Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 81
  1. #1
    Forum Regular Walker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    74

    Cambridge Audio Azur 540A VS. NAD C320 BEE

    Which one would be your choice and why?
    Please advice.
    Thanks a lot

    My speakers are B&W 603s2.

    Cambridge Audio Azur 540A vs. NAD C320 BEE

  2. #2
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Why not also consider the Rotel RA-02 and Azur 640A?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walker
    Which one would be your choice and why?
    Please advice.
    Thanks a lot

    My speakers are B&W 603s2.

    Cambridge Audio Azur 540A vs. NAD C320 BEE
    I think the Rotel RA-02 is IN the same ballpark for price, and the Azur 640A is not all that much more than the 540A.

  3. #3
    Forum Regular Walker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    74
    witch one would you pick out of the 3 and why?
    Thanks for your input.

  4. #4
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717
    I choose the CA 540A over the C320bee and RA-02 for three reasons:
    1) The Azur was 30% cheaper than the NAD
    2) The Azur was almost 50% cheaper than the Rotel (that's a $100 freakin' remote!)
    2) The NAD looks like sh!t

    Admittedly, number three is purely subjective so feel free to proclaim the little c320bee as fetching as Halle Berry. They make it in silver in other markets, but North American's get their wonderful camo green/grey...isn't that special?

    Because of the price of the Rotel, I didn't even bother. As far as sound quality, the C320bee had a slightly better bottom end over the Azur, but you had to really be looking for it to tell the difference. They are both very smooth and don't really exhibit any nastiness which is a nice bonus considering their modest prices. I've got mine powering Mission Argonauts which are 95dB sensitive so needless to say, I don't have to feed them much. There seems to be plenty of headroom when I do let them fly. The remote on the Azur btw is a heavy, solid piece that really imbues the unit with a sense of quality.

    I found the sound from both to be far more similar than the serious price differential, hence I bought the CA.

    Good luck and buy what moves you.

  5. #5
    Forum Regular Walker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    74
    Hi Topspeed,
    Thanks for the info, are you familiar with the cambridge audio A 500 RC or the cambridge audio A 500 (2x 65 watts).
    thanks again for all the speaker info.
    Walker

  6. #6
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717
    Sorry, no. Dean Martin (the poster, not the singer) might be though. You might PM him.

  7. #7
    Forum Regular Walker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    74

    Rotel ra - 02 vs NAD & CA

    Is the rotel ra 02 worht the extra money compared to the others (NAD& CA). I read good things about all of them.
    And is 40 watts enough for B&W 603 s2 speakers.
    The more I read, the harder it gets.
    Thanks,
    Walker

  8. #8
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Walker

    You may want to check out the latest What-Hi-fi they found a cheaper Cambridge Audio to perform better than soem of the costlier units like the Rotel. Also NAD's new C352 won their super-test. It should be noted that all the units they tested did well - and I'm sure any of the ones would do well for you - but wirth a read anyway.

  9. #9
    Forum Regular Walker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    74

    Witch CA did they test?

    Witch CA did they test?
    thanks

  10. #10
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    I can't remember the name but it was $250 Pounds(I believe the 640A) - the cheapest in the test and scored second best right behind the NAD. But they said it was close - considering the NAD is 50% more money it would be worth checking out the CA.

    This is a subjective magazine however - so you may want to get a hold of the reviews by Hi-Fi Choice - their magazine is not sold inmy area and the web-site only has older models - though the NAD BEE is there so who knows. Hi-fi Choice liked it though I believe - well CA's site says they did. I know the matching CD player got a best buy award in Hi-fi Choice --- these guys listen in blind panels level matched. http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/reviews.html

  11. #11
    Forum Regular Walker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    74

    Bought the CA Azur 540 A

    Thanks for the advice, I bought the CA and will receive it soon.
    I very curious how it will sound with my B&W 602 s2's.
    Thanks again,
    Walker

  12. #12
    Forum Regular Walker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    74
    I mean my B&W 603 s2's, not the 602's.

  13. #13
    Can a crooner get a gig? dean_martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Lower AL
    Posts
    2,838
    chiming in a little late on the 540A and older A500. My son's A500 had to be returned because it was making a humming/buzzing sound in one channel. The A500 was rated 65wpc, the new 540A is rated 50wpc. I think the new 640A is 65wpc. We opted to replace the A500 with the 540A. It's build quality is better. Unfortunately, the A500 didn't run as it should long enough to really compare sound quality although it seemed very capable and controlled especially in the bass region until it started acting up. We've been very pleased with the 540A. It's build quality, including the cool remote, surpasses the old A500. The Azur series also includes a headphone jack. I would describe the sound as full-bodied. Not sluggish or bloated in the bass region but it's definitely not missing. We were replacing an old 25wpc NAD receiver that sounded thin at lower volumes (my son always used the bass boost and bass control at low volumes) and just wouldn't rock at the levels my son likes to listen. In his bedroom, the 540A does just fine in tone defeat mode.

    I have 2 NAD integrateds - C340 and C350, I prefer the C340, but they're both rather bland in appearance compared to the Azur. I haven't really done a head-to-head between the Cambridge and the NADs for 2 reasons - too lazy to disconnect/connect all that wiring and never noticed a difference going from room to room that would indicate some sonic fault or benefit worth investigating.

    Ours is driving a pair of Polk RTi25 stand mounts, but I've heard the 603s with an entry level Marantz A/V receiver and they sounded fine. I would think the 540A would be an improvement - probably a little smoother in the treble and tighter bass.

  14. #14
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Walker
    Thanks for the advice, I bought the CA and will receive it soon.
    I very curious how it will sound with my B&W 602 s2's.
    Thanks again,
    Walker

    Congrats Walker,

    I'm sure you'll enjoy your new CA. I'd like to recommend a few things:
    1) Burn, baby burn! This thing really benefits from a solid burn-in period (50+hrs) before it starts to sing. It sounds pretty thin straight out of the box so don't judge it right away, give it time to open up. The difference is considerable.

    2) The sticker on the top is a can either be very easy to take off or a bloody nightmare. Another member that has the 640 had the same situation. "Goo Gone" works like a charm. Home Depot should have it.

    3) The binding posts are disappointing in quality and don't accept banana! WTH??? Get some spades or pins while you're waiting for the unit to come in, you're going to need 'em.

    Have fun!

  15. #15
    Forum Regular Walker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    74
    Thanks for the tips, I'll let you know how it sounds.
    One more question, my cd-player is an NAD C521i, is this a good match for the CA (Ibought it 3 months ago)? It sounds detailed and clean on my HK.
    Walker

  16. #16
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717
    Sure, why not? It will probably sound even better through the CA (once burned-in).

  17. #17
    Big science. Hallelujah. noddin0ff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    X
    Posts
    2,286
    Hi Guys,

    It would be nice if you posted your reviews to the Reviews part of this site. I put mine up for the 540A a while back. Lots of people use this site. I'd rather not be the only opinion out there. Excellent forum though.

    Noddi0ff

  18. #18
    Forum Regular Peter_Klim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    74
    In 3 1/2 hours I am going to get a hearing test done (my ears keep popping and I got tinnitus) and hopefully it will give me some idea of what I want to do. That is, how much I want to spend on an amp/preamp/ or int...or just keep my old 1988 45w/ch Onkyo receiver.

    First I was considering about 100 - 200 w/ch at about $1600 for Parasound Halo Pre/amp combo or Rotel's RC 1070 pre and one of their amps ...Then after my ear problems, I started deciding on Jolida's or Antiqu Sound Lab's tube intergated amps @ about 30-50 w/ch.

    Then, I started thinking "If I might loose my hearing, why even spend a grand?" So the Rotel intergated came to mind (RA 1062 @ $700). Then I thought that wasn't much better.

    Now I am thinking of the NAD C320BEE ($400). And since reading this thread, the CAs too.

    This amp will be for my Martin Logan ReQuests.

    Walker,
    For you, either one (NAD or CA) will be fine. I've been using small Dali (Dali IV) speakers and larger JBL L7 with the ole Onkyo and it has more than enough power to crank them up! (I never tried to crank it up with the ReQuests - only because I am temporarily living in an apt).

    Well...reading a more recent post, I just noticed you made your purchase. Let us know how you like it!

    Anyone know how well either of these budget amps do at playing music at low to moderately low volume levels, with medium sensitive spks: 90dB/2.83 volts/meter that are Nominal: 4 Ohms; Minimum: 1.2 Ohms? Do they heat up a lot?

  19. #19
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter_Klim
    Anyone know how well either of these budget amps do at playing music at low to moderately low volume levels, with medium sensitive spks: 90dB/2.83 volts/meter that are Nominal: 4 Ohms; Minimum: 1.2 Ohms? Do they heat up a lot?
    Hope everything works out at the Doc, Peter. The only time a loss of hearing is a good thing is when you're married

    I've got the Azur 540a running 4ohm Mission Argonauts that are 95dB sensitive. The impedence curve isn't as dramatic as your ML's, but I can say the CA runs very cool and I've got mine on pretty much all day. One of the things that I really appreciate about the CA is it's low level resolution. Whereas some amps need you to turn them up to fully develop, the Azur is balanced regardless of the volume. I use it for my office system so it's rarely cranked to, as Nigel Huffnel would say, "11". It does seem to produce a very real 50 wpc tho and I've never heard it show sign of strain or run out of room on the rare occasions I let it fly. Bare in mind, when you combine my speaker's sensitivity w/ my modest office dimensions (18'x10'), even half volume is REALLY loud.

    From a pure sound quality standpoint, I'd actually give the C320bee a slight edge only because it's bass was a little deeper. The difference is miniscule however, and for me I opted for the far better aesthetics and much lower price of the Azur.

    Hope this helps.

  20. #20
    Forum Regular Peter_Klim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    74

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by topspeed
    Hope everything works out at the Doc, Peter. The only time a loss of hearing is a good thing is when you're married
    LOL!! Some co-workers and I joked the same thing the other day!

    My hearing test came out better than expected. Both ears work the same, except a slight relative dip centered at 4Khz (in absolute, it is considered normal). But it is still a 10db difference between the 2 ears. Then at 8K they are the same again. In a couple of days the doc will review the results and we will take it from there. Thanks for your concern.

    I wondered why you got the CA over the NAD and then remembered it wasn't for your main system, but for your office. What do you use in your main system again? Do you have it up in the gallery?

    What I like about both these amps is that their volume controls are a rotary knob, instead of a digital pushbutton. With the knob, you have infinite volume settings. The Parasound Halo P3 only has only 40 something incremental steps (each step displays the volume by 2, so it displays up to "80", which is still 69 "more louder" than the amp used by Spinal Tap ) That, at one time, was my one draw back in deciding on it. My newer Onkyo (TX-DS777 used for HT w/the JBL L-series) has the digital knob that doesn't have an end it it spinning (does that make it even louder than the Halo?!?!)

    I also like that the Rotels and the CA have a light in the volume know so I have some idea on what level the volume is set to.

    Do you know if the NAD has the light in it?

  21. #21
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter_Klim
    What do you use in your main system again? Do you have it up in the gallery?
    My HT and 2 channel are forced to coexist so I have a Denon 3803, PS Audio HCA2 for the mains, Sony DVD changer used as transport w/ optical to the Denon's Burr-Browns, Denon tape deck, etc. (for a full list w/ model #'s, check my profile), these are driving a set of B&W CDMNT's: 7NT's for mains, CNT center, and 1NT's for surround. I also have a DefTech PF12TL sub only for HT. I don't have a pic up because, believe it or not, I don't have a digital camera. Any suggestions?

    What I like about both these amps is that their volume controls are a rotary knob, instead of a digital pushbutton. With the knob, you have infinite volume settings. Do you know if the NAD has the light in it?
    I'm with you, buttons suck. The NAD doesn't have a light on the volume and the CA's isn't lit, although I sure wish it was. BTW, if you like the CA in silver, be aware the white labels are pretty much illegible against the silver faceplate.

  22. #22
    Big science. Hallelujah. noddin0ff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    X
    Posts
    2,286
    I'd have to agree with topspeed on the resolution at low volume with the CA. That's a good observation. I've got mine in an office too, so low to moderate volume listening is it. Speakers are Paradigm Minimons (90dB room/87dB anechoic,which do most manufacturers use?) and 'compatible w/ 8 ohm'.

    BTW, a rotary knob doesn't mean 'infinite volume settings'. The knob is just an interface, it can still be adjusting a digital control with big steps. Generally I find steps of 0.5dB invisible to my ear. I don't know but I'm betting the volume control on most modern amps/receivers is operating digitally and not analog.

    I've got the 540A in black. Very good looking.

    noddin0ff

  23. #23
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Linkoping, Sweden
    Posts
    37
    Good point about the low level response of the CA. I've been using Quad for about 30 years and sort of taken it for granted but it's certainly worth a mention. A lot of pre-amplifiers use logarithmic potentiometers and not linear for volume control.

    My CA A500 has a very even response, much like the old Quad.

  24. #24
    Forum Regular Peter_Klim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by topspeed
    My HT and 2 channel are forced to coexist so I have a Denon 3803, PS Audio HCA2 for the mains, Sony DVD changer used as transport w/ optical to the Denon's Burr-Browns, Denon tape deck, etc. (for a full list w/ model #'s, check my profile), these are driving a set of B&W CDMNT's: 7NT's for mains, CNT center, and 1NT's for surround. I also have a DefTech PF12TL sub only for HT. I don't have a pic up because, believe it or not, I don't have a digital camera. Any suggestions?

    I'm with you, buttons suck. The NAD doesn't have a light on the volume and the CA's isn't lit, although I sure wish it was. BTW, if you like the CA in silver, be aware the white labels are pretty much illegible against the silver faceplate.
    Do you have a regular film camera and access to a scanner (at work, Kinko's, or maybe some places that develop film do?). Some places that devlope film can also develope then film and put the pictures into a CD.

    Hmm, I thought the CA had lights on the volume knob (I only saw the unit at the SoundAdvisor website - they have a zoom feature to view it).

  25. #25
    Forum Regular Peter_Klim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by noddin0ff

    BTW, a rotary knob doesn't mean 'infinite volume settings'. The knob is just an interface, it can still be adjusting a digital control with big steps.

    noddin0ff
    Yeah, I know:

    "My newer Onkyo (TX-DS777 used for HT w/the JBL L-series) has the digital knob"

    So does the Parasound Halo P3 I wrote about.

    Sorry for the confusion.

    The Parasound steps are too far apart, especially if using the XLRs. The Onkyo's is much better (it has about double the amount of steps and it may have a different gain).

    In a way the digital ones are better, because there is less chance of dust messing up their contact (which can result in a static sound when adjusting the volume).

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Arcam vs. Rotel vs. Cambridge Audio
    By Arch in forum Digital Domain & Computer Audio
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 04-02-2006, 08:18 AM
  2. Cambridge Azur 640C Bug
    By RobertKruz in forum General Audio
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-07-2005, 09:32 AM
  3. cambridge audio azur 540d
    By musicman1999 in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-30-2004, 06:58 AM
  4. Cambridge Audio Azur questions
    By OP-OS in forum Amps/Preamps
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-08-2004, 07:39 AM
  5. Arcam CD62T vs Cambridge Audio Azur 540C
    By xforce in forum Digital Domain & Computer Audio
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-28-2004, 08:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •