Archive through April 18, 2008

Silver Member

Username: James_the_god

Doncaster, South Yorkshire
England

Post Number: 643
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 07:31 am:

I'm sure theres many who have owned older NAD amplifiers around here.

I'm fond of the character the NAD 3130 has. I'm using one(I bought for my dad, which fused and I've now fixed so will be his again soon) and prefer it to my own modern amp. Its more dynamic, more detailed and isnt bright plus has a bass eq button to boost frequencies below 60hz by half an octave.
Quite ironic how I thought my current amplifier was the perfect one...which it just isnt. The NAD has attack!

I'm wondering if modern NAD amps are any similiar, namely the new NAD c315bee which catches my eye for its nice price.

Is there much competition between the new and old NAD amplifiers?

ThankYou!
JJ

Relevant Product Info

Platinum Member

Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 12451
Registered: May-04

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 10:55 am:

.

"The NAD has attack!"

I would say that's one thing NAD's do not have.

David Mitchell

Silver Member

Username: Dmitchell

Ottawa, Ontario
Canada

Post Number: 849
Registered: Feb-07

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 11:47 am:

I have owned both new and old NAD amps. I have an old 2150 from maybe the early 90's (?). It sounds better to me than my newer C272, and has less power.

Frank S.

Bronze Member

Username: Betamax

Canada

Post Number: 38
Registered: May-07

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 12:43 pm:

Competition between new and old NAD amps? There was a three-legged race, but it was canceled due to rain.

Poor NAD...the Rodney Dangerfield of hifi.

"I don't get no respect. When I was born, the doctor held me the other way round and slapped my face."

Silver Member

Username: James_the_god

Doncaster, South Yorkshire
England

Post Number: 644
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 12:51 pm:

"The NAD has attack!"

"I would say that's one thing NAD's do not have."

Then I suppose the cambridge audio 540a is far to laid back, sort of boring..
What amplifiers would say do have attack in you're opinion Jan?

Frank, sorry I didnt understand what you're trying to say.

Also, nice to know that I'm not imagining older NADs sound fantastic.

David Mitchell

Silver Member

Username: Dmitchell

Ottawa, Ontario
Canada

Post Number: 851
Registered: Feb-07

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 01:19 pm:

I wouldn't say my old NAD sounds fantastic, but it's much more musical sounding than my new NAD.

Silver Member

Username: James_the_god

Doncaster, South Yorkshire
England

Post Number: 645
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 01:26 pm:

What would you say is lacking in you're newer C272? Isnt that a power amp though?

Platinum Member

Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 12457
Registered: May-04

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 05:10 pm:

.

"Then I suppose the cambridge audio 540a is far to laid back, sort of boring..
What amplifiers would say do have attack in you're opinion Jan?"

I've never heard a Cambridge amplifier.

If you're asking me for sepcific brands and models that have "attack", I'm going to disappoint you again. I no longer spend my days listening to audio gear other than my own. If I were to suggest any amplifier, I would tell you most solid state gear capable of producing a group of good looking square waves over the broadest frequency range would probably have good "attack". It takes a good power supply and a wide power bandwidth to accomplish that.

Almost any well designed/executed tube based unit will have better attack than most solid state gear. It's just a "start/stop" thing. Quite a few sand amps can get the attack right but can't match tubes for the decay part. However, a crumby output transformer on a good tube design will not allow for leading edge transients. This scenario is becoming increasingly familiar as the Chinese recycle old tube designs with new crumby parts.

Still the problem becomes, how does an amplifier - tube or solid state - prove it has "attack" when you connect it to a speaker load? Misjudge the load the amplifier works into and no amplifier sounds its best. So, other than trying a product with multiples of speakers and multiples of sources, suggesting any product lacks this or that is a bit fruitless.

That said, since 1978 I've never heard a NAD product that impressed me with its "attack". Warm, rolled off and what many consider "musical" they are. They are, IMO, no more capable of "attack" than a house cat trapping a fly.

If anyone likes NAD, that's fine with me and you should ignore my comments. But I've never met an ex-NAD owner who didn't believe they heard their music for the first time when they bought something else.

.

David Mitchell

Silver Member

Username: Dmitchell

Ottawa, Ontario
Canada

Post Number: 852
Registered: Feb-07

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 05:31 pm:

"But I've never met an ex-NAD owner who didn't believe they
heard their music for the first time when they bought something else."

I concur. Then again, I went from NAD to Bryston.

Gold Member

Username: Nickelbut10

Post Number: 1374
Registered: Jun-07

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 06:35 pm:

lol that makes two of us David, not a fair comparison.lol.

J.Jarvis- I think the new NAD material is definitely a step up in sound quality compared to their offerings in the last 5-8 years. I can't say for sure if the brand new stuff sounds better than the old stuff. They use be an actual Hi-Fi company back then, engineering, and building their stuff by hand in Britain. Now they are owned by a marketing company(Lenbrook) which claims the NAD stuff is still engineered by them, but now built in the republican of China. There is something said in having your stuff built in house IMO. I agree with Jan Vigne when it comes to the characteristics of NAD's sound. I don't see NAD as an amplifier with a whole lot of attack, unless you mean bass, which the typical NAD sound has a lot of, and slams hard. I think the NAD sound I would consider warm, a bit laid back and fluid. Overall IMO I have not heard a single product that matches NAD in the Price/Performance ratio. You stick a 600 dollar amp beside a 600 dollar NAD and the NAD will sound much better almost everytime. And I can still say that, now that I officially own a full two channel Bryston setup. So I am not being bias. My best advice J.Jarvis would be to go pick up a 315bee, bring it home, and if you like it better than the CA, then keep it. Have fun.Cheers.

Gold Member

Username: Nickelbut10

Post Number: 1375
Registered: Jun-07

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 06:38 pm:

Also, my dealer swears by the NAD/Monitor Audio combination J.J. Perhaps the synergy with the NAD in your system is better than that of the CA. Just a thought.

Platinum Member

Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 12458
Registered: May-04

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 06:56 pm:

.

"They use be an actual Hi-Fi company back then, engineering, and building their stuff by hand in Britain."

Sorry, NAD was never a manufacturing company. They have always been a marketing company. NAD began life in the late 1970's when the proliferation of Japanese crap hifi was filling the face plates (no remotes back then) with button and knob technology and the sound of the product was suffering for the addition of all the geegaws and WTF circuitry.

A group of fairly well to do audio enthisiasts in England got the idea of returning to the simplicity of several classic bits of hifi. They had no designers or engineers and so they hired a few. They explained what they wanted and had a some knock ups made to test. When they were satisfied with the product they found a manufacturing facility in Asia to build the stuff at an economical cost - not by hand. With a fair amount of indirect oversight and quality control - BINGOBANGOBINGO! - they had an integrated amplifier on the market. It was cheap and since it has the virtue of simplicity in circuit design and layout it sounded reasonably good for the money. Actually the original 3020 had a pretty good phono section in it. Not great by any means but far more competent than the Asian crud that was on the shelf alongside the NAD.

For quite a few years this is how NAD existed. They had a loosely constructed design team that turned out what the marketing people wanted. The difference was the marketing people had far less influence on the final product than was the norm from the Japanese companies who were all marketing. NAD has had multiple factories produce their products through the years and even had different plants making different parts of the line concurrently. This has been one of NAD's constant problems. They really have no one who builds NAD other than the low bid for the "best quality".

.

Frank S.

Bronze Member

Username: Betamax

Canada

Post Number: 39
Registered: May-07

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 07:08 pm:

Jarvis, my point was that NAD gets little respect in hifi forums, perhaps less than it deserves, then again perhaps not.

I see NAD as mid-level gear -- it sounds decent, better than many, and I could live with it, but but there's better out there (admittedly, for a lot more money).

If you look at my profile, you'll see I have all NAD electronics. I bought it a year ago, when I decided to get back into hifi after a 10-yr hiatus. The NAD gear was all well reviewed and I wanted to buy a complete system without spending too much money all at once. Now, after a year, I'm going to start upgrading a few pieces, starting with a Bryston amp.

I've been happy with NAD in general, and because it is decent gear, I'm in no hurry to upgrade anything and can take my time -- that means a lot to me. It also keeps it's value fairly well, and I can sell it without taking too great a loss.

It's good gear -- but not everyone in hifi forums will think so.

Gold Member

Username: Nickelbut10

Post Number: 1376
Registered: Jun-07

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 07:31 pm:

Well said Frank S.

Jan- Thanks for the insight, I was not aware of that. Now that I think of it, all old NAD gear is marked "Made in Japan". That would explain it. lol love the BINGOBANGOBINGO!!!

Stu Pitt

Gold Member

Username: Stu_pitt

Irvington, New York
USA

Post Number: 2643
Registered: May-05

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 10:22 pm:

Just so we're all on the same page when it comes down to what attack actually is -

From Stereophile's Glossary

attack - 1) The buildup of sound when an instrument is bowed, blown, struck, or plucked. 2) The ability of a system to reproduce the attack transients in musical sound. Poor attack makes a system sound slow.

attack transient - The initial energy pulse of a percussive sound, such as from a piano string, triangle, or drum head.

The way I interpret it is the leading edge of a note. If it doesn't have good attack, the note can be blurred, fuzzy, over overly smooth in the very begining of it. Decay is basically the end of it, and the same way in my understanding.

I wouldn't say NAD has good attack nor decay. It sounds overly and artifically smooth to my ears. When I owned NAD, I knew something was missing, but couldn't describe it. Actually, something was added - longer attack and decay times IMO. A demo with an excellent Naim dealer about 2 years ago showed me how wrong NAD is in this regard. They didn't have nor mention NAD. When I came home and listened to my gear it became painfully obvious.

The worst gear in this regard to my ears is Marantz. It sounds way too slow, warm, and laid back. Nothing they make, including their multi-thousand dollar gear, sounds natural to me. It sounds like people think a stereo should sound, not how live music sounds. There's a huge difference.

I'm not trying to bash NAD. Its very good for the money. You can do far worse (Marantz IMO). But it has no sense of PRaT - Pace, Rythym, and Timing. I think attack and decay are probably the core of what PRaT is.

If this doesn't make real-world sense to you, go out and hear a Naim, Linn, or Rega system. Bryston's got in spades too, yet very few really mention it when talking about PRaT for some odd reason.

To a lot of people who aren't used to a PRaT system, it'll sound very edgy, sharp, and aggressive. The more you listen to it and compare it to live music, the more realistic and true to source it sounds. Some love it, and some hate it. Everyone's system has different objectives and goals.

Stu Pitt

Gold Member

Username: Stu_pitt

Irvington, New York
USA

Post Number: 2644
Registered: May-05

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 10:29 pm:

"But I've never met an ex-NAD owner who didn't believe they
heard their music for the first time when they bought something else."

"I concur. Then again, I went from NAD to Bryston."

"lol that makes two of us David, not a fair comparison.lol."

That makes three of us. Its definitely not fair to compare NAD's C series gear to Bryston, but what about NAD's M series? Their $2800 M3 sounds awful compared to my comparably priced B60 (when brand new).

NAD's house sound is flawed to my ears. Its very acceptable in their lower priced gear, but their M series gear makes no attemp to address the attacks and decays IMO. The improvement is in hifi stuff, not music stuff.

Frank S has an NAD and a B60 on the way. I'd love to hear his thoughts on this subject after he gets to know his B60 better.

M.R.

Gold Member

Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 1912
Registered: Nov-05

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 10:45 pm:

Imo, the MF A5 has the attack and decay that, to some degree, was missing from my C272/C162 combo. That and PRaT is now very much alive in our present Naim/MF/Quad set up. However, the NAD combo was very good value for money (here in Aus) and it performed much more musically with the Rega Apollo and Cd5i as the source than it did having the NAD CDP introduce the signals. Not in the same ballpark as the present gear for sure.

Gold Member

Username: Nickelbut10

Post Number: 1378
Registered: Jun-07

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 11:48 pm:

Yup, NAD is very good 'Budget' gear. And 'budget' I would say sums it up. Like Stu said, sounds good for the money, but thats about all they try to do. I think NAD's best stuff is their AVR's, not because it sounds better than their other stuff, just cause it sounds just as good. And that is saying something when its coming from an AVR.

Stu-Can't wait to get the Bryston pre in my hands as well. The Attack should improve greatly once again in my system.

Frank- Your getting a B60? Game on!!!!

Gold Member

Username: Nickelbut10

Post Number: 1379
Registered: Jun-07

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 11:54 pm:

Stu- Would you say the M3 vs the B60 is a personal preference? I would personally rather own the B60 as well. But I have always enjoyed what the M3 sounds like when I have heard it.

Silver Member

Username: James_the_god

Doncaster, South Yorkshire
England

Post Number: 646
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 07:15 am:

ThankYou for all of you're replies and input.

I suppose that synergy can change overall sound resulting in different opinions on characteristic sound from different people. Maybe the Nad doesnt have attack then, just more than my cambridge audio (which Ive sold and posting today). In my case, the NAD does infact have better synergy with my speakers as you mentioned Nick. The edgyness of my MAs has gone and I infact like the warm, rolled off dynamic character of the NAD. Says "London/Boston/Tokyo" on the back.

The problem always boils down to money. For me its best value for money I can possibly get.
This is why I'm seriously considering purchasing a t-amp. The Winsome Labs Mouse which was extensively reviewed on 6moons audio. I fear however that it will simply reveal my monitor audios true character and leave me wanting for the warm character of the NAD.
I have another objective if possible, to eliminated use of my subwoofer for a couple of reasons. Currently its turned off and is fine.

One things for sure, I WILL be purchasing a new amplifier for myself. I just need help.

It seems Bryston is highly favoured! And the price?

Jan, what you said about tube amps is interesting. I'm only put off by not knowing if I'm really getting a quality tube amp without the crumby parts and chinese manufacturing quality.

Why Frank, do you think NAD gets less respect than it deserves?

My lack of knowledge in the true meaning of attack isnt my fault but thanks for explaining, helpful information Stu! I've not had the luxury to listen to high end equipemtn from Naim, Linn, Bryston, let alone tube amps or t-amps.

I'd appreciate further help with careful consideration to price/performance...

Should I endeavour with the Winsome Labs Mouse t-map. thats had me interested for quite some time. If I dont like it, I can consider some warmer sounding speakers or just sell the amp on.
Should I give my dad his old NAD 3130 back to him (I have to anyway) and simply buy one for myself (watching one on ebay right now).
Should I go for the new 315bee NAD.
Should I consider tubes/hybrid, Jolida seem to be my first name to come to mind and sort of affordable.
Maximum budget around £350/$700

ThankYou
JJ

Silver Member

Username: James_the_god

Doncaster, South Yorkshire
England

Post Number: 647
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 07:32 am:

Naim nait 3 and Naim nait 5?

Opinons please?
http://www.chinese-hifi.co.uk/Jolida.htm

Silver Member

Username: Hawkbilly

Nova Scotia
Canada

Post Number: 224
Registered: Jul-07

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 08:26 am:

"Jan, what you said about tube amps is interesting. I'm only put off by not knowing if I'm really getting a quality tube amp without the crumby parts and chinese manufacturing quality. "

A little research will get you lots of options. Some very reasonably priced. However you need a plan or you'll end up mismatching your amp and speakers.

Gold Member

Username: Nickelbut10

Post Number: 1381
Registered: Jun-07

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 08:42 am:

J.J. If the NAD/MA combo, at this point in your life is providing you with musical pleasure. Then by all means, buy the NAD, sit back and enjoy the music. If you really enjoy the combo, then there is no point in buying another brand of amp. Cheers.

Silver Member

Username: James_the_god

Doncaster, South Yorkshire
England

Post Number: 648
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 09:10 am:

Well said Nick. Thought someone might say that. Still a curious mind would remain curious on what else is out there. I'll give it a think, but I'm willing to say I think theres more chance I'll like the warm sound of tubes as opposed to not liking them.

Chris, what kind of plan?

Silver Member

Username: James_the_god

Doncaster, South Yorkshire
England

Post Number: 649
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 10:57 am:

Would anyone be able to give any input on how Jolida tube amps perform in the bass department, mostly subbass? I'm pretty much decided upon a full tube Jolida 202a but I'm worried the bass will be too light?

Frank S.

Bronze Member

Username: Betamax

Canada

Post Number: 40
Registered: May-07

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 12:45 pm:

Nick, lol, yes I'm getting a B60.

I bought it on Audiogon and it'll take a while to get here, but I'll be sure to post my impressions when I hook it up and A/B it with my NAD gear.

Platinum Member

Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 12461
Registered: May-04

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 01:30 pm:

.

" I'm pretty much decided upon a full tube Jolida 202a but I'm worried the bass will be too light?"

Why?

Gold Member

Username: Nickelbut10

Post Number: 1384
Registered: Jun-07

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 01:57 pm:

Frank S- The B60 will plow through the NAD and reveal detail you have yet to hear. Congrats. We are all excite to hear about the A/B demo.

J.Jarvis - " I'm pretty much decided upon a full tube Jolida 202a but I'm worried the bass will be too light?"

Im with Jan on this one. Why??!! Have you heard the Jolida 202a? I just don't understand why you would purchase a product, that your not even sure your going to like over a product that you have sitting in your setup now and love. Is it because a lot of people on this forum don't care for NAD?? Who cares what we think. Did you not love the presentation that you got from YOUR NAD/MA combo?lol. That would reason enough for me to just buy the NAD. Just my opinion. There is so much stuff out there J.J that once you find the presentation that you love, you just need to close the shutters and stop looking. Have fun, and enjoy the music. A time will come when your ear changes and you will get the upgrade bug, but buy what you know you will love and can live with. Cheers.

Silver Member

Username: James_the_god

Doncaster, South Yorkshire
England

Post Number: 650
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 02:29 pm:

Purely on reviews Jan and Nick. But who knows- reviews I've learnt are not the be all end all as I've found.

I love the combo yes, but I want to experience some tube sound. I like warm sound and if tubes are like that I may be even happier.
I'm not saying I dont like the presentation, Im simply curious as to whats out there. I appreciate what you're saying though.

Put it this way..I thought my cambridge audio was good.. Quickly changed my opinion on that when I heard the NAD.

Silver Member

Username: James_the_god

Doncaster, South Yorkshire
England

Post Number: 651
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 02:37 pm:

p.s. That answers the not enough bass part of the question.

For the rest of it is because mainly its at the top end of my budget for a tube amp. I'm also now considering the cheaper Jolida 102b.
Second reason is because damn they look good.

Only partially agree with you're comment on closing the shutters Nick. I'm only young and see opportunity to explore products.

Silver Member

Username: Hawkbilly

Nova Scotia
Canada

Post Number: 225
Registered: Jul-07

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 03:35 pm:

"Chris, what kind of plan?"

What, fundamentally, are you trying to accomplish. Within the confines of budget, sound qualities, and synergies with existing components, what are your options ? There is quite a difference between Jolida, CA, & NAD. If the Jolida is in your sights there must be a reason. But Jolida is surely not the only brand that shares similar objectives and qualities.

Silver Member

Username: James_the_god

Doncaster, South Yorkshire
England

Post Number: 652
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 04:38 pm:

CA is clean and open but not enough bass and grunt.
Bass, grunt, dynamics, warmth and detail is what the NAD has which is why i like it.

How would you describe Jolida?

Silver Member

Username: James_the_god

Doncaster, South Yorkshire
England

Post Number: 653
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 04:43 pm:

I think what I should as you is which out of CA, Nad, and Jolida would you go for and why?

And what brands share similar objectives and qualities ?

Silver Member

Username: Hawkbilly

Nova Scotia
Canada

Post Number: 226
Registered: Jul-07

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 04:53 pm:

"I think what I should as you is which out of CA, Nad, and Jolida would you go for and why? "

It's irrelevant what I see in these brands. First, I've recently gone through the exact exercise you are embarking upon now and chose none of those products. However, it's entirely likely we don't share the same view of what "right" is. If you like each of the amps you listed for different reasons, you need to decide which "likes" are most important to you. In your price range you won't find anything that does everything in an exceptional manner. However, you can find amps that offer tremendous fidelity, and a wonderful listening experience. I chose a Vista Audio integrated for my own reasons, and I absolutely love it. But discussing my reasons won't help you decide what YOU like.

Once you can articulate that, people can offer more options and guidance. But if you just ask people for what they think is good, you'll get a million answers, none of which may help you.

Platinum Member

Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 12462
Registered: May-04

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 05:59 pm:

.

JJ - You've never heard the Jolida?

John Ashman

New member

Username: John_ashman

Albuquerque, NM
United States

Post Number: 1
Registered: Apr-08

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 06:50 pm:

I'm an NAD dealer, but I tried carrying Naim and also Rega and a few other British amps and it all depends on POV. Some people say NAD doesn't have "PRaT". IMO, PRaT is marketing speak for an amp that is bright and has no bass. Old NAD amps had PRaT. There is not such thing in engineering as PRaT. Amps don't deviate sufficiently in the time domain to not have or not have this. But add a little edginess and you magically have "PRaT". NAD isn't to everyone's taste, but I'd rather have an NAD M3 than any Linn, Rega or Naim amp I've heard. So, i find it funny to see NAD called a 'marketing' company and then act like PRaT is some viable, wonderful attribute that an amp should have. Talk about marketing based! May I have more pixie dust, please? :-)

Nuck

Platinum Member

Username: Nuck

Post Number: 10064
Registered: Dec-04

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 07:39 pm:

Atta boy, JA.
Welcome to the forum.

Gold Member

Username: Nickelbut10

Post Number: 1386
Registered: Jun-07

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 07:56 pm:

lol I like this guy. Welcome John. Hey man, I love the NAD sound. And I love the M3. So im staying out of this one. Soon your going to have at least 5 people come along and argue that PRaT is the be all, end all. I have read on multiple sites that PRaT is NOT engineering material. So I dunno...I am staying out of this one.lol.

Gold Member

Username: Nickelbut10

Post Number: 1387
Registered: Jun-07

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 07:58 pm:

John, what else to you carry? Just curious.

Silver Member

Username: James_the_god

Doncaster, South Yorkshire
England

Post Number: 654
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 08:09 pm:

Thanks Chris. I was hoping I could find an easier solution than demoing every product out there. Truth is to get a proper idea of how an amp sounds, I'd have to take them all to my room as it'd sound completely different in a shop (as I've found).
My local hifi shop doesnt stock the new nad c315 I mentioned as a possibility.

I havent heard a Jolida amp, the UK really isnt the place to stock such equipment in all honesty. I know of no UK dealers with Jolida let alone places to demo them and if there is any I doubt they'll be at all close.

John, I found you're post interesting. Are you saying that older Nad amps are bright or did I misunderstand? I've only heard bad things about M series Nad amps but since I've not heard it I'm not saying a thing. I like ONE model NAD amplifier built in 1986. Maybe I'll like others.

I'm feeling at a point where all I can do is buy a bunch of amps try them out, form an opinion, keep one and sell the rest. If only!
So heres the list:

-A vintage NAD 3045
-A new C315BEE
-A Jolida just because its tube.
-Winsome Labs "Mouse" Digital T-amp.

-And if none live up to it another NAD 3130, for myself, but I doubt it'll come to that. You see whilst I like the 3130 I still think my accidental find in liking this amp means there could be amps which create music in a way I prefer even more. One thing I miss about the CA is the 'airyness' it had. But thats it.

So could I have some comparative views on Jolida sound please as I dont have any chance of hearing one.

Thanks

Silver Member

Username: Hawkbilly

Nova Scotia
Canada

Post Number: 228
Registered: Jul-07

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 08:52 pm:

JJ, let's take a step back. It doesn't have to be so daunting. But you have to start by deciding what you want.

-A vintage NAD 3045.... Why ?
-A new C315BEE .....Why ?
-A Jolida just because its tube ....Why else ?
-Winsome Labs "Mouse" Digital T-amp....Why ?

What sound are you looking for ? Even if you can't demo anything (hard to believe) you should be able to narrow down your choices based on need and want. What are you going to hook the amp up to ? What is most important to you musically ? You don't have to demo every product out there. Narrow down what to listen to by deciding what you want. Then read, read, read, and listen to as many options as you can. It will become clear to you in time. Don't jump at a piece of gear just because you read something good about it.

Stu Pitt

Gold Member

Username: Stu_pitt

Irvington, New York
USA

Post Number: 2645
Registered: May-05

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 09:09 pm:

John.

Do you sell a variety of cables? Do these all sound the same, or do they sound different regardless of what engineers tell you?

If PRaT is marketing speak for "bright and no bass," what is marketing speak for rolled off highs and flabby bass that isn't very deep? Is it warmth?

Are you saying that differences in attack and decay times are so small between components that they're inaudible? If so, how does one component sound slow, maybe even to the point of being lazy, whereas another sounds fast?

You didn't mention Bryston. Using the same ancillaries, how come my B60 sounds faster than an NAD M3, yet doesn't sound edgy nor rolled off in the bass? How come the NAD dealer and three customers all said that the B60 sounded better in every single aspect than the M3 when I brought mine in to audition CD players?

If you hate Naim, Linn, and Rega as much as you imply you do, why did you try carrying them? Why didn't you become an authorized dealer? Did you not want them, or did they not want you?

Just curious.

Hell of an enterance.

John Ashman

New member

Username: John_ashman

Albuquerque, NM
United States

Post Number: 2
Registered: Apr-08

Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 09:28 pm:

Stu,

Everyone has their own tastes. Bryston is good gear, but kinda pricy compared to NAD.

What is 'fast'? An amplifier than can do 50 or 100kHZ is blazingly fast. By definition, if it can reproduce those frequencies, it is "fast" enough. Now, add in some upper frequency artifacts, like the old Aural Exciters, and you have the *appearance* of faster.

I'm going to guess though, having not heard a B60, that it's wimpy little transformer and power output makes it seem "faster" to people and some people think that equates with better sound. Not me. Besides, if you think one amp "sounded better in every single aspect", the bias is so thick that you probably can't see your computer screen. You don't want to compare an M3 with a B60, you want to compare it with maybe a 7B or something and you'll probably notice them sounding more similar, if not indistinguishable. IOW, people probably preferred the lower quality product because they wanted to, the same reason they usually do.

As for Naim and Rega, I did it because people demanded it and while we sold a lot of Rega Planets (I didn't think they were as good as an NAD, personally), the Rega and Naim amps just didn't cut it or sell. Rega is a bit eccentric, but Naim is downright daffy. Linn? Goodness, talk about cheap, low grade electronics sprinkled with pixie dust. Awful, dramatically overpriced stuff, IMO. I'd never try to sell that even if people begged me to.

Just my opinionated opinion ;)