NAD vs. Cambridge Audio

I really like Rega turntables and CD players. The thing with Rega amps is that the British do not believe in subwoofer (no pre-out) and the Rega amps are a bit under power which is something that you should consider before your purchase. Stand mount speakers due to its physical character tend not to sound their best with underpower amps.

This may be a problem for people like me who listen late at night or early in the morning since you have to crank the amp up a bit for the amp to be in total control of the woofers.

I am not surprised that Rega is very appealing to people who listen almost exclusively to vocal & jazz. But for a person who owns dynamic speakers like Dynaudio & Totem, that person may have to look somewhere else.

NAD amps do not a phono stage but NAD amps are cool for people who want a utility amp that can drive almost any tough load speaker, listen exclusively to CDs, listen to all genre of music, and also hook up the NAD amps to their LCDs to watch movies.

There are always compromises in designing budget amps for any audio company and Rega is not an exception.

Rega is a great product but to say Rega is far superior than NAD or CA for that matter is merely stating one's personal preference rather than providing empirical findings based on facts & circumstances, ie."I report but you decide".

Hieule,

I agree with your general comments but IME there's nothing empirical about audio. My opinion is subjective based on persoanl preference & I am stating that I love this $600 brio. I did not state it's superior to CA as I have only heard HT amps.

I have used quite a few NAD amps starting with the THX218 final being the C272. I've been though the ususal high-end merrygoround of equipment like many: Linn, Naim, Levinson, Krell, Plinius etc. & have ended up with fleawatt category. Supratek + 2A3 amps + Mauhorns + REL sub as main listening preference. Music Jazz, Vocal, Instrumental

My second system & HT is McIntosh (Mac processor+MC252) with TDL Refernce Transmission line speakers. (18Hz-20Khz).(Music ROCK, classical) These are one of the few speakers I liked for bass, dynamics over Dynaudio's. I am specially familiar with the Dyn Craffts.

The reason for listing my systems is to give a background of my listening preferences. That said I would still claim the Rega Brio (not heard many other Rega) is still FAR superior to even the complete Linn system I owned let alone NAD.

I shake my head every time this cheap Brio is playing though my TDL's. (Brio+TDL+Linn Ikemi+ Transparent Musiclink bi-wire + Grover UR pure silver cables, general power conditioning). Maybe an un-intentional synergy thing at it's best. Who cares but I am surely enjoying every minute of it & hughly impressed with the Brio!

As you said "I report YOU decide".

Mr. Dilly

We can always agree to disagree since people perceive value differently.

I am a simple guy so I like to stick with tried and trued partners. I drive nothing but Toyota & Honda. They are not fun to to drive like BMW but I don't have to worry much about maintenance costs besides normal wear & tear.

Dynaudio & NAD are pretty much Toyota & Honda in the audio field. That is why I have always sticked with them. Time and time again, I have tried new products but still end up owning a piece of NAD & a pair of Dynaudio in my place.

I might try CA electronics in the future but that would be at least another 5-6 years from now when Dynaudio release a new line of speakers.

I pair NAD with NHT and they sound good together as well.

My experience with the Cambridges has been with the CD player: the 840C. I liked it, but ultimately found it to be too "polite," which Robert Harley noted in TAS. From the reviews of the amps, the amps are a bit more aggressive, which stands to reason: manufacturers build complementary components. For example, Goldmund turntables were slightly dark (I had a Studio/T3F arm), BUT their electronics and speakers (I had both Goldmund Super Dialogue and the Goldmund Mimesis 9 back around 1990) and neither of those was dark. If anything, the Mim 9 was slightly "yang'ish" as HP noted in his review of the amp (TAS issue 65).
I've read closely the reviews, and the Cambridge CD players are "soft" (the 840C has beautiful treble, but transients are softened) and a bit withholding, as I said earlier. Amps: the opposite. Put the two together and you have a balanced combination.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned about the NAD -- and I just bought a C326BEE, which arrived today: they can sound quite delicate. Another poster mentioned Arcam and Cambridge might sound alike in the bass and I agree: the midbass on the Arcam FMJ22 and the bass on the Cambridge 840C are both recessed a bit (more the Arcam's failing than the Cambridge, but the Cambridge has demonstrated this trait with Usher 718s, Hales Rev 3 and Nola Vipers). The "punch" is there, but it's lightweight. Neil Gader mentioned this in his review of the Cambridge 550 on the Avguide.com website as well. The NAD isn't merely "forceful" or has "better bass." It's lyrical (i.e., a woodwind solo can sound heartbreaking, not just "soft") and instruments seem to have quite a bit of the human touch (aka, microdynamics). Voices sound highly expressive, not simply loud.
I also wonder about the power cord, line conditioner AND wall outlets people use. FIMs outlets are very clean, but slightly soft: The Teslaplex I use for the CD player is quite neutral, but everything sounds more 3D (and that shouldn't happen on every single recording. Recordings should change even from cut to cut). The Oyaide R1 outlet is forceful, forward, delicate and airy. The line conditioner I use is Audience Adept aR2-T (Teflon), which is so very uncolored as to allow you to actually hear what your component's inherent traits are: nothing covered up here.
I can't agree that ALL NADs are grainy in the top, although the C320BEE was slightly so, and unrefined on top of that. The older versions and the non-BEE may have suffered from that. The C326BEE is considerably more refined at the top, no grain, and SEEMS liquid enough. It's not the last word in extension, but it goes out as far as I can hear (around 16-17k) Of course, mine is brand new, so it may turn dry as the desert, but I rather doubt that.
And I myself wouldn't pick an Arcam Diva over an NAD. The Arcam Diva line, if you listen closely, has a dry treble - a lack of "bloom" - that you should hear before deciding. I had a Diva A65+ and felt a bit indifferent to it: besides the lack of bloom in the treble, it's slightly reticent in bass dynamics and weight, although very clean. Frankly, the last Alpha that I heard with killer bass dynamics was the Alpha 6, which has a VERY strong midbass (which makes the images 3D: that's where the 3D effect comes from. Weak midbass? Your images will lack "authority.")Got it for a friend's system and it still rocks hard, but can also be very delicate. I'll be hearing it shortly when I'm back in the the San Francisco Bay area. However, the current FMJ line is an excellent line as well, and not very expensive!
Now, the NAD is highly "immediate"- sounding and excellent on vocals. Nina Simone sounds mesmerizing on an NAD: whatever mood her song is comes across clearly, as do opera singers. In fact, especially with a tuner hooked up and heard live from the Met on a Saturday afternoon (we were only 60 miles from NYC), the power and beauty of their voices left little to complain about.
I bought the NAD again because it sounds musical, delicate, extremely dynamic, has very low noise (I'd say as low as Cambridge's, but read the signal to noise specs), has finely focused and well-rounded images and is quite grainless. I heard them through Sound Dynamics RTS-3s, which are so grainless, someone could have switched my Avalon Eclipse speakers with them and I'm sure I would have noticed if I was only listening for utter grainlessness. And the NAD did its part very, very well.
So, I'm a NAD guy again. For a while. I may buy something else, but I'll not be selling this baby again. That was a mistake I needn't repeat.