NAD or Musical Fidelity for 2 Channel

Polkitup2

I currently have a NAD C370 integrated but am looking for something with HT Bypass. I have had my eye on the Musical Fidelity A3.5 but have not been able to hear one. Has anyone had the opportunity to compare NAD with the Musical Fidelity? Just wondering if I would be making a lateral or vertical change in sound quality if I went with the Musical Fidelity A3.5

AsSiMiLaTeD

I've compared both in home (along with Cambridge Audio). I had the Music Hall A25.2 and the NAD and CA around the same price. I preferred the MF over the other two, so I kept it and then bought another for my other 2 channel system.

I've moved since then, but I'll go back and see if I can find my review notes. One thing that I do remember, and the main reason I kept the MF, is that the MF sounded better at lower volumes.

EDIT: Wow, completely misread the title and then continued using the wrong name for my equipment throughout my post. My stuff is Music Hall, not Musical Fidelity (although I do have a Musical Fidelity X-CAN v3 and X-DAC in transit to me as I write this). However, my impressions and comparisons were with my Music Hall gear. I've no experience with Musical Fidelity as of yet.

Polkitup2

Thanks for the edit, I appreciate the effort.

AndyGwis

I have owned my Musical Fidelity A3.2 (similar to the newer, more powerful 3.5) for maybe about a year. I love it! Looks great, very musical, GREAT build quality. All around, a solid performing piece of gear. Full function remote, very musical, powerful, etc. Great at low and high volumes. Plenty of bass, even out of my Thiel 1.2s. Probably my favorite piece of gear ever (but also my most expensive).

I have had many Nad amps over the past couple years as well. Solid performers, great value, but I didn't think they were quite in the same league as the Musical Fidelity 3.2. Also, not nearly as good looking.

Disclaimer: I like shiny things and my IQ is 78.

unc2701

The A3.5 kinda falls in a weird spot in my opinion. The X-150 has almost the same power supply (but no HT bypass) and the A5 is hands down, waaaaay better. If you didn't need the HT, I'd say go with the X-150.

Have you considered the krell kav-300i? You can set one input to HT bypass via an internal jumper & on the used market it's about the same cost as the A3.5 Unfortunately, it's also got a "questionable" power supply.

Polkitup2

Thanks guys. I am thinking if I want to make the step it should be the A5 or Krell 400xi, or Rogue Audio, or ???

AndyGwis

The A300 from MF can often be found for cheaper than the A3.2, and offers a bit more power, if I'm not mistaken. Maybe add that to your list.

It does have a gold knob, but I don't think it looks bad at all.

Chicomoralessxm

Just a question what about the CA840? Just an idea. Not sure if it has ht bypass though i'd have 2 check on that........

dorokusai

I'm a NAD fan but sonically the MF has the edge, no question. It has much better dynamics but you can't lose either way.

Aesthetics wise, NAD is a shy wallflower and the MF is a pimped out ****.

Chicomoralessxm

dang...........not thats an analogy

beardog03

once again, Doro is quoteworthy !

and while I do enjoy a wallflower on ocassion, I am definatly into pimped ot hoes !!

Midnite Mick

beardog03 wrote: »

once again, Doro is quoteworthy !

and while I do enjoy a wallflower on ocassion, I am definatly into pimped ot hoes !!

Who isn't?

markmarc

I've heard both side by side, the MF digs deeper and is clearer/cleaner IMHO. But, it is more $$. If possible, do yourself a favor and audition both in your rig, it's the best way to know what will suit you best.

dorokusai

I would swear that there was someone who didn't like the MF in their rig....anyone remember who?

know nothing

I listened fairly critically to the 370, A3.5 and A5 through B&W 603s and CM7s and some Paradigm towers (don't recall the model). I agree with most of the other posts hear, the MFs sounded better across the board, although the Paras sounded pretty good in combination with the NAD. The Musical Fidelity gear is just a lot more sophisticated and nuanced than the seemingly muted presentation of the NAD. The A5 is a noticeable step up from the A3.5.

Correct me if I am wrong, doesn't the NAD have a plastic face plate? That's a problem for me, but may not be for you.

Aside: I really liked the voicing, soundstage and looks of the new B&W CM7 floor standers. The synergy between these speakers and the MF A5 CDP and amp was special.

AndyGwis

Anything that comes with a 1/4" or thicker aluminum faceplate is a nice piece of gear in my book.

My Theta Pro has like a 1/3" thick aluminum front (maybe even thicker). No wonder their DACs sell for $1500+ retail.

My MF looks great and has a wonderful asthetic appeal to it as well.

Emlyn

dorokusai wrote: »

I would swear that there was someone who didn't like the MF in their rig....anyone remember who?

Isig sold a MF A5 integrated because it didn't have good synergy with his SDA-SRS.

beardog03

I am starting to get the MF itch again..!!

I wonder how it will mate with my current setup?