NAD, Cambridge integrateds

coolsax

My new 2 channel room is small and i'm really thinking about just simplifying it by trading out my B&K and Parasound for possibly a NAD or Cambridge or maybe even Rotel integrated(other suggestions are welcome as well). my main question is would the amps be at the very least a lateral move with regards to quality, I know the parasound has a lot more power. I'm also planning on switching to monitors(possibly Dynaudios excite 12s or Ascend acoustics Sierra-1) for that room so I won't be using the LS50s for too long with an integrated.

I like the NAD sound, but I have never heard the cambridge or Rotel before though i've heard good things.

I guess the main thing is, would I be taking a big step backward if I went with one of those 3 integrateds?

CCNJ

I have no experience with the separates that you mentioned but I can comment on NAD integrated amps. I have a NAD C355BEE integrated amp (80W X2) that I use to power my Polk LSI9s. This NAD has plenty of power and they sound great together.

coolsax

yeah I've heard the NAD before on a different set of speakers than I currently own, and it was really good, just wanting to figure out if I'm losing a lot by trading the separates for an integrated from the previous companies..was thinking some here would have a little insight on it. also might look at music hall and rega as well. If I sell the parasound, i'm probably looking at spending anywhere from $5-$800 for an integrated.

jaxwired

The NAD C355bee is excellent, but the C375bee is in another league and can be had for just a tad over your budget. The C375bee is the most neutral NAD integrated and the bass is superb. Read Sam Tellig's review of the C375bee. He basically says it's a giant killer. I agree...

I've also owned the Cambridge 550A and it's excellent, but I'd buy NAD over CA everytime.

cnh

I also prefer the NADs, the CAs have a more defined, thinner, top end. And the NADs (IMO) are warmer which bodes well for speakers that like to press FORWARD on music...especially on CDs?

CAs though, are good for those who like that kind of sound. I own a NAD integrated and I would not trade it for the CA sound. But that's me?

cnh

Zitro

cnh wrote: »

I also prefer the NADs, the CAs have a more defined, thinner, top end. And the NADs (IMO) are warmer which bodes well for speakers that like to press FORWARD on music...especially on CDs?

CAs though, are good for those who like that kind of sound. I own a NAD integrated and I would not trade it for the CA sound. But that's me?

cnh

+1, NAD won over the CA during my audition, and that's why it's in my listening room now. I have not heard the Parasound, however, so I cannot comment on if it would be lateral or not, but I know that with my overall experience with NAD electronics and their customer service department, they have won over a lifetime customer.

Flash21

Rotel and NAD have very different house sounds. Rotel is a bit more neutral, brighter and more extended high end, a bit tighter in the bass. NAD is warmer, punchier in the midrange. Personally I prefer the Rotel sound, but YMMV. I have not heard the Cambridge amps.

Geppy1 has experience with all three brands of integrateds, maybe he'll chime in.

coolsax

any thoughts at all on Music Hall? also would any of these end up being a huge step down from my current set up or just different?

jaxwired

The NAD C375bee would be a step up IMO.

dorokusai

I believe NAD and CA to be exact equals in regards to sound quality and overall build....having owned a dozen or so of each one. I think it comes down to aesthetics honestly as NAD has a dated look to me. The kicker for NAD is the dynamic power and amplifier design(PE) they've used for decades.

Between the B&K vs NAD/CA? Both offer a better midrange connection for me but honestly are on the same playing field sonically. If I picked anything, it would be a thicker, heavier bottom end with the B&K. Parasound has the best overall bottom end out of them all and a superior punch and control.

Rotel has very little warmth in regards to the other two choices and would be my third choice, yet better than Music Hall.

Both NAD and CA offer some of the best bang for buck IA's on the market, especially in the used bracket.

coolsax

thanks Doro, that helped for sure...

dorokusai

coolsax wrote: »

thanks Doro, that helped for sure...

NP. Flash has some spot-on comments as well with regards to Rotel vs NAD. As far as tighter bass I'd disagree but we're splitting hairs on that one.

I don't agree with his choice but that doesn't matter in the least.

coolsax

why would you rate the Music hall the lowest of the 4? the reason I ask is b/c A25.2 is discontinued and can get a good price on a brand new one.. for at least 150 less than the comparable NAD or CA

dorokusai

coolsax wrote: »

why would you rate the Music hall the lowest of the 4? the reason I ask is b/c A25.2 is discontinued and can get a good price on a brand new one.. for at least 150 less than the comparable NAD or CA

I've just never liked MH gear, they're boring. I've heard a few pieces of electronics and aside from turntables, they just don't stand out in any way for me. They don't sound bad but I never remember the piece after I've heard it. I have far deeper relationships with NAD and CA so I'm not sure how else to put it aside from personal taste based on experience.

If the price is right, you're not buying a bad piece of gear Coolsax. We're in a really tight category here.

My biggest hangup is they chose to join that silly tube window crowd, which further annoys me.

coolsax

hah fair enough.. thank you all for your input.

dorokusai

Good luck. Let us know what you choose....and pictures or it didn't happen.

mantis

I have Installed and listened to al of the above gear in great length.

B&K with a Parasound amp is a very nice combo. Moving out of this and into the following in my opinion in a small room could very well make improvements.

NAD is basically what has already been said punchy and clean. Very musical and very crisp.
Rotel is clean up top with a lot of mid range clarity. Bass is beautiful on their stuff as it fill the room with warmth.
Cambridge Audio is the big shocker and biggest bang for the buck out of the 3 here and probably will sound as good or better then the B&K Parasound combo especially at lower volumes. Every single time I sit and listen to their products I leave with a pleasant feeling of warmth , joy and happiness. The price tag is lower then it should be with the level of performance you get.

With Dynaudio speakers , all 3 setup wil work excellent with no regret in any way. Personally I would be happy with any of the combos but If I was looking for the best deal for price Cambridge would probably be first on my list tightly followed by Rotel and NAD. It's such a toss up.
On a side by side with Totem speakers using Dynaudio drivers I have listened to NAD and Cambridge Audio and actually preferred the cambridge due to punch , drive , control , warmth ,clarity and smoothness of the tone. I might just go with Cambridge and call it a day. In the mix of testing a Anthem Intergraded was also their and came in dead last for overall musical excitement . Kind of a let down considering it's cost.

coolsax

dorokusai wrote: »

Good luck. Let us know what you choose....and pictures or it didn't happen.

oh i'll get pictures up when I make my decision for sure..

with regards to the speakers. David over at Ascend convinced me to go ahead and try the Sierras. So i should be getting those later this week. They seem like they might compare very favorably to the Dynaudios. If I don't like them then I'm out shipping, no big deal.

I'm hoping the local Dynaudio dealer might be willing to let me bring them in to do a Side by side, but i'll completely understand if he won't.

cnh

mantis wrote: »

I have Installed and listened to al of the above gear in great length.

B&K with a Parasound amp is a very nice combo. Moving out of this and into the following in my opinion in a small room could very well make improvements.

NAD is basically what has already been said punchy and clean. Very musical and very crisp.
Rotel is clean up top with a lot of mid range clarity. Bass is beautiful on their stuff as it fill the room with warmth.
Cambridge Audio is the big shocker and biggest bang for the buck out of the 3 here and probably will sound as good or better then the B&K Parasound combo especially at lower volumes. Every single time I sit and listen to their products I leave with a pleasant feeling of warmth , joy and happiness. The price tag is lower then it should be with the level of performance you get.

With Dynaudio speakers , all 3 setup wil work excellent with no regret in any way. Personally I would be happy with any of the combos but If I was looking for the best deal for price Cambridge would probably be first on my list tightly followed by Rotel and NAD. It's such a toss up.
On a side by side with Totem speakers using Dynaudio drivers I have listened to NAD and Cambridge Audio and actually preferred the cambridge due to punch , drive , control , warmth ,clarity and smoothness of the tone. I might just go with Cambridge and call it a day. In the mix of testing a Anthem Intergraded was also their and came in dead last for overall musical excitement . Kind of a let down considering it's cost.

Nice review Dan, somehow? I thought you would put CA up top? I don't agree but that's audio for you. The main difference is that, from what I glean from your posts, you love 'detail'...lots and lots of detail. Which is certainly what Totems and a CA would give you. For me, however, total detail is not 'musical'....when one compares what one hears in live venues. Especially 'classical' venues. They rarely produce crystal clear detailed sound--in fact that sound seems 'artificial' to me. Clinical--if you will.

But I respect your advice very much. It's just that my ears are 'different'. I grew up listening to my father play the guitar and sing; and with Andres Segovia 78s on the TT. When I was in Japan I auditioned quite a number of higher end speaker offerings...most all of them seemed exaggerated on the high end to me? Don't get me wrong...they 'impressed' with their flashy high ends. They were quick--perhaps too quick, after all, real sound does not die off 'immediately' but echoes and resonates off walls and surfaces?

cnh

mantis

cnh wrote: »

Nice review Dan, somehow? I thought you would put CA up top? I don't agree but that's audio for you. The main difference is that, from what I glean from your posts, you love 'detail'...lots and lots of detail. Which is certainly what Totems and a CA would give you. For me, however, total detail is not 'musical'....when one compares what one hears in live venues. Especially 'classical' venues. They rarely produce crystal clear detailed sound--in fact that sound seems 'artificial' to me. Clinical--if you will.

But I respect your advice very much. It's just that my ears are 'different'. I grew up listening to my father play the guitar and sing; and with Andres Segovia 78s on the TT. When I was in Japan I auditioned quite a number of higher end speaker offerings...most all of them seemed exaggerated on the high end to me? Don't get me wrong...they 'impressed' with their flashy high ends. They were quick--perhaps too quick, after all, real sound does not die off 'immediately' but echoes and resonates off walls and surfaces?

cnh

Thanks cnh,
I'm also a musican , I started playing guitar when I was 9. This was back in 1979. My entire family on my Moms side are all musicians. Piano players , singers , drummers, Studio musicians and recording Artists.
We all like detail in our replay systems to study the notes , to hear all that is being played. In a recording studio you can focus on the details and make a very detailed recording of one. yes I favor this in a replay system.

I also however like to listen to live music but can still be very detailed and clear. The last concert I went to was Diana Krall and her concert was incredibly intamate and crazy clear and very detailed. I could hear every single note everyone played , I heard every breath Diana took.

Everyone listens for different reasons. It's why our hobby is so beautiful , there is something for everyone.

rdb2001

mantis wrote: »

Thanks cnh,
I'm also a musican , I started playing guitar when I was 9. This was back in 1979. My entire family on my Moms side are all musicians. Piano players , singers , drummers, Studio musicians and recording Artists.
We all like detail in our replay systems to study the notes , to hear all that is being played. In a recording studio you can focus on the details and make a very detailed recording of one. yes I favor this in a replay system.

I also however like to listen to live music but can still be very detailed and clear. The last concert I went to was Diana Krall and her concert was incredibly intamate and crazy clear and very detailed. I could hear every single note everyone played , I heard every breath Diana took.

Everyone listens for different reasons. It's why our hobby is so beautiful , there is something for everyone.

Well you just answered my question I was about to ask. I was thinking about a cambridge integrated with Totem Rainmakers. Never heard the cambridge but I trust your opinions as I own B&K Reference gear for HT off of some of the recommendations here to other members here by you and other members. That was one of my best upgrades thus far.

dorokusai

When did being a musician turn into a ownership caveat? I think Mantis does indeed have a solid ear and feel for gear, for the most part and I appreciate his constant hands-on even if I bust his balls. Perhaps it's my inability to play a recorder in middle school that tainted my view of actual finger pickers.

mantis

rdb2001 wrote: »

Well you just answered my question I was about to ask. I was thinking about a cambridge integrated with Totem Rainmakers. Never heard the cambridge but I trust your opinions as I own B&K Reference gear for HT off of some of the recommendations here to other members here by you and other members. That was one of my best upgrades thus far.

I feel in love with the Rainmaker/Cambridge combo. It's so involving. I think most anyone who loves music will love this combo.

mantis

dorokusai wrote: »

When did being a musician turn into a ownership caveat? I think Mantis does indeed have a solid ear and feel for gear, for the most part and I appreciate his constant hands-on even if I bust his balls. Perhaps it's my inability to play a recorder in middle school that tainted my view of actual finger pickers.

Musicians create the music and know exactly how it's supposed to sound. So a replay systems job is to recreate the sounds of musicians. They should be a good solid source of listening to replay gear to judge if it can get the job done correctly or not. All my musician friends are a good judge of a good system. They all know good quality sound when they hear it. I think being a musician has helped me pick gear over the years. I look for certain sonic signatures .

So whats the deal with the recorder? LOL sounds like a trauma story waiting to be told.

dorokusai

Most of the musicians I've met are awful help in regards to actual electronics. They may have decent ears but that's about it. You're kinda the exception but only because it's actually the business you're in.

RuSsMaN

I'm buying you a recorder for Christmas.

I like NAD. I like it a lot.

rdb2001

mantis wrote: »

I feel in love with the Rainmaker/Cambridge combo. It's so involving. I think most anyone who loves music will love this combo.

What do you that about Naim Gear. I have had some guys tell me to look into that over the cambridge.

TroyD

Dan can CERTAINLY tell you which boxes are easiest to open. Which brands reinforce the corners, brass staples that sort of thing

NAD is tough to beat anywhere near it's pricepoint.

BDT

ward91

Hi fi’s aren’t made to reproduce the original source to the exact. We usually want “flavours” I’m sure we are all aware of this. Some manufacturers stride to make the sound as less colourised as possible but most have their characteristic sounds. I do think that Cambridge gear on the whole is fairly neutral. I often find it a little sort of shiny, not quite for me. I must say nad seem pretty good all round, they doo however have some reliability issues with cd players?? . i mean Cambridge are obviously pretty darn good. Most of their stuff gets a 5 out of 5 in what hi fi mags.

mantis

rdb2001 wrote: »

What do you that about Naim Gear. I have had some guys tell me to look into that over the cambridge.

I have no experience with Naim gear.

mantis

TroyD wrote: »

Dan can CERTAINLY tell you which boxes are easiest to open. Which brands reinforce the corners, brass staples that sort of thing

NAD is tough to beat anywhere near it's pricepoint.

BDT

I can also tell you what is Rs232c , IP , IR , and RF controllable.