|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
63.124.17.243
In Reply to: Cambridge Azur 640 Vs NAD posted by Bold Eagle on December 17, 2004 at 18:59:59:
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
Follow Ups:
Bill,Note my response to Gene. Sounds like the 640A might be what I'm looking for.
Thanks for the prompt reply.
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
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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: