Anyone compared NAD and Cambridge Intergrateds?


My Dad's 18-year-old NAD integrated stereo amp just shot craps. He's looking for a sub $800 replacement. He uses it primarily for jazz and classical music and the occasional stereo fed of his DVD when he watches movies. His speakers are Meadowlark Kestrels, which are rated 89db but they're easily driven in his small-to-moderate sized room.
I'm considering the NAD 326BEE or one of the Cambridge Azurs.

Thoughts? Recommendations? My Dad has no patience or space for separates or tubes (sadly).
vhiner
hey Vhiner,

one last thing...

may be a dealbreaker for some, but on occasion the remote on my 326 acts up, the other day I could not get the mute button to 'unmute'! Sometimes, if I pushed it too long sources changed! I had new batteries (AAA) as well so no problem there. The remote is kind of clunky as well, the volume is touchy and lags.

But, again, I love the way it sounds and hopefully you will not have the same issues.

best of luck
volume always works but a bit clumsy as mentioned

I do not know about the universal remote but it certainly should work IMO...

just thought it was worth a mention as some people care more about funtion than anything else!

and my unit may just be faulty...

good luck
Goind with Nad is a good choice, you wont regret it. I also owned a nad unit, and it was solid and the SQ fabulous. G luck!
If he can live without a remote try a $329 Parasound Zamp v.3. It has little volume pots on the back or you can go with a $135 Luminous Audio passive volume control.
I only suggest this as sound is silly-good for the price and a big step up in clarity and naturalness compared to NAD or Cambridge. Also with separate pre and power amp you can change things around in the future if you are so inclined.