NAD Vindicated

[jaxwired]

Group test review out this month (not WHF) ranks NAD C165 / C275 Pre/Power higher in sound quality over offerings from Arcam, Cyrus, and Myryad. All costing 50% more than the NAD. Only the Primare offering squeaked out a higher SQ rating at twice the price.

"Explicit, focused, never strained, tracking dynamic swings in music recordings with aplomb...highly polished sound...audiophile bargain. First class high fidelity for a second class price".

 

[izpuuteejs]

As I am using some gear of NAD this fact do not surprise me.

Haven't heard exactly the C165/C275 combo but I am sure that would sound nice 🙂

 

[floyd droid]

jaxwired:
Group test review out this month (not WHF) ranks NAD C165 / C275 Pre/Power higher in sound quality over offerings from Arcam, Cyrus, and Myryad. All costing 50% more than the NAD. Only the Primare offering squeaked out a higher SQ rating at twice the price.

"Explicit, focused, never strained, tracking dynamic swings in music recordings with aplomb...highly polished sound...audiophile bargain. First class high fidelity for a second class price".

Nobody ever remembers who or what came second my friend. Well with Germany being the exception.

 

[Anonymous]

Cool, just wish they looked a wee bit nicer!

 

[jaxwired]

Pmaninit:Cool, just wish they looked a wee bit nicer!

I totally agree. I wish NAD would step into the 21st century with the rest of us. But I think they consider the austere look core to their product line. Their philosophy is to spend money on great sound, not great looks. I think that runs pretty deep for the NAD company and I doubt they will change soon...

 

[Anonymous]

^ For me, NAIM gear looks the best.

Just love it, never heard it yet though!

 

[biggus_1961]

jaxwired:
Group test review out this month (not WHF) ranks NAD C165 / C275 Pre/Power higher in sound quality over offerings from Arcam, Cyrus, and Myryad. All costing 50% more than the NAD. Only the Primare offering squeaked out a higher SQ rating at twice the price.

"Explicit, focused, never strained, tracking dynamic swings in music recordings with aplomb...highly polished sound...audiophile bargain. First class high fidelity for a second class price".

I see you use the Quad 909 with the 165 pre-amp..Have you compared that with the 165/275 combo ?

 

[mushroomgod]

Iv always liked the look of Nad gear - not for everyone Ill admit. And I do think (coming from a design background) that they could easly update the look while still maintaining the simple design.

One thing I hate though (and I mentioned this before) is how cheap the outer plastic is - CA gear is built like a tank, Nad gear is build like it came out of a christmass cracker. Its a real shame, and something I didnt noticed when I was in the show room.

It does sound spot on though, so its a small complaint 😉

 

[matthewpiano]

Jaxwired -

You don't need any magazine to vindicate NAD. Your own ears have already done it. It wouldn't make any difference if the review had slated it. Its just another person's opinion.

As for NAD's looks I think they are more distinctive and interesting than most of the boxes out there. I love their older stuff in particular.

 

[jaxwired]

biggus_1961:

I see you use the Quad 909 with the 165 pre-amp..Have you compared that with the 165/275 combo ?

No, but I've compared it to the NAD C375 which is basically the same thing in one box. As I posted awhile back, I thought the C375 was very good indeed, despite the lackluster WHF review. The depth and control of the bass is shockingly good. I have a few CDs I use to audtion bass quality and one CD in particular, I've found most equipment struggles with and I decided it was just the recording. Until I heard it on the C375... The QUAD 909 is excellent also. There is something about the midrange texture and lushness with the 909 that is special.

matthewpiano:

As for NAD's looks I think they are more distinctive and interesting than most of the boxes out there. I love their older stuff in particular.

We are in different camps on that one. I don't hate NAD looks, but when I compare it to something like Primare or the new Rotel 15 series, it looks dull and dated to me. I'd pick the Rotel gear for looks everytime. I do think NAD could easily update the looks without much expense, but I don't think they want to. For NAD, that plain box look is a badge of honor. That's part of their charisma. They might come out with a new line, but I really doubt they would ever move away from the plain look for their classic line of 2 channel gear.

 

[matthewpiano]

That Rotel gear looks nice and I bet its well built too, but I hate slot-loading CD players.

 

[jaxwired]

floyd droid:Nobody ever remembers who or what came second my friend. Well with Germany being the exception.

While it's true the Primare was given a very slight nod over the NAD combo for sound quality, the NAD was crowned the group test winner and the only product to get the outstanding product award. I guess they factor in price. But, I do agree, the Primare wins in sound and looks which is all that really matters. BTW, this was the brand new Primare A33.2.

Here's the interesting thing about this group test. The NAD and the Primare were compared to a £7000 Mark Levinson No 383 integrated. The Primare was deemed to be the ML equal! The NAD then is a just a gnats wing away from the ML at 25% the price. That's impressive.

 

[idc]

Is this why you posted the thread on high end kit being a 'rip off'? I have auditioned various NAD stuff over the years and it has never grabbed me, looks or more importantly sonically. But thats just me!

 

[floyd droid]

jaxwired:
floyd droid:Nobody ever remembers who or what came second my friend. Well with Germany being the exception.

While it's true the Primare was given a very slight nod over the NAD combo for sound quality, the NAD was crowned the group test winner and the only product to get the outstanding product award. I guess they factor in price. But, I do agree, the Primare wins in sound and looks which is all that really matters. BTW, this was the brand new Primare A33.2.

Here's the interesting thing about this group test. The NAD and the Primare were compared to a £7000 Mark Levinson No 383 integrated. The Primare was deemed to be the ML equal! The NAD then is a just a gnats wing away from the ML at 25% the price. That's impressive.

Hiya buddy,i was only joshing you , hence the tongue out smily. I read that group test too,interesting results eh. Of course as with all reviews its down to one guys ears and preferences, but never the less for him to rate them close runners to the ML must have made good reading for NAD and Primare eh.

 

[jaxwired]

idc:Is this why you posted the thread on high end kit being a 'rip off'?

Not at all. I should have phrased the title of that thread more carefully. What I should have said was those Klipsch Palladium speakers are significantly over priced and Klipsch is gouging their customers because they can, IMO. Lots of good high end stuff that I'd gladly part with my hard earned money for.

But most people agree that cost/value in HiFi is not a linear graph. Steady price jumps result in ever decreasing value jumps. OR to put it another way, as cost approaches infinity, value approaches a constant.

 

[Anonymous]

I have had a couple of Nad amps (C350&C370), superb value for money, but.....muddy bass. Unless they have improved, I have always thought they are good at the price point, but that bass is just too muddy for me.