Amps for MA RS6 - Any Suggestions

 

New member
Username: Candid1

Post Number: 1
Registered: Jan-07
I have shortlisted a couple of amps for MA RS6 (which I have pretty much decided on UNLESS...). Music I listen to are Hard Rock, Blues and Classical. This is in the order of preference.

Rotel - RA-06 (Or any other which would give me (60 - 100 wpc)

NAD - 352 (Discounted NAD 320BEE as it might not have the required power, not that I am a power-monger)

Azur 540 -

The problem is I am unable to test them on a single speaker set so as to reach a conclusion and I am unable to test RS6 + Amp as above combination. (I live in India and these things are difficult to find as of now.)

Going thru this forum has helped me shortlist the above amps, however some pros and cons (in addition to my colored perceptions)--

My RS6 review was with a yamaha AVR and sounded very detailed, slightly bright, with an OK low-end. The audition room was not a good one, but was still impressed by the detail of the RS6.


Rotel is top of my list, but I have never seen anyone mentioning it with RS6. Rotel is detailed and 'in your face', well built. My take is that the Rotels might not match RS6 and may end up sounding harsh.

NAD, possibly the best match for the RS6, since NAD is very warm and musical. My take here is NAD has reliability issues and servicing an equipment is a difficult task at best and a nightmare at worst, IMHO.

Azurs, I do not have any clue, but I have added them on insistence of my good friend.

I will definitely check all these amps during my upcoming visit to the dealers. However, I would like to hear your feedback and thoughts I need to keep in mind before plunging in.

BTW,This is going to be my first music system in some time (7 years) and first component system ever. Also, my room is 11.5 ft by 8 ft.

TIA
 

Gold Member
Username: Hawk

Highlands Ranch, CO USA

Post Number: 1047
Registered: Dec-03
Candid:

A few of my thoughts . . .

While I really like the Cambridge Azur line, the 540A is not one of my favorite pieces. I think either the NAD or the Rotel simply blows the 540A away. Now the 640A is a much better piece (perhaps why your friend insisted you include Cambridge in your search), with resolution and detail worthy of the other amps listed, but sadly, I don't think the 540 is in the same league. Head to head, the 325bee is light years ahead of the Cambridge, both in resolution and dynamics.

I have both Rotel and NAD systems in my home, and I think you are correct that the NAD is a better match for the RS6s sonically, as it is a much warmer amp. I have my Rotel amp connected to Dynaudio 42 speakers, which are not as forward sounding as the RS6s, and the sound is a bit "dry" if you know what I mean. It is not unpleasant; to the contrary, I enjoy the system, but it simply is not as involving as the NAD powering the same speakers. I would expect the RS6s, which are even more forward sounding than my Dyns, to sound a bit edgy with a Rotel amp. In short, I don't think it is the best match, even though the Rotel is well made and is a fine amp when paired with the right speakers (something warmer like Paradigm or B+W).

Now, I am not aware that the NAD amps have any reliability issues. Every brand has an occasional flop and we get posts about it on this board, but if you look more closely, almost all of the complaints on this board about NADs have been with their A/V receivers, not their integrated amps. You will also find that Stereophile has listed both the C325bee and the C372 as reference components, not something they will do if the units consistently have a problem. So, I think the NAD can be purchased with some confidence.

As for which amp, I always think more power is better, but many people swear by the 'bee, and it is becoming legendary. There has been string or two recently about whether the 'bee is sweeter sounding than the 352, but I do not have an opinion about it as I have never compared the two head to head (I have heard both and really like them, but never A/B'ed them). Nevertheless, your room is quite small, so perhaps the 'bee is the way to go. It is 50wpc, with the power to reach 100 wpc on musical peaks, so it should do a very good job for you.

Enjoy!
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5337
Registered: Dec-04
Candid, for the dollar value, you can compare here

http://buy.audiogon.com/cgia/glb.pl?newt

and here

http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/auc.pl?ampstran&1169692708&1169154930

for some ideas.

The 172/272 is classic.

The Rotel is a monster(and I own Classe), never disallow this kind of push, at LOW volumes especially.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5338
Registered: Dec-04
Again, the 172/272 is a dollar superweight!

But the Rotel, with a Rotel or Classe pre is as articulate as Howard Cosell on a good night.

I am talking whispers and breaths with a good cdp.

Oh my, yes.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5339
Registered: Dec-04
Art?
 

Gold Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 1058
Registered: Nov-05
That's 162/272 Nuck and it is a superb combo imho!

 

Gold Member
Username: Hawk

Highlands Ranch, CO USA

Post Number: 1052
Registered: Dec-03
Nuck:

Switch to decaf, my friend, you are asnwering your own posts.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5371
Registered: Dec-04
Hawk, I was addending, not asnwering.
 

New member
Username: Candid1

Post Number: 2
Registered: Jan-07
Hawk,

Thanks for the detailed reply. I did go thru a couple of forums and what you say about NAD is true.

I am currently planning to set up the system in the main room (17ft by 10.5 ft) instead of the smaller room. Will NAD 320BEE be able to drive RS6 well or should I look at NAD 352? I shall definitely audition Azur 640A.

One other thing; I listen to music in low to medium volume and would rarely push the limits of the system. Is there a change in the sonic quality of the system at different volumes (excluding clipping limits).

For me, if the system can sound as detailed when low as compared to when it medium/ medium high volume, I consider it to be good. Is this a correct way to approach evaluating systems?

Nuck: Thanks for the links. Looks tempting, but they don't ship it to India. Guess will pass it up. OTOH, let me check with the dealers here :-)

Any comments on my choice of speakers?
 

Gold Member
Username: Hawk

Highlands Ranch, CO USA

Post Number: 1066
Registered: Dec-03
Just joshing with you, son . . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Hawk

Highlands Ranch, CO USA

Post Number: 1067
Registered: Dec-03
candid:

Those MAs are pretty efficient, so I would think the 325bee should be enough in your sized room. However, if this is something you have to have shipped to you, I would go with the C352 to eliminate any doubt.

Good luck!
 

Bronze Member
Username: Jingka99

Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia

Post Number: 63
Registered: Aug-06
With regards to NAD's integrated reliability issues, I agree with Nuck, most of the problems were with their reciever line...Most of the issues raised here in the board pertaining to NAD amps are mostly attributed to system synergy or system mismatch and not really flaws on the product itself...

Currently, I have a NAD C352+C542 driving a pair of PSB B25s, I have actually compared both the C320BEE and C352 driving a pair of PSB T45s during my search and my observation is that when it comes to details, accuracy of the mids to high freq's, the C352 is way much better than the BEE but in terms of bass, there is a difference in delivery, the bass of the 352 is not as fast and dynamic as the BEE, it is delivered with finesse...others here might claim that the 352 lacks that "ooomp" but actually it's not the case...it just gives out the right amount of low without over doing it...

just my 2 cents...
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3810
Registered: Feb-05
Art was at work,

I have to disagree with the constant characterization of NAD as "much warmer" than Rotel. Having owned MANY products from both companies I would say it a little differently. I think that NAD is more anemic sounding. When AB'ing my old NADC542 vs my Rotel RCD971 the Rotel always sounded weightier and more lush with much more bass weight, the NAD was more detailed in the low end and midrange but was less realistic in a sense. The NAD was always brighter. I had a little different experience with the NAD vs Rotel preamps. In the end it's about preference.

I do agree that NAD probably is a better match with MA speakers than Rotel but Cambridge may be even better. There has not been to my knowledge any reliability issues with NAD integrateds.

Like you said, do audition the Cambridge it really is very good.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5375
Registered: Dec-04
I gotta agree with Art on the Nad/Rotel presentation.
Not the same Rotel Model, but the same presentation.
The Rotel's have a house sound that is user friendly(except with Klipch), the Nad's (the 542 in particular) is a little more warmed over. Not quite 'waiting on the heat rack hamburger' sound, but just a tad...anemic is correct, Art.

I only had one chance to hear the Cambrige 640, the room, amp and such didn't allow me to shift things around at all.

Without enough experience, I can only say that the Azur line has a lot of potential.
 

Gold Member
Username: Hawk

Highlands Ranch, CO USA

Post Number: 1078
Registered: Dec-03
OK, you guys have lost me. I thought we were talking about the sonic character of amps (this is the "Integrated Amps" board, after all), but now Art is arguing that Rotel CD players have more bass weight than an NAD CD player. Where did that come from? Did I miss something here? This seems completely off topic to me. The question was about amps for a particular speaker system . . .
 

Gold Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 1064
Registered: Nov-05
Where do you guys get your descriptions?

Anemic sounding?
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5393
Registered: Dec-04
All apologies.
Please continue with integrated amps.
Guys, you gotta get this little tube integrated like I got.
Smokin'!
There ya go.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5394
Registered: Dec-04
Anemic as compared to the typical Rotel presentation, MR.
But I am predesposed to the Rotel 'house' sound.
Sorry, bout' that one.
 

Gold Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 1066
Registered: Nov-05
I'm taking my 542 to the doctor, see if there's a pill or something.

Maybe it's an iron deficiency?
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5398
Registered: Dec-04
Your 542 lacks nothing, MR.




















Except the range, depth and accuracy of the Rotel 1072.
The accuracy, in fact, in the 80-140Hz delivery.

But thats just me.

Nudge nudge, wink wink.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3811
Registered: Feb-05
Anemic with neutral speakers perhaps. The biggest complaint with B&W 600 series speakers is bloated bass. Sounds like it could be a synergistic match. See how component matching works...lol!
 

Gold Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 1067
Registered: Nov-05
Bloated my backside!

That's the famous Frank's description Art!

The 602s3's didn't get in the top 100 all time components of HiFi Choice because of it's bloated bass. B&W's are subject to placement. The 602's and the NADs work exceptionally well together. Where do you guys get your info from?

It's funny, I read some reviewers think the Rotel CDPs are their weak point. Just goes to show don't it?
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5401
Registered: Dec-04
If the Rotel 1072 is a weak point, then I would be glad to have the better ones.
Oh wait, I have!

Let the raves begin!
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3813
Registered: Feb-05
"That's the famous Frank's description Art!"

If you'll look carefully I described that way first on this forum.

MR you can't have it both ways....first you cite a hifi mag and it's listing of the 600 series speaker then forget that a Rotel CD player was The Absolute Sound's overall product of the year justa couple of years back. Let's face it they are both fine products in the right syatem and like anything else not so much in others. BTW when I first stated on this forum (almost 2 years ago) that a 600 series speaker had bloated bass it was the 602, oh and Frank hates my speakers too...!!!
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3814
Registered: Feb-05
Oh and I forgot to mention that I love the combination of B&W 600 speakers and Rotel gear...talk about bloated bass (it's the double whammy).
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5403
Registered: Dec-04
If the Rotel's delivery(acccurate and timely) exposes the 602's limited delivery, who do we blame?
Being in the top 100 means little, if 99 pieces were better, for whatever reason.
Delivery, expediency, gentlemen, accuracy and immediency, all delivered with the impact of deliberate power. That is the order of the day!

Snap snap, Crash, Splash.
The punch in the chest of a drum kit, like it is live!
That's where the payoff is.

Next
 

Bronze Member
Username: Sukhoi30

New Zealand

Post Number: 76
Registered: Jun-06
Yes true that NAD Vs Rotel is a personal choice but Rotel and MA have a very good synergy - have experienced it a few times. Rotel also has better casing than NAD and better feel to the knobs etc and i believe overall everything counts at the end with regards to sound quality.
IMHO NAD has a better value CDP than Rotel while Rotel amps are much better (to my taste - disclaimer).
B&W 600 series - Bloated Bass - i would say - can be because of quite a few reasons like positioning and electronics.
602 and 603 do need more power than usual to control them nicely - as in my case, with the Rotel 1062 biamping with a 1050 and using right cables and pulling out the 603 into the room the bass is nice and tight - not bloated in any way and same is the case with 602s they sang so well when fed well and biamped.

I think with 600 series there are a few thing that can go wrong very easily and make them sound bright or bloated
like bright cables and interconnects and electronics.
but if tamed properly they sound very nice, so nice that even though i wanna upgrade its hard to break the Rotel 600 combo and will have to spend a lot more to get things right again.

No offence meat to NAD or Rotel lovers in any way.

phew .... im done
 

Bronze Member
Username: Sukhoi30

New Zealand

Post Number: 77
Registered: Jun-06
Apologies in advance Nuck but i am afraid ill disagree - Rotel does not expose the 602s in any way, they keep up with each other nicely.

Also remember how long 600 series has been around and still has a few tricks for the new fellas :-)

Cheers
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3816
Registered: Feb-05
The 600 series should appeal to many as they have a very full sound that I think appeals to non audiophiles in particular. I mean non audiophile in the best sense, as in music lover and not equipment lover.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5414
Registered: Dec-04
Saurabh, obviously you have been around the audio block.
You know the only parking spot that's free,(barenaked ladies, Canadian band).

You can, and will choose the set-up that is best for yourself.
Then some prik will come to visit(likely with the best looking girl) and yadda yadda the Rotel or Nad that you didn't choose.

Just pick the one that you like.

I like Rotel for immediacy.
I like Nad for full body.
I don't run either.
Buy what sounds right. You really ain't gonna go wrong either way.

You already knew that, Saurabh.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Sukhoi30

New Zealand

Post Number: 78
Registered: Jun-06
"likely with the best looking girl" hard to beat me on that one matey - my marriage anniversary is close, so i better start practicing flattery

But Isnt Rotel better than NAD or is it the other way around .

"You really ain't gonna go wrong either way"

Totally agree Nuck.

By the way after i read this forum my 603s sounded little bloated :-)- just kidding but i sure went back and played a few CDs to double check that they sound the way i said they do.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5416
Registered: Dec-04
A double check is always a good thing, saurabh.

I do it all the time for references, songs, etc. Sometimes even before I speak! BION

The thread could go on forever, but in the end,you are facing good and good.

Trust your ears, like always.
 

Gold Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 1068
Registered: Nov-05
Art - okay, Frank's being saying the 600 series (excluding the 601 I think) are bloated for as long as I remember, but you can have the merit badge for the term if you like.

If you guys read my post, it ended with "Just goes to show don't it?"

Meaning: we cannot always agree with reviewers or each other - it's a MATTER OF OPINION.

Jeez, you guys are touchy today - get out of the wrong side?

And yes Art, you're right, an audiophile wouldn't buy 602's, he get something much more expensive than you and I have. They are after all, great snobs!
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5420
Registered: Dec-04
MR, It's always fun to wind up the bunch, especially with a decades old combo like the Nad and B&W, just like yours!

Saraubh, you are in for the whole boat, buddy.

Rantz, just cause were all friends doesn't mean we can't razz yer azz a bit. Quite good fun, in fact!
Razz razz.

Till it's my turn.
 

New member
Username: Candid1

Post Number: 3
Registered: Jan-07
Arnold / Hawk / Nuck / Saurabh

Thanks for all the feedback. Guess I am none the wiser here ;). I do understand unless one listens, it would be difficult to reach a decision rather than a conclusion. Thats what I intend to do.

Guess, by the kind of music I listen to ('Brothers in Arms' on my Sony :-( at the moment), I should be OK with a neutral to warm sound. I need it to be detailed and accurate. I am OK with an slightly anemic / loose bass (since the room has a greater impact on bass while component do play a role).

I have been going thru the reviews of Azur (forums as well as reputed audio sites); It seems to sound between a NAD and Rotel.

ONE Q, I definitely have on this, is how accurate will my deductions be on completely different set-ups (different speakers, different amps, different sources). Is there any way I can potentially reduce my biases and make an objective judgement?

Any Ideas?
 

New member
Username: Candid1

Post Number: 4
Registered: Jan-07
Saurabh: You are the first person (AFAIK) to talk favourably on a Rotel+RS6 combination.

Have you tested it over a period of time. Would want to know if there is a fatigue factor which creeps in.

Rotel + 600 combination is supposed a natural match sonically by most of the people around.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3817
Registered: Feb-05
Arnold?

"but you can have the merit badge for the term if you like."

It's only a merit badge if you consider it one. I really don't have an interest in who said it first. When my wife and I auditioned the speakers, long before I heard of ecoustics that was the term I used. Frank and I both differ and agree on many things.

I think it's a touch of bigotry to say that audiophiles are snobs but I agree that a good many of them are less interested in music than they are in sound. Me and you MR I think are more interested in music and that's a good thing.

I think you misread Nuck and you certainly did me if you think we're upset or touchy. We've tried to inject good natured humor in our posts hence the . I like your setup MR and even if I didn't (which honestly I do) who cares as long as you do.

BTW Nuck will tell you, in one of my communications with him I told him that I like a little more bass than is neutral and so does he. Anyway..point being, please don't go away angry MR we meant no harm.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5426
Registered: Dec-04
candid, your kit might need use of the tonal controls in the worst case, as opposed to defeat settings as normal.
This is not the end of the world, IMHO.
Just tweak the tonals to match the room, the speakers as well(if you must).
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3818
Registered: Feb-05
Candid

The Rotel + 600 series really is a natural match. I haven't done enough listening to the Rotel + MA or NAD + MA combos to speak from experience but more from speculation knowing what all of those pieces sound like. Remember MANY variables will play a part in what actually will work for you. The room, interconnects and speaker cable, source, listening preference (both for sound and music) and so on. No one here is going to be able to give you definitive answers relative to variables that they are not privvy to not the least of which is your ears. I wish I had better answers for you Candid. Good luck.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Sukhoi30

New Zealand

Post Number: 80
Registered: Jun-06
We are all an interesting bunch of pigeons out here - i like it.If we all agreed mostly there would be no forum.

Candid1, to your question Yes and No.

Yes - Since the three brands you are considering are so different in sound that, i am guessing here - it might be easy to pick up what you like.

No - only a true comparision can be accurate which is every thing remains constant including the room.

Hope fully this helps, also do look out for good dealers who will help you later as everything breaks one day and you need some one to fix it.

Guys,i am getting very tempted with those Proac 110s - i love them.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5429
Registered: Dec-04
Oh now, here is a great spot for Art, he had them!
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3819
Registered: Feb-05
The 110's are fabulous. Picky about placement and upstream goodies but when all is right they are hard to beat. I hear Frank's footsteps......
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5432
Registered: Dec-04
hehehe
 

Bronze Member
Username: Sukhoi30

New Zealand

Post Number: 81
Registered: Jun-06
Candid - Art is right there are too many variables but slowly you can get them to work to your preference.

I heard MA + Rotel combo on few occasions, the source was a Marantz SA17 if i remember right or may be SA14 which is a very smooth player and the whole system balance was beautiful.
I could not detect any fatigue and yes the cables were Kimber 8tc (fantastic cables).
It was with both RS1 and RS 6 on different occasions.
I am guessing that if you balance it right with a nice CD player (anything but bright) you will be in for a treat. My pick for CDP would be any of the ARCAM ones.

But these are all my impressions and very subjective to my taste - you might go into the shop and come out either blessing me or cursing me, i liked tham so much that i was gonna sell my 603s to get RS6.

Also, its hard to beat the built quality of MA IMHO for the price.

600 series sounds awesome none the less with rotel.
 

Gold Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 1070
Registered: Nov-05
"I think it's a touch of bigotry to say that audiophiles are snobs"

Art, I'm no big-got (correct spelling not allowed), but if you ever read anything written by a self declared audiophile, and I know you have, then I'm sure you know what I mean. And no, I didn't go away angry, just misunderstood.

Candid1, sorry we digressed from your thread and I hoped those with the expertise gave you the help you deserved. It seems so as these guys do know their stuff.


Guys, I haven't heard Rotel gear for well over a decade, maybe two and from what I recall they did not do anything special for me. But I wasn't really delving into music quality then as I have been more recently. That said, there's still so much I haven't had the opportunity to audition given the limited offerings here on the coast.

So I have not been in position to compare Rotel and NAD, but I have heard the 542 swapped around with an Apollo, with Rega R5's and a Sun tube amp. There was very little between them, to me the Apollo just edged out the NAD as it sounded a tad smoother - I heard just a very slight rough edge in the 542 directly after it replaced the Apollo. Otherwise I would not have noticed and I sure don't now especially with the new ic's. Keep in mind, the 542 is $699, the 1072 is $999 and the Apollo $1500 here - the cost differences do not reflect the differences - at least with the Apollo in my experience.

But the 542 anemic - I just don't get it I'm afraid. They are dynamic, articulate and very red blooded to me. I couldn't care less what others think of our system, that's the least of my concerns these days, but when I read words like anemic and bloated and simply KNOW they don't apply, I feel I must stand my ground, circle the wagons, and load the muskets.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5440
Registered: Dec-04
MR, the sticker shock is always an eye opener.
We are dealing with minutiae here, albeit important minutae.

I find no faults at this level of gear.
Just preferences, nothing else.

SRV on the Rotel is about the best I can offer.

Its fun to have long time members mix it up a bit.
All in fun, my friend.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3820
Registered: Feb-05
When I owned both the C542 and the RCD971 the C542 sounded thin next to the Rotel...not much more to get. That's not a value judgement just an observation.

When comparing the 542 to the Apollo they have a similar presentation with the Apollo having just a bit more of everything. The most notable difference between the two is the lack of grain with the Apollo vs the 542. The 542 is a remarkable player for the dough and so is the Apollo. Diminishing returns and all that good stuff you know.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5462
Registered: Dec-04
'Lack of grain' is a new descriptive term, Art.
If it is true for us all, well done.

Seeing how the 1072 compares to the others, and the cost, it falls below the Apollo, I think.

But I own it already, so I say it Rocks and Rolls with the best.

Nyay! Thumbs in ears and tongue sticking out.

All in good humour, folks!
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5463
Registered: Dec-04
Wayyy bank to candid, the OP.
Have you looked into some of the integrated's coming out of Aisa?
Tube stuff in particular?
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3821
Registered: Feb-05
The 325BEE and 521BEE just got a very nice review in the Absolute sound. Y'all know me...synergy and all that you know. It's great when you can match up the CD player and amp.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5467
Registered: Dec-04
Art, for the money, a 325BEE, with the right speakers and a 542cdp is really hard to beat for the $.
Synergy on a real man's $.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3823
Registered: Feb-05
Oops I meant the 525BEE...I think!
 

New member
Username: Candid1

Post Number: 5
Registered: Jan-07
Saurabh - I do like the combination suggested by you and will plan around those lines (budget permitting)

MR - I came on to this forum to gain from the experience and expertise of the people around here. The quality of information available is just fantastic. I have tremendous respect for these guys who are willing to share their experiences for no other reason than to be helpful.

Back to my quest! I suddenly have access to a ROTEL amp which I plan to use to check out the RS6 combination. I hope the sound across a particular range of amps is constant. This one is however 7 years old. Will get further details though.

I also have an option to pick up a Marantz amp (a used one, around 7 years old, a limited edition model). Will come back with the details.

Do you think it makes sense to go the USED way. Any particular stuff to be checked for a used amp before doing the deal?
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 5518
Registered: Dec-04
candid, are you getting these pieces from a site or a dealership?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Jingka99

Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia

Post Number: 64
Registered: Aug-06
Candid, maybe you mean Art....it was Art who contributed much on this thread not me...

Arnold
=================================================
Arnold?

"but you can have the merit badge for the term if you like."

It's only a merit badge if you consider it one. I really don't have an interest in who said it first. When my wife and I auditioned the speakers, long before I heard of ecoustics that was the term I used. Frank and I both differ and agree on many things.

I think it's a touch of bigotry to say that audiophiles are snobs but I agree that a good many of them are less interested in music than they are in sound. Me and you MR I think are more interested in music and that's a good thing.

I think you misread Nuck and you certainly did me if you think we're upset or touchy. We've tried to inject good natured humor in our posts hence the . I like your setup MR and even if I didn't (which honestly I do) who cares as long as you do.

BTW Nuck will tell you, in one of my communications with him I told him that I like a little more bass than is neutral and so does he. Anyway..point being, please don't go away angry MR we meant no harm.
 

New member
Username: Candid1

Post Number: 6
Registered: Jan-07
Nuck,

None. A friend has just bought a used Rotel and he is willing to take it around for audition.

The used Marantz is from an audio enthusiast who has been having it for quite sometime. He is willing to trade it as he is upgrading (sounds familiar :-) I guess)

I would need to go this person's house and check it out. It will be cash and carry.
 

New member
Username: Candid1

Post Number: 7
Registered: Jan-07
Art,

Apologies for missing you out on my thank you list. It was not intentional.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3825
Registered: Feb-05
Arnold, Art it's all the same. Thanks Candid and Arnold.

Hope you have an opportunity to hear those amps before purchase because they really do present differently.
 

New member
Username: Candid1

Post Number: 8
Registered: Jan-07
The marantz amp is PM-44 SE. Does anyone know these amps ?

Will be auditioning it tomorrow. :-)
 

New member
Username: Candid1

Post Number: 9
Registered: Jan-07
The PM-44 SE is very sweet sounding amp. It was paired with a NAD CD player and infinity speakers. Stereo separation, the low-end and mid frequencies were detailed. However, the highs were a bit muted. The sound stage was also limited. The latter I believe was due to the amps being a little low on power (55 wpc) for the speaker 250 watts RMS.

I am beginning to think that the Marantz would definitely pair beautifully with the RS6s which are around 125 watts RMS and fairly easy to drive. He willing to trade the amps for USD 180.

Any thoughts ?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Jingka99

Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia

Post Number: 94
Registered: Aug-06
candid1, the PM-44SE is a classic...But if it sounds good to you then I say go for it...but I think your RS6 deserves better, in my opinion...
 

New member
Username: Candid1

Post Number: 10
Registered: Jan-07
Arnold,

You are right. PM-44SE was good, but a little low on power. I am impressed with NAD 352, but holding back since it does not have a phono... :-)
 

Bronze Member
Username: Candid1

Post Number: 11
Registered: Jan-07
Arnold,

You are right. PM-44SE was good, but a little low on power. I am impressed with NAD 352, but holding back since it does not have a phono... :-)
 

Silver Member
Username: Jingka99

Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia

Post Number: 120
Registered: Aug-06
Candid1, sorry I didn't realize you had that requirement, a phono pre-amp...If you are still going for the NAD line, there are two options: you need to add the NAD PP-2 or go separates C272+C162, the C162 has an excellent phono stage..but the latter route will be more $$$...
« Previous Thread Next Thread »



Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us