The NAD sound

[pioneer31]

 

[chebby]

I think you left the mute button switched on.

 

[chebby]

I'm not sure what happened there.

Well it's ok now.

I'm afraid my last NAD amplifier was the NAD 3020A (in my first ever hi-fi system) when I was still in my teens.

My memories of it are not going to help you now.

Just thought I'd bump the thread for you before it disappeared.

(And welcome to the forum.)

 

[matthewpiano]

You will probably achieve the sound you are looking for with a C545BEE. Great sounding player. However, it has a reputation for reliability issues (as do a lot of NAD CD players) so tread very carefully on the 2nd hand market.

 

[MakkaPakka]

NAD is always described as 'warm' though read I'm sure you could find the same thing described as bright or clinical if you look around.

I had a NAD amp and CD player back in 2004 and found it fatiguing but I'm sure that was down to the speakers.

 

[pioneer31]

Hi Chebby,

I'm not sure what happened there.

Ok, I'll try again....The NAD sound, how would you describe it?

I'm looking to get a NAD CDP (probably secondhand). My owned and previously owned CDP's include Marantz CD63, CD63ki, 6000Ki and Arcam 7SE.

I found the 63 to be extremely musical but lacking fine detail and finesse. I'm sure this helped make nasty discs sound palatable. Bass a tad soft and timing a bit sloppy The 63Ki was an even smoother sounding version (maybe too smooth) with slightly better soundstage. The 6000Ki had a less interesting sound (no pronounced midrange) than the 63 but did improve on detail and stereo separation and the Arcam was a funny old beast. From memory it had great timing, detail and imaging but had a sound that was 'warts and all'. I'd describe it as the most digital sounding of them all. I thought it was technically the best but musically the worst!

I'm just wondering where NAD would slot into that list

 

[pioneer31]

Thanks for the bump Chebby 🙂

yes I have read people describe NADs as both warm and boring/clinical etc.

 

[unhalfbricking]

I bought a NAD 515 back in February, but am in the process of selling it, having replaced it with a Cambridge 651. I would describe the overall sound of the NAD as smooth and 'analogue'. This was fine on brightly-mastered CDs - in fact the 515 really brought out the best in these discs, with its natural and 'musical' delivery. However, any disc that wasn't naturally as bright sounded a touch flat and dull. The NAD also had a tendency to sound compressed and a bit mushy when the music got louder and the soundstage filled up. I ended up going for the naturally brighter, more detailed Cambridge. I still feel this was a bit of a shame, because I loved the warmth of the NAD sound -- it just ended up being too smooth for me. Bear in mind the 515 was the entry model, so the 545 would probably have more detail and a better sound.

 

[matthewpiano]

Actually, the Cambridge 350C is a cracking machine if you can find one in good condition, or the 351C if you can stretch to a new one. The 350C is still one of the more enjoyable CD players I've had. The 650C was also a great player (651C now if you can buy new).

 

[ISAC69]

If you are looking for natural and neutral sound try the Rotel or Audiolab CDP's . their internal DAC are great . solid performance and reliable .

 

[pioneer31]

I always thought Cambridge were a budget outfit?

I was loaned a Cambridge CDP when my 6000Ki developed a small fault shortly after purchase and had to be repaired.

I can't remember the model but I do remember the overall sound funnily enough. It had a sound that impresses immediately but soon becomes fatiguing, lively, crisp and forward.....things that I associate with cheap players. It didn't do finesse

 

[chebby]

I always thought Cambridge were a budget outfit?

Exactly the same could be said of NAD. Their business was founded on the sale of 1.1 million NAD 3020 budget amplifiers (500,000 within it's first three years alone) in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

 

[unhalfbricking]

I always thought Cambridge were a budget outfit?

I was loaned a Cambridge CDP when my 6000Ki developed a small fault shortly after purchase and had to be repaired.

I can't remember the model but I do remember the overall sound funnily enough. It had a sound that impresses immediately but soon becomes fatiguing, lively, crisp and forward.....things that I associate with cheap players. It didn't do finesse

Having owned both NAD and CA this year, there is some truth in what you say in that the Cambridge is more lively, crisp and forward. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is down to individual taste. My experience with the NAD was that I had to start turning the treble up to +3 or +4 on my Arcam to get enough top end, so the 'brightness' thing cuts both ways. I wouldn't particualrly brand Cambridge as 'budget', nor do they have reliability issues. Finally, I would say 'finesse' is in the eyes (or ears) of the beholder!

 

[matthewpiano]

Cambridge aren't a budget brand, though they do make affordable kit. The Azur series is some of the best thought through kit out there and don't forget, they are more expensive elsewhere in the world where they don't have the benefits of the exclusive distribution through Richers.