It’s something I’ve been wondering about for some time. Little less than a year ago I bought the NAD C356BEE (80wpch). If I look at how much it costs, it’s about 750 euros right now. From what I’ve read on this forum it’s really important that an amplifier can deal with the loads that speakers pose on them and they need some power to really get the best out of the speakers. Now, one of the amplifiers often recommended and discussed here is the Creek evo 50a (55wpch) which currently costs about 900 euros.
Now, I wonder, what it is that the Creek 50a does, that it is so highly recommended and regarded and able to drive speakers, while the NAD, even though it is recognized to be good, isn’t perceived in the same way, even though it’s power output per channel is significantly higher. How is it, that the Creek could - and probably according to several here actually is - be better than the NAD. Is there any objective way in which one can say that the technics behind the Creek are superior to that of the NAD?
Now, I wonder, what it is that the Creek 50a does, that it is so highly recommended and regarded and able to drive speakers, while the NAD, even though it is recognized to be good, isn’t perceived in the same way, even though it’s power output per channel is significantly higher. How is it, that the Creek could - and probably according to several here actually is - be better than the NAD. Is there any objective way in which one can say that the technics behind the Creek are superior to that of the NAD?