://www.audioreview.com/Integrated%2CAmplifiers/Cambridge%20Audio/PRD_299478_ 2717crx.aspx#reviews Not sure what capacitors he used as replacements though. "Very musical amplifier. Previuos I used CA A500 for 2 years and I was happy.Azur 640A look solid, play solid. I only changed rear speaker terminals - originaly they are weak and a litle to plastic. Found that a little hard to make small volume adjustments at low volumes especialy with remote.(night listening).Changed small Vishay capasitors to larger - deeper and more controlable bass. Overal I'm satisfied." |
|
jameswh77 Unregistered guest | Brian: "For instance, you can hear every squeak and movement on the guitar strings. " This is called hifi! Its beautiful! The only way not to hear that is to buy a cheaper system! Amir: No, I havent heard the NAD C352. It costs at least £70 more than the cambridge so I would expect it to compare well against the 640a, although i very much doubt it 'blows it out of the water'. i agree that richer sounds staff talk total shite, and most of them are idiots. but what hi-fi are not idiots, and they said the cambridge is incredible for the money. with out wanting to offend anyone here, you should listen to what hi fi experts who listen to thousands of systems for a living, and not enthusiasts who are often driven by brand loyalty and have only heard a few systems. if you want bigger bass, its more to do with your speakers than the amp. boomy bass is also caused by the acoustics of your room. for nice bass you need a medium to large room, with *lots* of acoutically absorbant surfaces. this is something most hifi enthusiasts wont tell you (but take it from me its very important, i know this because im a musician and record, produce and mix a lot of music) at the end of the day, ill doubt youll go far wrong with either. just buy them both from RS and tell them you will bring one back for a refund at teh end of the two weeks. |
|
New member Username: BegalPost Number: 3 Registered: Feb-05 | jameswh77: I don't disagree, and sorry if it sounded negative. (I did say it's clarity was amazing) I was just pointing out that this is what's really noticable about this amp but I think it would benefit from a bit more warmth as well - and I don't believe they're mutually exclusive. It just needs a bit more feel to the base. I received an email from a guy in Lithuania (wonderful this t'internet) who had the bigger capacitors fitted by his local specialist shop and he stated 'that new capacitors make biggest change in low frequencies, the bass apeared deeper and better controlled ( fast )'. Like I say, I just feel something is missing, but I am warming to the sound more as the speakers are being run-in. Not sure I agree with you about the What HiFi reviews... Like I said, I would have expected some comment about the poor speaker terminals on the amp or the noise from the drive on the cd player. Incidently, even the hum virtually disappears if the 1mm gap around the tray is covered. |
|
Silver Member Username: Ca_convertCardiffUK Post Number: 160 Registered: Jan-05 | I hardly think What Hi Fi is the last word in consistent expert journalism. There is only one expert: your ears. |
|
jameswh77 Unregistered guest | For me the speaker connector issue is a small thing, sure they are not as chunky as the NAD, but they arent going to break and they can be tightened sufficiently. They are a bit close together so biwiring was a bit tricky. I have the amp paired with the the Azur 540D DVD/CD player, which I admit does have a very annoying ticking sound on the transport on certain CDS, notciable at low volumes (ie night time listening). (but DVDS are fine). Not sure if this is the same problem as with your CD Player. But this wasnt mentioned in *any* reviews, not just what hifi - which does annoy me i must admit. The tray mechanism is also not as refined as i would like, too fast, and not perfectly straight. However, I settled for the 540D however as I really wanted an integrated DVD + CD machine, with good quality CD playback. (Mainly for space and elegance reasons) The only other thing I tried that came close was a the new sony ns955, a very nice machine but in direct comparison not quite as good on cds. The cambridge also gets 10/10 for looks. However, the good news is that the ticking sound does not appear on CDS or DVDS with MP3's on them. So this means I can make DVDS with approx 30+ albums on them, and at 192kb i cant tell the difference from cd. this is amazingly cool! i will put my entire cd collection on 3 discs!!! this wasnt mentioned in any reviews either... but is a very very good thing... (although i havent tested burning my own dvds yet, ive only tried mp3 cds, but i tried a preburnt dvd with mp3 on it (a pc cd rom) and it worked fine. im getting a dvd burner today so will test at teh weekend). The 540D player would get a 95% rating from me, ridiculous sound and picture for the price, and the only dvd player ive ever tried to come close to a decent cd player. but the ticking sound + tray mechanism + menu graphics are not perfect. but... the amp gets a 100% because for the money its stunning. im using 5 year old mission floorstanders (they were £400, cant remember the model number) so these are well burnt in already. but the amp is definitely getting a bit warmer and rounder for me over the past few days. im happy with the sound, but maybe in future, after my guarantee has run out ill look into doing the capacitor thing tho. if it makes it even better then why not! ca_convert: sure your ears are the best judge, crucially when in your own lounge with your existing equipment. but in reality its difficult to trial all machines you are intereted in, hence using what hi-fi to make a short list is a good idea. btw - anyone wanna sell an old NAD cd player (ideally 520)? im looking for one to pair up with the now redundant 320 amp, so that I can make a bedroom system. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 61 Registered: Mar-04 | hey james the nad c520 had issues reading cdr's/cdrw's. Why not try to find the 521i or better yet the 521 bee. |
|
Anonymous | (Particulary fao ca-convert and nout) I posted some weeks ago - had 640A purchased for xmas and was unsure. Like ca_convert I kept changing CD's hoping to find the sound I was looking for but it just didn't happen. It was great for Jazz and vocals as it had amazing detail and clarity but for other types of music it was a litte unforgiving and there was something missing, mainly in the base. And since jazz is only a tiny fraction of my collection/taste this was no good. Anyhow, I changed it for the 352 and I'm very satisfied, it was just what I was looking for. When I first plugged in the 352, after listening to the 640A for some time, I missed the detail (in the 352)- (which made me wonder whether I also ought to try the Marantz PM7200 - although from R Sounds is only available in black, which is the only thing that has stopped me from testing it) but my ears have adjusted and I love the warm, inviting sound which I fondly remember from my old NAD equipment. And it's got good base and clout, which for me, is what the 640a lacked. So, I am now finally listening to the music! Thanks for the advice and opinions! (I'll let you know if I DO decide to test the Marantz - you know, just out of curiosity!) Cheesy |
|
nout Unregistered guest | It's nice to hear from you. I'm glad you like the NAD. Whether you're gonna test the Marantz isn't that important, what matters is you like your NAD. (...and what if you like the Marantz better, you're going to replace your NAD? And I agree: the Marantz PM 7200 in black looks pretty ugly, you made a wise decision. |
|
Cheesy Unregistered guest | Good to here from you! Yeah, when I leave the house, I can't wait to get back in, just to put some music on! The Marantz in black is pretty ugly isn't it? It's a shame. I really would like to give it a listen, even if it's just for educational purposes. :-) but I don't know if I'll be arsed with the ball ache. Do Marantz have their own sound? I don't think I've ever heard one, and that's why I would like to. It may be the sound I was born to partner with. :-) |
|
New member Username: BegalPost Number: 4 Registered: Feb-05 | Glad to hear you've found the sound you like. I've followed a similar path to you and ca_convert. I bought the 640A and 640C back in Sept. Loved the detail and thought the lack of lower end was due to speakers only (B&W DM601 - It couldn't be the CA equipment as it had all those great reviews.... could it?) So I kept the equipment, bought some new speakers and that didn't help. Took the speakers back and bought (to audition) Nad C320BEE Amp, and the Nad C521BEE and Nad C542 cd players. I would have bought the C352CT amp as well but they didn't have them in stock. Tried every combination, spending a bit of time listening to each. Without a doubt, with all three cd players the Nad amp sounded better to me.. Just suits my taste I guess. I was very tempted to audition the Nad C352CT amp after this but I've already got to sell the 640A at a loss and the extra cost of the CT352CT together with this would have been a bit much. Besides, I was happy with the 320BEE. So then it was just a case of choosing the cd player. Very little in it I felt, although I probably should have spent a bit longer listening to each, but I was getting fed up by now and over examining. Even trying HDCDs on the C542 didn't sound very different to me. (I have played a SACD through a SACD player connected through this amp and that does sound better than the equivalent CD). The CA player does suffer from a a slight hum and some noise from the drive, but I do think it picks up a little more detail than the NADs, but like I say, very little in it (to my ears). I'm going to stick with the 640C as that means I don't have to sell it! I'll put some felt pads on the feet to reduce the hum, and after the warranty expires I'm going to open her up and put a brush or seal around the cd transport slot as this 1.5 mm gap is where most of the noise comes from. The Nad C320BEE and the CA 640C is a pleasure to listen too. I'm just waiting for my Monitor Audio Bronze B2 speakers to arrive. Just a little more info on the 640A for those who like to play. The lower end can be improved dramatically by adding or replacing the capacitors. I had this confirmed by others. Here's the info I got, but I haven't tried it. "For azur 640A I have not changed, but installed two new capacitors 10.000 mkFx50V in power supply. With original 4x2200mkF it will be 18.800mkF total on one bridge side. If you change two caps on Power amp input (1mkFx50V, near each canal input wire) with better polypropilene film (Audyn Cap or Mundorf), increase of quality should be much greater." Apparently these caps are about £20 each. Thanks to all who contribute and comment. It's good to hear of similar experiences. |
|
nout Unregistered guest | Do Marantz have their own sound? I don't think I've ever heard one, and that's why I would like to. It may be the sound I was born to partner with. :-) Its sound is slighty more open and wider than NAD's sound and the bass isn't as tight as NAD's but deeper. For some the bass is too slow, but I like it that way. With some rock records the NAD beats the Marantz with its drive and tight bass, but overall I like Marantz better, its sound is more stable, has better control when playing really loud, the sound doesn't harden like the NAD. Where the NAD shines in drive and dynamics, the Marantz truly shines in conveying the weight of the music. NAD is fast where Marantz builds up. I'm not thinking of upgrading and I probaply never will. I wouldn't listen to the Marantz, just be happy with your NAD...what if you like the Marantz better? |
|
Unregistered guest | I am about to buy Azur 640C CD player and wondering about 2 things:- 1. Is the Marantz CD7300 a better product? 2. Will a new CD player at this level work well with my 20 year old Kelvin Labs Class A, amp? Or would it mean buying a better CD player, or a new amp? Cheers Jon, Sevenoaks |
|
Michael Poteat Unregistered guest | A long thread! I have not heard the Azur 640C but have the 500SE and have been pleased with it. I recently moved my Cambridge Audio 500SE into my second (exercise room) system. It still sounds very good. I replaced it with a Music Hall CD-25. The Music Hall is great and the loading mechanism is much tighter than the Cambridge Audio (fit and finish). I am from the states and very few places sell Cambridge or Music Hall except via the web/mail. So I can't make direct comparisons but I would suggest considering Music Hall. I also have a Pioneer Elite DV-45-A and I think the Music Hall is nicer for CD play (but won't play SACD of course). If your AMP is good then I would see not reason to replace it. In my opinion, if you have adequate power and a decent CD player you are okay. Speakers are the component which changes the sound the most. However, the newer CD players are much better sounding than most made a 10 or even 5 years ago. I have read lots of reviews and I also have a Cambridge Audio Pre-Amp. Generally, they seem to be well regarded but some lots seem to have problems. My units have functioning flawlessly. I have played thousands of CDs and CD-R's on my 500SE. I have also had Harmon Karmon (very poor sound), Sony ES (forgot the model number) and Nakamichi CD players. The Sony ate discs. The H-K was very harsh. The Nak was the first CD player I purchased and was very good -- let my son have it. |
|
New member Username: NewbiPost Number: 1 Registered: Apr-05 | Hi there, im new to hi fi seperates having always has out of the box systems i now want some good sounding components. I too am considering the NAD c352 amp and c542 cd player, however im a little stuck on the speakers, i would like floor standing as i have a good sized room to play them in and would like deep sounding bass. The music i listen to is jass, rythm and blues and rap, im consiering the accoustic energy aegis evo 3, as this forum is absolutely fantastic would like your opinions on this combination and any other recommendation you could make. Thanks Newbi |
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