Rotel or NAD?

Printable View

  • 03-31-2006, 01:57 PM
    Mark_E
    Rotel or NAD?
    I am in the market for a new amp or receiver and I have somewhat narrowed down my search but would like opinions from others. Currently, I am driving a pair of B&W Matrix 804's. I also have a Carver HR-752 receiver that I am looking to replace. I would like at least 100 W/ch. The units I am looking at is the Rotel RX-1052 receiver or the NAD C372 integrated amp together with the NAD C422 tuner. I realize Rotel and B&W are sister companies so they may compliment each other well and this is really how I am leaning, but the dealer does not have any of them in stock so I am unable to do a listening test on it. The NAD sounds nice and full, but I'm not sure how either combination would sound with my speakers. I defintely prefer the look of the Rotel, but appearances is not that important to me. I want the unit that is going to give me the best sound. Other suggestions would also be appreciated. Thanks.
  • 04-01-2006, 11:59 AM
    abulgan
    of course ROTEL but Stereo amp not Receiver
  • 04-01-2006, 12:14 PM
    Mark_E
    Rotels integrated amp is only 60 w/ch so that is why I am opting for their reciever at 100 w/ch. If I go with power amp, preamp and tuner, it will cost me more than what I budgeted.
  • 04-01-2006, 12:50 PM
    abulgan
    if u have B&W 804,u must pay more to listen full abilities of this monster
  • 04-02-2006, 05:07 AM
    Mark_E
    I've borrowed the NAD from the store to try out and although some things sound great on it, I don't find it sounds as good as my Carver was. I don't have access to the Rotel to try out the same way.
  • 04-04-2006, 07:00 AM
    hertz
    The B&W 804 Matrix needs a powerfull power amp to perform to its fullest.Forget using recievers with this speaker.
    On a side note, the rotal amp with 60watts will definitely have more drive and resolution than the 100 watt reciever. There is more to amplifiers than watts.
  • 04-04-2006, 05:57 PM
    Mark_E
    I have had the chance to do an A/B switching of the NAD vs my Carver and the difference is astonishing. As much as I was hoping the NAD would completely blow the sound of the Carver away, I was so wrong. The Carver still sounds amazing. The NAD has an almost "closed in" sound to it. Almost as though it is playing within a large cardboard box. The Carver's sound is so tight and crisp. Even the bass component seems so much more full and tighter. The overall sound is livelier. Various instruments seem to blend together on the NAD whereas the Carver seperates them out nicely. As much as I was hoping to get a new amp, I can't trade the Carver in yet....or at least not for the NAD.
  • 04-05-2006, 04:47 AM
    kexodusc
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mark_E
    I have had the chance to do an A/B switching of the NAD vs my Carver and the difference is astonishing. As much as I was hoping the NAD would completely blow the sound of the Carver away, I was so wrong. The Carver still sounds amazing. The NAD has an almost "closed in" sound to it. Almost as though it is playing within a large cardboard box. The Carver's sound is so tight and crisp. Even the bass component seems so much more full and tighter. The overall sound is livelier. Various instruments seem to blend together on the NAD whereas the Carver seperates them out nicely. As much as I was hoping to get a new amp, I can't trade the Carver in yet....or at least not for the NAD.
    I'm not surprised the NAD didn't agree with your speakers. Though I haven't heard the 804's, I understand them to be known for the warmth many find pleasing. Well, a lot of NAD's are known for this too...so putting the 2 together might be too much of a good thing.
    Perhaps that's why Rotel is often recommended with B&W?

    I have a Rotel integrated, RA-1070, I love it. Not the highest fidelity piece of gear out there by any means, but it has a crazy amount of power at 100 watts. My 100 watt receiver doesn't come close. I find it very detailed, perhaps a tiny, tiny bit lean in the bass compared to my Adcom's, but far more neutral than either of my NAD amps.

    You might consider PS Audio, they're making some great pieces these days.
    Of course, if your Carver is still working well, why bother at all?
  • 04-09-2006, 05:56 PM
    judithcristina
    i own the rotel receiver that you are considering purchasing, i do not have an amp, but i have a feeling i should have skipped the receiver and bought an amp instead because when i listen at high volume, the receiver gets pretty hot after some time. i have jm lab speakers which i chose over B & W 700 something floor standing speakers. i love the speakers, and they do sound good with the rotel, but i have a feeling i may be working the rotel too hard at high volume levels. which brings me to my question...would there be a need to put a receiver with an amp, or would it be best to have a tuner and an amp?
  • 04-12-2006, 10:35 AM
    terraform
    I have never really enjoyed listening to NAD and for the most part like Rotel. So if my vote counts, Rotel.
  • 04-12-2006, 09:10 PM
    accastil
    rotel over nad of course..ive owned a rotel stereo power amp and it made a lot of positive improvement to my system since it was hooked in..ive heard the nad before i bought the rotel and its better for me not to comment on it.
  • 04-14-2006, 07:36 PM
    superpanavision70mm
    NAD is not for everyone. I will say that NAD is not going to add much color, which is good, but some people prefer an amp that 'adds' value to the source. Have you given any thought to Pass Labs?
  • 04-15-2006, 02:57 PM
    emorphien
    I'd say try both. NAD offers a sound I like while scraping right at the top of my allowable budget range as a graduate student.

    Eventually I'll upgrade but it gives me a good place to start and stay for a while until I can.