Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Forum Regular luvtolisten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    526

    Arrow NAD T754, Cambridge 640A V2 or 540A V2?

    Anyone have any exprience with two or more of these three? Which would you say is the better deal, (as far as 2 channel sound)? The NAD T754 (refurb) for $500, the CA 640A (new) for $400, or the CA 540A (new) for $300? Thanks!

  2. #2
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717
    Erm, you're kind of comparing apples to oranges here.

    On one hand, you have an AVR built for multichannel hi rez or HT applications. Unfortunately, it is already outdated and supports neither HDMI interconnectivity nor decodes current MC lossless formats such as DTS-Master or Dolby True-HD. That said, those formats are so new, it may not matter to you and at least the NAD affords more flexibility towards future growth.

    The CA's are dedicated, two channel integrated amps. They don't do MC, they don't have decoders, they just play music. Really, it depends on your priorities. If you're a purist and prefer two channel, the decision is simple. Fair warning: I'm biased, not only towards two channel but also towards CA (which I chose over NAD and Rotel) as I have the 540 in my office rig. If it matters, the CA has pushed 4 ohm speakers for 10+ hours a day, 5 days a week, for 3 or 4 years now. There was a hiccup with the attenuator 6 months in, but since then nada.

  3. #3
    nightflier
    Guest
    Top, I always considered NAD, Rotel and CA to have a similar sound. What made you decide to go with CA?

  4. #4
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717
    Better microdynamics and low level retrieval. It was for my office, so it was important for the amp to provide a lot of detail at relatively modest output. Some amps, like the NAD, need you to open the taps before the music properly coalesces. For my application, the CA was a better fit.

    In comparing the three, I found the Rotel to be cooler sounding than either the CA or NAD, not to mention Rotel charged $100 extra for the remote! The NAD had the ballsiest bottom end but...and I admit this is incredibly superficial...it has looks only a mother could love. Is it grey? Green? Camo? Whatever, it ain't good! Besides the traits I've mentioned, the CA also had the sweetest top end, an important quality as the Mission's are tipped hot.

  5. #5
    Forum Regular luvtolisten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    526
    Thank you Topspeed for your input. You called it right, the newer formats don't matter much to me, nor does any video connections, since I've always thought the less connections the better if not needed. I listen to 2 channel about 90% of the time. I have read good things about both the NAD and Cambridge Audio. As far as the HT stuff goes, I do enjoy it, but to me nothing compares to music. I'm not a purist, but in my own opinion for what it's worth, HT, for the most part, you're striving more for effect (some real, some not so real), I think, whereas music strives more for realism.
    Does anyone know what the 640 buys me vs the 540 besides 15 watts?

  6. #6
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717
    I believe the 640 has a bigger transformer as well. Check the website, it should tell you.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •