Im looking for a stereo amp in the u.s that could be as good as a nad c32bee. im returning to the uk in sept but the exchange rate at the mo is insane for the price of the 180 pounds for the nad i could buy a $300+ amp in the u.s and bring it over with me and use a step down transformer to power it. so any1 got a recommendation?
no and deff not for a reaonable price so im looking for an alternative brand that would be shipped to the u.s maybe does denon make anything as good? ive found something for around 250 thats a denon dra 295 50wpc any good?
Im as confused as Varney...there are many posts about NAD equipment of which most must be from from the US since most on this forum are from that part of the world (at least so the authors claim in their respective profiles, I couldnt imagine anyone wanting to make that part up )
well ive not been able to find any in rochester ny thats not to say i suppose they arnt in the u.s but alot of the places ive been to only know of them not have any of thier kit. o well i picked up a denon dra295 and a pair of mission c32's today a nice mix for a small room. id prefer a nad ill prolly buy a good one when ive got my degree and some more cash coming in
wallingwl
Unregistered guest
Posted on
how much is a orion 2100 HCCA competition amplifier worth?
wallingwl
Unregistered guest
Posted on
how much is a orion 2100 HCCA competition amplifier worth?
i OWN an older NAD reciever and am totally unimpressed with it's sound. to my ears, the NAD sounds overly polite to the point of being muffled in the treble, especially with soft dome tweeters. it sounds very similar to sony recievers to me.
i immediately heard my NHT superzeros open up in the treble and image much better with a 55wpc surround reciever by onkyo. i prefer the treble and imaging of the japanese surround reciever over a dedicated "high end" stereo reciever.
the onkyo is too bright with my already bright mission m71s though.
denon has a reputation of being a little bright too, but the brand usually has excellent specs for japanese consumer hifi.
the one downside of virtually EVERY affordable reciever is that they'll self destruct if they drive 4 ohm speakers hard. NAD is probably the only affordable reciever manufacturer that can handle 4 ohm loads safely.
to my ears, NAD is seriously overrated unless you're a bass junkie. i'm a treble junkie and nht just can't cut it with soft dome tweeters to me.
Regarding the thread actual topic of the thread, my questions is are you looking for an integrated amp or just a regular amp? The pickins are slim in this price range for an American co amp. Try audiogon for used stuff. I've seem some great deals on amps there.
NAD goes for the warm sound. Unfortunately, imo, they get there by taking something off the highs. Hence, the illusion of more bass. Still, I like NAD. They are cheaper than Rotel and some other brands.
From reading the archives, I wonder if a guy names Hawk posts here anymore. Everytime someone asked for a recommendation, he recommended NAD. So much so that he seemed like a NAD mole. He would post links to NADs on sale (although in many cases, I'm sure this was helpful to people). I don't have anything against him but geez, when you recommend something at least tell people to try and listen to the gear for themselves.
The scientists will tell you that people cannot recognize the differences of low to mid fi receivers in double blind testing. I dunno. I tried a NAD and a Onkyo and found the Onkyo bright.
yes, onkyo is CLEARLY brighter than nad. the difference is like night and day. the extra treble extension is just the ticket for my slightly warmish superzeros, but is very fatiguing with my missions. i imagine onkyo would sound really dry with metal domes.
alot of it comes down to personal preferences and equipment matching.
anyone who would claim that all midfi sounds the same must be deaf! when you power match various recievers with flat eq and listen to them side by side, you CAN hear differences.
many years ago, i listened to every brand reciever that a local dealer had. sony was clear the most muffled in the treble. jvc was more open than that. yamaha was still more open and harmon kardon had the most treble speed and extension by a small margin.
many swear by nad including stereophile, but i'd take "brighter" rotel over it any day.
if i was using my shouty missions, i'd chose to mellow them out with nad though.
i don't trust nad reliability either. the local store that used to carry it dropped it in favor of marantz claiming reliability issues and my nad reciever's led display has continued to lose lights since i've owned mine.
even rated at only 20 watts (50 watts real world w/headroom), the nad sure can rattle the walls with my 12" 93dB sub though.
if you're a treble freak, avoid nad unless you have super extended tweeters to match it to. if you prefer warmish tube type sound, then nad might just be the ticket for you.
whenever your read ANY equipment reviews, note the age of the reviewer. as we age, we all lose treble sensitivity. sam tellig from stereophile has admitted that he can't hear treble for crap. why is he reviewing equipment then?
Personal stories and b/s from dealers are not what should determine if a product is reliable. Failure rate (as in real statistics) should be. However, this date seems hard to gather as I never see it nor have I found it. I'm not defending NAD btw. NAD is okay. Too hyped in the British press however.
)