well i was board so i gathered all the amps up...

well i was fed up of revising for my gcse's and gatherd all the amps (that work and use bananna terminals)in the living room whilst there was nobody in .

ye i know its all budget stuff but hey i dont have a real job (16y/o)

for the test i used these things the same(did not vary);
wharfedale diamond 8.3's , they are not the best speaker in the world but are fairly tonally neutral with a slight muddiness in the lower mid region.

The same standard ofc 0.255mm^2 speaker cable with ling nosed gold plated banana plugs.

A cheap Cambridge audio interconnect as I couldn’t find the monster cable, mind you the monster cable probably sounds worse in my opinion.

A marantz cd52 mk2 cs player (a bit old but sounds quite good, I was tempted to use my Cambridge audio 540d (dvd/p).

I know the test is floored, the amps are on the floor which in my OPPINION does not effect the sound. Also the cd player was sat on a table that was moved back and forth so the cable would reach, this will effect frontal reflections. Also I only listened at high volume . also Ive missed a lot out

Well I tested;

1. Cambridge audio 540d v2 (100wrms*2) (avr 6.1)
2. Nad 3240 PE (2*40wrms 2*160 dynamic peak)
3. Sherwood rv 7050r (lots of wrms*2) (avr old pro logic mostly analogue)
4. Yamaha ax396 (2*60wrms)
5. Kenwood ka 2060 r (2*50w)

I was in a hurry so I only listen to the following tracks a few times over ect ;
Dire Straights (love over gold) It Never rains.
Madonna Hard candy Miles away (highly compressed bassy)

I have listen to these tracks through all the equipment just not side by side.

The Cambridge audio has a pronounced soundstage, it is clear but there is lots of Sonics that are well extended, often these sound harsh. It may sound a little “edgy” but it has lots of power and nice o/a shaped sound. Involving sound. It can however sound a little brittle? Due to its edgy and sparkly sound or is that just dire straights.
Nice detailed hard hitting bass. I found it had a noisy output but this may have been because it was applying more gain (louder!) verry precise sound compared to the others here.

The nad 3250 pe is and older amp , it employs NADs dual rail power supply technology (I think) but not the later developed and up rated “power-drive” it is called “power envelope” . as usual for NAD it sounds laid back and all the sounds nicely slot into the soundstage, it has a very detailed sound without being in your face like the Cambridge, perhaps because of this I found it harder to pick out individual sounds from a the tracks, especially in the highly compressed “miles away” the amp was much better suited to dire straights due to its softer “hi-fi” sounding output. It has ok Sonics but none in the test sparkles like the 540r but the “sparkle” may not be for all.
It has a very quiet output even when pushed. Also for a 40w amp (like most NADs) it sounds a lot more.

The Sherwood av reciver is a bit older , its an absolute beast , it also doubles up as a door stop and a door step:). I’ve added a fan (it runs HOT) to the lid and use it with beaten up speakers for house parties. This amp sounds “mediocre”. its at its best at high volumes and that’s all I listened to in this test. The Sonics lack expansion compared to the NAD, the yammy and the Cambridge. The Sonics aren’t really there and they just don’t pronounce. With dire straights the soundstage was stable, open and de-cluttered but the speakers were easily locatable. The same goes for Madonna but this track in my opinion was recorded “muddled” due to hard and loud bass and highs. I find it one of the easiest to listen too, especially at higher volumes; it just doesn’t seem to run out of power. The bass is deep and hard hitting (not as deep as the NAD) it just seems to get louder rather than harsher like most amps doo. The amp is designed for movies so that’s perhaps why the sound isn’t too over involving.

The Yamaha had a nice overall sound. It had lots of power and nicer Sonics than most here. It has a more refined sound than the Cambridge and isn’t as harsh sounding. However it can sound a little “Swishy" at times but the majority or the time there is a sustained and fairly precise sound stage. The amp is involving but not over involving as some may find the Cambridge.

Lastly the kenwood, its not mine it’s a neighbours, I I have just repaired it for him after he dropped it. The soundstage has dominant bass and seems muddy and imprecise. Even though its rated power is similar to the NADs it soon seemed to run out of power with the dire straights drum hits. It had ok stereo placement when you worked your way through its muddy soundstage. I personally don’t think this amp sounds too good but maybe it doesn’t go to well with the wharf dale diamonds.

Well by no means am I a pro at this but I through I would share my OPPINIONS on these products, remember I only listen through my ears and what you may think could be totally different.
I do like a sparkly in your face sound as I brought up before when I posted about listening through pro amps, however the Cambridge seems too sharp and easily fatigues the ear. If you are thinking of buying one go and buy it because it’s the best sounding and most musical digital surround sound receiver at its price tag.

all tone controls and balance controles were set to mid point, where possible they were bypased (kenwood and yamaha), i used direct in on the 540r.