differences between nad and rotel..

[indietronic]

this is a question that i wanted to ask a couple of months now, the point is i've built a system around an almost 20-year-old nad (model 3001) which in my ears sounds quiet musical, yet it's almost 20 years old !

so i've read superb reviews concerning rotel's ra-04 40wpc integrated amp (that sounds much more powerful than its 40watts per channel power) and i am curious (no i havent had any chance to hear it in my area) to ask : what are the difference in sound's character between nad (bear in mind that mine is an old nad, 60wpc, but i repeat in my ears older nads are faster and more expressive, maybe its my own idea, anyway) and rotel ?

i want to build a new (relatively cheap) system around it, if i find it, listen it and like it. since i see that some of you match it with quite expensive (compared to its price category) cd players and speakers (igglebert you are my man..) i'd like to have your opinion and experience with this level entry, still so favorable to match and powerful little amp.

thanx

 

[nads]

Ohhhhhh well i can not talk about current rotels, but back in the Mid '80's i Built my system about a 3130 as i could not get on with any of the other amps. Cambridge, Rotel, Sugden etc... and guess what i still could not get on with another sound. BUT I am not sure on the NAD BEE amps sound.

 

[tounra]

In general (what most people post in threads at audio forums) the sonic characters of NAD and Rotel compare like;
NAD: somwhat mellow and soft, big bass, colored low mids - 'warm' character - but with good dynamics, not slow by any means.
Rotel: bright, direct, fast, tight bass, uncolored - maybe the high mids are a bit too upfront.

NAD fans will say the Rotel is too bright, hard and aggressive sounding.
Rotel fans will argue that NAD sounds mushy, soft and too dark or just plain dull.

 

[indietronic]

thank you tounra. that's exactly what i wanted to know http://whathifi.co.uk/members/tounra.aspx

 

[Anonymous]

The Rotel sound isn't bright but maybe a notch or two the bright side of neutral. Their amps are not class leaders for detail resolution or bass definition but they provide a very musical balance that's punchy, involving and non-fatiguing. The Marantz competitors may be more detailed but are not as exciting when it comes to dynamics and power. The Rotels also seem to have a decent amount of current given their power rating although this is opinion as I don't really know the technical details behind this (not to hand). My Spendors and MF XRay seem to work very well together and the sound is very engaging indeed. I recently bought a serviced Quad 405 to use as a power amp and have moved from a 6.5 on the brightness scale to a 8! Not what I was expecting from a classically warm British icon. Hmmm.

Never heard an NAD amp I'm afraid! Give both a spin and made a decision but bear in mind room acoustics as it makes a very big difference indeed.

Good luck!

 

[Ajani]

tounra:In general (what most people post in threads at audio forums) the sonic characters of NAD and Rotel compare like; NAD: somwhat mellow and soft, big bass, colored low mids - 'warm' character - but with good dynamics, not slow by any means. Rotel: bright, direct, fast, tight bass, uncolored - maybe the high mids are a bit too upfront. NAD fans will say the Rotel is too bright, hard and aggressive sounding. Rotel fans will argue that NAD sounds mushy, soft and too dark or just plain dull. Agreed. I've owned fairly current gear from both NAD (C352) and Rotel (RC1070/RB1080 Combo) and the way you described the differences are what I experienced... Which you prefer, will depend on both your individual tastes and what speakers you match them with...