Hi there, can someone please tell me why the new nad amplifiers have on/off switches on the back of them??
New nad amplifiers...the on/off switch
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
nads
Well-known member
Obviously i know the actual function of the on/off switch but just wondering how this new feature to the amps is benificial, Its kind of like putting manual chokes back on cars lol , cant see the benafit at all,
I mean its just kind of gonna make people keep the bloomin things on stand by and surley in a world that is becoming more green and concious of energy waist this isnt a good idea.
I for one have always try to turn things full off if poss, mainly because i have ocd and am scared that things will set on fire while im asleep etc lol not really beacause of electricity aist if truth be known
Who in gods name wants to get there knuckles scraped to turn there amp on???
The normal method of either the machine being off or on/stand by is much better......, i knw it doesnt really matter but just cant see the method to it .
I mean its just kind of gonna make people keep the bloomin things on stand by and surley in a world that is becoming more green and concious of energy waist this isnt a good idea.
I for one have always try to turn things full off if poss, mainly because i have ocd and am scared that things will set on fire while im asleep etc lol not really beacause of electricity aist if truth be known
Who in gods name wants to get there knuckles scraped to turn there amp on???
The normal method of either the machine being off or on/stand by is much better......, i knw it doesnt really matter but just cant see the method to it .
Yes, I agree totally. With the old-style NAD power button you could still turn it on & off via the button ON THE FRONT or leave it on standy via the remote. Now we can turn the amp off via a button AT THE BACK, or leave it on standby via the remote...or leave it on standby via the button on the front. Surely nobody would walk up to the amp in order to leave it on standby, they'd use the remote??? Oh and is the rocker button on the back of a decent enough quality to withstand many years of constant use, or is it not really meant to be used that often? I would switch the unit off via that button after each and every use. I think this new system sucks. Not enough to stop me buying one of the amps but it's a definite negative IMO. Leaving anything on standby uses electricity.
nads
Well-known member
[quote user="Wild Willy"]Yes, I agree totally. With the old-style NAD power button [/quote] you only had on or off and no remote. 
[quote user="Wild Willy"]Yes, I agree totally. With the old-style NAD power button you could still turn it on & off via the button ON THE FRONT or leave it on standy via the remote. Now we can turn the amp off via a button AT THE BACK, or leave it on standby via the remote...or leave it on standby via the button on the front. Surely nobody would walk up to the amp in order to leave it on standby, they'd use the remote??? Oh and is the rocker button on the back of a decent enough quality to withstand many years of constant use, or is it not really meant to be used that often? I would switch the unit off via that button after each and every use. I think this new system sucks. Not enough to stop me buying one of the amps but it's a definite negative IMO. Leaving anything on standby uses electricity.[/quote]
Agree with you also mate,
Totally baffles me it really does, as sad as it sounds i think this little glitch is enought to make me not want to buy this amp, i refuse to use stand if possible as said and dont really want the bind of having to switch my amp fully off at the rear at all time after time after time
why couldnt they just of put it at the front even if it ment having the 2 seperaete switches still?
Agree with you also mate,
Totally baffles me it really does, as sad as it sounds i think this little glitch is enought to make me not want to buy this amp, i refuse to use stand if possible as said and dont really want the bind of having to switch my amp fully off at the rear at all time after time after time
why couldnt they just of put it at the front even if it ment having the 2 seperaete switches still?
[quote user="nads"][quote user="Wild Willy"]Yes, I agree totally. With the old-style NAD power button [/quote] you only had on or off and no remote. [/quote]
On was stand by
[/quote]On was stand by
[quote user="marcymarc555"]
[quote user="Wild Willy"]Yes, I agree totally. With the old-style NAD power button you could still turn it on & off via the button ON THE FRONT or leave it on standy via the remote. Now we can turn the amp off via a button AT THE BACK, or leave it on standby via the remote...or leave it on standby via the button on the front. Surely nobody would walk up to the amp in order to leave it on standby, they'd use the remote??? Oh and is the rocker button on the back of a decent enough quality to withstand many years of constant use, or is it not really meant to be used that often? I would switch the unit off via that button after each and every use. I think this new system sucks. Not enough to stop me buying one of the amps but it's a definite negative IMO. Leaving anything on standby uses electricity.[/quote]
Agree with you also mate,
Totally baffles me it really does, as sad as it sounds i think this little glitch is enought to make me not want to buy this amp, i refuse to use stand if possible as said and dont really want the bind of having to switch my amp fully off at the rear at all time after time after time
why couldnt they just of put it at the front even if it ment having the 2 seperaete switches still?
[/quote]
To be fair it's not that hard to get to, unless your amp is pushed into some IKEA-style shelving system. On a normal rack you can get to the button quite easily as it is just around the corner at the back. It's still a pain however and as you say, I can see absolutely no reason for it! I fear NAD are going to get slated for it. An alternative would be to put the unit into standby via the front button and then switch off the power plug at the mains socket. You just shouldn't have to do this though.
[quote user="Wild Willy"]Yes, I agree totally. With the old-style NAD power button you could still turn it on & off via the button ON THE FRONT or leave it on standy via the remote. Now we can turn the amp off via a button AT THE BACK, or leave it on standby via the remote...or leave it on standby via the button on the front. Surely nobody would walk up to the amp in order to leave it on standby, they'd use the remote??? Oh and is the rocker button on the back of a decent enough quality to withstand many years of constant use, or is it not really meant to be used that often? I would switch the unit off via that button after each and every use. I think this new system sucks. Not enough to stop me buying one of the amps but it's a definite negative IMO. Leaving anything on standby uses electricity.[/quote]
Agree with you also mate,
Totally baffles me it really does, as sad as it sounds i think this little glitch is enought to make me not want to buy this amp, i refuse to use stand if possible as said and dont really want the bind of having to switch my amp fully off at the rear at all time after time after time
why couldnt they just of put it at the front even if it ment having the 2 seperaete switches still?
[/quote]
To be fair it's not that hard to get to, unless your amp is pushed into some IKEA-style shelving system. On a normal rack you can get to the button quite easily as it is just around the corner at the back. It's still a pain however and as you say, I can see absolutely no reason for it! I fear NAD are going to get slated for it. An alternative would be to put the unit into standby via the front button and then switch off the power plug at the mains socket. You just shouldn't have to do this though.
[quote user="Wild Willy"][quote user="marcymarc555"]
[quote user="Wild Willy"]Yes, I agree totally. With the old-style NAD power button you could still turn it on & off via the button ON THE FRONT or leave it on standy via the remote. Now we can turn the amp off via a button AT THE BACK, or leave it on standby via the remote...or leave it on standby via the button on the front. Surely nobody would walk up to the amp in order to leave it on standby, they'd use the remote??? Oh and is the rocker button on the back of a decent enough quality to withstand many years of constant use, or is it not really meant to be used that often? I would switch the unit off via that button after each and every use. I think this new system sucks. Not enough to stop me buying one of the amps but it's a definite negative IMO. Leaving anything on standby uses electricity.[/quote]
Agree with you also mate,
Totally baffles me it really does, as sad as it sounds i think this little glitch is enought to make me not want to buy this amp, i refuse to use stand if possible as said and dont really want the bind of having to switch my amp fully off at the rear at all time after time after time
why couldnt they just of put it at the front even if it ment having the 2 seperaete switches still?
[/quote]
To be fair it's not that hard to get to, unless your amp is pushed into some IKEA-style shelving system. On a normal rack you can get to the button quite easily as it is just around the corner at the back. It's still a pain however and as you say, I can see absolutely no reason for it! I fear NAD are going to get slated for it. An alternative would be to put the unit into standby via the front button and then switch off the power plug at the mains socket. You just shouldn't have to do this though.[/quote]
Im gasping to here what the what hifi team think about the matter.
[quote user="Wild Willy"]Yes, I agree totally. With the old-style NAD power button you could still turn it on & off via the button ON THE FRONT or leave it on standy via the remote. Now we can turn the amp off via a button AT THE BACK, or leave it on standby via the remote...or leave it on standby via the button on the front. Surely nobody would walk up to the amp in order to leave it on standby, they'd use the remote??? Oh and is the rocker button on the back of a decent enough quality to withstand many years of constant use, or is it not really meant to be used that often? I would switch the unit off via that button after each and every use. I think this new system sucks. Not enough to stop me buying one of the amps but it's a definite negative IMO. Leaving anything on standby uses electricity.[/quote]
Agree with you also mate,
Totally baffles me it really does, as sad as it sounds i think this little glitch is enought to make me not want to buy this amp, i refuse to use stand if possible as said and dont really want the bind of having to switch my amp fully off at the rear at all time after time after time
why couldnt they just of put it at the front even if it ment having the 2 seperaete switches still?
[/quote]
To be fair it's not that hard to get to, unless your amp is pushed into some IKEA-style shelving system. On a normal rack you can get to the button quite easily as it is just around the corner at the back. It's still a pain however and as you say, I can see absolutely no reason for it! I fear NAD are going to get slated for it. An alternative would be to put the unit into standby via the front button and then switch off the power plug at the mains socket. You just shouldn't have to do this though.[/quote]
Im gasping to here what the what hifi team think about the matter.
[quote user="marcymarc555"]
[quote user="Wild Willy"]Yes, I agree totally. With the old-style NAD power button you could still turn it on & off via the button ON THE FRONT or leave it on standy via the remote. Now we can turn the amp off via a button AT THE BACK, or leave it on standby via the remote...or leave it on standby via the button on the front. Surely nobody would walk up to the amp in order to leave it on standby, they'd use the remote??? Oh and is the rocker button on the back of a decent enough quality to withstand many years of constant use, or is it not really meant to be used that often? I would switch the unit off via that button after each and every use. I think this new system sucks. Not enough to stop me buying one of the amps but it's a definite negative IMO. Leaving anything on standby uses electricity.[/quote]
Agree with you also mate,
Totally baffles me it really does, as sad as it sounds i think this little glitch is enought to make me not want to buy this amp, i refuse to use stand if possible as said and dont really want the bind of having to switch my amp fully off at the rear at all time after time after time
why couldnt they just of put it at the front even if it ment having the 2 seperaete switches still?
[/quote]
I also think the switch is just plain ridiculous. What's the point of it ? It is a little glitch, but a very annoying one.
[quote user="Wild Willy"]Yes, I agree totally. With the old-style NAD power button you could still turn it on & off via the button ON THE FRONT or leave it on standy via the remote. Now we can turn the amp off via a button AT THE BACK, or leave it on standby via the remote...or leave it on standby via the button on the front. Surely nobody would walk up to the amp in order to leave it on standby, they'd use the remote??? Oh and is the rocker button on the back of a decent enough quality to withstand many years of constant use, or is it not really meant to be used that often? I would switch the unit off via that button after each and every use. I think this new system sucks. Not enough to stop me buying one of the amps but it's a definite negative IMO. Leaving anything on standby uses electricity.[/quote]
Agree with you also mate,
Totally baffles me it really does, as sad as it sounds i think this little glitch is enought to make me not want to buy this amp, i refuse to use stand if possible as said and dont really want the bind of having to switch my amp fully off at the rear at all time after time after time
why couldnt they just of put it at the front even if it ment having the 2 seperaete switches still?
[/quote]
I also think the switch is just plain ridiculous. What's the point of it ? It is a little glitch, but a very annoying one.
[quote user="jbadman"]
My CA 540 us the same........annoying
[/quote]
Yes, it's certainly not a 'problem' purely confined to NAD's new range. Lots of higher-end kit have on/off switches at the back and are 'designed' to be left in stand-by mode.
My CA 540 us the same........annoying
[/quote]
Yes, it's certainly not a 'problem' purely confined to NAD's new range. Lots of higher-end kit have on/off switches at the back and are 'designed' to be left in stand-by mode.
Is perhaps the purpose of this not maybe to hide the switch to discourage people from using it? I've always been led to believe that an amp should always be left on. Therefore, no real need to have the button on the front.
[quote user="amarocknrollstar"]Is perhaps the purpose of this not maybe to hide the switch to discourage people from using it? I've always been led to believe that an amp should always be left on. Therefore, no real need to have the button on the front.[/quote]I'm sure i've read two differnt things in WHF - the first being 'equipment sounds best when up to temperature', and the standby button means its at/nearer this so you should use standyby, and then later the greener view of 'leaving on standby does nothing but increase your electricity bill!' (cant remember if it was months or a year later)
I always try to switch mine off at the front socket, and don't think i've heard a difference between when its on standy by or not.
I always try to switch mine off at the front socket, and don't think i've heard a difference between when its on standy by or not.
They used to make some TV sets with a solenoid on-off switch that was remote controlled to completely turn it off. OK, so you had to get up to switch it back on, but in these more green issue aware times I would have thought manufacturing things needlessly designed to be left on standby is unacceptable.The warm up thing doesn't apply to solid state amps anyway.
[quote user="Eddy Current"]
but in these more green issue aware times I would have thought manufacturing things needlessly designed to be left on standby is unacceptable.
[/quote]
Couldnt agree with this more,
but in these more green issue aware times I would have thought manufacturing things needlessly designed to be left on standby is unacceptable.
[/quote]
Couldnt agree with this more,
[quote user="marcymarc555"][quote user="Eddy Current"]
but in these more green issue aware times I would have thought manufacturing things needlessly designed to be left on standby is unacceptable.
[/quote]
Couldnt agree with this more,
[/quote]
It's all just a bunch of tree hugging hippy cr*p!
but in these more green issue aware times I would have thought manufacturing things needlessly designed to be left on standby is unacceptable.
[/quote]
Couldnt agree with this more,
[/quote]
It's all just a bunch of tree hugging hippy cr*p!
Gerrardasnails
Well-known member
I agree. My amp has the same and I didn't know until I took it out of the box. Guess what? Did not bother me in the slightest.
[quote user="taxiboy"]If folk don`t like the switch well all they need do is not buy one.[/quote]
Bit of a bummer though if the ONLY thing putting you off the amp is the power switch! NAD has only just introduced this method so old NAD fans in particular may be a bit miffed. As for solid state amps not needing to warm-up, they do. 20-30 minutes should suffice. I see no point in leaving an amp on all the time just to avoid this 20 minute warm-up time before the sound becomes optimum. Leaving a unit on not only uses unnecessary electric, it also reduces the lifespan of the equipment.
Bit of a bummer though if the ONLY thing putting you off the amp is the power switch! NAD has only just introduced this method so old NAD fans in particular may be a bit miffed. As for solid state amps not needing to warm-up, they do. 20-30 minutes should suffice. I see no point in leaving an amp on all the time just to avoid this 20 minute warm-up time before the sound becomes optimum. Leaving a unit on not only uses unnecessary electric, it also reduces the lifespan of the equipment.
emcc_3
Well-known member
Surely it wont present that much of a problem to use the switch at the back if you need to turn it off. If it is going to be too much of a problem surely you would choose not to purchase one of the new NAD amps. It may seem silly to have it on the back but I cant see why it would cause too much of a problem as long as your wiring and your system was neatly put together.
Hi-fi and home cinema components generally perform better when they've warmed up, so in the past we have recommended leaving them in standby so they're at their best as soon as you start listening/viewing.
However, in these more energy-conscious times, leaving things in standby has become an important Green issue. Many manufacturers are working hard to reduce the energy consumption of their products in standby, but if you're trying to save electricity, then switching things off after you've used them is the best bet. It just means you may have to give your amp, CD player or whatever time to warm up a bit when you next use it.
Last year Dixons urged manufacturers to abolish standby on all their electrical products, which caused a bit of controversy, as we reported here. We spoke to a number of hi-fi manufacturers to canvass their views.
However, in these more energy-conscious times, leaving things in standby has become an important Green issue. Many manufacturers are working hard to reduce the energy consumption of their products in standby, but if you're trying to save electricity, then switching things off after you've used them is the best bet. It just means you may have to give your amp, CD player or whatever time to warm up a bit when you next use it.
Last year Dixons urged manufacturers to abolish standby on all their electrical products, which caused a bit of controversy, as we reported here. We spoke to a number of hi-fi manufacturers to canvass their views.
[quote user="Andy Clough"]
Hi-fi and home cinema components generally perform better when they've warmed up, so in the past we have recommended leaving them in standby so they're at their best as soon as you start listening/viewing.
However, in these more energy-conscious times, leaving things in standby has become an important Green issue. Many manufacturers are working hard to reduce the energy consumption of their products in standby, but if you're trying to save electricity, then switching things off after you've used them is the best bet. It just means you may have to give your amp, CD player or whatever time to warm up a bit when you next use it.
Last year Dixons urged manufacturers to abolish standby on all their electrical products, which caused a bit of controversy, as we reported here. We spoke to a number of hi-fi manufacturers to canvass their views.
[/quote]
Hi thanks for the reply,
The thing is it doesnt explain why after all the said above Nad have chosen to add a feature whitch actually promotes the use of the stand by button rather than get rid of it???
Hi-fi and home cinema components generally perform better when they've warmed up, so in the past we have recommended leaving them in standby so they're at their best as soon as you start listening/viewing.
However, in these more energy-conscious times, leaving things in standby has become an important Green issue. Many manufacturers are working hard to reduce the energy consumption of their products in standby, but if you're trying to save electricity, then switching things off after you've used them is the best bet. It just means you may have to give your amp, CD player or whatever time to warm up a bit when you next use it.
Last year Dixons urged manufacturers to abolish standby on all their electrical products, which caused a bit of controversy, as we reported here. We spoke to a number of hi-fi manufacturers to canvass their views.
[/quote]
Hi thanks for the reply,
The thing is it doesnt explain why after all the said above Nad have chosen to add a feature whitch actually promotes the use of the stand by button rather than get rid of it???
Has anyone worked out how much it would cost to keep the c355bee in standby mode per day/week/month??? there must be a bean counter who fancy's a challenge on here??? someone stated the cyrus costs £30 per year.....
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
I test OLED TVs for a living – and trust me, different sizes perform differently- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram