Cambridge Audio Azur 540A VS. NAD C320 BEE

[Walker]

I received my Cambridge audio azur 540 a yesterday, Topspeed warned me for the first 50 hours so I'm not getting in to the disappointing sound. It needs quite some break in I understand.
Besides this I have some questions for CA azur owners.

1: Is it normal that the Treble and Bass knobs do hardly anything?

2: Te volume, treble and bass knobs have little blue dots on them, I thought that at least the volume knob would have a little light on it, mine does not, is this how it should be?

3: I have to turn the volume up till about 11 'o clock to get a decent volume, is this ok or are my speakers to demanding for this amp (B&W 603 s2)

Thanks for info,
Walker (I'll comment about the sound after 50 hours, cd player has been on repeat since yesterday night)

[Peter_Klim]

I received my Cambridge audio azur 540 a yesterday, Topspeed warned me for the first 50 hours so I'm not getting in to the disappointing sound. It needs quite some break in I understand.
Besides this I have some questions for CA azur owners.

1: Is it normal that the Treble and Bass knobs do hardly anything?

2: Te volume, treble and bass knobs have little blue dots on them, I thought that at least the volume knob would have a little light on it, mine does not, is this how it should be?

3: I have to turn the volume up till about 11 'o clock to get a decent volume, is this ok or are my speakers to demanding for this amp (B&W 603 s2)

Thanks for info,
Walker (I'll comment about the sound after 50 hours, cd player has been on repeat since yesterday night)

What does it sound like past 11:00? Is the end result better than you last unit? Like I said in my last post or 2, gains on amps very. My brothers newer Onkyo is the same way (except its a pushbutton volume control, so there is no clock position).

And like topseed replied to one of my comments, the volume knob, unfortunately, does not have a light in it (it sure does look like it form the pictures I've seen )

[Walker]

Past 11 it sounds like 9 on my HK avr75, It clearly has to work a lot harder to feed the speakers. I can't really comment on the quality of the sound because of the break in, so far it does not sound rich but rather thin.

Do you know anything about the bas and treble on this amp, is it normal that it's hardly noticable when I turn it all the way

[Peter_Klim]

Hardly noticeable when you turn it "ALL" the way up???
You mean all the way up, or just past 11:00 it sound like a 9 on your HK?

I never listened to the amp. But I'll say this based on my old 45w/ch receiver:
9 should be a bit more than moderate level, or at least well enough past background music levels, and enough to be heard by someone in another room.

For a few seconds, have it cranked up till it just barely starts to distort and evaluate.

Any 45 watt amp/receiver should play loud with the speakers you have.

[topspeed]

The P3 is a very nice pre-amp, Peter. The pictures of the Azur's volume knob make it look like it's a pin light, much like the power and source lights. Alas, it is but a blue piece of plastic.

Digital potentiometers are great in .5dB increments, which is what the Denon does. However, my old PS Audio 4.6 preamp used an analog Nobel attenuator and worked flawlessly for 15 years. I'm an idiot for selling that thing...

The volume pot on my Marantz 2230 is another story. It had to be rebuilt within an inch of its life when I did a full tune-up about 6 months ago. Of course, the old Marantz's are notorious for this problem.

[hertz]

The treble and bass adjustments won't do much damage to the overall tone because decent amp companies like CA, NAD etc.. design them to work at the frequency extremes.So if the music you are hearing does not have much extreme info, it can't do much.This is a good design principle but poorly understood by people used to tone controls found in Japanese amps.
I think the Nad 320bee would have been a better choice because it has been measured to have almost 80 watts per channel although it is speced to 50 watts.I tested it once with my inneficient speakers and it drove them better than a 100 watt nakamichi amp.

[noddin0ff]

Walker,

at 11:00 on my unit, the volume is moderate to low (moderate in a 10x12ft room w/ bookshelf speakers). 11:00 is about 1/3 of the range of the volume knob. I've never cranked mine, its in a work space. But what you described matches my ears.

The operating instructions (p.11) say the tone controls 'allow subtle adjustments'. I wouldn't expect them allow total defeat of bass or treble. I'd say that compared to receivers I've had that the tone controls on the CA don't do as much.

hope this helps.

noddin0ff

[Tons of Fun]

Hello People
Just to let you know that I have newly registered at the behest of my employers (Audio Partnership) to attempt to provide some manufacturer support for Cambridge Audio and Mordaunt Short. I am more easily found at the AVForums run in the UK but I will do my level best to deal with any inquiries you guys have although I suspect that most of my replies will be in the middle of the night.
Cheers
Ed

[Walker]

Hi Tons of fun and others,
I have some questions about my new 540a.
I'm a little concerned about the power of this amp. I have to crank it to 12 o'clock (on some older cd's, Fleetwood Mac Rumors) to get some feel of a powerful sound. It's probably still breaking in (played it for about 30 hours now) but I must say that the lower end is almost completely lacking. The sound is very thin and not at all convincing. The detail is great, much better than my HK and Onkyo, especially in the drums it's incredible what I have been missing.
But again I could not throw a good party with it the way it sounds now, you don't feel it; basically it does not rock (yet). Is this normal for this amp (after only 30 hours on low levels most of the time) or are my speakers a wrong match?
Thanks for advice.

Cambridge Audio Azur 540A
Speakers B&W 603s2
CD-player NAD C521i
Good cables

[Walker]

Thanks Noddin,
It's good to know that it's normal for this amp, I'm just not used to ever have the volume over 12 o clock but I'll get used to it. How long did it take you to break it in and did it make a big difference?
Thanks,
Walker

[noddin0ff]

Hi Walker,

I can't comment on the break-in period of the amp because I was simultaneously breaking in new speakers. I'm sure there are many opposing opinions but, in MY opinion, there is very little 'break-in' for an amp. My bet is that the the majority of the 'burn-in' occurs between the listeners ears. Speakers being mechanical, definately need to loosen up. I'd say all-in-all, three days of use and any further change will require golden ears in ideal listening environs to hear... assuming that the change is not in one's head...

Regarding your power crisis...have you turned it up past 12? (Well,it's one louder isn't it?) Does the amp get loud enough when you keep going? I wouldn't put to much emphasis on dial position vs loudness. For example my Yamaha at home gives the volume in -dB. The numerical given changes linearly with the know rotation (for the most part, it actually depends on how fast you turn too). But, perceived loudness from the speaker does not have a linear correlation with the number. So, for most of the range say -80 to -40 (-0 being max loudest) there's not much difference. But in contrast, between -30 and -25 there's significant difference. As I mentioned I can't crank my CA540, but I'm guessing that the volume increases more noticably per o'clock the farther you go.

Find out.

If there's still a volume deficit, maybe you should compare to other 50wpc amps. Maybe you just want more?

noddin0ff

[topspeed]

Hey Walker,

Sorry to hear the Azur isn't meeting your expectations. My experience was that the bottom end filled in considerably during burn-in, still it probably won't be to the extent that you were either expecting or are accustomed to. There's a good chance that your previous Onkyo presented a very different sound, possibly with an exaggerated bid-bass hump or something. I don't think it's so much a problem of the CA not mixing with the B&W's as it is your personal preferences.

As for the volume position, you're putting way too much thought into this. The volume is what it is. Seriously, on mine I've barely got the knob past it's base line around 7 o'clock and the slightest change merits huge differences in sound levels. Ah yes, the joy of 95dB speaks .

At this point, you need to seriously consider either:
1) The CA is defective
2) The return policy of your dealer

See if you can borrow a demo to verify #1 otherwise look into the NAD. As I mentioned before, it did have a better bottom end to my ears.

Good luck.

[Walker]

Hi Topspeed,
I'm still hoping for a good change after burn-in. Except for the low end it sounds wonderful, detail is so much better than the hk and the onkyo.
I used bookshelves (B&W 601i) for many years and was now hoping (with my floor standing speakers and new amp) for a bigger and richer sound. I'm not there yet, maybe tomorrow.
If not, I guess its part of an ongoing hobby.
Thanks for your help and I’ll keep you posted (did not dare to try Level 42 yet)
Walker

[hertz]

One point.The position of the volume control does not mean anything.It depends on the design.I once tried out the NAD c 350, c 320bee and c 370 at home. The volume control of the c 370 goes all the way to max without distorting the sound but the max undistorted sound in the c 350 and c320 bee is the 1' o clock position.But overall the 370 is a more powerfull amp but to get more power out of it, I had to go past 2 o' clock position.It all depends on the design.I bought the c 350 due to budget constraints and I rarely go past 11' o clock position and I am very happy.

You could check if your vol control is designed like the c 370 by cranking it all the way up.Be carefull when you do this though.If you are distorting the sound as you go up, you need a new amp.If the sound stays clean and undistorted and the amp is not getting heated up, you are ok with what you have.

Clean,defined bass and thumpy, bloated bass are different things. Most amps like the Nad and CA will give you undistorted, clean, fast bass.It is very well extended also. Except for badly recorded stuff, you shouldn't have a problem in this department keeping the tone controls at the off(flat) position. You need to check out the speaker placement, interconnects and speaker cables also..
Have fun.

[Tons of Fun]

The B&W's you're using aren't the most sensitive speakers out there (I would describe B&W as "creative" when it comes to giving sensitivity measurements) and what you are describing sounds a normal enough for the 540A on speaker of that type. Do remember;
1) The 540A is happy to about 12 ish on the dial
2) If it does get flustered, it will simply turn itself down.

[hertz]

If "Tons of fun" who knows technical stuff on CA is correct, you will need a more powerfull amp.The power of the amp is not going to improve on break in.I would strongly suggest you try out the NAD 320bee before you spend money on big beefy amps.The power it generates is awesome and it is high current.It clearly beat 100 watt amps from Nakamichi and Yamaha when I last auditioned it.Don't let the size fool you.Make sure you have atleast 16 guage high quality speaker wire though.

[psonic]

"basically it does not rock (yet). Is this normal for this amp (after only 30 hours on low levels most of the time) or are my speakers a wrong match?"

I don't think it will improve much more, though it could suprise you...I also don't think B&W is very efficient, like say a paradigm or klipsch. FWIW, I have seen the nad 320bee online refurbished for $279, with 1yr warranty. You could always order that and do an in-home comparison, selling the lesser on ebay or audiogon. Just an idea...

[psonic]

http://www.yawaonline.com/amplifiers.html

[Tons of Fun]

If "Tons of fun" who knows technical stuff on CA is correct, you will need a more powerfull amp.

Or with my sales hat on, he needs more sensitive speakers

[Walker]

Hi All,
I played many different types of music yesterday and came to the conclusion that it’s a great amp for well recorded music but it shows NO MERCY for a lot of older cd’s. It’s incredible how it went from great to awful. For example “Who’s Next” (The Who): I’ve never heard this cd so poorly (same with Queen, Joe Jackson and a lot of other older cd’s).
I’m used to the (older) HK sound witch puts a good camouflage net over poorly recorded cd’s. On the other end, well recorded cd’s sound excellent. I played some Tosca and Kruder & Dorfmeister and I was very happy.
The volume issue doesn’t bother me, I just turn it up more.
I'm definitely not going to sell my B&W's and I don’t think I will sell the CA anytime soon.
My conclusion so far: Great amp for well recorded music but imo not an all-rounder.
Walker

[noddin0ff]

Walker,

Good news! I sympathize. I'm slowly upgrading with remastered CD's (Look Sharp!, e.g.). Try to remind yourself that its not that poor CD's sound bad, it that good ones are allowed to really shine, something your HK wasn't doing...

Cheers!

noddin0ff

[Walker]

Noddin you're right I will remind myself.
Does the remastered Look Sharp sound a lot better cause my old Look Sharp (and I'm the man) sound horrible.
W.

[Peter_Klim]

Or with my sales hat on, he needs more sensitive speakers

I second that!

Unless you loooooooooooooove the way the speakers sound (Q wise, not SPL wise).
But if your lesser-brand-old-amp had the same or less power (can't recall what you wrote) and played louder, that makes NO sense as to what's going on with the CA.

Have you ever told us what happens when you crank it up til it starts to distort - is it to your liking? Is it loud? What position is it at?


Maybe you need, dare I say it...an EQ? ...Wait, on your HK, did you use the tones controls alot? Maybe that's why your not happy w/the CA's lack of UMPH!

Some people, including me, may know what equipment is "good" but that doesn't mean we know what we hear sounds "good" and what doesn't (I haven't auditioned enough to know what is super good. But mostly I have not auditioned live and "unplugged" "musicians" to know what live music sounds like. So I usually listen to vocals to determine what sound like the person is right in fron of me). I mean honestly, if we all truely knew what the "best" sound is, we would less likely, in "many" but not all case, ask someone elses opinion on what to get.

Case in point, my brother still "thinks" Bose 301's (that he returned) sounds better than his Silver series Monitor Audio speakers (that I picked up for him as a replacement). CLEARRRRLY he is wrong! So what I am saying is that maybe you are opinion of the sound the CA delivers is of a lesser quality than your other amps. If you listened to the source of the music (a live performance w/o loud speakers and amplifiers), then you would understand that the CA sounds more like the real thing than the HK?

Please do not be offended. I'm only stating a possibility of what is going on.

How bout trying the amp on a friends sytem?

[Walker]

Hi peter,
The onkyo I used is 2x 100 and the hk is 5x75. I know the ca is better than the other 2 (both receivers), I can hear things I did not hear before. I think I just expected to much of this amp but it's a fine amp and very affordable.
I do believe my B&W speakers are in another league and I will upgrade amps in the future. I bought these speakers recently after a lot of research, forums and try outs and I'm sure they are the right ones for my taste.

I do hear a lot of live music and don't expect to come close to that kind of sound with a budget system.
I guess the quest for better is not over … hooray.
Thanks for your reactions,
W.

[topspeed]

Noddin you're right I will remind myself.
Does the remastered Look Sharp sound a lot better cause my old Look Sharp (and I'm the man) sound horrible.
W.

Walker, you've got good taste in music my man. Check out JJ's Jumpin' Jive if you haven't already. Remastered on Amazon for $10.99 and a helluva fun disc.

Enjoy!