 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
| [ Asylum Support ] [ Rules ] |
| Model: | c542 |
| Category: | CD Player/Recorder |
| Suggested Retail Price: | $499 |
| Description: | single disc hdcd player |
| Manufacturer URL: | NAD |
| Review by K-Bob on December 13, 2006 at 21:12:29 IP Address: 207.254.235.35 | Add Your Review for the c542 |
Got this to replace a Phillips DVD-825, which was the highest rated unit in its class for CD audio playback when it was new.
Before deciding on the C542 I did a lot of research on this site and elsewhere. However, I was unable to audition anything since there are no audio stores in my area. So I cannot say how it audibly compares to its competitors. But I can give you my impression of how it sounds in my system.
I let it break in for 8 hours by playing cds through an old tapedeck I had lying around. Then I put in the system.
I was underwhelmed to the point of disappointment. It was flat, dull, and bloated. Way, way laid back to the point of being stuffy....I was thankful I didn't get the Marantz, and wishing I had got the 521BEE. I had been expecting a punchy, dynamic presentation, similar to the Philips.
But the wife liked it right away, saying it sounded much better. So that was something.
Time to figure things out. I have a relatively small room and small speakers, so I have the speakers fairly close to the back wall: mostly for space but also for boundary reinforcement. Considerable time had been spent finding the exact right spot (within my space constraints) for the speakers to achieve a punchy bass with the old player. They were simply way too far back.
A week spent listening and evaluating and moving speakers every day paid off. Now it sounds really good and I am quite happy with it.
The bass and mids are really nice.
For the first time I have a system that can play full-scale orchestra music without embarrassing itself.
Vocals are especially sweet, "Down to the River" on the O Brother Soundrack sounds absolutely marvelous.
On jazz the electric bass and kick drum come through nicely.
It is true the more I play it the better I like it. Don't know if that is due to break-in or the aesthetic of familiarity. Of course I was tweaking speaker placement for the whole first week, which helped the continuous improvement.
I just now ran a few tracks through it and it sounds great. Smooth integrated sound. Everything is there: highs, mids, lows. I am happy with my purchase. But still I can't help but wonder if the 521BEE would have sounded just as good in my mid-fi system.
| Product Weakness: | may sound overly reserved in some systems, may not be worth the premium over the 521BEE, not as dynamic as I remember the Adcom 575 to be, smooth and laid back (if that's not your thing) |
| Product Strengths: | last of the old-school multi-bit plqyers, good looks, prodigous bass, high output level, sweet vocals, smooth and laid back (if that's your thing) |
| Associated Equipment for this Review: | |
| Amplifier: | Vintage Marantz 60w |
| Preamplifier (or None if Integrated): | Rotel RC-970BX |
| Sources (CDP/Turntable): | NAD c542 |
| Speakers: | Energy C-4 |
| Cables/Interconnects: | CD: XLO-VDO ER-5, amps: WireWorld Orbit III+, Speaker: Monster Standard 16-4 |
| Music Used (Genre/Selections): | Jazz, Roots, Pop, Rock |
| Time Period/Length of Audition: | 2 months |
| Type of Audition/Review: | Product Owner |
Follow Ups:
From the NAD C542 web pages:
"C542 Specifications:
* CD, CD-R and CD-RW Compatible ..."Only CD format !!??!!
IMOP: A nice pretty box, but a waste of valuable resources. The cheapest, ugliest DVD-A or SACD player will sound better than this CD only player. Any manufacturer still making CD only players and burners should have his head examined. ... In my opinion.
Special CD player is always better than universal player because it uses all the power on one format! DVD&SACD players have to share same DAC's with CD-not so good thing.
I had an expensive high-end universal player and sold it. Why?...I hated the limited repertoire available in the hi-rez formats and didn't think the discs were that much of an improvement sonically over Redbook. Redbook has been here for a long time and has continually improved...both in terms of the discs (discounting a lot of pop music) and players. Many people are now more inclined to buy hard drive or flash-based devices for listening (e.g.iPODs) than investing yet in another optical format. I have over 2ooo Redbook CDs and only bought a handful of Hybrid SACD/CD discs when I had the universal player. I rarely play the hybrid discs. I would not be surprised to see the demise of hi-rez or its relegation to extreme niche status within a few years. Some people say the only real "hi-rez" is vinyl or reel-to-reel tape.
Some of us only have redbook CDs to play.
Just curious as to what makes you think that a manufacturer can't screw up a DVD-A or SACD player? You've still got a DA converter that needs to be doing it's job properly and critical analog amplification stages that can make or break a player.I happen to have a NAD C542 and find it an excellent, very musical deck. It is an outstanding buy for the money in my opinion.
redbook all the way,why bite with one or two more formats shoved down our throats,cd's sound fine if you have a decent player.Did not anybody learn the first time around?
Sorry... That message number is not valid.
Please don't continue to promote this acoustically unverifiable drivel. The electronics in this deck simply do not require any so-called break-in period. The only possible situation where this is even conceivable would be with tube based electronics and in the drive unit suspensions of speaker systems. Even then, well controlled double-blind experiments with "broken-in" components vs fresh out of the box ones have consistently yielded, at best, ambiguous results even among golden ears. Existing physical laws are not that easy to break, despite how much we would like to believe otherwise!
Mr. Lockwood, why don't you read the entire review before posting a response?If you had, you would have noticed that, after the initial 8-hour period, the author began re-arranging his speakers; and, that, after he did, he was quite satisfied with the sound.
So, it seems pretty clear that he waited more than 8 hours of playing time before writing the review.
Moreover, it would appear that he agrees with your substantive point, since he didn't wait weeks for his unacceptable-sounding player to "break in."
Pretty quickly, he started working his system to improve the sound, recognizing -- correctly -- that he had placed the speakers in a sub-optimal location.
Which strikes me as a lot smarter than reading the first sentence of a review and then posting a response that, without justification, jumps all over the reviewer, don't you think?
Get a a napkin; you're dribbling.
NT
Sorry... That message number is not valid.
Bruce can come off as a bit snooty at times. He has done the same to me in the past. BUT - please, no violence and swearing. You owe him an apology.ET
Sorry... That message number is not valid.
Tell us how your really feel. I think you have trouble expressing your feelings.
Sorry... That message number is not valid.
Sorry... That message number is not valid.
Like I said, it sounds really good now. I just felt the need to share my bummer first impression.I believe the speaker placement being wrong to be the reason it sounded bad though.
The C541 NAD player I had responded well to vibration control devices.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
