NAD and CA

[dean_martin]

There's been a lot of chatter lately about NAD and Cambridge Audio budget integrateds and since I have both at home I thought I would do a little comparison. I always pick the worst times for little experiments like these. I was home for lunch and went into my son's room to check out his Cambridge Audio 540A. I found an old cd of mine he had borrowed - Green Day's "Dookie." I know, don't laugh. I figured why not start out with a non-audiophile disc that's probably closer in quality to the majority of recordings. I loaded it and began to check out the tracks I was most familiar with. I listened to Basket Case all the way through and segments of other tracks. Not really my taste, but I found myself getting into the music. The sound was very clean and crisp and I was drawn in by the pinpoint imaging. But, I felt like there was something missing in the lower end. (Actually, what prompted me to compare the CA to my NAD is an earlier post from someone who had just bought the 540A to replace an older HK receiver. He commented that some music seemed to be bass shy with the CA in comparison.)

I went straight to my bedroom and played the same tracks in my NAD C340 system. Both the 540A and C340 are rated at 50wpc. I immediately noticed that the music seemed to have a little more weight or sounded fuller at the bottom end. But then the surprise - there was no additional bass/midbass info. or extension. The music simply was not as clean in that region which gave the impression of a fuller sound. This might be what is meant by "coloration." I also found that the imaging and soundstaging seemed less defined on the NAD system - "hazier." I noticed it took more effort to "get into" the music. (With the CA system I got a glimpse of being in the studio when sitting in the sweet spot.) I had noted some sounds/noises while listening to the CA system that I thought might be attributable to the system's ability to reproduce detail. I listened for those sounds/noises while listening to the NAD system thinking that they might be lacking. The detail was there, but it stayed more in the background. I realized that what seemed to be a lack of bass in the CA system was actually a lack of bass in the recording.

The gear in each system is listed below. I don't doubt that the associated gear may have played a role in what I heard, but I think the amps made the biggest difference. I've always been pleased with my NAD bedroom system. This little comparison made me appreciate the CA though. Next time I go amp shopping I'll have a point of reference from which to start.
Cambridge Audio 540A
Polk RTi25 speakers
Pioneer Dv-354 (? - I'll double check the model # if anyone's interested)

NAD C340
NHT SuperOne speakers
Cambridge Audio D300 cdp

[topspeed]

Hey Dean,

Here's are the challenges with your observations:
1) Different sources
2) Different speakers
3) Different room acoustics

As you know, I tried both the C320bee and the 540a before purchasing the CA for my office rig. My observations, in reader's digest form, was that the NAD did indeed have a tad more bass energy as you noted. If it's not too much trouble, I'd be interested in your findings between your two amps using the same system as a reference point. As it is now, your findings have far, far, too many variables. I know it's a pain in the rear, but a retest with the same system (except amps of course) would lend more credibility to your findings.

Thanks for your efforts.

[dean_martin]

Agreed, Speedy. I'm also interested in the differences between source dacs. The dacs in the Pioneer dvdp and the older CA D300 have substantially different specs, but as you know some members here believe that there are no audible differences among cdps. I suspect that the differences in room acoustics were alleviated somewhat because both sets of speakers are set up for nearfield listening and placement in relation to backwall are optimized for best bass response. I would put the speakers in the same class based on price and performance - very close in price, but probably farther apart in performance - one is an acoustic suspension design while the other is front-ported. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the 320BEE is a little more refined than my older C340.

However, none of the above can substitute for listening to the amps in the same system. One of these days, weather permitting, I'll try just such an experimentation. BTW, I've been using headphones w/my office rig, but would like to find some speaks that would mate well with an old Sansui integrated amp - any suggestions?

[Walker]

I am the guy who just bought the CA 540a and I thank you for your test. I was still a little bummed out for not buying the NAD, but after reading your test I feel better about the CA.

I'm still getting used to the "naked truth" that this amp presents me with.
Yesterday I bought the new "The Cure" cd and was all excited to play it on my new system ....well it sounds like sh#t (good cd though), very disappointing. So after The Cure I played the first Soul to Soul cd and it sounded terrific. It’s a rollercoaster.

Today I ordered the CA azur 540C (cd player), I hope this will make a difference. I now have the NAD 521i witch I was never impressed with.

I am from The Netherlands and could not bring my system when I moved to the US (220volt). For some reason I remember my old system (all older HK components and B&W speakers) to sound so much better. Does anyone know if there is a difference in sound between 110v equipment and 220v equipment?
Walker

[dean_martin]

Hey Walker - This may sound like voodoo to some, but I'll give you this illustration for recommending speaker cables. When I upgraded my main listening system from a receiver to a seperates pre-power combo, I noticed that the treble seemed very congested from my Acoustic Energy speakers. This was extremely frustrating. I went to a hifi shop in Atlanta while on a business trip and desribed my problem. The owner was very passionate about trying new speaker cables. The cables I was using came from radio shack. He talked me into buying the entry level DH Labs cables which weren't as expensive as some. (In fact, I got out of there for less than $100 after purchasing a stylus cleaning kit and record cleaning kit in addition to the cables.) When I took them home to try them, lo and behold the higher frequencies openned up and came forth smoothly. Anyway, this illustration is my basis for suggesting that there might be a speaker cable out there that compliments the 540A and your speakers. Good luck!

[Walker]

Hi Dean,
I changed the speaker cables a week ago (bi-wired) and it did make a good difference. It sounds better at low volume and, it sounds bigger.
What still bothers me (on about half of my cd's) is a somewhat compressed sound. As if the sound is trapped in the box and has a hard time to come out. But like I posted earlier, the other half of my cd collection sounds great
It is what it is and maybe the CA CD player will make a difference.
I’m also planning to change the power cords although I cannot rationalize why this could ever make a difference, but if so many audiophiles say it does there must be some truth to it.
Thanks for your input and I’m looking forward to your up coming test report. I’ll definitely report on my new cd-player (I’ll do A/B tests with both cd-players)
Walker

[topspeed]

I've been using headphones w/my office rig, but would like to find some speaks that would mate well with an old Sansui integrated amp - any suggestions?

How much do you wanna spend? If that Sansui is '70's vintage, they are supposed to be pretty cool

What still bothers me (on about half of my cd's) is a somewhat compressed sound. As if the sound is trapped in the box and has a hard time to come out. But like I posted earlier, the other half of my cd collection sounds great
It is what it is and maybe the CA CD player will make a difference.

It's the recording, plain and simple. Unfortunately, a lot of recordings (even new ones) sound like a cat caught in the fan belt.

I’m also planning to change the power cords although I cannot rationalize why this could ever make a difference, but if so many audiophiles say it does there must be some truth to it.

Horsesh!t. I'm not an expert on cables by any means but I have tried three different power cables on my amp (an amp that is touted as being cable sensitive btw, even by the manufacturer) and could not hear a difference between the stock cable, the upgraded pvc pipe Xstream Plus, and a $800(!!) Cardas Golden Reference. The main difference was that the Xstream is an utter pain in the ass to use because it's as bendable as John Holmes during a money shot. Save your money.

I’ll definitely report on my new cd-player (I’ll do A/B tests with both cd-players)

This I'm interested in because I absolutely believe dacs and cdp's sound different. It'll be interesting to hear your observations of the Wolfson's vs. whatever is in the NAD. Keep us posted.

[Walker]

The NAD has Burr Brown 24bit DACS, I'm very curious to hear the CA. I expect it wednesday, I'll let you know.
Walker

[hertz]

You are caught in what a typical "mid fi trap" I have seen lot of people in. The azur CD player is not going to make your "other half" of the cd collection sound nice.A change in cd player is going to makes the least difference in your sound system.If you were upgrading from a very cheap dvd player, it woud have made a difference.The NAD that you have is a reasonably good one.
What you done is an upgrade from lo-fi to mid-fi. You have a good cd player and amp.Now the biggest difference can be expected if you move on to a much better speaker.Your older lo-fi system made all your bad recordings sound tolerable and the good ones sounded good.Now you have a fairly transparant system which won't tolerate your bad recordings. Crap in-crap out..that's it.Changing just one component in a lo-fi system is the worse thing that you can do.Now you need to find a synergy in your system. I would suggest you keep the cd player. Get the best speakers that matches your amp.Try out different interconnects and speaker cables and most importantly, setup the speakers correctly.