Nad c542, Nad c350, Kef Q5......but very weak bass!
|
Unregistered guest | Hi there, I've enjoyed reading your posts and now I have a question for you guys. I've just bought a new integrated amplifier and cd player. I got the Nad c350 used but mint on eBay and plumped for the c542 cdp brand new as it got some stonking reviews and I particularly liked the fact it was supposed to handle the lower registers better. Well I'm disappointed! I've got Kef Q5 speakers and I find the system really weak on the bass front now. Anybody got any ideas and if there's some incompatibility along the line somewhere, can you recommend the cheapest item to replace to restore full and deep bass to my system? I'm gutted! For your information, I'm using Cambridge Audio Studio Reference interconnects and Gale bi-wire XL 315-2. Many thanks. |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 384 Registered: Dec-03 | Kef quotes 39 Hz for -3 dB roll-off. That's pretty good bass extension. Weak bass is unlikely to result from amp or CD player. You could try an active sub, connecting it at speaker level between the amp and the speakers. I have a Gale 3080W for home cinema and it is fine. Any active sub with an adjustable crossover can be tuned to give the bass your speakers can't. |
|
Unregistered guest | Hi John. When I'm listening to the tuner and tape sources I get reasonable bass but the cdp is noticeably less. This is at low volumes by the way. Would a different cdp give me more clout? I thought the Nad c542 was supposed to be good in the low frequency department. Or is it that my C350 amp just isn't pumping-out good bass at low volumes? The fact my tape and tuner sources are ok in this respect makes me think it must be the cdp! I realise though that radio stations twiddle with the EQ before they broadcast so that could account for the increased bass on radio frequencies. Doesn't explain the tape though! (Yamaha KX393) |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 387 Registered: Dec-03 | Sun King, I am stuck for ideas. I would think the C542 and C350 have a fairly flat frequency response, and so do the Q5s. They are "neutral". And 39 Hz is low, it would shake the floor if you played an action-movie DVD soundtrack. So, yes, I would look for increased bass on your tape and tuner sources as a possible explanation. An awful lot depends on what you are playing, of course. It can be difficult make comparisons by listening to exactly the same thing on tuner, tape and CD, but that's what you have to do to be sure. Some amps have a "loudness" switch, which racks up the bass and treble at low volumes, to compensate for the fact that the ear is less sensitive there than to the middle range. I don't know if the C350 has that. You can be sure, too, the cables and interconnects have nothing to do with it. |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkHighlands Ranch, CO USA Post Number: 425 Registered: Dec-03 | Sun King: Since you are getting good bass extension from tape or tuner sources, that would suggest either the cd player or the interconnects is having a problem. I would try a pair of another brand of interconnects to see if that makes a difference before suspecting the cd player. However, before I did that, you may find that there is no problem at all. Typically, radio stations boost their low end thus giving more bass information which would compensate for the low volume. Some tape deck manufacturers do the same thing with their tape decks since it is well known most tapes are recorded for use in automobiles. I do not know the C350, but if you are only having this problem at low volumes, you should engage the "Loudness" circuit (assuming it has one) when listening at low volumes. The human ear is not as sensitive to either end of the frequency range, hence a good loudness circuit compensates by boosting those frequencies so that it appears flat and extended to your ears. Try this before resorting to any changes to your system. I think the NAD brand of integrated amps are simply awesome (nothing but stellar reviews), especially for the price, and I have seen nothing but great reviews on that CD player. Nice speakers, too, so I would be rather surprised if it is a component problem. I suggest the interconnects as some brands of interconnects (I have no experience with your Cambridge Audio interconnects) simply do not transfer the bass information as well as others. I cannot tell you why, but I have attended demos where I could hear a problem with the bass and it was solved by changing the brand of interconnect cables, hence my recommendation. Good luck! |
|
Unregistered guest | Thanks John and Hawk for your views. The c350 amp doesn't have a loudness function, it's frowned upon over here in the UK as being "non-audiophile" but I can only say that at low volumes it is a good feature to have. Only the Japanese amps (low to mid-end) seem to carry this feature nowadays but I presume receivers and AV systems still have it. If I'm permanently listening at low volumes then maybe I'd be better obtaining an amp with the loudness function. Shame though because I like the Nad sound, it's just weak on the lower frequencies when coupled with the c542 cdp. I've tried swapping the interconnects but I noticed no improvement in bass. Would my wooden flooring have anything to do with it? Could it possibly be robbing my system of bass? This wouldn't explain why the other sources seem ok but maybe it isn't helping matters! |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 396 Registered: Dec-03 | Sun King, The flooring cannot explain tht difference between sources - can it? I agree completely with Hawk, except I doubt that interconnects make any difference. The "loudness" control is for when you are not listening, really: "late-night" listening or whatever: the UK has it right. It's like dynamic range compression in DVD players; people can't seriously want to do that!. Glad Hawk thought of "loudness", too. |
|
Unregistered guest | Hi I happened to find your massage and I think that I have a very similar stereo set up. My set is NAD C541 CD Player NAD C350 amplifier and Sonus Faber Concertino's speakers. I also have Marantz DV 4200 DVD Player. Before I added the NAD C541 CD player I had Marantz 63 SE CD player. The change from the Marantz CD player to the NAD C541 was very remarkable the sound became soft, more listenable and fluid but the bass was changed. It was not a shortage of bass but a matter of definition of the bass. The NAD C541 has a different bass character. I felt it mainly in the piano lower notes that were less firm and authoritative. The NAD C541 CD player has some"softer" or "mild" bass. After few weeks of listening I decided that I like much more the NAD C541 although it has some limitations with its bass. When I use the Marantz DV 4200 DVD I get again the Marantz full body bass but I usually prefer the NAD C541 CD player. It is also possible to adjust the bass by moving the speakers closer to the wall. My Sonus Faber Concertino's are very good speakers but I located them in a very big room and they do not feel the room. I want to change them to KEF Q5 or the new KEF Q4 or to Monitor Audio S6 I would like to have your impression from your stereo set. I listen mainly to classical music. |
|
New member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 5 Registered: Mar-04 | Asimo, Having moved my speakers a little and listened to my system A LOT (!) I have come to the same conclusion you have, ie that the NAD bass is "different" - not lacking. I do love the Kef Q5 speakers, they have excellent mid and treble definition. I haven't heard such a detailed output from any speaker remotely near the price of the Kefs. Sure you can get more defined bass but the Q5's treble and midrange MORE than makes up for any slight in that department. The bass is good and goes deep to 39htz but it isn't as delicious as the other frequencies. Which speaker is perfect though? I tested the Q3 against the Q4 & the Q5 and to be honest I wasn't that impressed by the Q4 at all. It's physically slight and the bass was quiet. I preferred the older Q3 which although 'only' a 2-way as opposed to the 3-way of the Q4, sounded much better and "out of the box" - however I found that the Q5 was like a bigger, better Q3. I think mine must be pretty much worn-in now and the sound is delicious. I did a lot of homework on speakers but in the end everyone is different. I didn't like the equivalent priced Missions or Wharfedales anywhere near as much. If you listen to classical music a lot then I think the Kefs would be a marvellous addition to your system. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Lockaudio801Post Number: 53 Registered: Apr-04 | Sun King Maybe you're problem can be easily solved by trying out new speaker cables which may meet the perfect interface between your speaker and amplifier. Digital sources nowadays are very demanding for any amp good interconnect cables can thus also help in your quest for a more balanced sound from your Kefs.If NAD has an outstanding quality it's not being bass shy on any speaker with or without the loudness button. Experiment and try to tweak on the weakest link of your system which in this case are your interconnects and speaker cables. |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 623 Registered: Dec-03 | Sun King, Brief points. Speakers don't wear out. Components can fail, but they can always be replaced. The chance of it having anything to do with cables is almost zero, in my estimation, unless the ones you have are unusually long and/or thin AND you changed to them at the same time you changed the speakers. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Lockaudio801Post Number: 57 Registered: Apr-04 | John A, What if they were? As you say long or thin or simply worn out. Please never count out possibilities without facts on hand to disprove it.  |
|
Bronze Member Username: Lockaudio801Post Number: 58 Registered: Apr-04 | John A, Everything in this world is temporal including speakers.Speakers can also fail,do you feel speaker wires and interconnects are infallible so we need not be concerned about em`? |
|
Unregistered guest | Sun King and others Thanks for the immediate reply and KEF Q5 recommendation I have found this forum to be very helpful and knowledgeable. I have another issue about NAD product that I sent to another audio forum but without any serious response This refers to another listening site in my working room. The NAD C541 and Marantz DV 4200 are interchangeable between the two listening rooms NAD new Vs old I have a 12 years old NAD Monitor 7000 receiver that served me all the years very well. This model has excellent tuner and Phono input. During these years I upgraded CD Players, speakers, threw away my turntable and my vinyl records, connected my stereo to my computer but did not touch the NAD 7000. Some attempts to replace it with more Hi-end amplifiers just failed because while comparing it side by side I did not find a real sound improvement or other justifications to replace it. The last rival was a NAD C350 amplifier that I have in another room for DVD stereo watching. I replaced my NAD 7000 with the NAD C350 and listen to it carefully for few days. There was some refinement in the high and little more accurate and stronger bass but as a whole I still liked the sound of my NAD 7000 receiver better. Now I want to check the new NAD C320BEE which received much praise but I do not know if it worth the efforts. My stereo gear: NAD Monitor 7000 receiver /NAD C350 amplifier NAD C541 CD Player Mission 751f Speakers S.B Creative Extigy sound card My listening site is a small working room so I do not need much volume. I listen mainly to classical and some jazz music. Is it possible that some this old NAD amplifiers surpass or even better than the new ones or may be they had a little different sound more appealing to some classical music listeners? |
|
New member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 10 Registered: Mar-04 | Asimo, I've heard it levelled at Nad before, that their earlier amps (particularly the 3020) had a nicer sound. Times change and lots of products "used to be better" or so we care to remember of the good old days! I've not listened to the Nad Monitor 7000 so I can't comment on the difference in sound quality between that and the C350. I used to own the C350 though but replaced it with the C370. I found that the smaller amp had a nicer top end but that the C370 a fuller bass. Basically I'd have been happier with a hybrid of the two! So I guess what I'm saying is that all "budget" amps have some kind of shortcoming, it's just a matter of finding the one you feel most comfortable with and that your wallet can cope with. In my humble opinion the C350 sounds better than the C320BEE. It is a more sophisticated amp. The C320BEE is a lovely sounding amplifier, don't get me wrong, but it is NOT an improvement on the C350. It is the entry level NAD integrated and works great but I don't think you'd benefit from the purchase. I've seen it written on this forum that it is "more musical" than the C350 & C370 but that is a comment that is surely open to interpretation. I would suggest you listen to one at your local dealer if you're curious but it has the 'NAD' sound and that is one you're familiar with already....but it isn't as sophisticated as the C350. I've read reviews that state it has been especially designed to run budget bookshelf speakers and thus the mid-bass has been coloured a little to help those speakers out! Upon listening, I would agree that maybe this makes it sound "more musical" - ie you are hearing a fuller sound (especially at low listening levels) but it is possibly a tad manufactured. I think the C350 plays exactly what's on the disc. It's interesting that you prefer the older 7000 and it's my view that you would still feel this way were it to be put against the C320BEE. Maybe you should send it to a good repairer and have it lovingly serviced, thus affording you many more years of happy listening? |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 657 Registered: Dec-03 | asimo, Warning: extreme view. Nothing has changed that makes amps sound different. More and different inputs, yes; more features, yes; maybe materials cheaper in relative terms. But for a good 1992 receiver (that is recent) to sound at least equal to the latest from the same maker is no surprise at all. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 11 Registered: Mar-04 | Asimo, I forgot to add that maybe if you bought the Kef Q5's and paired them with your C350, the sound would be more to your liking. I've heard modern Nad amplification lacking a certain sparkle when played through wrongly matched speakers. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 12 Registered: Mar-04 | John A, I would disagree with your comment. Amplification hasn't changed as much over the years as CD players and the like but I defy you to not notice a difference in sound between a Nad 3020 and one of the more current crop for example! How do you explain the difference in sound between a $100 amp and one costing several thousand if amplifiers are so similar? |
|
Bronze Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 13 Registered: Mar-04 | John A, Asimo was making the point that his older Nad amp sounds BETTER than his new one. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Lockaudio801Post Number: 94 Registered: Apr-04 | Asimo Often familiarity breeds contempt. You definitely may feel the older models sounds better and disputing that would be folly. However longer listening sessions on the newer ones will open your horizon to greater heights more so with today's digital technology. The most important thing is that it is your radars in between your brain who will decide which is which. Either way you win because you have the best of both worlds in your possesion. Many would be reviewers give their opinions based on borrowed or loaned components without personally owning them. Since you have it with you make the most of listening to both systems in your evaluations. Using them on different digital formats such as SACD and DVD would also help. |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 658 Registered: Dec-03 | Sun King, Thanks. Yes, I think I got that Asimo's point. My only point, really, in reply, is that Asimo should not be surprised if his older amp sounds better. The explanation could be a number of things, as discussed above, and my first choice would be speaker matching. But electromagentic speakers have not changed, in any fundamental way, for a very long time, either. What have changed are people's priorities and preferences. "Newer = better" is not true as a general rule you can apply to specific cases like amps. I have not heard the NAD 3020 or the C 350/350BEE, so cannot comment. I am happy to accept your judgement, there. "I think the C350 plays exactly what's on the disc" is a very strong recommendation. Except to say it can only do that if the player reaches the same standard. But we can also point to cases where "Newer = worse". Sometimes the whole mass market can be taken in, and take a retrograde step for sound quality alone, as we all did with CD. That's another issue. But the last twelve years is a relatively short time, in which nothing really important has happened, in general, to amps, stereo receivers, speakers, radio tuners, or analogue sources such as tape and LP. There may be special cases where a maker has improved things somehow. NAD stereo amps may be one, I don't know. "More expensive = better" is another topic. We should always be sceptical there, too, and not assume we will automatically get something better just by spending more. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 14 Registered: Mar-04 | John A, You make a very valid point regarding the source, of course my statement that the C350 "plays exactly what's on the disc" does depend most definitely on a good source and decent speakers. I just meant that when I listened to it there was no coloraton of sound, the bass and treble etc were exactly how they sounded in the mix when listened through reference equipment.That couldn't be said wholeheartedly about the C320BEE.Certain amplification DOES alter the mix. I did find the C350 lacking in bass at low volumes though and in that regard my statement falls short. |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 668 Registered: Dec-03 | Sun King, Thanks. I also agree with lorenzo, if I understand correctly, that the new high resolution formats present more stringent tests than CD performance. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 15 Registered: Mar-04 | John A, At the moment I have no experience of either SACD or DVD-A so I can't comment. I'm watching developments though and will move into one or the other at some point! |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 676 Registered: Dec-03 | Sun King, I am currently in evangelism mode on DVD-Audio, with the fervour of the recent convert. I will not hi-jack this thread, but you might be interested in the new "Home Audio" topic on this forum "DVD-Audio & SACD". One of my eulogies is here: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/16437.html End of digression! |
|
Bronze Member Username: SoccerPost Number: 36 Registered: Apr-04 | One word: Rotel! Enjoy! |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics