I am looking to replace an aging Denon receiver with an integrated amp to power my M3ti's. This is a two-channel audio only system. I have narrowed down the choices (due to cost considerations) to the Cambridge Audio A500 and the Nad C320BEE. I have read both good and fair reviews on the Cambridge A500, and mostly all positive reviews on the NAD. Admittedly, the Cambridge has a better cosmetic look (IMHO). Any experience with either of these with the M3ti's? Thanks.
I have experience with both cambridge and NAD gear, as i own a Nad C370 and Cambridge D300. I dont have experience with those models however. Both NAD and cambridge have good build and quality, but if it were me i would definetly buy the C320BEE over the cabridge because i believe its simply a better amp, and better sounding what what i have read.
Rob, I drive my M60's with a Cambridge Audio A500/P500 bi-amp combo, and have nothing but good things to say...the sound is sweet, with more than enough power. Very good bang for the buck IMO. Haven't heard the M3's nor any NAD gear, so can't make any comparative statements. Good luck.
I'd go with cambridge - I have known NAD products to break easily.
I've never heard antyhing bad about Cambridge products.
break easily?
whats that supposed to mean.
I guess he was talking about the notorious and well-documented history of "reliability problems" on the NAD products. They have supposedly gotten rid of the problems now, by changing/moving their OEM sources a few years ago.
The only reliability issues i know of are those of their cd players. The ones without the i at the end of the model number. when he says "break easily" makes it sound like you go to turn the volume knob and it comes off or, open the cd player and the drawer falls out or something lol.
I use an NAD S200 power amp with a different system than my Axiom '60s, and - knock on wood! - I have never had a problem with it. I'd recommend NAD products, at least those of recent vintage anyway.
Rob,
I have been using a NAD 3140 integrated amp for the past 23 years, pretty much daily or every other day. The only trouble (besides dirty contacts in unused switches) was a hum in the left channel that lasted a few minutes after turn on, which developed a few years ago. It went away some months lager, after I seriously threatened it with looking for a replacement. It sounds great, mostly running under 1 watt on my 27 year old big monitors unless I crank a big symphony. Similar to Sushi's "beloved Hales" I have my "beloved Qysonics." Of course this does not speak to the recent NAD gear but the 320BEE is supposed to take after their old designs.
I have a pair of M3Ti that also sound good on the NAD, but mostly they live in another room and are run by a 50 watt/ch JBL power amp. They are efficient enough that 40 or 50 watts is plenty of oomph. But you may run out of gas on the 320BEE if you want to go really loud. If you can get it from somewhere that will let you return it if not satisfied, or take it for a demo, that would be best.
Of course I meant to type “later” but I hope you were laughing at the way I threatened it. I really did try it. As you may know from working with other equipment, for example copy machines, there are forces at work in the world that we scientists can’t quantify. That’s how it knows to be broken, or paper jammed, just before you really need a copy, or to send an urgent fax, and – you all have experienced this, no? There’s the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force, and gravitational force. And one more that they will never get into a unified field theory - the “cussedness of the universe” force!
I actually started looking for integrated amps, on the net and in stores. One feature I really use on the NAD is the separate record out selector, because people still ask me for tapes of services etc. that I record on my DAT. I can make them copies without having to listen to it again, and again, and… Well, it seems that you have to spend big bucks for the big Yamaha or Denon integrated amps, or perhaps a one of the Rotel units are the only ones that retain that feature these days. Since the hum went away after a few minutes, I adopted a wait-until-it-really-croaks approach and kept my eye out for cheaper replacements. Someone pointed me at audiogon.com, but I never saw another 3140 or one of the classic Yamahas (still looking for a CA-810, just because I am of that vintage) that I could be happy with. Meanwhile, the hum thing has gone away. The bad habit now of looking for stuff on audiogon has not, however, and that’s a problem! OK, since January I have picked up a tuner to replace one that died, a DAC, a nice pair of Michaura M55s, and a Luxman receiver to drive them. Nothing over $175 but it adds up.
Rob, the Cambridge A300v.2 does look like a winner for $200 if you don’t need phono input or rec out switching. Adding $60 for the MM phono board is reasonable as well. Wait, no, I don’t need another amp. Wait, no ! LOL.
The NAD 320BEE does not appear to have phono input either. The rated power is more that I had thought (still thinking of the old 3020) and is equivalent to the Cambridge A300v.2. I see in your original post that you are thinking of the A500, which adds only 15 more rated watts, a preamp out, and remote control, for twice the price. I bet either would be fine for the M3Ti.
I didn't see the typo...
I would love to speculate on the cause of that hum (seriously). My first bet would be a contact problem in the ground line of one of the pre-amp inputs, which was so subtle that it went away when the temperature of the amp case increased to a certain point. Perhaps, it went away permanently because, when you "threatened" the amp, you might have also re-seated the problematic connection somehow... Can you swear that you did not change or tweak the setup when the hum "spontaneously" stopped?