How much to pay for an Arcam A65+ ?

[richardw42]

Still in my search for used amp to go with Rokan Kandy CDP.

How much would be an acceptable price for a used A65+ ?

Thanks

 

[d_a_n1979]

Less than £130 currently IMO

Personally I'd rather stick the money in to a good NAD C320BEE or an Arcam Alpha 9 or 10 integrated

Obviously depends on your tastes in music and the rest of the system but the Alpha 10 is a cracking amp and will survive many upgrades

 

[John Duncan]

d_a_n1979:Less than £130

You'd have to pay me a damn sight more than that to have one...

 

[plastic penguin]

I certainly got more than £130 for mine. I'd say £150-£200 depending on condition and age.

 

[plastic penguin]

JohnDuncan:d_a_n1979:Less than £130 You'd have to pay me a damn sight more than that to have one...

Ah ha. Is there something your not divulging, Mr. D?

(Note: Mr. Duncan a closet Arcam admirer).

 

[John Duncan]

You misunderstand me...

 

[robg1976]

hi

i got one last week on ebay, my winning bid was £72 plus 15 postage, its in mint condition with remote manual and original box if that helps

 

[robg1976]

i must agree with this post, i have a cd73 awesome player i got the arcam a65 to replace my nad c352, i think not, the nad is a much better amp, the a65 is dull. this bass is lifeless and the nad just sounds better in all areas timing bass dynamics, so if you can look for a good second hand nad c352 or 3020.

 

[d_a_n1979]

Yup... Arcam DiVA A65 is a backwards step from the NAD C352

The Arcam A65's I've seen recently on eBay have gone for less than £130 over the last few weeks; 5 have been sold all together and only a few fetched over £100!

 

[plastic penguin]

robg1976:i must agree with this post, i have a cd73 awesome player i got the arcam a65 to replace my nad c352, i think not, the nad is a much better amp, the a65 is dull. this bass is lifeless and the nad just sounds better in all areas timing bass dynamics, so if you can look for a good second hand nad c352 or 3020.

Wrong speakers in that case.

In the right environment the A65+ is as good as any sub-£500 integrated. I'm fed-up with the A65 getting a real good pasting, and in terms of mid range and top-end detail it betters the 352 and Rotel RA-02. Sure, they punch harder than the Arcam and they dispense more power. In a small to medium room with the right speakers and good quality leads, the A65 plus is a match for anything around that price bracket.

Given the fact I had my mine for over 5 years and listened to oodles of other amps (most more expensive) I'm more qualified than most to comment on the pros and cons of the A65...

 

[richardw42]

People seem to queue up to rip into various components.

I looked at one forum where virtually every poster was very rude about the A400.

IS IT COOL ?

Surely its about personal preference trouble is as in all things those against shout louder than those for.

Its to go with a Roksan Kandy KC-1. Speakers will be last in chain to be decided upon unless anybody has any ideas now.

 

[matthewpiano]

There is nothing much wrong with the A65+. It won't set the world alight with fast, attacking sound but it has other qualities that are just as valuable such as superbly stable imaging, excellent tonal accuracy and a lovely, fluid midband. At around £100 it is a lot of amp for the money and it might just be what you are looking for, though quite different to the Pioneer.

I have owned both and I liked different things about each. One thing I would say is that the Arcam is easier to partner than the Pioneer. The A400 is extremely fussy about source and speakers and it can be quite a job to get the very best out of it.

 

[plastic penguin]

matthewpiano:There is nothing much wrong with the A65+. It won't set the world alight with fast, attacking sound but it has other qualities that are just as valuable such as superbly stable imaging, excellent tonal accuracy and a lovely, fluid midband. At around £100 it is a lot of amp for the money and it might just be what you are looking for, though quite different to the Pioneer. I have owned both and I liked different things about each. One thing I would say is that the Arcam is easier to partner than the Pioneer. The A400 is extremely fussy about source and speakers and it can be quite a job to get the very best out of it.

Thanks, Matthew.

I'm well aware of the A65's deficiencies and I've never tried to disguise it...honesty has always been my forte with any component I've heard. As huge MA Silver and Arcam fan, I seem to be the black sheep.

 

[JoelSim]

plastic penguin:
matthewpiano:There is nothing much wrong with the A65+. It won't set the world alight with fast, attacking sound but it has other qualities that are just as valuable such as superbly stable imaging, excellent tonal accuracy and a lovely, fluid midband. At around £100 it is a lot of amp for the money and it might just be what you are looking for, though quite different to the Pioneer. I have owned both and I liked different things about each. One thing I would say is that the Arcam is easier to partner than the Pioneer. The A400 is extremely fussy about source and speakers and it can be quite a job to get the very best out of it.

Thanks, Matthew.

I'm well aware of the A65's deficiencies and I've never tried to disguise it...honesty has always been my forte with any component I've heard. As huge MA Silver and Arcam fan, I seem to be the black sheep.

Many people like slaughtering Arcam. Personally I've had nothing but great products from them. I wouldn't pay more than £80 or so for an A65+ though.

 

[John Duncan]

It gives me no pleasure...

 

[plastic penguin]

richardw42:

People seem to queue up to rip into various components.

I looked at one forum where virtually every poster was very rude about the A400.

IS IT COOL ?

Surely its about personal preference trouble is as in all things those against shout louder than those for.

Its to go with a Roksan Kandy KC-1. Speakers will be last in chain to be decided upon unless anybody has any ideas now.

If you go the A65 route then Monitor Audio (either RS6 or RX6) will set alight the slightly languid Arcam. Likewise, the Nads will synergise well with MAs, but for me, the Nads are a little bass dependent -- I'm sure the keen Nadders will rip me to pieces

-- but if it's your thing then the Nad is choice around that price.

NB: Last summer I connected the A65 with PMC DB1s and the detail and presence the tiny PMCs extracted was immense. Alas, the A65 didn't have the power or dynamics to make the most of the PMCs; it was fine with music but lacked when playing DVDs.

 

[Big Chris]

I used an A65+ for 7 years with very few complaints. Still got it boxed in my loft and when I finally turn my garage into a recording studio, it'll see service again and I'll be more than happy.

Arcam seems to be the audio world's whipping boy for some reason.

 

[robg1976]

I dont think anyone is bad mouthing arcam, im certinaly not my cd73t is the best player iv ever heard regardless of cost.

In my opinion its all down to choice we all like different music and therefor will like different hi-fi.

Lets look at it this way, i have both the a65plus and a nad c352, my comment was that i prefer the nad, it has lets say that nad in house sound which i prefer. but this by no means the arcam is a bad amp. iv been listening to my a65 for about 2 weeks now and have owned the c352 for 5 years. the arcam is a great amp lots of detail, a treble that sparkles and is a great well made amp, i just prefer the sound of the nad with my monitor audio br5. thats not to say it is better just different and my choice would be the nad.

in conclusion i prefer some music with the nad and other discs sound better with the arcam. also the 40 watt stated by arcam sounds poor but i can honestly say i for one did not think it was under powered. the nad however just has that rhythm and bass i prefer. i guess its down to personal taste.

hope this clears up my comment on the a65.

 

[Anonymous]

I would not pay much for it, Outclassed these days and wasn't very good in its time either. Arcam, make some great stuff but not amplifiers other than the A85 or was it the A80, i cant remember.The diva range was pretty poor and i found them to be gutless sounding amps.I had one and did not liike it at all.