Bronze MemberUsername: James_the_god
Doncaster, South Yorkshire England
Post Number: 80
What I cant decide on is the amplifier. Since I'll be connecting my speakers to my computer and I'll have a decent sound card, probably and Audigy 2ZS by then, i still think an amplifier would make a difference. Help me out;
- Cambridge Audio A5 for £120
- Cambridge Audio Azur 340A for £150
- NAD C320 BEE for £170
Remember im on a tight budget and i think my dad would rather spend £200 than £350 including wires for the diamond 9.1s and the C320 amp. Im sure I can put some of my own money into it, but I've got a recent obsession to make sure my next system ISN'T a surround system because they dont play music well.
I've heard the NAD is the best as it should be at the more expensive of the above listed amps, but its also the best for rock/metal which is what I listen to most of the time.
So basically...what would you advise of the speakers for me to get and which one of those amplifiers, considering the difference in price and performance (is there much difference in performance). Thanks in advance
Silver MemberUsername: Frank_abela
Post Number: 434
I know the NAD well. It has great pace and rhythm so it seems a good match for your taste in music. That £170 is a good price too for the UK.
The Wharfedales are OK. The 9.1s are far superior to the 8 series. They have a deep rich sound which is pretty enjoyable. If you can stretch to them I would investigate the B&W DM600 or possibly the DM303. I feel the B&Ws are a bit feleeter of foot than the Wharfedales, giving a bit more energy and pace to the system, which would suit your tastes better. The B&Ws are not not quite as rich sounding as the Wharfedales. The DM600 is a better balanced speaker than the DM303 with better pace and treble control. The DM303 is very good in the midrange.
The C320BEE can drive both the Wharfedales and B&Ws easily. It's a good match since the speakers are all relatively easy to drive.
My only concern is that you're going to use a computer system as your source. I know some of these can sound reasonably good, especially if you're using decent codecs such as Apple's AAC (which is what I use with my iPod), but generally speaking, you don't get as musical a result out of a computer as you do from a CD player. I only put thjis in as a word of warning. IMO it's true that most HT systems are less musical than their stereo counterparts, but computer-based sources also suffer from limitations in this regard, so set your expectations accordingly.