Like

Will this setup workout(marantz 6000KI, NAD 320BEE, Wharfedale Diamond 8.2s)

 

New member
Username: Kirkmustaine

Post Number: 4
Registered: Mar-05
Amp:NAD C320BEE
Speakers: Wharfedale Diamond 8.2
CD Player: Marantz 6000KI Signature(getting it for £115, which apparently is a very good price)
Music Preferences: Rock(Pink floyd), hard rock, and Metal(such as Metallica and Megadeth).

Will this work out for the styles i've listed?also i've heard about the diamond 8.2's not being very efficient.. and someone said i have to be sure there's enough power.


 

nout
Unregistered guest
Yes, it could be great in my opinion, that is for the amp and cd player, the speakers I never heard.
As you already know, read on this forum, NAD C320BEE is much liked by almost everyone, including me.
You may want to check out Rotel RA-02 too for your musical preference is very Rock orientated. Or do you own the NAD C320BEE already and is the Marantz CD 600KI the key question?

It's a great cd player, but partnered with NAD C320BEE it might be a bit bass-heavy with some recordings. Marantz's bass is a bit slow and fat (I like it that way) and NAD's warm character might make the bass ponderous...it depends on the speakers and room acoustics too so I guess you have to try it first.

Good luck.
 

New member
Username: Kirkmustaine

Post Number: 5
Registered: Mar-05
yeah I guess..
thanks for the help though Nout.. that system seems to be pretty much to my liking(i like the sound of the bass being slow and fat..)
here's a rough insight of the character of the diamond 8.2's:
Figure 3 (above), the plot of the Wharfedale Diamond 8.2, demonstrates another neat frequency response. However, an upper-bass to lower-mid emphasis, while not making it a bad speaker, perhaps rules out the 8.2 for monitoring duties if it likely to be positioned close to a rear wall. Speakers demonstrate an effect analogous to the proximity effect with microphones. If a speaker is positioned close to a solid boundary (for example the wall behind), its natural tendency towards omnidirectional dispersion at low frequencies and narrow dispersion at higher frequencies will mean that only lower frequencies will be reflected forward and add to the perceived output. So a speaker such as the Wharfedale that already has an emphasis below a few hundred Hertz will begin to sound tonally unbalanced. And a neutral perceived tonal balance is one of our vital criteria for a monitor. The Wharfedale also has a discontinuity in its off-axis response at 12kHz that suggests a not entirely well-behaved tweeter. Generally the 8.2's down-tilted balance would probably result in over-bright mixes.
does that mean... i'm going to have a sytem incredibly heavy in bass?
If so.. I might just consider buying the Arcam A65 Plus or The rotel-RA02 you mentioned..


 

nout
Unregistered guest
It depends on where you place your speakers. Do you have enough room to place them freely or are you forced to place them near to the wall?

Will your dealer let you try the kit at your home first?

The Rotel is less "warm" than the NAD, also a bit more upfront. Great with good recordings, not so great with poor recordings.
Bass is faster and leaner than NAD's.
Overall the NAD is the better amp in my opnion, but it all comes down to matching the right equipment so I'd check the Rotel too.

The Arcam is the smoothest amp of the three, playing at moderate levels that is, for it will distort more easily at high volume levels than the Rotel and NAD and its smoothness will be gone.
I prefer Rotel and NAD.
 

New member
Username: Kirkmustaine

Post Number: 6
Registered: Mar-05
my speakers can be placed anywhere... i'll probably experiment and put them in different places..
as for the topic of my nearest dealer... i don't really have a nearest dealer..
i don't think i'll be getting the arcam then... there'll prolly be times when i'll want to play my music quite loud.
how about the CA Azur 640A? is that worth splashing out an extra 100 quid?
 

nout
Unregistered guest
A good amp also. If you want to splash out an extra 100 quid you might have a look at the NAD C352 and Marantz PM 7200 too.

Is it worth it?
Yes and no.
The differences between all the amps mentioned aren't that big to begin with. Most likeable or unlikeable differences only come to light in direct comparison. Buying an amp blind isn't really that foolish, because all the brands (and types) mentioned do a great job and you're very likely not going to be dissapointed with any of these.
However, if it's clear what kind of sound you're looking for, those subtle differences can become bigger and more important and yes those differences can be substantial in deciding what amp you want to live with for the next years.

Cambridge Audio Azur 640 a is a great amp, but not liked by many on this forum. Check out some threads where they compare the NAD C352 with the Cambridge.
The Azur, like the Marantz PM 7200, is slightly more "neutral", NAD has its mind already set up where it seems the Marantz and Cambridge decide what to do with every single cd.
Therefore NAD doesn't surprise its listener, if you like what it does it's great.

Difference between Cambridge and Marantz? Marantz sounds more natural to my ears, Cambridge can be a bit cold and bland.
And Marantz's bass is big and meaty, which I lke.

NAD C352 is NAD C320BEE's bigger brother and there are some who think both sound identical, I heard a difference in favour of the C352: more open and dynamic, but in direct comparison.

Pick a few amps and put them on your short-list. And then listen, you probably do not agree with me anyway.
 

New member
Username: Kirkmustaine

Post Number: 7
Registered: Mar-05
lol my mind can be changed so easily..
anyways.. how would you say the NAD C320BEE compares to the marantz PM 7200's soundstage?
soundstage is my favorite part(its the 3d effect right?).
I've heard the downgrade... the PM 4400 before andremembered the soundstage being pretty good.
would you say that the PM 7200 would be Much better (in terms of bass and prescence)?
 

nout
Unregistered guest
lol my mind can be changed so easily..
sounds familiair :-) It took me a while before I made up my mind when buying an amp

When it comes to soundstage, 3D-imaging and depth, the Marantz PM 7200 is dead gorgeous. I own one

Of all the amps mentioned the PM 7200 and Cambridge Azur 640A have the best (widest and deepest) soundstage, in my opnion ofcourse.
The Rotel is the most "flat" sounding, a rather compressed soundstage (great for Rock though).

I haven't actually heard the PM 4400, so I cannot say if the PM 7200 is MUCH better.

Make a short list and let the looks guide you too, it may sound strange, but when you're in an audio shop you pretty much get an idea of what you like and don't like by simply looking at the products. Call it intuition. You have to fall in love with the product. And it doesn't mean you automatically pick the best-looking amp, if so I wouldn't have bought the Marantz, but rather the Rotel or NAD.
 

Silver Member
Username: James_the_god

Doncaster, South Yorkshire England

Post Number: 101
Registered: Jan-05
I think the NAD C320BEE is way to popular, but Im not saying it isn't good. I am probably going to end up with one. However about this 3d sound staging whats all that mean? I listen to metal and rock mostly and I was advised the best amp for me for the price i want to pay is the C320Bee. I am actually one for superb mid-range and great upper bass as apposed to most of you liking the deep bass. Deep bass is nice when I need it in certain songs but again I stress my music genres I listen to.
So would anyone here differ from having the NAD C320BEE with a set diamond 9.1s for great mid-range and upper bass which the music i listen to being rock and metal. My music source will be computer based, using an dedicated soundcard, probably an m-audio audiophile 2496.
Also whats this 'speaker break-in' thing where after about 50 hours of playback they suddenly become better due to the voice coils becoming warmed up or something?
 

nout
Unregistered guest
If you like a strong upper-bass the NAD is a good choice, so is the Rotel, although it's a bit leaner.
Marantz has a good upper-bass too, but with less punch and speed than the NAD's and Rotel's.
You could say the Marantz lacks some drive.
All this in direct comparison for I don't miss a tiny bit drive and punch with my Marantz.

However about this 3d sound staging whats all that mean?

How the music is placed in your listening room, the width and depth of the soundstage.
If the guitar, drumms and singer are all placed closely together you have a narrow, flat soundstage, if each of them has its own space to breath, left, right, behind the speakers and upfront you have a 3D soundstage.
Depth means the image behind the speakers, behind the vocalist (which is mostly upfront) or lead guitarist (it differs with each recording)
Width: the image range from the left speaker to the right speaker and beyond that. (pardon my poor English...pffff...tougher to explain for a Dutchman than I thought)
A good soundstage is comletely freed from the speakers, it stands freely on its own in the room, the speakers you'll only notice when you look at them, you don't hear them (if the recording allows it however)

Speaker break-in?
I cannot help you with this question, because I don't really believe in break-in of any kind.
"Getting used to", that's something I believe in.
 

New member
Username: Kirkmustaine

Post Number: 8
Registered: Mar-05
after a bit more research about the PM7200.. how would you say it handles fairly fast rocky stuff?(thrash metal and all that) Would it be fairly dynamic and responsive..?
I've heard the the PM4400.. and loved that sound, but my friend was playing indie, and bob dylan and stuff.
I'm getting the feeling it may not handle stuff like metallica very well.. It may add atmosphere, but it might lose its heavy guitars...
How do you think it'll handle that sorta music?
 

nout
Unregistered guest
To be honest: with some records a flatter sound would be greater, but it are only a few of them (some Sonic Youth records), but I'm beginning to like it: it's kinda like listening to a live performance.
Rotel works great here, although it emphasizes the midds and highs too much, harsh sounding records can sound a bit aggressive. NAD would be the best I guess.
Rotel and NAD sound more dry than Marantz, to my ears it can become fatiguing, especially in the bass.

I listen to all kinds of music including a lot of classical and with classical a flat and too dry soundstage is horrible...I love my Marantz.

Go out and audition a few of them, take with you some of your favorite records and blast some Metalica! Or maybe the salesman will let you take a few demo models home.
 

New member
Username: Kirkmustaine

Post Number: 9
Registered: Mar-05
the problem is..i can't demo out stuff.. my nearest dealer is about 70 miles away..and i don't have enough time to visit them(its richer sounds).
i have to rely on opinion basically...
so would you say that the marantz 7200 is pretty good at handling heavy music... well maybe stuff like velvet revolver and bon jovi? like would it be able to hold it's pace and drums and all that, or would the NAD be more articulate and clearer.
 

nout
Unregistered guest
Oh boy, you leave the decision to me?

What are you used to listen at, I mean what kinda set?
And what are you particuarly looking for?
In your previous posts you mention a 3D soundstage, but not too much. You like a big, slow bass, do you really?

One thing is clear: you like Rock. But how do you like your Rock?
Flat? Upfront?
When you're going to a live concert, do you like the sound? Do you like hard hitting drumms, shrill noises? How much treble can you stand? I mean a concert finally comes to an end, would you go for another round...and another...how much does your hearing tolerate?
Some people complaint about a tiny bit of harshness in the sound and will look for a set which treble is smooth or rolled-off, while others are looking for excitement and do not mind aggressive sounds at times.
When listening to the set you have right now, what do you like and dislike in its sound?

The Rotel is the most upfront, exciting amp. Midds are clean and forward, highs are without a compromise. Guitars will be right in your face, James Hetfield will breath in your neck with a s@tanic smile on his face, no doubt about it. The bass is lean, fast and dry.
If your hearing isn't that sensitive and can tolerate much, this is your amp.

The NAD is a bit more laidback and warmer in its midds. You'll get the same amount of detail, but it's not thrown in your face.
It's soundstage is bigger and wider. Bass is beefier.
It's dynamic range (from a soft tone to a loud one, from silence to noise) is amazing. This amp beats every other amp in its pricerange when it comes to dynamics.

Marantz PM 7200.
Same amount of detail as the NAD with more presence
It's midds are very sweet sounding, but not soft and dull.
As said: best 3D soundstage (in my opinion ofcourse), big meaty bass. Greater dynamics than Rotel, not as fast etc etc (I'm repeating myself)
The Marantz is definitely the smoothest sounding amp, although It lacks some drive, the NAD and Rotel do have.

It's up to you. (I'm not an audio Guru) How about taking a day off for going to Richer Sounds and listen all day?.
 

bumblebee
Unregistered guest
i have the NAD c320bee and diamond 9.1s. sounds great for me :-)

the differences between the amps mentioned is nothing like night and day :-) IMHO, you can't go wrong w/ any of the choices.

but let me suggest you get the NAD. 50 watts RMS for 8/4 ohms is a lot of power for me :-) also, you may want to get the newer diamonds. now, that's a night and day difference in build quality :-)

as for break in, for me, speakers (being mechanical) benefit from it. whether the sound improves or not.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 39
Registered: Mar-05
Nice amp and CD player, but in my opinion the weak link is your speakers. The Diamond 8.2 is not terrible but just not in the same league as your other components.
 

New member
Username: Kirkmustaine

Post Number: 10
Registered: Mar-05
yeah nout your right..
Thanks alot for you help and everything though.. at least you've got me choosing between NAD and Marantz.
As for getting new speakers.. i've heard alot about the diamond 8.2's just being the same as 9.1 but just different shaped.. and maybe very slightly better bass response..
 

Bronze Member
Username: Kirkmustaine

Post Number: 11
Registered: Mar-05
I'm still not sure what the characteristics of the Rotel are now..
are you describing it as though it has alot of clairty.. or soundstage...?
 

nout
Unregistered guest
The Rotel has a lot of clarity and presence due to its upfront midds and highs, but its soundstage isn't that 3 dimensional as NAD and especially Marantz.
Its sounstage is somwhat flat, only left, right and something in between, but nothing beyond (and behind that).
You'll get a wall of sound, instead of a soundscape.

As said before: for Rock it can be excellent, and as said before: it can be unforgiving with poor records.

And I agree with Bumblebee: the differences between the amps mentioned is nothing like night and day IMHO, you can't go wrong w/ any of the choices.

Only when you make a direct comparison you'll notice the differences...but a small difference for one person can be a big difference for another...
I would have been happy with every amp mentioned, only I did it the hard way by comparing and comparing. In the end it paid off, for I know I'm happier now than I would've been with, especially, the Rotel. I could have lived with its somewhat upfront sound though, not knowing better, probably used its tone controls at times (treble turned to the left) and thinking by myself: what a glorious amp this is.

So you have two truths:
the differences aren't night and day
the differences can be (and probably are) substantial.

Pick one.
 

NewUser
Unregistered guest
hey people...

a beautifully constructed discusion if i can put it that way :-)
I have personally zeroed in on the NAD C320BEE...
now comes my next problem...
what set of speakers go best with this.. ??
i do listen to a variety ( if u can call it that ! )... rock, classic rock, harmony, definately not heavy metal... though Jimi does just fine... a bit of trance ( but i would not consider that in choosing my speakers ) musiz from the 60's is a definate yes... also Rap and regga would also be in my consideration :-)

lets hear a few suggestions on that count pls.:-)

the idea being what goes best with this amp..:-)

cheers !
NewUser in the world of Amps.
 

dafid
Unregistered guest
hello everybody

i just bought the nad c320 bee amp and c521 bee cdp as a second setup.
for the money they are sounding verry well.
(tip:remove the bars between pre and power amp and use a pair of desent interconnect rca cables this wil sound a lot better than the iron ? bars)
i hooked them up with mission m71i speakers and qed silver anniversary ls cable but in my opinion they stay behind in quality.
would the wharfdale diamond 9.1 's be a better option?

daffy
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Shop Related Deals

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us