B&K Reference 125

 

New member
Username: Clarence_y

Illinois USA

Post Number: 9
Registered: Apr-06
Thought I had it narrowed down to either NAD or Rotel power/pre combo to drive a pair of Paradigm Studio 100s but then my dealer is going to throw another option my way. He has also suggested I listen to a B&K power/pre combo with these speakers. The B&K power amp he has suggested is the Reference 125. I haven't had a chance to give them my ear yet but was wondering if anyone else out there had any ideas as to whether this combo would compliment the Studios or not. I'm not familiar with the B&K equipment but he considers them a step up from NAD/Rotel.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8377
Registered: May-04


Your dealer's correct.
 

Gold Member
Username: Stu_pitt

Irvington, New York USA

Post Number: 1238
Registered: May-05
I don't think B&K gets mentioned enough around here, nor do they get enough press. They're a well made (in Buffalo, NY) and good sounding product. How much of a step up, sound quality wise, is somewhat subjective and listener dependent. I think they're definately worth a listen and consideration.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Divin11112000

Michigan

Post Number: 75
Registered: Dec-04
I don't know if i'm hijacking a thread or not, hope not.

Will the B&K go well with Klipsch reference series (35 models to be exact)?

The dealer that I go to doesn't carry B&K so of course he wouldn't suggest it. He's directing me towards the Rotel 1075 (which they carry). They only carry Classe (outta my price range) and rotel so the choice at that location is only rotel.

Oh and my pre would be a Pioneer vxs-d811s until I can save money to get something better.

thanks
and sorry if this was a hijack.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8393
Registered: May-04


The BK will drive the Klipsch with no problems. The sound of the amp is rather smooth and warm while many Klipsch owners prefer something with a bit more pizzazz such as the Rotel.


 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 2382
Registered: Dec-04
A good step up from a potato,amp wise.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 163
Registered: Mar-04
Jan, what is it about the B&K power amp that makes it superior to the NAD. I ask this because I was debating between the B&K 125.2 and the NAD c272. I went with the NAD primarily based upon cost, though part of me likes the B&K simply because it is made in the U.S.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8397
Registered: May-04


Like most things in consumer audio, it is an impression based upon personal preference. If I knew how to come to a conclusion regarding sound quality or even build quality that everyone would agree with, I'd be quite rich by now.


That said, let's begin with the relative position of both companies in the market. NAD has, for decades, been the starting point for what most people would consider musical amplifiers. The market progresses from where NAD exists. In the early 1980's, a few years after NAD's emergence in the market, both B&K and Adcom entered as viable, though sonically different, alternatives to the listener ready to move up from their NAD 3020. I don't think that pecking order has changed much in the last two decades though all three companies have progressively moved their products upscale.


I've not seen the top of the NAD line but the B&K and the Adcom line have always been built with less of a mass market approach to design and marketing. The focus of B&K and Adcom has been mostly on separate components and a few higher end receivers dedicated to HT use. They do not compete with Yamaha and Denon. If you look inside the more expensive amplifiers from all three companies, I am going to assume you will still find a better design and construction quality in the B&K and Adcom lines. Power supplies are better built and more substantial, circuit layouts are typically cleaner and of better quality and construction uses higher quality components. I realize these are generalizations and the argument could be made in either direction when no proof is required. There is also the possibility that anyone looking at the three lines would conclude the difference in a few capacitors and binding posts isn't going to make a sonic difference.


If that's the case, then I would say the difference in the lines is the amount of merchandise each company sells, who they sell it through and the repair/longevity of each company now and through their history. NAD is, by high end audio standards, a somewhat mass market company where products are designed and farmed out to the lowest bidder (within relative quality concerns) for construction. Designing a product for this sort of large scale production is almost always different than designing for lower production scale and having products built, as much as possible, in house. I hate to be the naysayer here, but the repeated problems of the NAD line reported on the forum seem to indicate over the last decade NAD has lost some of its value to many people as its sales numbers have crept upward. B&K and Adcom, by retaining small scale production techniques, would seem to represent the more reliable and longer lived products over their history. I would guess it would be too obvious to suggest quality control should be higher when production levels drop. (And the argument can easily be deflated by considering a Honda or Toyota product over a comparable Pontiac; though quality of design must be taken into consideration in that comparison.) The long term value of both B&K and Adcom products seem to reflect better return on your investment when re-sale is considered. Partially this can be tied to the longevity, and reliability, of the B&K and Adcom products. Any one product in these two lines tends to stay in production for many years while NAD succumbs to new models being introduced with a more regular cycle, much like the mass market companies. Does this mean the B&K amp which has been in the line for five years will sound better or worse than a brand new NAD? I can't speak for anyone other than myself. But, as someone who has never quite found the NAD magic and always felt the B&K gear represents excellent sound for the dollar, I would have to admit to considering a B&K product for long term listening with far more seriousness than I would a NAD. Someone else might decide otherwise. There are many aspects of a products quality and desireability which go into making a buying decision.


Now, I admit to having a NAD product in my HT system. Why? Because HT is not that important to me. It is of great enough value that I didn't consider a Yamaha or a Denon, but not so much that I thought of investing in the higher priced B&K. However, if we were talking about my two channel system, and the McIntosh amplifiers had to go, I would easily consider replacing them with a B&K product.


 

Bronze Member
Username: Clarence_y

Illinois USA

Post Number: 11
Registered: Apr-06
Jan - Thanks for your informative post. I haven't yet put my ear to the B&K 125.2 but I soon will be.

My dealer has both the NAD 162/272 combo (which I had already auditioned in conjunction with the NAD C542 cdp) as well as carrying the 125.2 so a comparison should be easy with the Studio 100s that I have been looking at to go with whatever amp/preamp combo I eventually decide upon.

The NAD 162 preamp has a phono section but the B&K preamp does not so if I go that route I'll need to pair the B&K up with phono capabilities because I still want to spin some LPs. May also have to examine some other CDPs because I'm not sure how the NAD C542 would pair up with the B&K.

Thanks again for the info. The search goes on.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 164
Registered: Mar-04
thanks jan, and clarence I hope to hear your impressions on the b&K as it compares to the nad.
« Previous Thread Next Thread »



Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us