|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.190.195.193
I have an old NAD 7225PE (25wpc) receiver and really love the sound. I want a newer NAD integrated amp w/remote with the classic NAD sound. I'm interested in one of their A/B amps not class D with a similar classic NAD sound if possible.
I was thinking of the 326BEE integrated w/DAC and remote but as I understand it their latest amps have a crisper brighter sound with less warmth and body that is different from the old NAD sound. Is this true and if so how far back to I have do go to get the classic NAD sound and still be an upgrade from my 30 yr old receiver?
Follow Ups:
Thanks everyone for you almost unanimous suggestions to buy the 326BEE amp. I was looking used and couldn't find any and got impatient, so I purchased a Rega Mira3 w/ remote in near mint condition for a fair price.
It's a very fine amp w/ music, and pretty good for TV/movies. The built in MM phono stage is quite good too.
It matches quite well will my Monitor Audio Silver S6 speakers (also British), but because of its smooth sounding nature it excels w/ my Klipsch Forte speakers which are quite dynamic sounding.
A NAD C326BEE will still be on my radar in the upcoming future for TV duty. I'm debating replacing my tube amp w/ the Rega in my music system, though that may be foolish. Anyway the Rega Mira3 is a good amp and I'll use it for TV/movies. (I'm interested how the Super Bowl will sound with it.)
Here's what NAD themselves says about that."NAD has moved away from the old fashioned and very power hungry linear power supplies and Class AB output stages that waste nearly half of the energy consumed producing heat rather than sound. Instead we have developed even better performing circuits based on switch mode power supplies and Class D output stages. Once thought to be inferior to traditional topologies, NAD's advanced work in this area has created some of the best performing amplifiers regardless of basic design principle. These new designs are very linear over a wide bandwidth and provide consistent performance into all speaker loads, providing a dramatic advance over previous models."
Edits: 01/16/21
They can't make better amps for less money than purchasing modules from major class D manufacturers such as Hypex, Purifi, and ICEpower.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich ...
Edits: 01/18/21
But you probably knew that.https://purifi-audio.com/about/
Edits: 01/18/21
Putzey's left Hypex and has no further dealings with them.
Purifi is a completely separate firm.
https://purifi-audio.com/about/ But you probably knew that.
Edits: 01/18/21
I'm impressed by the way NAD embraced, and then improved upon, switch mode amplifier technology. Their Masters-series amps continue to set a high performance bar and now their C-series is offered at more affordable pricing.
Tom
I agree completely. I note you have the NAD M22. You should get a home demo of the M33. Its Purifi amp module is 2 generations (after DirectDigital) up from the one in the M22. And it now does so much more than the very capably M32 including built-in streamer and Dirac Live room correction if you think you need that. I've done the measurements and the filter it offers certainly irons out the response but I think it takes away some life from the music - as do all 4 of the RC systems I've tried. I generally stick with no filter.
I'm perfectly happy with the M22. I don't hear the ultra-high frequency harmonics (noise) that some people complain about. To me the M22 is about as clean as I've heard at any stereo shop. When I auditioned the amp I had the dealer put several combinations of preamp, amp, and speakers together so I could get a sense of the M22's "flavor". It's pretty plain; I could immediately hear differences in preamps and speakers that were combined but when compared to other power amps the M22 didn't reveal itself other than being able to cleanly drive a whole range of speakers, from big Maggie's to stand-mount Totem's. I'm now using it with a solid-state preamp in passive mode. I use a tube buffer stage to throw in a bit of bloom. :-)
I didn't care for the M12 preamp, though. Too clinical for my tastes.
Interesting what you say about the M12. This was the first NAD I've owned and I still have it. During my long search for a really good amp to match my Avantgarde speakers (I had Unos at the time, Duo XDs now), I used the M12 in front of the power amps but not with the integrateds I tested.I've generally tied to avoid having preamps at all. For years I used a Mark Levinson 390S CD player as my preamp as it had an analogue volume control and 2 Aux digital inputs, used for my DAB tuner. Since then I've used integrateds as they offer better value - no duplication of cases, power supplies and need no cables - my pet hate.
A fellow Avantgarde owner (with Trios) bought an M22 after owning many very costly amps and raved about it. Then he bought a Benchmark AHB-2 and raved even more over that. This prompted me to buy the Benchmark, but it turned out to be drearily dull, so I returned it in exchange for a Gamut D200 Mk III - a MUCH better amp, though it had its faults. I've concluded that the Trio owner was obsessed with utter silence and the Benchmark is probably the quietest amp on the market, with the M22 probably a close second!
Anyway, I'm sure the M22 is still a great amp.
Edits: 01/19/21
Clinical was the general term that came to mind while auditioning preamps/amps. It's defined as "Sound that is pristinely clean but wholly uninvolving" in J. Gordon Holt's "Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary". (Link below.) The M12 just didn't sound natural to me, at least not compared to listening to music in the real world. Clinical is great when the material is great but I like being able to listen to run-of-the-mill source material without wincing at its warts.
From: Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary
But I use it only in my bedroom system. Sounds nice but it doesn't have resolution or power for my main stereo system
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich ...
Edits: 01/15/21
I still have an old NAD 701 receiver that I keep as a spare. I have also owned the C320BEE and C350 integrated amps. Only the 701 has the rich warmth you are searching for. The C320BEE did not have it. The C350 sounded smoother than the C320BEE and was definitely more powerful than the 701. There are people who refurbish old NAD amps. Maybe you should see if your receiver can be refurbished.
I replaced my 701 with the combination of a G1217 Project Sunrise used as a preamp and a SMSL TPA3116 amp. This combo has all of the tonal richness of the 701 receiver but is more transparent and images better.
Thanks for you personal experiences, as this is what I suspected on old vs. new NAD. I've thought of at least recapping the power caps, but since this is mostly for TV I'm mostly interested in a unit w/ a remote because volumes between tv stations, movies, and streaming content change drastically. I'm still looking for a replacement.
I still think that if this is for TV use then the 326bee will be just fine.
For my video system I'm using an entry level Yamaha 5 channel receiver. It does not have the warmth and resolution of the NAD 701, but with warm sounding speakers it is listenable. But it has the convenience of a remote control, built in dac, etc.
I hope you can find a good solution.
I have a Panasonic SAXR57 HT receiver. I also have 2 original NAD 3020s. One has a functional preamp section and the other has a functional amp section. My son still uses the amp section of one in his system. I to like the old NAD sound.
I bought the Panny cheap over 10 years ago on a flyer when it was the darling of the day. It has been playing almost continuously either music or TV in my bedroom system since. With digital input it sounds amazingly good, on analog in it is very nice and it has enough power. I use it in for 2 channel music with really old B&W DM 110s. My bedroom can rock.
Here is a used one listed at $63.
Gsquared
Just try to find a reasonably priced A/B amp like the C326bee with a robust toroidal transformer and both pre-out and main-in. It's been perfect running the pre-outs to the high quality hi pass filter in my JLAudio e-110 subwoofer and then back to main-in on the C326, thus relieving my Epos M5s of low bass and increasing the amps efficiency. That amp is a bargain new or used. You'd be lucky to find both pre-out and main-in on the new ones.
Thanks, I'm getting a lot of endorsements for the 326. I'll begin looking for a preowned one.
Having owned a number of NAD components, most recently having used a 325BEE in the garage system now currently using a Hypex Ncore amp.
Good news? There's more realism and depth to the midrange where the heart of music lies.
Bad news? Loss of refinement and sense of natural air at the top.
The NAD 7225PE receiver was my first amp purchase. It served me well with a Dual TT, then a Pro-Ject TT. It mated really well with Acoustic Energy Aegis Ones in a small room. Nice phono section and headphone amp. My attempt at an upgrade to a Parasound preamp and Acurus power amp did not go so well, but I'd already passed the NAD onto my son who used it for several years.I later picked up a NAD C340 for the bedroom (driving a pair of NHT SuperOnes). It is still in use particularly for movies in bed and Christmas cds loaded in a 5-disc changer. It has a remote which still works! If you can get by without a built-in phono preamp and are willing to try a used amp, the C340 is what I'd recommend as being close to the 7225PE sound with a little more power.
Edits: 01/13/21
The amp is only tv, movies and fm with efficient speakers, not for serious music appreciation. I'm definitely considering used so I look into the 340, as well as the 326bee which is recommended by other members.
probably safer to go with the newer model. do you have a separate tuner for fm, or will you use the tuner section in the 7225? There are some receivers out there like the Outlaw RR2160
I'll pick up a used tuner along the way, or buy a better tuner for my tube system and use the Rotel here.
I had a NAD 326 BEE and still think it is the best value purchase I ever made. I think it is exactly the type of sound you want. I presently use a much more expensive SimAudio Moon integrated and it is definitely more transparent etc. but requires considerably more effort to match it with appropriate other components.
I wonder if you've actually heard the newer Class D amps in your own system.
I ask because I have high efficiency speakers that don't need many watts. I used tubes for 15 years or so but made a positive decision to move to SS for a number of reasons. I bought or borrowed a dozen SS amps of all types - Class A, AB and D plus a single ended one. To my surprise I found the NAD M32 the overall favourite with my Avantgarde speakers.
I recently upgraded to the M33 and this sounds even better - marginally. Not too warm but also certainly not hard or aggressive as some digital amps tend to be. The M33 uses the Purifi amp module, the newest and arguably the best Class D yet. Absolutely no regrets for switching to SS and particularly Class D.
Give the M33 an unbiased listen! Or the M32 with its excellent DirectDigital technology if budget tight. Peter
Sounds nice but I'm not able to spend that kind of money. The D3045 class D amp is more my budget, especially since this system is for tv/movies.
Edits: 01/13/21
" I used tubes for 15 years or so but made a positive decision to move to SS for a number of reasons."
what were the reasons you decided to switch from tubes to SS?
> what were the reasons you decided to switch from tubes to SS?Well I listed them here on this forum soon after I decided to go SS, but that was 3 years ago, so maybe difficult for me to dig out the post. However, when switching on any tube amp one has to consider whether it's worth the cost in terms of valve depreciation, electricity bill and general wear, tear and maintenance of valve amps. I never put my TV output through my valve amp apart from a few concerts and didn't listen to the radio all the time I'm not listening to streamed or stored music.
Now I listen to FAR MORE music than I ever did with my valve kit - and it costs me next to nothing. I'm not contribution to global warming whatever that is, my bills are lower and the sound I listen to is as good or better than the best I've heard from my valve kit. This included amps by Art Audio (PX-25 and Carissa 845), Consonance (Cyber 845), Audio Note (300B), Graaf (6C33C OTL) and Unison Research (Smart 845). All good but no better than the modest NAD M33.
Edits: 01/13/21
Typical long-term tube amplification lovers have trouble moving to a cleaner, more accurate sound exemplified by super-low distortion Purifi (class D) and Benchmark (A/B).I have a Purifi amp and I assert that it is the most highly resolved and transparent sound by far that I have heard in 50 years of being an audiophile. Likewise the Purifi beats the competition for micro- and macro-dynamics and solid, articulate bass.
Is there a problem with Hypex NC highs as E-Stat asserts? NO , there isn't. The problem, such as it is, is with poor recordings, (albeit there are many of these), especially with fortissimo passages -- perhaps recording/mastering engineers never hear their efforts thru such precise, super-low distortion amplification.
That's because distortion is the reason people like the tube sound and certain, old fashion s/s sound. They would rather have the fuzzy warmth and synthetic soundstage caused by 2nd and 3rd order harmonic distortion than the truth of bad recordings and possibly deficient associated equipment.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich ...
Edits: 01/13/21
Remember E-stat uses, well, electrostatics, which are highly capacitive in the high frequencies, unlike most speakers.
This could present some problems for class D amps that aren't found in other applications.
Is there a problem with Hypex NC highs as E-Stat asserts? NO, there isn't.
Is that why Putzeys left that company and now trumpets something better? Too funny.
My reference is most certainly not determined using poor recordings. Why would anyone do that?
I use the sound of live, unamplified music as the ultimate reference. My Hypex Ncore is significantly less good than what is available today in terms of rendering the natural sense of HF extension and air.
Maybe someday technology will negate the compromises rendered by copious amounts of corrective feedback necessitated by switchers. I confess that I prefer designs that obviate the need for such *correction*.
I'll remind that I also recently and for a time owned a Hypex NC252MP, the slightly lower powered version of the same thing that you have. I can attest to its sound.
The highs are fine. Yes, they will sound harsh if the recording is harsh -- plenty of examples of harsh recordings, of course; the Hypex has much less soothing 2nd order distortion to cloak the nasties.
The Purifi is certainly better than the Hypex as is immediately evident upon a listen. As for the highs, kind of the same thing -- crappy recordings are revealed for what they are. Notwithstanding, the Purifi renders instrument timbres with mora accuracy and realism that have heard heretofore. BTW, my standard is also live music.
Face it, 'Stat, you're a tube die-hard. Nothing wrong with that if you prefer it, but don't delude yourself the you have hearing an accurate reproduction of recordings
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich ...
Face it, 'Stat, you're a tube die-hard.
At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, the DAC is SS (sans crappy op amps), the preamp is hybrid with only the power amp being tube.
I'm a diehard of natural sounding music. It's a shame you don't have the foggiest notion of what's available. Or choose to compare what you have with live music.
I do. All the time hearing wifey play her baby grand. :)
I'm pleased you approve of the Purifi amp.Interestingly I don't agree with you that the Benchmark is a great amp for home listening! Yes, it's accurate (ideal in the recording studio) and has other nice features such as adjustable gain, but I had one for many months and found it DREARILY DULL. If an exciting listen requires a less accurate amp (per measurements), then bring on the inaccuracies!
I must admit I was unaware of the Purifi-based amp you have (VTV) but I think I'd have gone for the more costly NAD anyway. In addition to power amp, it includes music streamer, preamp, phono stage, DAC, headphone output, Dirac Live room correction, a great IR remote and a high definition full-colour LED touch-screen that provides chapter and verse of what I'm listening to - and there's the saving of a dozen or so cables too. All for £4K - possibly the biggest bargain in hi-fi today. It's not perfect and lacks features that the M32 (and M12) offered, but the sound is truly great.
It did take a while and a dozen serious amp tests to find as good a sound as I enjoyed from tubes, but I was determined to succeed and I don't regret it for one minute. I'm now listening to much more music and my TV sounds a lot better too as I'd never have put its output through my tube system - apart maybe from the Last Night of the Proms and a few other concerts. Peter
Edits: 01/13/21
(Come to thing of it you've mentioned that before.) I expect you'll agree that the Purifi doesn't lack dynamics or "PRaT".The NAD M33 certainly does have remarkable capabilities. I might consider it if I were better heeled: it's Cdn$7000 which is well beyond my budget unfortunately. Even so it might be worth if one were going to use all its capabilities; e.g. I don't stream or use phono.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich ...
Edits: 01/14/21
and there's the saving of a dozen or so cables too.
requires wholesale replacement every couple of years.
Since 2015, you've gone through three different generations of "obsolete proof" gear!
> Since 2015, you've gone through three different generations of "obsolete proof" gear!Nope - Around that time I started looking for a SS replacement for my 845 monobloc amps bought in January 2003. Since about 2015, I bought or borrowed a dozen amps to decide which to keep. The M32 (first keeper) was bought used in 2017. I sold it last year at a very small loss. It was recently changed for a new M33 at a cost of GDP3600 including 20% tax.
The dozen or so amps tested at home were demo units or ones bought used at good prices and re-sold at little or no loss. The bought ones included Accuphase A36, Gamut D200 Mk III, Micromega M100, Benchmark AHB2 (bought new but returned for full refund) and Sanders Magtech (for Martin Logans that proved unsatisfactory in my room).
The NAD sales nonsense suggested some of their units would remain current because of their module upgradability. They seem to have dropped this daft claim as these module bays are best thought of as available for optional extra flexibility. For example the M32 (and M12 preamp) can have a streamer module installed, or an HDMI one, or another to add to its analogue flexibility. No they don't upgrade the basic amp - I couldn't upgrade the M32 with a Purifi module), but at least I could choose not to have the options I don't need.
So, since January 2003 when I bought my 845 monos, I've changed my amp to M32 and then to M33, all at very little cost. I still have the 845s but may sell them soon. I should also sell the pile of unnecessary cables I've bought over the years as I now need just one AES/EBU cable (M50.2 to M33), one optical (TV to M33) and a pair of speaker cables.
You are welcome to do your thing with a dozen boxes and snake pits of cables, but please don't harp on about me choosing a single box that is cable-free and relatively SOTA for a number of years before relatively inexpensive total replacement. Thanks.
Edits: 01/14/21
Since about 2015...
You've owned the NAD M12/22 , M32 and now the M33 - all including "groundbreaking future-proof modular design" .
All in ones are fine when you accept having to sell the entire unit on a regular basis in order to move up ladder.
Separates certainly enable a gradual upgrade path. I've never used expensive cables so I don't regard that as an issue.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich ...
> Separates certainly enable a gradual upgrade path. I've never used expensive cables so I don't regard that as an issue.
The trouble with that is you never have a totally up-to-date system. With 5 separates and you change only one item per 2 or 3 years, some of your kit by definition is 10-15 years old.
Each new purchase needs tons of research, trial and error if you want the best match with your older kit. I'd prefer to do my research less often, make a single purchase that doesn't need to match anything apart from the speakers and re-sell just one item every few years. So far, I've not lost much on hi-fi by buying new at a 25-30% discount or used at 50% less than list. When I re-sell I normally achieve 50% of its most recent price, so often as much as I paid for it. My 2002-purchased Avantgarde Unos were sold after 17 years at exactly what I paid for them new - £4200 - not a penny lost after 17 years of great service.
you'll be making the next wholesale change in the next year or so.
Best of luck in your continual search!
be honest about the implications.
While my digital components have evolved over the last couple of years, the power amps will turn twenty this year and the preamp, seven.
No desire to upgrade either.
The Ncore is a good match driving New Advents as they share similar strengths and limitations. The speakers shine with 300 watts/channel for a mere $800. I'm just brutally honest with my assessments and don't suffer from owner induced euphoria. ;)
Not relevant to the OP's question, but I still own a 3020 integrated. I used that for some years for 2-channel audio with my flat screen TV. I must say that sometimes during live concert performances I was surprised by the level of musical satisfaction. Really quite good for an old girl.
"The only cats worth anything are the cats who take chances. Sometimes I play things I never heard myself." Thelonious Monk
Edits: 01/13/21
I don't know if you know but the 7225PE receiver's amp section is based on the 3020 integrated.
I currently use a 326BEE and had a 526BEE for a brief time. Both are quite good and punch far above their price range.
They both sound quite good. Both have a more laid back midrange, but NOT in a bad way. They did a nice job voicing this series. They're not as sterile as you would expect, excellent detail, dynamics, separation, etc... I found the more you went up the power chain in this series the more sterile the sound got.
I may not use it in my MAIN system, but I still use and prefer the 326BEE in my second system.
I had the 526BEE for a brief time only because it was a loaner. I liked the 526BEE more than the 326BEE. It had more midrange push and a better presence. But again, both sounded great.
Can't speak of the newer runs because I never had them. Go for a listen or try Crutchfields 30 day return policy.
Thanks for you input. This will be used in a TV/movie/FM system. Possibly w/ Klipsch Forte I speakers not being used now. Or Monitor Audio Silver 6 I'm using currently.
Edits: 01/13/21
I use the NAD 326BEE on Monitor Audio RX2's and they are a wonderful match. the NAD matched very well with that speakers voicing. I think that would work out quite nicely.
Much appreciated
If you are happy with the sound of a 30 year old unit then get another old one. Trends change in the "voicing" of components. Not to mention the aging of the caps, etc. in your present unit that could color the sound in a way that you've grown accustomed to.
I had some vintage C-J units. If I wanted that same sound I wouldn't get it from their latest models.
I thought about having it rebuilt, but I'd like a remote and possibly on board DAC.
Guess that makes it a gone-NAD. Get it?
I know this response was not helpful...
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
Nt
:-)
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: