NAD vs. Cambridge Audio

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.

Gbmcleod,

Interesting to hear your response but you discussed cdps and the subject is on the amps.

As this entire posting reveals, it's all about synergy. The best sounding amps and/or cdps is the one you like in your system, in your room, and w/ your ears. Others may differ.

I understand your point.
The point is exactly as you have said, "synergy." And amps and cd players made by the same manufacturer will typically complement each other to the point that, where the amp is weak, the cd player is strong, and vice versa.
And I believe I mentioned Arcam, Goldmund and Cambridge amps, if you re-read my post. I also pointed out a review of the Cambridge on avguide.com, TAS' website. It can be a resource for the original poster. And, I did point out I had just purchased an NAD integrated. I'm familiar with Cambridge's sound synergy between their amps and cd players: I'll say it again. The CD player will be slightly laid back, the amp slightly aggressive up top. Having owned both, it is germaine to the subject to point out, as you yourself brought up, the synergy of systems.
You castigated another poster for not having heard both: that doesn't hold true in my case. What I didn't state clearly enough is that, while I did HEAR the (Cambridge) amp, I didn't BUY the amp, only the CD player. I"m sure there are others who've heard the amp longer than I did, and I would defer to their more extended experience. I don't think 3 days is enough to hear everything that is going on: otherwise, reviewers could write a review in 3 days!
However, when I, personally, say I have "experience," I don't mean in a store, where I have no control over the room, electrical outlets, line conditioners or electronics or speakers - or anything else, for that matter. I take home, and listen over the course of a weekend, to a component. MOre likely, I also mean "I bought the unit." (But not the amp, in this case). I didn't hear the amp as long as the CD player obviously, but I remember its sound.
Sorry for the confusion: I could have stated it more clearly.

Sorry you misunderstood me. I've been in this hobby a long time I find that synergy is paramount wether a product succeeds or fails. That is all I'm saying...no more, no less.

Though I have have a modest system currently that I use a CA amp in, I find none of the brightness and lack of bass you describe in my system. I find the CA640 v2 wonderfully musical and peppy. (excellent synergy) You find the same with your NAD. Superb!

As far as the other individual you assumed one is better w/o out hearing has no credentials, and I stand by my comment.

MJ:
Im sure you have more experience with the amp, as you've lived with it longer. I was referring to the CD player's bass, which, as Harley pointed out in his review, was not its greatest strength. He did allow that, in balanced mode, it gained in that area.