Opinions on Roksan Kandy MKIII amp?

admin_exported

New member
Aug 10, 2019
2,556
5
0
Well I almost bought this amp yesterday on ebay after listening to the Roksan Kandy K2 but pulled out of it, after having not heard this one before so how does this amp compared to the NAD C352?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well, I haven't heard the NAD, so I can't offer a comparison, but I like mine! Seriously though, given that the general opinion when the K2 was launched was that it was a significan step up from the outgoing model, I would be wary of buying the LIII blind on the basis that you liked the K2. They are basically 2 completely different amps.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ooops, yes, I had just noticed that - I think we established before that they are indeed different models.
 
hi fi newbie:Well I almost bought this amp yesterday on ebay after listening to the Roksan Kandy K2 but pulled out of it, after having not heard this one before so how does this amp compared to the NAD C352?

Heard Nad 352 when I auditioned it along side my Arcam. The Nad digs deep and has loads of detail and overall for £350 RRP it was stonking.

Although not heard the Kandy MIII I listened to the LIII. My conclusion was with the right speakers the Kandy is a better amp. There is one note of caution regarding the Kandy: it can be slightly boistrous with certain music.

Hope this helps.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cheers in what aspects of the delivery did you consider it to be a better amp?
 
hi fi newbie:Cheers in what aspects of the delivery did you consider it to be a better amp?

The Kandy has shed loads of detail and has a forthright or "ballsier" character. However, this is also its weakness because it can sound a little too gun-ho in the extreme frequencies when pushed hard.
 

SteveR750

Well-known member
Mar 11, 2005
750
148
19,070
plastic penguin:
hi fi newbie:Cheers in what aspects of the delivery did you consider it to be a better amp?

The Kandy has shed loads of detail and has a forthright or "ballsier" character. However, this is also its weakness because it can sound a little too gun-ho in the extreme frequencies when pushed hard.

Just like a 352 then? I think the Kandy would be a noticeanle improvement over the 352 which whilst very good ( I had one for 4 years and loved it) its not the last word in bottom end control, and bass guitars can become a little one note. If the MkIII is half the ability of the K2 then its going to be an improvement in my ears opinion.
 
SteveR750:plastic penguin:

hi fi newbie:Cheers in what aspects of the delivery did you consider it to be a better amp?

The Kandy has shed loads of detail and has a forthright or "ballsier" character. However, this is also its weakness because it can sound a little too gun-ho in the extreme frequencies when pushed hard.

Just like a 352 then? I think the Kandy would be a noticeanle improvement over the 352 which whilst very good ( I had one for 4 years and loved it) its not the last word in bottom end control, and bass guitars can become a little one note. If the MkIII is half the ability of the K2 then its going to be an improvement in my ears opinion.

I agree - when you consider the Kandy at almost twice the price of the Nad you'd hope for a decent step-up. And, indeed, this is what you get. I'm just pointing out that if you prefer a slightly laid back sound to your music, like myself, there are others that maybe better suited.

Regarding the Nad - it may have up front sound with deep bass and top-notch timing. However, I found when compared to my A65+, and although it had more than the Arcam, the Arcam, to my ears, sounded slightly better balanced - but it was marginal.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts