NAD Amplifier a Heater ?!?
Christopher Carlen
I obtained a new NAD C325BEE. The quiescent power dissipation is quite
a surprize. After idling for about an hour, the top cover is very warm.
Not uncomfortably warm, but just below that.
It then gets a bit warmer, into the uncomfortably hot (but not injurious
burning, but almost burning sensation) realm when on (not in idle). It
bugs me a bit that it dissipates so much when the front power is off (or
on for that matter). There is a rear power which turns it off
completely, then it cools. But for some reason the designers chose to
let the amp continue to conduct quiescent current when the front power
is off. Perhaps having it cycle from half power at idle to full
quiescent power when on was considered better for reliablity? Strange.
Hard to imagine it's necessary.
I have personally designed a very high power (480W cont., 650W peak)
class-D amp and some single ended motion-control servo amplifiers in the
several hundred Watt level. When designed thoughfully, thermal cycling
is not a detrimental reliability factor. I'm afraid perhaps the
designers erred on the side of greater bias current rather than higher
negative feedback and open-loop BW to servo out crossover distortion.
While this might make some audiophiles (not myself, I think low
distortion can be acheived with low quiescent) happy, it is not ideal
from an idle efficiency standpoint.
Last night I had almost decided that this is an unacceptable waste of
power (I am quite concerned about energy efficiency) and considered that
perhaps I won't hang on to it.
For comparison, I have a 100W/ch Kyocera A-710 amp that just perceptably
gets warm when idling. But it's got some problems, which is why I
bought the NAD until I decide if the A-710 can be fixed.
First, I'd like to know if this amp or NAD amps in general tend to run
very warm when idling? I know it is possible for a class AB amp to
actually run cooler at moderate to high volume levels. But this thing
will almost always be at very modest volume. I'm actually worried that
the bias adjustment was not done before it went out of the factory.
Are there any other amps for $400 that don't get so hot? I know, silly
question. The NAD is about the best deal out there. I'm just afraid
it's going to waste enough electricity over the next few years to cost
me the difference between it and something else.
Does the Rotel RA-1062 stay cool when idling and at low volume?
Thanks for your comments.
Good day!
--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen
cr...@bogus-remove-me.sbcglobal.net
SuSE 9.1 Linux 2.6.5
BEAR
Ummm... if you can design such things, why in the world would you spend
a single dollar on commercial gear of this sort? I am asking a serious
question.
Secondly, you can not achieve the same results with (as you say)
"negative feedback and open-loop BW to servo out crossover distortion"
as you can with a higher bias point (there may be exceptions, of
course). In general, higher levels of negative fb yield undesireable
artifacts in terms of higher order harmonics.
It is certainly a good idea to have a wider than not wide open loop BW,
whenever possible. Of course.
Overall better sound comes when each stage in the amplifier is made as
linear as possible before applying feedback (if you do at all) and when
the details of each stage's operational pros and cons are considered
fully. It's not a simple thing, even though there are "standard ways" of
designing each stage of an amp. The "standard ways" do not always
yield the intended or optimal result.
(Let's ignore for the benefit of this discussion those who would posit
that all amplfiers not clipped, and below some threshold of distortion
are not audibly different)
Why your NAD runs hot, or why that model NAD runs hot, is unclear.
Perhaps it is insufficiently heatsinked, or perhaps it was set up wrong
(bias too high) by mistake at the factory.
If you want to have some fun, find the HALCRO patent for the HALCRO
amplifier... an impressive technical design with vanishingly low
distortion specs.
Why are you "concerned" about "energy efficiency" wrt an audio amp??
If you do the math, it will not cost you very much to leave it on 24/7
for several years... if you want to save $$ on ur electric bill focus on
your washing machine, dishwasher, electric stove (if you have one),
refrigerator and your light bulbs. The amp is insignificant.
If you have designed a servo amplifier system and a digital amplifier,
at least this last point should be self evident, no?
_-_-bear
Christopher Carlen
> Ummm... if you can design such things, why in the world would you spend
> a single dollar on commercial gear of this sort? I am asking a serious
> question.
Thank you for your reply.
Serious answer: I wish to listen to music right now.
While there are a great many things that one with electronic or other
design capabilities such as myself can design and build, that doesn't
mean that I want to or should do so in any particular case.
In this case, I would actually love to design and build my own audio
amplifier. However, like I said I need one now. Second, my experience
is not deep enough in discrete transistor circuit design to make it
possible to do so without first engaging in a lengthy period of study
and experimentation. The amplifiers I designed were for my job, at a US
national/government scientific laboratory. The class-D amp was based on
an Apex chip, the SA60. I didn't design the PWM circuit (the chip does
that) but did model it in SPICE so that I could design and simulate the
current-mode and voltage servo control loops, output filter and load
reactance equalization network I also designed supervisory circuitry,
and built and tested the PCBs (4 copies of the amp, for a motion control
system using linear voice-coil motors). I also designed the overall
system topology of the motion controller (based on a DSP) and am in the
process of designing more electronic subsystems for the entire project.
This is just one of several projects for which I am responsible.
Other transistor amps I've done are very simple class-B push pull
emitter follower op-amp current boosters, in and out of the op-amp
feedback loop. Most of what I do uses op-amps, digital logic,
microcontroller, and recently DSP based stuff. I'm mostly a system
designer, with the ability to also build out the subsystems if they
don't involve highly refined abilities (which I would consider the
desiger of NAD's amps and anyone who has focused on audio amps for a
career to have).
Furthermore, when one does this sort of thing for a living, it isn't
every night that I'm still in the mood to do my own electronic projects
at home. I also have a long list of projects in which I am already
engaged. They often take years to complete because I have 1-2 hours a
week to do them (family, you know, plus overtime on the job).
As for audio amps, there is also a need for good test equipment. While
I have some, it isn't ideal for audio. As for cost, building my own amp
would cost many times what the NAD cost (to make a polished, complete,
and professional packaged design from start to finish). So this is
something that one does only when one feels a strong inspiration to
design and build a certain sort of thing. In which case, cost is not
much of a consideration.
For instance, my main home project is a Nixie Clock, with several
variations. But that has been delayed by a photodiode amplifier project
for a recent urge to learn more about photometric light measurement, and
that is presently delayed by a new revision of a digital logic
development PCB.
You get the picture.
> Secondly, you can not achieve the same results with (as you say)
> "negative feedback and open-loop BW to servo out crossover distortion"
> as you can with a higher bias point (there may be exceptions, of
> course). In general, higher levels of negative fb yield undesireable
> artifacts in terms of higher order harmonics.
>
> It is certainly a good idea to have a wider than not wide open loop BW,
> whenever possible. Of course.
>
> Overall better sound comes when each stage in the amplifier is made as
> linear as possible before applying feedback (if you do at all) and when
> the details of each stage's operational pros and cons are considered
> fully. It's not a simple thing, even though there are "standard ways" of
> designing each stage of an amp. The "standard ways" do not always yield
> the intended or optimal result.
Yes, these are the sort of details that one must put in the time to
understand in depth.
> (Let's ignore for the benefit of this discussion those who would posit
> that all amplfiers not clipped, and below some threshold of distortion
> are not audibly different)
That would be me, but I accept that I haven't had the opportunity to
directly perform the sort of careful study that would indicate
otherwise. What I have read suggests that proper studies reveal that
listeners cannot distinguish one amp from another when the conditions
you stated are satisfied. Also, some frequency response flatness spec.
would also have to be considered.
> Why your NAD runs hot, or why that model NAD runs hot, is unclear.
> Perhaps it is insufficiently heatsinked, or perhaps it was set up wrong
> (bias too high) by mistake at the factory.
That's probably the most likely answer, if this model turns out from the
reports of others to "run cool." I have found a few comments though
that lend themselves to the likelyhood that the NAD integrateds do run
hot. We'll see. Do you have any that you can comment on?
> If you want to have some fun, find the HALCRO patent for the HALCRO
> amplifier... an impressive technical design with vanishingly low
> distortion specs.
I have heard about that one I think in the past on the
sci.electronics.design group. If I get some time I'll have a look.
Recently I've done some reading at this location:
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/ampins.htm
There is certainly lots of good stuff out there.
> Why are you "concerned" about "energy efficiency" wrt an audio amp??
> If you do the math, it will not cost you very much to leave it on 24/7
> for several years... if you want to save $$ on ur electric bill focus on
> your washing machine, dishwasher, electric stove (if you have one),
> refrigerator and your light bulbs. The amp is insignificant.
> If you have designed a servo amplifier system and a digital amplifier,
> at least this last point should be self evident, no?
Well let's see. The thing is really warm. So if I estimate 50 W of
dissipation just sitting there 24 hrs/day, that's adding up to:
(0.050 kW)(24 hrs/day)(365 days)(0.1143/kWh)=$50/year
I'll have to measure it, it may be more like 20W. It's hard to estimate
this with only a hand and a thermometer.
But throwing away $50/yr I don't think is wise. I'm not a $50000 system
type of audiophile with money to burn. I hope to get 10 years out of
this equipment, so over its lifetime that's the price of another amp or
a small pair of speakers. And of course, energy costs are going to
continue rising.
So I optimize what I can control. The appliances I can't since I'm in
an apartment. The lightbulbs are already highly optimized. The amp is
something I have to think about.
Thanks again for your comments.
Good day!
--
bob
> First, I'd like to know if this amp or NAD amps in general tend to run
> very warm when idling? I know it is possible for a class AB amp to
> actually run cooler at moderate to high volume levels. But this thing
> will almost always be at very modest volume. I'm actually worried that
> the bias adjustment was not done before it went out of the factory.
>
> Are there any other amps for $400 that don't get so hot? I know, silly
> question. The NAD is about the best deal out there. I'm just afraid
> it's going to waste enough electricity over the next few years to cost
> me the difference between it and something else.
>
> Does the Rotel RA-1062 stay cool when idling and at low volume?
I don't have experience with that amp, or with the one you have now. I
did replace a NAD amp with a Rotel last year, and was surprised at how
much cooler the Rotel runs. (Important to me, because that particular
amp lives inside a wood cabinet.)
If you think the NAD runs unreasonably hot, my advice would be to
return it and try something else. If funds are limited, consider a
stereo receiver from Denon, Yamaha, or Onkyo. The NAD is not obviously
better than any of them.
bob
BEAR
Simplified response:
I know nothing about the particular model of NAD.
My opinion is that it is likely not any better overall than a typical
"yard sale" Japanese receiver of any vintage from 1975 up till now, and
a good deal more expensive. Assuming your criterion is to make sound,
have utility and reasonable specs. So, why spend $400 bucks? ;_)
Doug Self's site has much good information.
Interesting read.
He has his position well staked out. :-)
You leave ur gear on 24/7? Don't think so. Let's skip the use of
electricity argument. If that's ur primary criterion, then you want a
Class D amp in the first place.
Fwiw, this is the USENET's "high-end" newsgroup - not the mid-fi one.
That is more likely rec.audio... or something like that. In the main the
concern here is eaking the last bit of performance from equipment,
and/or acheiving sonic nirvana. So, I'm not trying to be glib when I
said above that a general purpose used Japanese receiver is likely to
fit your needs and cost a heck of a lot less than a brand new NAD. Heck,
even a used NAD costs less. Think of how much more money you will have
to spend on other things? :_)
Regards,
_-_-bear
Christopher Carlen
> Christopher,
>
> Simplified response:
>
> I know nothing about the particular model of NAD.
>
> My opinion is that it is likely not any better overall than a typical
> "yard sale" Japanese receiver of any vintage from 1975 up till now, and
> a good deal more expensive. Assuming your criterion is to make sound,
> have utility and reasonable specs. So, why spend $400 bucks? ;_)
I did prefer to obtain a new unit. In the "new" and "high-end"
category, the NAD is truly the least costly. I define high-end to be
not price or mythical sonic characteristics but rather once the hi-fi
specs are met (which they are on the NAD) then build quality is what
separates "high-end" from the stuff in Cicuit City et al that are built
so cheaply I felt like I could break the volume knobs off just by
touching them.
> Doug Self's site has much good information.
> Interesting read.
> He has his position well staked out. :-)
And well justified.
> You leave ur gear on 24/7? Don't think so. Let's skip the use of
> electricity argument. If that's ur primary criterion, then you want a
> Class D amp in the first place.
No, I don't leave it on. That's part of the problem is that the NAD
continues to burn quiescent power when off. By "off" I mean the state
the amp goes to when the front panel power is pressed when initially in
the "on" state.
The power can be killed by the rear panel switch. But that is a minor
inconvenience. What is more of an inconvenience, is that nothing can be
placed on top of the amp.
As for class-D, I am not sure if there are class-D amps that reach hi-fi
specs? Perhaps the AV receivers are using class-D to get their
multi-channel power and achieving hi-fi.
What do you consider hi-fi?
> Fwiw, this is the USENET's "high-end" newsgroup - not the mid-fi one.
> That is more likely rec.audio... or something like that. In the main the
> concern here is eaking the last bit of performance from equipment,
> and/or acheiving sonic nirvana. So, I'm not trying to be glib when I
> said above that a general purpose used Japanese receiver is likely to
> fit your needs and cost a heck of a lot less than a brand new NAD. Heck,
> even a used NAD costs less. Think of how much more money you will have
> to spend on other things? :_)
Ah, considering the products you offer then you should be able to
appreciate that the NAD offers something significantly better in terms
of electrical specifications than the typical Japanese receiver. It has
considerable dynamic reserve power and current capability. Also a
decent but not perfect build quality.
That is also a reason I chose it. Though at my listening levels I don't
think it really matters. :-)
If you knew anything about them, what did you think of the Kyocera amps
from the late 80s to early 90s era?
Thanks again for your comments.
Good day!
--
bob
> I did prefer to obtain a new unit. In the "new" and "high-end"
> category, the NAD is truly the least costly. I define high-end to be
> not price or mythical sonic characteristics but rather once the hi-fi
> specs are met (which they are on the NAD
...and plenty of receivers sold by Circuit City and the like.
> then build quality is what
> separates "high-end" from the stuff in Cicuit City et al that are built
> so cheaply I felt like I could break the volume knobs off just by
> touching them.
Build quality? NAD? Shirley, you jest. The Japanese brands cut corners
right and left, but I'd take bets on a Denon receiver outlasting a NAD
integrated.
<snip>
> Ah, considering the products you offer then you should be able to
> appreciate that the NAD offers something significantly better in terms
> of electrical specifications than the typical Japanese receiver. It has
> considerable dynamic reserve power and current capability.
What matters is this: How much more practical power does a 50w/ch NAD,
with all those reserves, really deliver over a 100w/ch
Denon/Yamaha/Onkyo receiver? The answer depends on how tough a load
you're throwing at them, but a typical modern speaker with a minimum
impedance around 4 ohms isn't going to overtax either.
bob
Christopher Carlen
Thanks for the input.
Perhaps I should start a post "why would anyone ever want to buy a NAD
integrated amplifier?"
Since it seems either I could get the same (only mid-fi, according to
BEAR) result with a cheap Japanese receiver, which doesn't offer any
better build quality. Thus, NAD really has no place at all in the
market, right?
I beg to differ. First of all, it is a 2-channel 50W/ch integrated
amplifier for $399. It is butt-simple, and also has a nifty feature of
having a front panel input for (lo-fi) mp3 players.
It's build quality is not first-rate. However, the volume control
doesn't feel like it will break off in my hand when I give it just a
little radial torsion. So it's not third-rate either.
The $399 and under Onkyo, HK, and Denon (not sure?) stuff I ran across
in Circuit City did in fact feel third-rate, like the volume control
would fall off. No the NAD doesn't have the tight tolerance metal
shaft+bushing feel such as my Kyocera. But at least it feels solid.
It is also just an amplifier. That is all I want. I also wanted a new
one, not used. It doesn't have 7 channels that I don't know what to do
with. It doesn't have a bunch of features I don't want or want to
invest the time to understand.
The only reason it seems that it would not be the best choice, is that
now that I have discovered the designers may have made it a little more
class-A than I would prefer (it gets hotter than I like). Oh-today NAD
called me back and said that it is too hot. They said the dealer should
replace it. I'll try to get that done this weekend.
So it is an austere, simple, and solid product. I am certain that
anything lower in price, or similar in price but with a hundred other
pieces of circuitry like an A/V receiver would involve some significant
compromise in quality, most likely in build quality, and quite likely in
electrical specs as well. Isn't it something the high-end folks should
appreciate, that the NAD amp at least had the designer's focus only on
the amplification, and not all sorts of DSPs, etc.???
bob
> Perhaps I should start a post "why would anyone ever want to buy a NAD
> integrated amplifier?"
Good question. I once owned one. Don't think I will again.
> Since it seems either I could get the same (only mid-fi, according to
> BEAR) result with a cheap Japanese receiver, which doesn't offer any
> better build quality. Thus, NAD really has no place at all in the
> market, right?
>
> I beg to differ. First of all, it is a 2-channel 50W/ch integrated
> amplifier for $399. It is butt-simple, and also has a nifty feature of
> having a front panel input for (lo-fi) mp3 players.
That is a nifty feature, which belongs on every preamp, integrated and
receiver on the market. BTW, an iPod is not lo-fi, as Stereophile's own
measurements demonstrate.
> It's build quality is not first-rate. However, the volume control
> doesn't feel like it will break off in my hand when I give it just a
> little radial torsion. So it's not third-rate either.
The volume knob on my dad's Onkyo seems to be holding up quite well,
thank you.
> The $399 and under Onkyo, HK, and Denon (not sure?) stuff I ran across
> in Circuit City did in fact feel third-rate, like the volume control
> would fall off. No the NAD doesn't have the tight tolerance metal
> shaft+bushing feel such as my Kyocera. But at least it feels solid.
Feels solid and is solid are two different things. It's the stuff
inside the NADs that tend to go kpffft.
> It is also just an amplifier. That is all I want. I also wanted a new
> one, not used. It doesn't have 7 channels that I don't know what to do
> with. It doesn't have a bunch of features I don't want or want to
> invest the time to understand.
This I can very much relate to. I went with a Rotel integrated over a
receiver for precisely these reasons.
> The only reason it seems that it would not be the best choice, is that
> now that I have discovered the designers may have made it a little more
> class-A than I would prefer (it gets hotter than I like). Oh-today NAD
> called me back and said that it is too hot. They said the dealer should
> replace it. I'll try to get that done this weekend.
>
> So it is an austere, simple, and solid product. I am certain that
> anything lower in price, or similar in price but with a hundred other
> pieces of circuitry like an A/V receiver would involve some significant
> compromise in quality, most likely in build quality, and quite likely in
> electrical specs as well. Isn't it something the high-end folks should
> appreciate, that the NAD amp at least had the designer's focus only on
> the amplification, and not all sorts of DSPs, etc.???
I admire NAD's supposed focus. It's the execution that's sometimes
problematic.
bob
BEAR
> BEAR wrote:
>
>> Christopher,
>>
>> Simplified response:
>>
>> I know nothing about the particular model of NAD.
>>
>> My opinion is that it is likely not any better overall than a typical
>> "yard sale" Japanese receiver of any vintage from 1975 up till now,
>> and a good deal more expensive. Assuming your criterion is to make
>> sound, have utility and reasonable specs. So, why spend $400 bucks? ;_)
>
>
> I did prefer to obtain a new unit. In the "new" and "high-end"
> category, the NAD is truly the least costly. I define high-end to be
> not price or mythical sonic characteristics but rather once the hi-fi
> specs are met (which they are on the NAD) then build quality is what
> separates "high-end" from the stuff in Cicuit City et al that are built
> so cheaply I felt like I could break the volume knobs off just by
> touching them.
I suggested that a used Japanese receiver, integrated or amp/preamp
combo is equivalent and less expensive. Nothing I wrote can be construed
to have suggested "Circuit City" as a source of "high-end" gear.
>
>> Doug Self's site has much good information.
>> Interesting read.
>> He has his position well staked out. :-)
>
>
> And well justified.
Don't know what you mean.
He ignores or choses to not discuss various topologies that may be equal
or better than what he champions.
Other than that, his work and explanations are certainly technically
quite well documented and researched.
>
>> You leave ur gear on 24/7? Don't think so. Let's skip the use of
>> electricity argument. If that's ur primary criterion, then you want a
>> Class D amp in the first place.
>
>
> No, I don't leave it on. That's part of the problem is that the NAD
> continues to burn quiescent power when off. By "off" I mean the state
> the amp goes to when the front panel power is pressed when initially in
> the "on" state.
>
> The power can be killed by the rear panel switch. But that is a minor
> inconvenience. What is more of an inconvenience, is that nothing can be
> placed on top of the amp.
>
> As for class-D, I am not sure if there are class-D amps that reach hi-fi
> specs? Perhaps the AV receivers are using class-D to get their
> multi-channel power and achieving hi-fi.
>
> What do you consider hi-fi?
I'll pass.
>
>> Fwiw, this is the USENET's "high-end" newsgroup - not the mid-fi one.
>> That is more likely rec.audio... or something like that. In the main
>> the concern here is eaking the last bit of performance from equipment,
>> and/or acheiving sonic nirvana. So, I'm not trying to be glib when I
>> said above that a general purpose used Japanese receiver is likely to
>> fit your needs and cost a heck of a lot less than a brand new NAD.
>> Heck, even a used NAD costs less. Think of how much more money you
>> will have to spend on other things? :_)
>
>
>> http://www.bearlabs.com
>
>
> Ah, considering the products you offer then you should be able to
> appreciate that the NAD offers something significantly better in terms
> of electrical specifications than the typical Japanese receiver.
Interesting assertion. Please substantiate?
> It has
> considerable dynamic reserve power and current capability. Also a
> decent but not perfect build quality.
How does an amplifier achieve this "reserve power"?
What is the "current capability" of this particular NAD unit?
What will it be called upon to power??
>
> That is also a reason I chose it. Though at my listening levels I don't
> think it really matters. :-)
My point exactly.
>
> If you knew anything about them, what did you think of the Kyocera amps
> from the late 80s to early 90s era?
The one I seem to recall was somewhat "exotic" in its design/build, but
I could be getting it confused with something else. Never saw one, never
heard one, and never saw a schematic. Is there something special about them?
>
> Thanks again for your comments.
>
> Good day!
_-_-bear
>
BEAR
> bob wrote:
>
>> Christopher Carlen wrote:
>>
>>> I did prefer to obtain a new unit. In the "new" and "high-end"
>>> category, the NAD is truly the least costly. I define high-end to be
>>> not price or mythical sonic characteristics but rather once the hi-fi
<snip>
> a minimum
>> impedance around 4 ohms isn't going to overtax either.
>
>
> Thanks for the input.
>
> Perhaps I should start a post "why would anyone ever want to buy a NAD
> integrated amplifier?"
>
> Since it seems either I could get the same (only mid-fi, according to
> BEAR) result with a cheap Japanese receiver, which doesn't offer any
> better build quality. Thus, NAD really has no place at all in the
> market, right?
>
>
<snip>
NAD is in business and has found a niche in those folks who seem to want
an "austere" and "British" looking but "American made" bit of gear.
People buy them because A) they entered the market many years ago, B)
have a reasonable reputation, C) advertise extensively, D) have a large
dealer base, E) offer reasonable specs and performance for the $$.
Their "claim to fame", iirc, originally was in having "dynamic reserve"
in their amps. I think that they achieved that feat by building an amp
with a B+ voltage that was not supported by sufficient capacity nor
sufficient VA in the power xfmr, so the supply would sag significantly
under a heavy constant load, yet on peaks the supply would be at the
higher voltage - ie. "reserve". Since they rated the amps at the /lower/
power level, it was "legal." That's how I remember it.
As far as cheap Japanese receivers, have you ever seen an *expensive*
Japanese receiver? Not so poorly built. Better than any NAD I've seen,
imho.
But no matter - as long as you are satisfied with the NAD, that is all
that counts. I have no quarrel with that.
_-_-bear
Christopher Carlen
> NAD is in business and has found a niche in those folks who seem to want
> an "austere" and "British" looking but "American made" bit of gear.
> People buy them because A) they entered the market many years ago, B)
> have a reasonable reputation, C) advertise extensively, D) have a large
> dealer base, E) offer reasonable specs and performance for the $$.
>
> Their "claim to fame", iirc, originally was in having "dynamic reserve"
> in their amps. I think that they achieved that feat by building an amp
> with a B+ voltage that was not supported by sufficient capacity nor
> sufficient VA in the power xfmr, so the supply would sag significantly
> under a heavy constant load, yet on peaks the supply would be at the
> higher voltage - ie. "reserve". Since they rated the amps at the /lower/
> power level, it was "legal." That's how I remember it.
At the time I stopped paying attention to audio in the late 80s/early
90s, I recall that it was becoming commonplace for amp makers to include
these "reserve power" specs?
> As far as cheap Japanese receivers, have you ever seen an *expensive*
> Japanese receiver? Not so poorly built. Better than any NAD I've seen,
> imho.
A local dealer has a '80s vintage Realistic receiver, I think the most
powerfulk one they ever built at 120W/ch for sale for $600. Very nice
build quality! Yeah, I have no argument that there are not very good
receivers.
> But no matter - as long as you are satisfied with the NAD, that is all
> that counts. I have no quarrel with that.
>
> _-_-bear
It appears to me for only the category of "new" merchandise, that it
optimized the performance/price ratio.
NoDownTime
> BEAR) result with a cheap Japanese receiver, which doesn't offer any
> better build quality. Thus, NAD really has no place at all in the
> market, right?
>
> I beg to differ. First of all, it is a 2-channel 50W/ch integrated
> amplifier for $399. It is butt-simple, and also has a nifty feature of
> having a front panel input for (lo-fi) mp3 players.
>
> It's build quality is not first-rate. However, the volume control
> doesn't feel like it will break off in my hand when I give it just a
> little radial torsion. So it's not third-rate either.
>
BEAR's post on this subject is utter nonsense.
I don't have much to say about Build Quality because I've used NAD gear
for years and only once or twice had an issue with the quality of the
components.
But I can sacrifice "build quality" and glitz for the pure quality of
the devices. To suggest, somehow, that there are cheap Japanese
receivers with the sound quality of a NAD amp is just absurd and the
remark is indefensible.
I seriously doubt there exists a single Japanese receiver, even amongst
those of the highest quality, that can begin to match the quality of
the bottom-of-the-line NAD amps.
The NAD amps do lack the garbage gadgets that so many other devices
have. But I'm more interested in listening than I am in watching the
blinking lights.
mpre...@earthlink.net
> I seriously doubt there exists a single Japanese receiver, even amongst
> those of the highest quality, that can begin to match the quality of
> the bottom-of-the-line NAD amps.
What do you suppose NAD are putting into their "bottom of the line" amps
that make them so special? What magic are those girls soldering into them
over there in the People's Republic that does the trick for you?
mp
bob
> NAD is in business and has found a niche in those folks who seem to want
> an "austere" and "British" looking but "American made" bit of gear.
NAD is American-made? Then the box in my basement lies. It says, "Made
in China." Though my repair guy says he's seen NADs from all sorts of
places. (Getting parts for NADs is a pain, he says.)
> People buy them because A) they entered the market many years ago, B)
> have a reasonable reputation, C) advertise extensively, D) have a large
> dealer base, E) offer reasonable specs and performance for the $$.
All true.
> Their "claim to fame", iirc, originally was in having "dynamic reserve"
> in their amps. I think that they achieved that feat by building an amp
> with a B+ voltage that was not supported by sufficient capacity nor
> sufficient VA in the power xfmr, so the supply would sag significantly
> under a heavy constant load, yet on peaks the supply would be at the
> higher voltage - ie. "reserve". Since they rated the amps at the /lower/
> power level, it was "legal." That's how I remember it.
Playing the "dynamic power" game also lets you cut corners with specs.
You give a nice, conservative power spec: 50w/ch, 20-20kHz, 0.02% THD.
Then you tell customers that the "dynamic power" is 110w/ch. Is that
full bandwidth? At what level of distortion? It doesn't appear to be
specified.
So it can seem more impressive than a 100w/ch Japanese receiver. But is
it?
bob
Harry Lavo
news:em555...@news3.newsguy.com...
I am not an expert on NAD by any means, but I did listen to their early
pacesetting 3020(?) amp, and a few years ago, their top of the line A/V
receiver. All in all I find they had a "house sound" that was slightly
different from the typical mid-fi gear, in that it was more "rounded" or
dimensional in its presentation of instruments or voices....more "body" not
unlike that presented by most type gear. To me, if I were faced with the
choice based on similar price points, I would probably choose NAD for its
(for want of a better term) "musicality". It just sounds somewhat more like
music as reproduced by a truly fine hi-end system.
John Stone
<bear...@netzero.net> wrote:
> NAD is in business and has found a niche in those folks who seem to want
> an "austere" and "British" looking but "American made" bit of gear.
> People buy them because A) they entered the market many years ago, B)
> have a reasonable reputation, C) advertise extensively, D) have a large
> dealer base, E) offer reasonable specs and performance for the $$.
NAD is actually a Canadian company, owned by Lenbrook Industries near
Toronto. Lenbrook also owns PSB loudspeakers. As for points C & D, I would
ask: Compared to whom? In this part of the business, I'll bet Rotel outsells
them by a substantial margin.
> Their "claim to fame", iirc, originally was in having "dynamic reserve"
> in their amps. I think that they achieved that feat by building an amp
> with a B+ voltage that was not supported by sufficient capacity nor
> sufficient VA in the power xfmr, so the supply would sag significantly
> under a heavy constant load, yet on peaks the supply would be at the
> higher voltage - ie. "reserve". Since they rated the amps at the /lower/
> power level, it was "legal." That's how I remember it.
And they also had their "soft clipping" circuit which made all of the above
moot.
> As far as cheap Japanese receivers, have you ever seen an *expensive*
> Japanese receiver? Not so poorly built. Better than any NAD I've seen,
> imho.
Show me a cheap Japanese receiver, and I'll show you a receiver made in the
same country, possibly the same factory, as the NAD. So much of this stuff
is now just jobbed out to the lowest bidding Chinese mega factories.
Harry Lavo
news:em6g2...@news1.newsguy.com...>snip<
"....more "body" not unlike that presented by most type gear."
Should be "...most TUBE gear."
Don't know whether it is me, or this damned OE which uses the MS Word
Spell/Grammar checker and sometimes changes words with no warning.
NoDownTime
> that make them so special? What magic are those girls soldering into them
> over there in the People's Republic that does the trick for you?
>
"What the world needs is a really good 5-watt amplifier" -- Paul
Klipsch
I don't know what they do, but they deliver a really, really good
amplifier.
mpre...@earthlink.net
> "What the world needs is a really good 5-watt amplifier" -- Paul
> Klipsch
Paul got it half right. What we need is a really good speaker to use with
that really good 5 watt amp.
mp
bear
>>Since it seems either I could get the same (only mid-fi, according to
>>BEAR) result with a cheap Japanese receiver, which doesn't offer any
>>better build quality. Thus, NAD really has no place at all in the
>>market, right?
>>
>>I beg to differ. First of all, it is a 2-channel 50W/ch integrated
>>amplifier for $399. It is butt-simple, and also has a nifty feature of
>>having a front panel input for (lo-fi) mp3 players.
>>
>>It's build quality is not first-rate. However, the volume control
>>doesn't feel like it will break off in my hand when I give it just a
>>little radial torsion. So it's not third-rate either.
>>
>
>
> BEAR's post on this subject is utter nonsense.
Well, I beg to differ!
No much nonsense - since I do remember when NAD first appeared on the
scene.
>
> I don't have much to say about Build Quality because I've used NAD gear
> for years and only once or twice had an issue with the quality of the
> components.
As compared with what, zero?
Their "build quality" is not "the finest" - but I don't rate audio gear
on that criterion, it is the "cream" on the top nothing more.
>
> But I can sacrifice "build quality" and glitz for the pure quality of
> the devices. To suggest, somehow, that there are cheap Japanese
> receivers with the sound quality of a NAD amp is just absurd and the
> remark is indefensible.
Hardly.
Let's compare specs?
Now, the current crop of Japanese stuff is A) mostly HT oriented and B)
at least for the past 10-15 years GENERALLY SPEAKING done with class B
"bricks" (hybrid integrated amps) not discrete parts. Go back a little
bit to the Japanese stuff that was done with discrete parts and there
were quite a few brands and receivers that were fairly outstanding in
both build quality and audio quality. I'll leave it to you to research
the topic...
>
> I seriously doubt there exists a single Japanese receiver, even amongst
> those of the highest quality, that can begin to match the quality of
> the bottom-of-the-line NAD amps.
Your doubt is based on what in particular?
Remember now the original poster was looking at the $400 retail USD
range, and you have broadened that out to "a single Japanese receiver"!
Better look carefully first.
>
> The NAD amps do lack the garbage gadgets that so many other devices
> have. But I'm more interested in listening than I am in watching the
> blinking lights.
Me too. Don't think I have a single blinking light in my system. Ooops!
Yes I do, it is on the Crown MacroTech amp that runs my subs... it
blinks on peaks.
To Sum Up: the NAD is a decent sounding bit of gear, doesn't make too
many "errors of commission". It makes a great many errors of omission,
imho. But so do other units - make errors of omission and commission.
Nothing so far with the name NAD on it rises to what I would call
"high-end" or "high resolution" in terms of its performance. It is a
reasonable entry level brand that generally speaking won't drive you out
of the room (as some things will, imho). That's as far as one ought to
go on the subject of NAD, in my view.
Given a choice between a NAD and a used ST-70(for example), within
reason (of course with a speaker/room situation to match...), I'd prefer
the ST-70 for hearing "music". Both are currently ca $400USD... a few
years ago you could have had two ST-70s or one that was "upgraded"
considerably from stock form for that same money... In my book the ST-70
makes more "music" than the NAD... but neither is without flaws. Maybe
even an import Chinese tube unit would do as well. Which is the point, I
think.
_-_-bear
NoDownTime
> that really good 5 watt amp.
Paul got the speakers right, too. Even today, nothing else comes close
to the Klipsch "Heritage" line.