The M3 has begun shipping to stores, but to find out who the Master's Series dealer in your area is you may have to call NAD. I hade the opportunity to audition a pre production M3 for about a week and it was far better than anything else I'd heard in it's price class.
I just heard it earlier today. I hate to say it, but I was really unimpressed.
A dealer that I have a great relationship with allowed me to play with it for about 2 hours. I threw a bunch of different speakers and cd players at it and couldn't get it to impress me in the least bit. Sonus Faber, Vienna Acoustics, and Martin Logan speakers. McIntosh and Linn CD players.
It honestly didn't have any good qualities to my ears. It didn't do anything wrong per se, but it didn't do anything great either. It wasn't very detailed or transparent, yet not veiled or overly colored either. It wasn't very strong in any of the low mid or highs areas, but wasn't exactly lacking either. I guess I'd say it was an ordinary integrated amp. I honestly don't have any desire to own it.
For a few dollars more, you could get a McIntosh MA6500 -$3500 retail, but can go for about $3100. At the M3 price, their is so much better out their to my ears. To be totally honest, I liked the Naim Nait 5i a lot more, and it's about half the price - $1450. While the NAD has more power and features, to my ears it doesn't sound as good as the Nait.
My advice is to hear the M3 for yourself. Hopefully you'll be more impressed than I was.
interesting indeed. always good to hear you can do better for significantly less money.(unless you just bought the amp)
i really wish though that more amps, especially smaller amps like the nait, had the high pass filter the nad offers. i dont know of any other analogue 2-channel amps that have this feature? dont know if i'd use it if i had all the power of the nad on tap, but for smaller amps it would allow them to be partnered with more difficult speaker loads.
Thanks for your opinion Stu. I had a chance this past week to finally hear the M3 as well. I compared it to the Krell 400xi. I have to agree that it was not all that special. A step up from the C272/C162 for sure, but for $2800? It posessed similar qualities as their other gear, but cleaner sound. The krell was more detailed,extended and transparent in the trebble, but I felt that the NAD had more natural and ballanced bass. The NAD was less transparent across the board and somewhat "opaque"? It was less fatiguing though. Overall, I thought it was good but not worth the list price.
Bill - That's exactly what I thought. What speakers did you use? I listened through Sonus Faber Cremona Auditors, Grand Piano Domus, Vienna Mozart Baby Grand, and I can't remember which ML. The ML's were only for a few minutes though. In addition to the Krell 400xi, I also heard it next to the McIntosh MA6500. Their was no comparison with the Mac. Not much really does compare with McIntosh IMO, so that may not be too fair, but the Mac can be had for about $300 more. If someone is paying $2800 for an integrated, they can most likely afford an extra $300.
Hi Stu, I listened through Dali Ikon 6's since that is what I have at home. How would you describe the difference between the Mac and the other two amps?
I think the Mac wipes the floor with anything out their near it's price. I'm not very good with describing sonic differences, and everyone looks for and hears things differently. In another thread we talked about musicality. To me Mac is the epitomy of it.
Also, nothing is built like a Mac. They're hand made in Binghamton, NY using as many in-house built and designed internal components as humanly possible. Their long term support is impeccible, and they hold their value better than just about anything in audio. If you had a 40 year old Mac piece, you could send it to the factory today and have them bring it back up to the original specs for a decent fee; it's not cheap or outrageous. Most other companies will tell you to buy a new one or even deny that they made the product. The Mac design and tech people love their products and want to keep them around for as long as possible.
If I had the money, I'd buy McIntosh without any hesitation. Some may argue that their is better sounding stuff out their, but that'll always happen. For the money, I don't think their is anything that sounds as good, or built anywhere close to it.
Just my opinions though. If you haven't heard a Mac, you really should at you earliest convenience.
Thanks Stu. I've only heard a couple of the Mac tube amps, which would be my ultimate choice should I ever win the lottery. It sounds like thier solid state amps are stand-outs as well. I'll just have to keep saving I guess. Bill
interesting reading..... (I know I have been very curious about the M3).
Can I ask one question, do you know if the M3 you listened to was new out of the box, or had it been fully run-in?
I just recall when I bought my Avi amp at Christmas, when I plugged it in at home, and since it was not being played constantly, it took over a month for the amp to give its' best.
Each time I would sit down to listen I would notice something new, and sometime the changes were significant. I recall listening one day and image depth had grown massively, since my previous listening session.
Anyhows your comments are interesting, especially since they draw meaningful comparisons to the Krell and Mac amps. Also your impressions seem to match with others who have heard the new M3 also.
He had the amp for about 5 or 6 weeks before I listened to it. I didn't ask if it was. They usually try to burn things in as quickly as possible, so I'd guess most likely it was. I've heard it a few times since the last post here in a few different places with the same results.
As Bill said, it's got the NAD 'house sound' and is better than their lower end stuff. While I like the NAD 'house sound' (I own NAD components), for the asking price, I don't like the NAD 'house sound.' I'd much prefer a McIntosh, Naim, or Musical Fidelity 'house sound' for around that price.
I am very happy with my AVi amp, won't be touching that part of the system for quite a while I think.
But I was interested in the M3, since I was wondering whether I should have waited for the M3 before buying an amp. Since there was a heck of a lot of pre-launch publicity from NAD.
As to your question re: Rotel. I have a love hate relationship with Rotel. I love Rotel equipment's build quality, and they use trick parts like T-network caps, also interior shots confirm they are well made and specced, but Rotel stuff always leaves me cold when I demo it. I think someday I would like to try some Rotel stuff at home, so I can really figure out what its all about.
oops one more point I forgot to mention. In my curiosity to figure out what Rotel gear is all about. I keep trying to achieve this by proxy.
Whenever my friends want to buy an amp, I keep recommending Rotel to them, but it never seems to work out!!!!
One of my friends bought B&W 705 speakers, at a hefty price here in Aus. Initially he was running them using an entry level Pioneer HT amp. When he decided to buy a dedicated 2ch amp for music, I strongly recommended the Rotel 1070. But finally he bought a Cambridge Azur 640, since he felt the Rotel was better but he found the price difference between the two was not justifiable for him.
Actually I dont find the CA640 a good match for the B&W 705s. The 705s are a very revealing speaker and they show up the harshness in the Cambridge amp. They really deserve a better class of amplifier.
The 1070 is a great match with the 705. I liked both but wasn't a big fan until I heard them together.
If I were looking for components at that price range for the 705, the 1070 and matching pre-amp would probably be the only set I'd pair them with.
Nuck - The 1070 is about 1/3 of the price. It's great at it's price, but I don't think it's at the same level as the others. For $2800, I'd save an extra $300 or so for a McIntosh MA 6500, a used Mac or Bryston, or a Naim Nait 5i at about half the price.
To me, $2800 is way too much for the NAD. Maybe $2000, depending on what I was trying to drive. I think the Naim sounds much better, regardless of price.
Lots of discussion about M3 versus McIntosh, Krell 400i. I hear the unit at a MAC and Krell dealer through Krell DVD Standard and Audio Physics speakers. Honestly, my modified NAD S500i CD-Player kills the Krell DVD Standard. The MAC is a great amp, but the dealer thought the NAD was better than both the Krell 400i and MAC. My NAD S300 integrated took about 6 months to break in. Wait to hear later units that have been around a wait. The first units shipped in late Feb. 06. The M3 is very well built and sounded very natural. It has a much different sound than the the C162/272 combo. Patient gentlemen.
Not a chance in hell patrick, Mac ma6900 will kick the sh??? out the e-308 and 408 by a long shot in terms of power,sound,quality and build.. What would be on par with the macs would be marklenvsion,bryston and some ole luxman gear to an extent IMO.. if it were up to me I would say mac the king of amps..
I recently purchased the M3 and tried several different albums on it. At first I was very disappointed, although the clarity, detail and lack of noise were all improved, the sound stage seemed to be smaller than my previous amp and some of the dynamics were lost. Then, after a quick talk with the dealer, I reversed the polarity and there was a HUGE improvement. Dynamics, clarity and sound stage were incredible. Maybe it's because I am a relative beginner here but this isn't something I would have guessed to try on my own, hope this helps someone.