|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
213.35.151.50
Hello!I must choose between these two amplifers without listening (far away from city). Speakers are Dali Helicon 400. Can anybody give suggestion?
Follow Ups:
First - I have heard neither, so cannot comment. Would suggest that you listen to both and then decide.About NAD - this brand will take a beating when compared to Accuphase, Krell, etc because of the existing image it has. When I was looking for a Integrated, I did compared the NAD C352 to a couple of integrated of other brands and liked it better. So, it will entirely depend on your listening sessions, on what you will bring home at the end of the day.
Most any brand or product that is known for being high performance at a low price will be put down if they take that high performance for the money aspect to a higher end design. NHT had/has that problem with the 3.3/Xd, NAD certainly had that problem with Silver Series. The Masters Series seems to be getting more street cred, fortunately. The M3 will just pound a Krell into submission. It weigh almost twice as much, has way better S/N, has a much nicer electronics design. Masters, if built by Krell or Mark Levinson or the like would cost $5000-$10,000 per component and would have people selling kidneys to get it. Fortunately, it doesn't require that. It just doesn't have the "I paid way to much" prestige thing going for it because most mortals can actually afford it if they want it. There really isn't much reason for *any* electronics piece to cost over $5000 except for creating an image of "it costs more, it must be better".
Heard the Helicon with Accuphase 212 and it was very very good.I have the Accuphase 213, and it is a great amp.
I believe the Helicon does not go lower than 4 ohms, so that will
be in favor the 213.On the other hand the Nad with it's extra power, may control the Helicon better than the 213.
As good as the M3 is (a landmark product from NAD?), Its no match for the E-213!
Now I have read the links more carefully, I think I can help a little more because I actually compared the NAD M3 with the Primare I30 on the Helicons, and found the NAD better in this application. Slightly more detail, better bass control, and more musical to my ears. I tested a range of music, and it just seemed better to me.
I went through a long selection process for an amplifier for my Dali Helicon 400s, and finally chose the NAD M3. Its simply an oustanding combination.
Your speakers may perform better with the extra power of the NAD, as the E-213 is better suited for more efficient monitors with higher impedence ratings.The question is, do you regularly listen at high volume? If so, I would choose the NAD, or even better, a used E-400 series (most recommended).
Don't get me wrong. The NAD is a competent amp that does come within shouting distance of the E-213 overall, being a slightly less polished and mature competitor. An appreciable difference nontheless.
Thanks George, as the cost of E-213 and M3 is a maximum for my budget E-400 is not possible. I also afraid that E-214 power is not inaf to move well this speaker. M3 is monoblock construction and I belive that it must give better sound. I can also chuce from Densen, Naim, Onkyo, Denon and Cambridge Audio (these brands have distributors in my country)but I think that this models are best in this price level (3000$). RaitPS. English is my third language, sorry for spelling mistaks.
Certainly the NAD is heavier, has twice the power, has dual mono construction and measures better. I mean, I like Accuphase, but I don't see it. The NAD also has a lot of nifty things going for it, like the remote balance/bass/treble/tilt, and stereo high pass crossovers for adding a sub and a bunch of other things. Unless the Accuphase is at least two or three times the price, I don't see how the NAD *wouldn't* be a match for it.
I could give you many reasons for why the E-213 is better. But, you will not appreciate how much better the E-213 is sonically without having heard it for yourself!
Can you explain sonically better? I have heard that in classic music E-213 sounds very well. Have you heard jazz on Accuphase?
The E-213 is more refined and resolved. It is the most accurate and linear amplifier in its class.Do you like the sound of live jazz? If so, look no further.
.
Come up to me with your 'what did you say?' and I'll tell you straight in the eye: DIY
nt.
.
Come up to me with your 'what did you say?' and I'll tell you straight in the eye: DIY
So far, the only 2 that appear to have agree!
What sounds best is an individual matter. What performs best *can* be objective if you measure properly. I don't see any indication that would make me think the Accuphase is even close to the NAD, but people should make up their own mind. Sight unseen, sound unheard? I'd go for the NAD based on build quality, design, power, features, flexibility, etc.
Having heard NAD in the past and Accuphase in the past I would go for Accuphase in a heart beat! Accuphase gear sounds MUCH better than any NAD I have heard (I haven't heard the newest but the last Silver series wasn't even close). Now, all having the chance to audition both to be sure is of course the preferred method but if I had to choose without listening the Accuphase is a no-brainer IMO. Normal SS amps don't really get any better than Accuphase (of course there are some tube and hybrid amps that I think sound better still than Accuphase).
George Mann, - an unregistered semi-Troll, - doesn't even provide the definition, or the measured specifications, of what "accurate" really means. Maybe SOME people would agree that the Accuphase is more accurate. But since we all cannot and will never agree, - it all becomes an opinion.
Besides, some equipment measures differently when combined with different components, in certain rooms. That "hole" in the upper midrange may not be there, or be imperceptible with different amps, in a different room.Finally, - George Mann is no "better" than someone who knows that they don't have, want, or even like, the sound of an accurate amp or system. I hope that everyone likes their stereo, and a stereo that sounds good to someone may not meet George's definition of "accurate;" - and you know what, - that's OK... What if someone prefers the violins to be a little warmer and sweeter than they actually may be on someone else's "more accurate" system? What if someone has some hearing issues that make them sensitive to sibilance? Are these people not allowed to buy the stereo that makes them happy?
Come up to me with your 'what did you say?' and I'll tell you straight in the eye: DIY
.....But it's been so long, I can't even guess as to how that would compare side by side. The NAD is very smooth and quiet sounding amp. Either would be an excellent choice, but I'd be shocked if the Accuphase was in any kind of obvious dominating position given how good the M3 really is. It all comes down to good engineering, there's no magic involved here.
Thanks to all! I was already ready with my desision, but hour ago dealer called to me and told that there is one good amp more in my pricelevel- PRIMARE I30 and he is able to sell it too. So now I am sitting and thinking about America - NAD M3 then Europa - Primare I30 and then Japan-Accuphase E-213. I have lived half of my life in Soviet Union and then it was much easier, because there was nothing to choose, I was luky to have stereo at all. Rait
PS. Sorry for bad spelling. English is my third language.
nt.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: