 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.40.222.142
Does anyone have specific experience comaring the newish Azur 640A integrated amp to similar models from NAD (C320 BEE, C350, C352)?I need a good moderate power SS integrated amp for my den system. Cost is an object, and these are in my price range.
Jerry
Follow Ups:
I think i may be closing in on the source of the sonic differences between my Onkyo Integra receiver and the NAD C350. This AM I tried the NAD preamp with the Onkyo power amp, and vice versa (both have pre out/main in jacks). The "characteristic" sound I described in an earlier post follows the preamps. The two power amps sound remarkably similar.My guess is that this is due to the input circuitry, since moderate amounts of tone control usage doesn't affect the "character" of the sound. It does affect the balance, of course, but the Onkyo preamp still does piano better than the NAD, for example. I'll next see if I can devise some experiments to pin this down further.
I've been at this hobby since 1953, and I'm still learning.
Jerry
This turned into a very nice thread. I got the help I needed. When I make a purchase, I'll let you all know how it came out.Jerry
I like the C352 best for its power, build, and transparency. The Cambridge amp is a bit warmer in tone and has a very nice soundstage. It does a lot of the "Hi-Fi things" although it is not ultimately as resolving. Build quality is better now than it has been in the past. I would pair the NAD with a more neutral or warm speaker and the Cambridge with a brighter or overly exciting speaker.
-Bill
Bill,Note my response to Gene. Sounds like the 640A might be what I'm looking for.
Thanks for the prompt reply.
Jerry
I think it may be your best choice for a budget amp on the JBLs. Another nice sounding option would be a tube amp, but that would be in another price level and perhaps not really desirable in terms of maintenance for its intended use. It also lends itself to a somewhat round bass sound, which you don't seem to be too fond of either. I think the bottom line here is that the JBL speakers are going to be rather dry with a lot of gear and without compression (ala Onkyo) and you can't be but so picky at that price point. Another very fine sounding smaller amp is the Rega Brio, but that might be harder to find unless you live in a decent size city. You would also lose the remote funtions and headphone capability if that is an issue.
-Bill
I have tried a Stereo 70 with those speakers, and the bass control is missing. The speakers have fairly flat impedance and there are mid and treble controls, so those work OK with a tube amp. I go back to 1953 with this hobby, so I'm no stranger to tube amps. I also ran engineering labs in the 60's with all tube instrumentation and over a thousand tubes in it. I was pretty glad to see solid state come along. I have had a number of tube pieces since 1971 (when I got my first SS gear) but I really don't see what all the fuss is about. But then I didn't see what all the fuss was about when I had tubes and SS gear came out. It all really boils down to matching up the pieces to get the effect you want.The JBL's I have sound more like Advents from the midbass up through the midrange and lower treble ranges. They are definitely not your sterotypical JBL in the mold of the L-100. Terms like transparent, subtle, liquid, come to mind.
I don't think I understand your comment on compression associated with the Onkyo. Please explain.
Jerry
Jerry
Most of their receivers have a compressed sound that makes the top rolled-off and the bass punchier, which results in a "louder" perceived and "smoother" sound from sources that are not ideal. Much in the same way that tube amps can compress a signal. I think that in the case of the SS units that "shaping" may be more acurate. I don't know that that is really true of the Integra line though as the only demo that I have heard (which was a professionally set-up system to give the absolute best presentation, using special material and highly paid salesmen (spokes people even), in an acoustically optimized space) actually had me wishing the demo was over sooner rather than later. I can't say anything really positive about the experiencee, so I'll just stop there...
A lot of people find the standard Onkyo fare to be rather warm and easy to listen to and I actually can recommend it for a low budget system. So as you put it, "It all really boils down to matching up the pieces to get the effect you want." and I would say that the pieces that we are discussing should do the job at your price. You know what your speakers sound like to you in your space, so you will have to find what you feel works best. We can only help to describe some general characteristics of the amps and the specifics related to your system will have to come from you. You obviously know what you like so you should not have a difficult time finding a suitable amp.
-Bill
I understand what you're saying now about the Onkyo. I have measured the frequency and power responses, and they are very flat. They also image exceptionally well for a unit with a single power supply. Notably better than the NAD, in fact. One thing I do have against the C350, and probably the other NAD's is that the input capacitance is rather high, spec'd at over 400 pF. A lot of sources (Sony CD players, for example) hate that much capacitance. The Onkyo receiver is buffered right at the input jacks and has very low input capacitance. I think this has something to do with the smooth and non-sibilent highs. I did modify the CD input circuitry, as that alone of all the inputs had quite high input capacitance. Looks to me like the designers, in their zeal to bypass as much circuitry as possible with the CD Direct input, threw the baby out with the bathwater. Moving the pickoff point for the CD Direct signal path to after the CD input buffer, reduced the capacitance to under 30 pF, so the interconnect became the dominent source of capacitance. I use a 12", 25 pF interconnect with the Rotel, and I think it pays off. This had the effect of significantly smoothing the highs and got rid of a hard, bright edge in the CD inputs. What used to be called "glare".I really want to thank you guys for the inputs and advice you've all contributed.
Jerry
I've auditioned both of the 640 and C320BEE amps in my home and I thought the Cambridge was much better in almost every respect (clarity, musicality, features, build). I paired them with Athena F1 speakers. Let me know if you need more specifics.
Gene,Thanks for the reply. I am wondering about the highs. I borrowed a C350 from my son-in-law, and we noticed (as compared to my Onkyo Integra TX-870 receiver) that his C350 wasn't as natural sounding on the higher notes on piano and some cymbals. The initial transient seemed wrong by comparison. So that's one specific area.
Voices, particularly female, on the Onkyo seemed more natural as well, with less emphasis on sibilents. Area 2!
And finally, the C350 had tighter bass, and I'd like to not lose that if I get the Cambridge, so some specifics there would be helpful as well.
I'll be using the amp with a pair of JBL L-110 control monitors from the late 70's. It's a very smooth 10" three way system with ported bass, a 5" paper cone midrange, and a soft dome tweeter. Not at all the stereotypical JBL sound. Source will be a Rotel RCD-971 CD player. Rather warmer than a typical CD, and with a very smooth top end.
The Onkyo, JBL's, and the Rotel together have an almost ethereal quality in the mids and highs. I'd like a little more involvement than that, but not so much as the C350 gives. REally nice bass end, but a little too forward, and a little too clinical on the top end. I'm looking for a happy medium.
Jerry
I think you'll be happier with the Cambridge. When listening to piano recordings, the instrument had such great presence in the room. Clear and powerful, the bass was tight and strong (but not overly so).The C320BEE had the "dark" sound that most people notice in NADs, but I was most disappointed in their lack of musicality after reading so many reviews about how that was a major strong point.
Athenas are considered to be on the brighter side, but when paired with the Cambridge, it sounded clear and detailed, not bright at all.
Best of luck!
The phenomenon you are reporting is why many people refer to the NAD as having a somewhat 'dark' sound. It's not offensively wrong, it certainly works well on bright sounding speakers, but open and airy it's not. Given the two amps, the 640A does sound like it will be a better fit for you.However, reading what you've said about your tastes and what you hear from your speakers, an even better option might be an Arcam A75 Plus (which is substanatively better than the A75 it replaced) or A80 (which recently replaced the A75+ and sound virtually the same). It has the bottom end slam and control of the NAD, but is less veiled through the midband and highs, sound much like the Azur 640A in that respect. It's a step up from both the 350 and 640A in terms of sound quality and in price. However, I've seen used A75+ in near mint shape go for $400 used - a LOT of quality sound for the dollar.
Just my 2 cents.
Good Luck-
Gary
Jerry
I think that you can beat these for a lot less money with the right vintage amp if a remote is not essential.
David
David,I have considered that. I currently use an Onkyo receiver in the den, and it works pretty well, except for a little looseness in the low bass. Mids and highs are pretty close to my target with the JBL L-110's I use. It's better in the mids and highs than the C350, but the NAD has a clear edge in the bass.
Any suggestions?
Jerry
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
