I just ordered a pair of m3ti's. Now I need to buy a solid state integrated amp to go with it. So far I'm thinking about getting a NAD 320bee or 352.
Are there any others that I should consider?
Definetly get the C320BEE over the 352. Many say the sound is quite a bit better...
Honestly i think the 320bee would be a great match with the axioms and you would be very pleased.
Maybe some Rotel stuff?
RA-02
RA-1060
Cambridge Azur is also very good
you might be able to pick up a used Cambridge 500 for a couple hundred bucks.
Stick with the NAD......for the price there is nothing better! I auditioned Cambridge and it kept over heating and shutting off in the store. The sound was very simular to NAD and I believe they are trying to get into NAD territory but there is a difference. The only difference you will get between the 320BEE and 352 is that the 352 is a little warmer sounding and has just been updated along with impedence sensitivity it can handle many loads without even breaking a sweat. The 352 would be worth the extra in my opinion.
Depending on your budget, and the features you desire, there are several names you could investigate:
- Rega, Linn, Naim, Vecteur, NAD, Rotel, Cambridge, Roksan - to name but a few.
I have driven Axioms with NAD for many years, with no complaints. I believe that Alan had indicated that they had QA/QC issues in the recent past, but have corrected the problems. I have also used several of the mfg'ers listed to drive my Axioms with great success.
Quality Assurance, and Quality Control
In reply to:
Quality Assurance, and Quality Control
Hereafter referred to as : making sure what you get isn't broken and making sure we don't make anything broken.
Bren R.
I have a Rotel-RA972 intergrated amp that I love.
The sound is neutral and works well with the Axioms.
I believe the 972 is now the RA-1060.
Chuck
bad qaqc is unforgivable.
I think Axiom suggests 50% of your audio budget should be spent on speakers, but that would only leave me $360 for an integrated and cd player. I think I'll at least double that. I'll check out those other manufacturers. Thanks for the tips and I'll let you know how the final package sounds.
Paulu, you've decided on a solid state integrated amp, so I won't suggest tube amps even if they will sound better with the M3s. There are those who say amps have no real effect on the sound produced. If you are comfortable with that theory then get the cheapest amp of whatever output you can find - your best bet probably used.
Are you adventurous? An early adopter? I know which solid state amp I've been thinking about trying - The Flying Mole. Yes, that's right, the Flying Mole - not integrated - monoblocks which are said to sound like a good tube amp.
Here's a review:
http://www.stereotimes.com/amp021804.shtm
Here's a picture:
Here's the Japanese website for Flying Mole
http://www.flyingmole.co.jp/en/products/dadm100pro/index.html
Of course you have to beware of a stiff breeze as they only weight 1.4 lbs each.
In some industries it can be life altering.....
I don't want to start a "thread" (duck...as the members say....) but I have always felt that the best speakers attached to bad upstream components will allow you to hear how badly they (components) are. However, decent speakers attached to "better" components will allow you to hear the accurate ( relative) music reproduction. Poor sources cannot rely on the speakers to "insert" the missing musical information.
I believe that the sources are the most important pieces in a system. Yes, I understand this is a board hosted by a speaker mfg'er......and would stop short of suggesting there is motive behind the ratio for spending your hard earned dollars.
I agree with the proposition that the source is the most important component up-stream of the speakers!
But wait, don't all CD players sound the same? Answer - No, they don't.
Of course. They'll sound different with each CD you put in them.
Peter...that was perfect.
Literally laughing out loud at my desk here.
That is funny
but honestly... if a CD player is plugged into your integrated amp using a digital connection, the player doesn't really matter (unless it's a real piece of you know what). If it's sending the stereo signal analog, then the player does make a difference because it is decoding the 1's and 0's into music.
i'd buy used stuff, a safe 500 bucks for both the player and the amp. you don't want bad electronics ruining such good speakers.
In reply to:
I think Axiom suggests 50% of your audio budget should be spent on speakers, but that would only leave me $360 for an integrated and cd player.
Well... the 50% I'm sure is more aimed towards a full 5.1/6.1 system.
If I'd paid retail for my electronics, I'll end at about the following:
Speakers - 50%
Electronics - 36%
Stands - 8.5%
Cables/Wire - 5.5%
Speaking of wire - I ordered the Axiom bulk speaker cable, I know a few of the guys around here were wondering what it was like, I can give an opinion by probably Thursday.
(C'mon Peter - I'm leaving you this opportunity for a joke like "Upon receiving the wire, I found that it was made of copper and came with an insulator - same as every other hank of wire!")
Bren R.
2x6,
Is your Ah! CDP connected to your other components digitally or via analog outs?
In reply to:
if a CD player is plugged into your integrated amp using a digital connection, the player doesn't really matter
I agree. if a digital connection is used, you don't need to spend huge money on a cd player. most (if not all) modern receivers have DACs built in so you can use a digital connection, but integrated amps don't have DACs, so, since I'm planning on getting an integrated amp, I will rely on the cd player dac and will need a decent player.
In reply to:
Well... the 50% I'm sure is more aimed towards a full 5.1/6.1 system.
That's an interesting comment. So does a stereo rig get 30% on the speakers and a home theater gets 50% on the speakers?
In reply to:
That's an interesting comment. So does a stereo rig get 30% on the speakers and a home theater gets 50% on the speakers?
Well, it's up to you how much you spend of course, a suggestion is just that. It makes a bit of sense to temper all your purchases - we've all known those guys who buy a receiver pushing 300W per channel, stable to one milliohm, you can arc weld with the thing... but he's got a set of auto 6x9s hooked up to them.
Bren R.
You know that guy, too?
*hijacked topic*
Ahh, hell... Purolator popped by this morning at 8:45 with my Axiom stands and speaker wire, that's what I get for working late last night.
So I'll see them tomorrow instead.
Bren R.
Has anyone used NAD C270 with with their M22ti ?
How does it pair up ? I am considering using it for dedicated 2-channel listening with the preouts from receiver. Thanks.
stevel,
I haven't used the NAD you mention, but the M22s are extremely easy to drive and should perform fantastically paired with your amp.
I wonder if any electronics store has a sign out front that says "Come in and test drive our NADs"...?
Bren R.
Techinically.. its pronounced N-A-D
sorry to be a stick in the mud
the 270 is basically identical to the 370 as far as the power amp section goes. it would be a bit overkill i think to buy the 270 for the m22 when you could get something like the 320BEE which would probbly be better, since you dont need soo much power.
Go with the 320BEE that is what I had till I changed it for the new 372 model. The 320BEE is the best in its category and has more power than you think! In short, NAD is the best in its price range to my ears and I tested a lot before buying any of their products.
Thanks danman. Hmmm...I hear you, but now I'm more confused. I was thinking of the C270 in case I would like to upgrade to the M60s or M80s in the near future. In terms of sound quality, is there a big difference between the 320bee and c270 ? Also, I have a receiver, would it be redundant to get an integrated amp ? Thanks.
Steve, since your receiver is an HK525, it certainly would seem to be redundant to get an integrated amp. The 525 has plenty of power for your present setup and even the other speakers you mention. There would be no difference in sound quality.
Setting aside issues of sound quality for a second, be aware that with an integrated amp, you would be replacing the reciever, except for use as a tuner, possibly. I think what you would want to look into, if you believe that amplifiers change/improve the sound, would be a power amp.
That's right, kcarlile. He would use the HK as a processor/preamp, use the preouts bypassing the HK's internal amps. An integrated amp would be unnecessary - a power amp would be the purest use of external amplification.
Steve, if you want to upgrade the sound of your main speakers, go ahead and try adding a new amplifier (you don't need an integrated because your receiver will act as a preamp). Hook it up to the preouts of your reciever and see if there is an improvement in sound quality. If not return the amp to the store. The only way to tell if something will sound better is to try it.
Thanks everyone. I've been considering whether to
go separate entirely like a 5 channel amp or stick with the stereo amps . For the price of 2 C270s, I could spring for something like a ATI or Marantz M9000.
If you can still get a MM9000 for a good price, jump on it. I just got one, and it sounds great. I got it for a fraction of its original MSRP and free shipping to boot from accessories4less.com.
Mark
To follow up on this thread, I've finally got the full system together:
m3ti
NAD 520 bee cd player
NAD C320 bee integrated amp
It sounds great, and plays surprisingly loud. The amp only 50 watts, but provides plenty of power to get the m3's going louder than I would ever need.
A few comments on the m3's.
strengths: sharp imaging, great soundstage and smooth treble. The tweeter is nice. Overall the speaker is very pleasant to listen to. When I hooked them up to my tube system (anthem amp 1 etc.) they were very sweet sounding in a big 18' by 18' room.
Weaknesses: bass is there but not tight at all. It goes "poof" instead of giving a really good kick drum sound. there's something wierd going on in the upper midrange that isn't as smooth as the rest of the spectrum. Detail is good but not as good as other speakers (much more expensive speakers of course).
I won't gripe anymore though because I think these speakers are a really good value. Everyone that heard them at my house was very impressed and the general concensus was that the m3's are complete winners at their price. I'm happy with the purchase and will likely be keeping these speakers for a long time.
thanks for all the comments!
In reply to:
Weaknesses: bass is there but not tight at all. It goes "poof" instead of giving a really good kick drum sound.
Poof? Hmm... my M3s don't go "poof"... maybe you got a pair returned by Spiffnme (Booooooo!).
Bren R.
In reply to:
Poof? Hmm... my M3s don't go "poof"... maybe you got a pair returned by Spiffnme (Booooooo!).
Took me a second to get that....wow. That was lame. Here's one for you...When is a door not a door?
When it's ajar, of course.
I think we'd better leave Ray, and Peter with the job of local jokesters.
With friends like these, who needs enemas?
Hmm - forgive me for being a tad slow, but I do not understand BrenR's comment...
In reply to:
Hmm - forgive me for being a tad slow, but I do not understand BrenR's comment...
Spiffnme is openly gay - since I consider him a friend, I didn't think implying he was a "poof" would offend him.
Bren R.
Definetly get the C320BEE over the 352. Many say the sound is quite a bit better...
I don't understand - why would the one a few hundred dollars less from the same company sound _better_?
Because it's like an opinion, man.
(apologies to the Coen brothers)
And you know what they say about opinions, so don't base an amp choice on them. Incessantly repeating a myth doesn't make it true.