|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.208.188
In Reply to: RE: Adcom GFA-545 II arrived! posted by Bold Eagle on July 26, 2016 at 04:38:42
I had been using a NAD 326BEE for some time now with great results. NAD has always offered a great balance of sound quality for the money.
Following one of many Class D amp threads, however, I decided to test one out. Previous auditions have not been favorable. So I purchased used a Crown XLS-1500 for $300. Which, coincidentally has a 300 watt/channel output into 8 ohms. I confess a negative bias for Crown products having owned one long ago and with others I've heard always found the top harsh and unsatisfactory. While I didn't expect Merrill Audio or Mola Mola performance using Bruno Putzey's designs, I thought it a fair comparison.
I was really surprised by the comparison.
With bass response, it was a draw. At the top where I find that switching amps typically sound overly lean, the NAD was the clear winner. It had a more natural presentation and extension that sounded more like live instruments. By contrast, the Crown is somewhat flat sounding. Not dull, but natural harmonics just hit a brick wall and go nowhere. I shared this impression at another forum and one poster (who's a big Crown fan) thought:
I think that we might be concerned about a DC offset in your Advent's woofers, caused by the clipping NAD on asymmetrical (all music clipping is of this type of wave form (especially percussive sounds) causing an increase in distortion that (just like a "good" SET) has lots of "Air" and "Transparency".
A. I hear clipping and never clipped the NAD
B. Thinking that the perception of natural air and correlated hall ambience is a function of "good" distortion? Uh, NO!
He and I live in two completely different worlds. :)
So, NAD clearly won the top. What surprised the heck out of me, however, was that the Crown has a more palpable midrange. Again, it's not a tonal balance thing. Voices just sound more realistic like I get in the main system. And there's no question that Advents really respond to power - especially in this environment where I typically listen at considerable distance outside the garage.
Another challenge with the NAD was high heat radiation. Actually more than my old Threshold Stasis generated. Which would probably not be an issue in the house, but since the garage system lives in a closet, the sucker ran downright HOT. The Crown switcher never really generates any heat.
Surprisingly (at least to me), I ended up keeping the Crown and sold the NAD - a wash in terms of investment. And while the Crown's top isn't refined, it isn't offensive like models of yore either. So, now I'm running a Touch digital player (with aftermarket linear) networked to the music server for content feeding the Crown and New Advents. Even at high listening levels, the Crown's indicators rarely indicate even -10 db.
Follow Ups:
An interesting post.
I suppose any technology (like switching amps) will improve over time, and with the number of companies working with it. But I have wondered how good the very affordable amps are. Pretty good, I guess.
I had an NAD C320BEE (my grandson has it now); but wasn't all that happy with the sound. Bass was there; but not tight - mids and treble were nice though. It sounded quite different from my NAD C350. A much wider soundstage for one. The C350 was much narrower. However, the C350 had much tighter bass with much better articulation and stronger as well; although the C350 was not as natural sounding as the C320BEE in the mids and highs. I've never had a chance to compare the C326BEE to the C320BEE, and have wondered if it was the same preamp and amp with more bells and whistles. Apparently not.
I do think the C326BEE is on the low power side for stacked Advents. I know it has a lot of dynamic headroom; but even so...
I'm thoroughly enjoying the Adcom tuner-preamp and amp. They work very well with my Rotel CD players and I find the sound very natural, particularly on vocals. And that's why the C350 is going - it's good; but lacks the naturalness of the Adcom gear and the Rotel tuner-preamp and amp.
Jerry
i bought the gfp565 and gfa555II about twenty years ago and i was sort of satisfied with the system. it gave my speakers new slam and firmness of sound as will happen with good powerful amps like the 555II.
THEN i happened upon an audio research sp3a1 for a song. WOW! the clarity, imaging, soundstage, high and low frequency extension and dead accurate color (tone) that was just ABSENT on the adcom preamp.
the 555II otoh DELIVERED the goods, and passed all that tubed goodness on to the speakers. how and why did i believe the review of the gfp565 in stereophile by gary galo?? somersetting is WRONG with his ears. i haven't personally used the 565 since the ARC came to rest in its place.
i had heard that the 545 was excellent but so is the 555II, AND the 5400, 5500, and of course 5800 (all used by my friend on his ML ReQusets. never a hint of the brightness supposedly heard by many deaf repeaters online.
...regards...tr
I do think the C326BEE is on the low power side for stacked Advents.
I'm now running a single pair on stands.
Ended up moving the 1+1 stats inside for use in the HT and gave away the other pair of Advents and the Eosone sub pictured.
nt
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: