Would someone explain NAD?

[brigrizzme]

I've only had the opportunity to listen to one NAD integrated amp around 8 years ago. Is NAD really as fabulous as all of the owner’s state? Is NAD simply a hyped, very common piece of mid-fi equipment? I'm just curious. This is not a dig towards any NAD owners whatsoever. I’m looking for a 2'nd bedroom system for my daughter and the threads praising NAD have me itching. I've always thought of NAD in the category of Rotel or Denon. Is NAD more in the category of Musical Fidelity or Conrad Johnson? There are no dealers in my area so I have no opportunity for an audition.

[NickWH]

Since nobody has replied up until this point, I guess I will give it a shot.

NAD is usually regarded as inexpensive or "entry-level" hi-fi (however this is interpreted). This brand is usually lumped together in the same segment as Rotel and Arcam, maybe Cambridge Audio as well.

I think people get very excited over products that provide an excellent experience for the money. For example, the NAD C320BEE integrated amp goes for $400 (or less), and is usually compared with $1000 amplifiers. It sounds great, it has a lot of power, it can drive most loads, and while spartan looking, appears to be well-built with longevity in mind.

Is NAD in the same league as McIntosh or a Conrad Johnson? I would say no. Is it a great value? I would say yes. I should point out, however, that NAD's Silver Series components (vs. the C series) does compare with Musical Fidelity, Creek, B&K, Classe, and many others.

[Geoffcin]

I've only had the opportunity to listen to one NAD integrated amp around 8 years ago. Is NAD really as fabulous as all of the owner’s state? Is NAD simply a hyped, very common piece of mid-fi equipment? I'm just curious. This is not a dig towards any NAD owners whatsoever. I’m looking for a 2'nd bedroom system for my daughter and the threads praising NAD have me itching. I've always thought of NAD in the category of Rotel or Denon. Is NAD more in the category of Musical Fidelity or Conrad Johnson? There are no dealers in my area so I have no opportunity for an audition.

I would consider NAD, and ADCOM to be on the same level. You get a lot of bang for your buck with these companies.

[Pat D]

I've only had the opportunity to listen to one NAD integrated amp around 8 years ago. Is NAD really as fabulous as all of the owner’s state? Is NAD simply a hyped, very common piece of mid-fi equipment? I'm just curious. This is not a dig towards any NAD owners whatsoever. I’m looking for a 2'nd bedroom system for my daughter and the threads praising NAD have me itching. I've always thought of NAD in the category of Rotel or Denon. Is NAD more in the category of Musical Fidelity or Conrad Johnson? There are no dealers in my area so I have no opportunity for an audition.

Nothing wrong with NAD. There's no real evidence that NAD, Denon, H/K, Rotel and other good amps sound much different, if at all, from Quad, MF or CJ, under ordinary circumstances--that is, used within their design limits.

[topspeed]

NAD has turned it around within the last few years and addressed their QC problems which had somewhat tarnished their image. By bringing in Bjorn Erik Edvardsen (the "BEE" in certain product designations) they are trying to return the line to prominence by playing off of their history. No crime in that, look at Ford with their new Mustange, GT, and T-bird. Heritage sells. Every review of the C320bee has been glowing and as Nick noted, everyone loves a bargain.

Personally, I passed on the C320bee for the Cambridge Audio Azur 540c. Their performance was very similar although the C320 did have more authority in the low end. However, I just couldn't get past NAD's aesthetics, or rather the lack thereof. It's just blah. This equipment sits out in my office where my clients can see it and quite frankly, the CA looks a helluva lot better, especially in silver. To my ears, the difference in sound wasn't nearly equal the difference in appearance or price as the CA was considerably less expensive.

Good luck

[Geoffcin]

NAD has turned it around within the last few years and addressed their QC problems which had somewhat tarnished their image. By bringing in Bjorn Erik Edvardsen (the "BEE" in certain product designations) they are trying to return the line to prominence by playing off of their history. No crime in that, look at Ford with their new Mustange, GT, and T-bird. Heritage sells. Every review of the C320bee has been glowing and as Nick noted, everyone loves a bargain.

Personally, I passed on the C320bee for the Cambridge Audio Azur 540c. Their performance was very similar although the C320 did have more authority in the low end. However, I just couldn't get past NAD's aesthetics, or rather the lack thereof. It's just blah. This equipment sits out in my office where my clients can see it and quite frankly, the CA looks a helluva lot better, especially in silver. To my ears, the difference in sound wasn't nearly equal the difference in appearance or price as the CA was considerably less expensive.

Good luck

All things being equal I like components that look good too.

I'm waiting until the second year of production to get my Mustang. I've had several mustangs already, and the styling on the new one is by far the best in my view.

Now if I could just swing the GT40.....

[topspeed]

All things being equal I like components that look good too.

I'm waiting until the second year of production to get my Mustang. I've had several mustangs already, and the styling on the new one is by far the best in my view.

Now if I could just swing the GT40.....

.....

[RGA]

I've only had the opportunity to listen to one NAD integrated amp around 8 years ago. Is NAD really as fabulous as all of the owner’s state? Is NAD simply a hyped, very common piece of mid-fi equipment? I'm just curious. This is not a dig towards any NAD owners whatsoever. I’m looking for a 2'nd bedroom system for my daughter and the threads praising NAD have me itching. I've always thought of NAD in the category of Rotel or Denon. Is NAD more in the category of Musical Fidelity or Conrad Johnson? There are no dealers in my area so I have no opportunity for an audition.

Nad is very good for the money. Interestingly, panelists in blind level matched conditioned chose Nad receivers over the likes of yamaha and Denon within their operating conditions - to read more about it check out http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_l...category=MULTI

Nad is in the same general ballpark as Rotel, Adcom and Cambridge Audio, Rega etc. But NAD is also usually a bit cheaper so why not give them a try.

[StratandSurf]

In reply to your NAD question...I totally agree with the comment below posted earlier...
"However, I just couldn't get past NAD's aesthetics, or rather the lack thereof. It's just blah"
I decided to get really serious about audio last December and build a stereo only room. I finally settled on a NAD 320bee. It was always blah and lacking playing CD's or anything else other than Vinyl. Vinyl can warm it up if it is a good recording such as SRV. I was so frustrated that I started previewing old 80's receivers (Silver Fronts made in Japan)Pioneers, Technics, Sansui's etc. A friend finally said get an older Adcom. What a difference. I now run a Adcom 535 with the NAD as the preamp and it sounds amazing. As good to me as 10-20K setups at my favorite shop. The Adcom provides a big, warm, sound and the NAD pre keeps the definition.
By the way I found out that I like old Marantz's better than the other silver editions but again none of that sounds like the Adcom and NAD pre together. Its what your ears like. Good Luck in your search.

[aurobot]

My main system for a while consisted of a NAD preamp and older Harman Kardon power amp (can't remember which of the Citations it was, but it was solid state). I thought the NAD was pretty nifty when I auditioned it, but over time found the it (which was an upgrade from an older Advent 300 tuner/preamp) sterile and uninvolving. That is, before I had the opportunity to run a turntable with a good cartridge through it. I've listened to particular vinyl on so many systems I know what it "sounds" like, if you know what I mean. My opinion then changed of that preamp: it's actually just incredibly, immutably neutral. It's the old garbage in garbage out phenomenon, just a lot more noticable with so little coloration in the amplification section. And this is a phenomenon encountered a lot more often in the audiophile pantheon than at the mass-market level. If you stick to quality inputs, NAD will more than likely please you. One comment I would like to make (at least about the preamp i had- other NAD may certainly be different) is the headphone section totally sucked. Very limited dynamics and not nearly enough gain. I've used a variety of headphones and amps, enough to know that NAD headphone amp was the most puny I've ever encountered.