NAD vs. Cambridge Audio

What I have heard from a couple of dealers who sell both is that the NAD is more dynamic and the Cambridge is warmer/smooth/more polite sounding than the NAD. Also that the new NAD classic series XX5 is superior to the XX2 series in that it is less warm and more detailed. I was told the NAD M3 is on a different level than the Cambridge 840A V2 (cost should be considered).

The one thing that amazes me about the NAD is their ability to drive hard to drive speakers despite their low wattage. Something to do with its power envelope.

Cambridge Audio is to Arcam what Volkswagen is to Audi.
My older Arcam alpha 8 integrated + 8p bi-amping combo belongs to a league well under the NAD 315bee.
The NAD 315 offers more of everything. Arcam is 4x more expensive than NAD, and Cambridge Audio is 2x more expensive than NAD.

So what is your point? That $$ don't always translate into sound quality. What about system synergy too. Lots of variables, Chris.

$$$ don't always buy happiness. Thus more $$$ don't always translate into sound quality. Cost is not an object is another story but how many consumers can afford to write a $100K check to bring home a pair of Dynaudio Evidence. Not so many.

Arcam has a sizeable following in the UK, Europe, & the CommonWealth nations. But in North America, NAD & CA sell more amps than Arcam. IMO, Arcam is not in the same league that of Naim or Cyrus so they cannot command top dollars. They are more expensive than both NAD & CA thus they are not that popular like entry level electronics like NAD & CA.

But I do agree with ChrisR about the NAD 315BEE. The chief engineer & designer of NAD, Edvardsen, is a good designer. He is probably the best budget component designer in the industry like Paul Barton of PSB. To label the NAD 315BEE & the PSB Alpha B 1 as "giant killer" is a misnomer but such components do offer a lotb of sonic satisfaction for almost very little $$$ from you.