NAD over Cambridge Audio?

[Mr Peabody]

I was speaking with one of our local establishments and learned they recently picked up NAD and dropped Cambridge. They said the reason was side by side comparisons like NAD's $800.00 HT receiver was far superior to the CA's $1,300.00 HT receiver, in both stereo and surround. They said the NAD Master series HT separates was very good, their 7 channel power amp is like 95 lbs.

I have not had hands on experience with NAD in quite some time and generally believe they have a reliability problem. Especially when they began putting out DVD. This has been quite a while as well though. So I look forward to going in and being able to re-evaluate NAD.

[kexodusc]

NAD had a rough time for a while several years ago, and every now and then a model seems to have the odd issue, but they're generally fairly good. I have 2 integrateds I use regularly pushing 25 years old. The mid 90's were the dark times in NAD's history.

I like their receivers. Just not as much as Rotel and Arcam's, and not enough compared to the usual Denon, Yamaha, Marantz, etc stuff. Haven't looked at one in 2 years now though, come to think of it, maybe they've gotten more competitive.

As for Cambridge - they're not bad, I think NAD might sell better or offer a more comprehensive product line with more support, (or higher margins) which could be more practical reason for a store making the switch. I don't perceive one being overwhelmingly better than the other. Maybe a bit different.

[anamorphic96]

Kex pretty much nailed most of it. NAD did go through some dark times but at the end of the 90's started producing some really great pieces. All of NAD's QC issues centered around there HT receivers. I even had some issues and my HT receiver finally gave up the ghost after 4 years. However there two channel products have always been rock steady. They had some issues with a batch of CD transports which caused some problems with there early C series of CD players. From my understanding they got a bad batch of transports. Outside of this they have been very solid.

Cambridge has had some QC issues as well with the Azur series of componets. Especially with there CD players.

One thing to note is with NAD and Cambridge is that any issues they do have tend to be blown out of proportion due to them being a smaller company and the fact that the people that do buy there equipment are more inclined to voice there opinion. I would say NAD and Cambridges issues are no worse than say Denon, Yamaha, Matantz or HK.

[kexodusc]

All of NAD's QC issues centered around there HT receivers. I even had some issues and my HT receiver finally gave up the ghost after 4 years. However there two channel products have always been rock steady. They had some issues with a batch of CD transports which caused some problems with there early C series of CD players. From my understanding they got a bad batch of transports. Outside of this they have been very solid.

Most of the problems I was familiar with were their power amps (the old 2400PE was notorious) and the newer 320BEE. Hadn't heard the HT receivers had problems too. They moved production facilities sometime back then (who didn't?).

I think NAD is perhaps a bit behind in the likes of Arcam and Rotel in terms of reliability, but I still wouldn't hesitate to own their gear - we're talking small percentages here. That's what warranties are for. Nobody's perfect.

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

I like their stuff, I do own a few pieces, but their HT receivers lack the most up-to-date connections and features you'd find on Japanese brands for 1/4th the price. This is all the more glaring in our current HDMIwar (how many revisions in 3 years???). If features ever stabilize in this market, NAD will be a good choice two years after that.

My CDP and Integrated have been an anchor... but the RCA input hasn't been revised in 60 or so years.

[Mr Peabody]

Are you talking bells & whistles, or meaningful features. Arcam was criticized for not having all the features of the mass market receivers but they made up for it in spades with their performance.

[anamorphic96]

NAD may not have all the features of the more mainstream brands. But when it comes to sound quality and the ability to drive difficult loads they outperform the others by a significant margin. I would rather have sound quality and a high quality amplifier section then all the gimmicky features.

I don't think there 2 channel stuff was completely immune to issues. But it has been far more immune to QC issues in comparison to the HT receivers and there early DVD players. They have also produced some poorly designed stuff as well. I would say there darkest years where from the mid eighties up until the C series came out. Which started with the C340. Not everything that came out during this period was bad but they had more misses than hits. But I think in the big picture NAD has and always will be a safe bet.

Mr. Peabody,

If you get a chance. Take a listen to the C325BEE and C525BEE. It's a very impressive combo for 650 to 700 bucks.

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

I don't know what you consider "gimmicky". But if paying top dollar for component switching and no Hi-Rez decoding is your idea of money well spent.....

For those of us who might want to use their devices after 1996 HDMI switching, TrueHD / DTS MasterAudio decoding, automatic EQ, and maybe video processing would be welcome additions (what cable box has option for constant hight screens?).

Yes, Pro*Logic and its 50,000 useless "modes" (concert! cathedral! gas chamber!) are about as important as *******s on elbows, but I've never know a single person who bought a device because it had them... you just can't get rid of the damn things... like bass knobs on stereo recievers.

[Tmankiller72]

Hello, was this Music for Pleasure ? I recently visited them "checking out the Nuvison LED driven DLP that ended up haveing some problems" The salesman said the exact samething about the Cambridge vs the NAD as it happens I own the Cambridge Azur 540r and it is an excellent little receiver it has very good power for being so small. I only had it go into protection mode twice and it was running pretty hot in DTS ES (Gladiator) and T2 . It is great for 2 channel and has a direct 6.1 analog in . It easily bests my old Denon 2803 and the Cambridge was only $450 shipped.

[Mr Peabody]

Yip, I guess that's their story and they are sticking to it

That's cool to have another person from the hood here, if this keeps up there will almost be as many St. Louisans as Canadians here. There are a couple of other guys on here from StL.

[E-Stat]

I have not had hands on experience with NAD in quite some time and generally believe they have a reliability problem. Especially when they began putting out DVD. This has been quite a while as well though. So I look forward to going in and being able to re-evaluate NAD.

I bought a T763 AV receiver a couple years back and haven't had any difficulties. I confess that I'm not much of a gadget freak and don't use many of the features on the unit. Since it uses conventional AB amplification, it has a small but quiet fan that I never notice. It's sonic character is a touch on the lean side, but clean unless you push it.

rw

[topspeed]

I think Kex nailed it. It likely has more to do with margins and product line than outright performance. NAD revamped their line...thank God!...and finally discovered aesthetic design, at least with their Master series. They likely have better name recognition than Cambridge and also allow owners to move up to their separates as experience and money accrue. From a QC standpoint, I'd imagine they are equal and, to my ears, they are very close sound wise as well.

They can talk performance all they want, but I'd wager it has more to do with marketability and ultimately...profitability.

[nightflier]

I think Kex nailed it. It likely has more to do with margins and product line than outright performance. NAD revamped their line...thank God!...and finally discovered aesthetic design, at least with their Master series. They likely have better name recognition than Cambridge and also allow owners to move up to their separates as experience and money accrue. From a QC standpoint, I'd imagine they are equal and, to my ears, they are very close sound wise as well.

I can't speculate on the reasons the store changed over to NAD, but about the sound being the same, I have to disagree. In my opinion NAD products tend to be more conservative and spartan in features and this philosophy also trickles down to their sound. I consider them more full-sounding, a bit slower, and less lively, but pleasantly warm sounding compared to Cambridge Audio. The Cambridge sound, on the other hand is more forward, analytical, and has less girth/meat in my opinion.

While both companies manufacture and assemble most of their product lines in China now, it still strikes me that Cambridge has a sound that tends to be more popular in the far east, particularly Japan, while NAD has more of a European sound to it. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that they tend to emphasize different qualities. Now I'm basing this on just a few components that I've heard or owned, so I can't say this applies to the whole product lines, but anyhow, that's been my experience.

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

NAD revamped their line...thank God!...and finally discovered aesthetic design, at least with their Master series.

I like NAD's 'classic' series. Subtle and slightly industrial. Like a BMW 2002.

[pixelthis]

I can't speculate on the reasons the store changed over to NAD, but about the sound being the same, I have to disagree. In my opinion NAD products tend to be more conservative and spartan in features and this philosophy also trickles down to their sound. I consider them more full-sounding, a bit slower, and less lively, but pleasantly warm sounding compared to Cambridge Audio. The Cambridge sound, on the other hand is more forward, analytical, and has less girth/meat in my opinion.

While both companies manufacture and assemble most of their product lines in China now, it still strikes me that Cambridge has a sound that tends to be more popular in the far east, particularly Japan, while NAD has more of a European sound to it. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that they tend to emphasize different qualities. Now I'm basing this on just a few components that I've heard or owned, so I can't say this applies to the whole product lines, but anyhow, that's been my experience.

A few years back Nad, harmon, rotel, tc got together and built an industrial park in China,
and that was the source of their problems, as well as harmon, and rotel.
Rotel got a shipment of receivers with loose circuit boards rattling around in the cases,
and harmon receivers kept frying power supplies.
It took a major effort to get it right, and fix the problems, but most have been ironed out, I
beleive