Some thoughts on NAD C-315.

[Tetsuro]

I have the C-315 for some time so I think can shoot some opinions. I like its highs and the basses are ok (even if the basses are a bit over-emphasized) what I find a bit 'strange' are the mids... they seems a bit muffled, muddy like they aren't fully exploited.. it isn't BAD but it's nothing to shout about. What do you think? Warm speakers could be the cause? Mine Tannoys does not seem that much warm... highs are clear even with the NAD (that someone says 'smooth' the highs).

[anamorphic96]

Speaker placement is your biggest problem. It's causing your bass and midrange issue. Many people can't accept this. But it's the truth.

What are the dimensions of your room, and what does your speaker placement look like. Pics would be great.

[Tetsuro]

With the previous amplifier midrange were better (it was a relatively bright amplifier, maybe a better match for Tannoy?).

[anamorphic96]

Judging by this drawing it looks as if you have two issues.

1.Your speakers are in or near corners. This tends to cause muddy and poorly defined bass.
2. Your speakers are very close to the side walls. This can cause reflection issues. Do you have curtains on the windows ?

Try treating your first reflection points on the sides as well pulling your speakers away from the corners and sides.

Are your speakers on some sort of shelf or desk ? How far apart are your speakers ? If so putting them on stands will make a huge difference. Speakers put on desks and shelves can cause bass and midrange issues.

Its really hard to suggest much more without pics. Ideally bookshelf and monitor speakers prefer to be on stands away from boundaries. Usually two to four feet from walls is ideal. Setting the speakers up about 6 to 8 feet apart and sitting rougly two thirds the way back of that distance will get you close to finding the sweet spot.

My listening room is very compromised being square and small. I tend to get muddy bass. But I use the bass control on my amp which helps a good bit. I have put up room treatments to help with reflection issues.

But every time I put my system in a larger room and place the speakers away from boundaries the whole system sound sounds different. The bass tightens up and the sound stage opens up in a big way.

Hope this helps. I would really try playing around with room placement. It's free and can have a profound impact on what your hearing. Once I discovered the impact room acoustics and the big effect room treatments have on a system I started focusing on this area.

[Tetsuro]

Mmm I could see for stands (short stands to put on the desk).
Other things are unpracticable in mine situation.

Thanks for the support.

[spiderant]

Greetings,

This is my first posting / response to this forum, although I've been reading posts here for quite a while.

I'd like to share my experience with the NAD C315BEE. I purchased one approx. two weeks ago. My speakers are Totem Mites and I had them running with a VUUM VTI-B1, which is the Canadian version of the Fatman Itube which is essentially the Dared MP-5. I found that, even though the VUUM has a valve pre-amp stage, it made my Mites sound too bright and, at times, even glaring. I was not able to listen to tenors (i.e. Schubert's Winterreisse) without cringing and I found that the Mites lacked bottom end. I eventually took the VUUM out and put in my old NAD 3020. Although the Mites suddenly became warm and easy to listen to, I now missed the detail, clarity and better sound stage the VUUM offered. After doing some research, and hoping to combine the best of both worlds, I finally purchased the NAD C315BEE.

Initially, although I found the sound non-fatiguing and the bass ample, I felt that the violins now sounded like cellos and the cellos like double basses. It was as if everything was taken down an octave. I too felt like there was almost a darkness over the music.

However, past experience has convinced me that my ears needs some time to get used to a new system. I needed a period to ween myself off of what may have been an over emphasis of the higher frequencies with the VUUM. So resisting the temptation to swap my VUUM back in, I forced myself to continue listening for at least a week. And, you know what? Either the amp needed some time to break in, or I got used to the Nad sound and the music no longer sounds veiled or overly warm. It actually sounds very clear and precise, yet simultaneously sonorous and deep. I listened to Miles Davis Sketches of Spain on the weekend, and I could make out every instrument. And I listened to Van Morrison's Common One and I couldn't help singing along. Last night I listened to Mahler's 4th (Bernstein / Concertgebouworkest), a 1988 disk that I used to think was poorly mastered, but now sounded wonderful, deep and clear. I never heard the kettle drums sound so prominent, yet set off from the rest of the orchestra. And when the boy soprano sang the text from Des Knaben Wunderhorn, he actually sounded like a boy, instead of a woman. All vocals I've heard on this system sound like real human voices. Tonight I'm listening to Andrew Manze playing Biber's Violin Sonatas using a period baroque violin. This disk used to have a very high cringe factor for me and I found it extremely grating at times. Now, as it's playing, it's beautiful. I can hear all the details of violin with lute and harpsichord accompaniment, and it just sounds right: clear, articulate, precise and natural.

Anyways, my Totem Mites are considered bright speakers by many, so I believe that the Nad compliments them extremely well. I also have my Mites mounted on adjacent walls approx. 6" from the ceiling and 12" from the wall. My room is a small office / studio. I am very pleased with the NAD (my only complaint is that it runs very warm). Although I read someplace that the NAD C315BEE works well with the Tannoys, and I'm not sure how long you've been doing some seriously listening to your new system, but I would give it some more time and let your ears adjust. I also agree with Anamorphic's suggestion to position the speakers differently, especially away from the walls if they are rear ported.

I hope you find joy in your music.

Roland.

[Tetsuro]

Thanks for sharing your impressions. I think you have matched well your system, to me too the NAD sound less warm than when it was new and the sound is very pleasing. I found only a bit of a muffled sound on the midrange.. I think that perhaps it's the combination of two warm components. It isn't bad at all, just could be better. For now I'm using a 'processor' to give me a tad more brighter sound.. I'm using the AudioBurstFX in combination with the Winamp player.
I've found this opinion: 'The NAD and the Tannoy combination being dulled and muddled just needed the clean/clear/lean/bright sounding Sony to bring it to life. So partner the Sony with the right equipment and you will be surprised how good it can be as a multi purpose player.'

Mine source is high quality (and very new) so I don't want to change it (I think it's neutral sounding), maybe in the future I could match it with brighter speakers like KEF and take a more neutral sound.

Surely I would suggest to anyone the purchase of this NAD, it's a great amplifier for the price.

[cga]

I'm not sure if anyone is still reading this thread, but I was doing a search on this amp and stumbled upon this discussion.

I've been listening to my C315BEE for several months now and have a somewhat different opinion. Not regarding sound quality, which for the price I'm convinced is nothing short of amazing, but regarding its audio characteristics as discussed here.

Strictly speaking, I'm not an audiophile, but I have been interested in what we used to call hi-fi for many years. But I've never spent more than a few hundred dollars on any one piece of equipment.

I'm currently driving a pair of Athena F2 speakers (original version) with my C315 and am very happy with the combination.

But to my ears the sound is not particularly warm, but rather somewhat clinical and bright. But still very satisfying. The Athenas are bright to begin with, and the amp seems to accentuate this characteristic. As a matter of fact, I can't turn up the volume above about half without cringing at the vocals and horns. But since I rarely listen at high volume, this is not an issue. The bass I find very detailed and accurate, but not particularly loud. But once again, very satisfying.

This particular room is long and narrow (20x10), carpeted, with wood on the ceiling. The speakers are too near the corners, but no other configuration will work.

What strikes me is how the same piece of equipment can sound so different in different environments and to different ears.

The amp is very fast and realistic, with plenty of power, and its perceived brightness (to me) is rarely an issue at normal volume. I'm not very fond of the remote which I find too small and minimalistic, and would have appreciated a lighted dot on the rotary volume control. Nevertheless, I'm very happy with the NAD and believe it would be difficult to surpass or even equal this amp's performance for the price.

[Tetsuro]

I'm not sure if anyone is still reading this thread, but I was doing a search on this amp and stumbled upon this discussion.

I've been listening to my C315BEE for several months now and have a somewhat different opinion. Not regarding sound quality, which for the price I'm convinced is nothing short of amazing, but regarding its audio characteristics as discussed here.

Strictly speaking, I'm not an audiophile, but I have been interested in what we used to call hi-fi for many years. But I've never spent more than a few hundred dollars on any one piece of equipment.

I'm currently driving a pair of Athena F2 speakers (original version) with my C315 and am very happy with the combination.

But to my ears the sound is not particularly warm, but rather somewhat clinical and bright. But still very satisfying. The Athenas are bright to begin with, and the amp seems to accentuate this characteristic. As a matter of fact, I can't turn up the volume above about half without cringing at the vocals and horns. But since I rarely listen at high volume, this is not an issue. The bass I find very detailed and accurate, but not particularly loud. But once again, very satisfying.

This particular room is long and narrow (20x10), carpeted, with wood on the ceiling. The speakers are too near the corners, but no other configuration will work.

What strikes me is how the same piece of equipment can sound so different in different environments and to different ears.

The amp is very fast and realistic, with plenty of power, and its perceived brightness (to me) is rarely an issue at normal volume. I'm not very fond of the remote which I find too small and minimalistic, and would have appreciated a lighted dot on the rotary volume control. Nevertheless, I'm very happy with the NAD and believe it would be difficult to surpass or even equal this amp's performance for the price.

Every combination would result in a different sound... some may sound bright some may sound warm (you are matching the amplifier with bright speakers, so..). I think anyway that maybe there are amplifiers even warmer than this NAD (I heard that much people consider it less warm than previous NAD models).

I do not agree on the 'fast' thing, to me it has a slow bass. Sometimes I found this annoying. Anyway great piece of equipment beside the 'crackling' of the plastic when it warm up or cool down.

[cga]

We could be talking about different things when discussing "warm" amplifiers. So it could be a question of semantics.

The old Marantz receivers, for example, I've owned were very warm to my ears. Many people prefer these old amps. I used to but not any more. I find the NAD 315 much more accurate and dynamic, but also a little bright...even through other speakers (Klipsch, Large Advent, Paradigm).

I'm surprised you don't find it "fast." That's one of the first things that impressed me about it. My brother has the 325, which I broke-in for him. Strangely, and I'm still not sure why, I think my 315 sounds better.

[Tetsuro]

We could be talking about different things when discussing "warm" amplifiers. So it could be a question of semantics.

The old Marantz receivers, for example, I've owned were very warm to my ears. Many people prefer these old amps. I used to but not any more. I find the NAD 315 much more accurate and dynamic, but also a little bright...even through other speakers (Klipsch, Large Advent, Paradigm).

I'm surprised you don't find it "fast." That's one of the first things that impressed me about it. My brother has the 325, which I broke-in for him. Strangely, and I'm still not sure why, I think my 315 sounds better.

If I have to compare the NAD to an Aeron I find the first both warm and slow. I think you americans maybe have little habit with bright amplifiers but if you place that NAD close to a Rotel I think you too willl find it warm. Probably it's not the warmer NAD but I think it's still on the warm side... I use with it Energy speakers with metal tweeter and I find it warm. I don't think Energys are warm.

[cga]

Yes, one Rotel I spent some time with was even brighter than the NAD, and by comparison yes, the NAD is warmer. I had a pair of Energy speakers (can't recall the model) and I agree they were definitely not warm, and too "in your face" for my taste.

[Tetsuro]

So it's just about habit. We europeans (beside England) tend to use bright amplifiers (Aeron, Denon...) matching them with warm speakers (soft dome a la Chario, Cabasse, Jamo...) beside americans tend to do the inverse (NAD, Marantz with JBL, Energy, Klipsch...).

In any case the C-315 is definitely warm, not as previous model but much more so than Rotels, Yamahas, Aerons and so on.

[cga]

>>>
In any case the C-315 is definitely warm, not as previous model but much more so than Rotels, Yamahas, Aerons and so on.
>>>

I don't wish to "beat a dead horse" but it comes down to what you compare it with. It's all relative.

I've owned several Yamaha receivers, including the R-5, R-7, R-8, and R-9, and over the years spent countless hours listening to them. While to my ears they were definitely brighter than average, my NAD C315--once again to my ears--is quite a bit brighter and at high volumes somewhat fatiguing.

But it's just my opinion and and neither one of us is going to convince the other.

By the way, the Yamaha R-5 is an amazingly nice sounding receiver for what it normally goes for (<$50) used. But decidedly unreliable (like all the Yamaha R-x receivers their solder joints did not hold up well over time).

[Tetsuro]

>>>
In any case the C-315 is definitely warm, not as previous model but much more so than Rotels, Yamahas, Aerons and so on.
>>>

I don't wish to "beat a dead horse" but it comes down to what you compare it with. It's all relative.

I've owned several Yamaha receivers, including the R-5, R-7, R-8, and R-9, and over the years spent countless hours listening to them. While to my ears they were definitely brighter than average, my NAD C315--once again to my ears--is quite a bit brighter and at high volumes somewhat fatiguing.

But it's just my opinion and and neither one of us is going to convince the other.

By the way, the Yamaha R-5 is an amazingly nice sounding receiver for what it normally goes for (<$50) used. But decidedly unreliable (like all the Yamaha R-x receivers their solder joints did not hold up well over time).

I don't know the R-5, I could speak only for the AX/RX 397 family.. the more recent.