PDA

View Full Version : Audio Source vs. Cambridge Audio vs. NAD vs. Adcom


Mark
August 3rd 03, 07:33 AM
Is Audio Source or Cambridge Audio any good? I am looking at these
components to replace a NAD 7100 receiver;

(1) An Audio Source PreAmp/Tuner Two and 150w Amp Three for a total of
about $740. Is Audio Source crap, or OK?

(2) A Cambridge Audio T500 Tuner, C500 Preamp, two P500 50w Amps for a
total of about 1156.

(3) NAD C160 Preamp, C420 Tuner, and C270 120w Amp for 1280.

(4) Adcom GFP-170 Preamp, 125w GFA-5400 Amp for 1248 (+ cost of a
tuner) I can't find an Adcom tuner, except for the multi-zone GTP-506
Tuner/Preamp ...

Stick with NAD? Any recommendations or advice are welcome! Thanks in
advance.

--
Mark R. Ransom
Raleigh, North Carolina USA

Matt Distefano
August 3rd 03, 07:42 AM
"Mark" > wrote in message
...
> Is Audio Source or Cambridge Audio any good? I am looking at these
> components to replace a NAD 7100 receiver;
>
> (1) An Audio Source PreAmp/Tuner Two and 150w Amp Three for a total of
> about $740. Is Audio Source crap, or OK?

I had an Audiosource Amp Two for a while, and was pretty pleased with the
sound it gave. I wasn't quite as impressed with the preamp (model Pre-One, I
think), though it wasn't a total piece of crap either. The stepped volume
control is what eventually drove me to get rid of it, though I'm not sure if
the Preamp/Tuner Two uses the same setup or not.

>
> (2) A Cambridge Audio T500 Tuner, C500 Preamp, two P500 50w Amps for a
> total of about 1156.
>
> (3) NAD C160 Preamp, C420 Tuner, and C270 120w Amp for 1280.
>
> (4) Adcom GFP-170 Preamp, 125w GFA-5400 Amp for 1248 (+ cost of a
> tuner) I can't find an Adcom tuner, except for the multi-zone GTP-506
> Tuner/Preamp ...
>
> Stick with NAD? Any recommendations or advice are welcome! Thanks in
> advance.
>
> --
> Mark R. Ransom
> Raleigh, North Carolina USA

Stephen Sank
August 3rd 03, 09:28 PM
NAD ranges from mediocre to horrifyingly crappy, and reliability pretty well
sucks. Audio Source is a mid-fi brand that seldom achieves anything above
garbage level. Cambridge is a brand from which I have only seen cd players,
which tended to be flakey. Adcom, while sometimes slightly crispy in the
treble, is generally reliable as hell & always at least quite competent
sound. If you had bought Adcom instead of the NAD 7100 all those years ago,
you would not now be shopping for new stuff.

--
Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
Talking Dog Transducer Company
http://stephensank.com
5517 Carmelita Drive N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico [87111]
505-332-0336
Auth. Nakamichi & McIntosh servicer
Payments preferred through Paypal.com
"Mark" > wrote in message
...
> Is Audio Source or Cambridge Audio any good? I am looking at these
> components to replace a NAD 7100 receiver;
>
> (1) An Audio Source PreAmp/Tuner Two and 150w Amp Three for a total of
> about $740. Is Audio Source crap, or OK?
>
> (2) A Cambridge Audio T500 Tuner, C500 Preamp, two P500 50w Amps for a
> total of about 1156.
>
> (3) NAD C160 Preamp, C420 Tuner, and C270 120w Amp for 1280.
>
> (4) Adcom GFP-170 Preamp, 125w GFA-5400 Amp for 1248 (+ cost of a
> tuner) I can't find an Adcom tuner, except for the multi-zone GTP-506
> Tuner/Preamp ...
>
> Stick with NAD? Any recommendations or advice are welcome! Thanks in
> advance.
>
> --
> Mark R. Ransom
> Raleigh, North Carolina USA

Schizoid Man
August 4th 03, 08:59 PM
> "Mark" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Is Audio Source or Cambridge Audio any good? I am looking at these
> > components to replace a NAD 7100 receiver;
> >
> > (1) An Audio Source PreAmp/Tuner Two and 150w Amp Three for a total of
> > about $740. Is Audio Source crap, or OK?
> >
> > (2) A Cambridge Audio T500 Tuner, C500 Preamp, two P500 50w Amps for a
> > total of about 1156.
> >
> > (3) NAD C160 Preamp, C420 Tuner, and C270 120w Amp for 1280.
> >
> > (4) Adcom GFP-170 Preamp, 125w GFA-5400 Amp for 1248 (+ cost of a
> > tuner) I can't find an Adcom tuner, except for the multi-zone GTP-506
> > Tuner/Preamp ...
> >
> > Stick with NAD? Any recommendations or advice are welcome! Thanks in
> > advance.
> >
> > --
> > Mark R. Ransom
> > Raleigh, North Carolina USA


"Stephen Sank" > wrote in message
...
> NAD ranges from mediocre to horrifyingly crappy, and reliability pretty
well
> sucks. Audio Source is a mid-fi brand that seldom achieves anything above
> garbage level. Cambridge is a brand from which I have only seen cd
players,
> which tended to be flakey. Adcom, while sometimes slightly crispy in the
> treble, is generally reliable as hell & always at least quite competent
> sound. If you had bought Adcom instead of the NAD 7100 all those years
ago,
> you would not now be shopping for new stuff.
>
> --
> Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer


I couldn't disagree more with the first sentence. I think NAD makes very
high quality equipment, both in terms of build and sound. I've had a 3150
since the late 80s and have had no problems with it whatsoever. It's built
like a tank and sounds as clean today with my Cambridge Audio CD player as
it did way back when with my Nakamichi Dragon.

Stephen has correctly identified Audio Source as mid-fi but to say it seldom
achieves anything beyond garbage level may be a little harsh. However, it is
not a brand that I would vigorously recommend.

I don't have mich experience with Cambridge Audio amps, thought I did
audition the A500. It was nice and clean and fairly neutral sounding. I've
heard good things about the P500 though. Their CD players though somewhat
lacking in build and finish quality more than make up for their sound
quality and economical price tag.

Rotel might be a better option that Adcom. For a little more money, you will
get a vastly superior and truly high-end product.

Margaret von Busenhalter
August 4th 03, 09:44 PM
"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> > "Mark" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Is Audio Source or Cambridge Audio any good? I am looking at these
> > > components to replace a NAD 7100 receiver;
> > >
> > > (1) An Audio Source PreAmp/Tuner Two and 150w Amp Three for a total
of
> > > about $740. Is Audio Source crap, or OK?
> > >
> > > (2) A Cambridge Audio T500 Tuner, C500 Preamp, two P500 50w Amps for
a
> > > total of about 1156.
> > >
> > > (3) NAD C160 Preamp, C420 Tuner, and C270 120w Amp for 1280.
> > >
> > > (4) Adcom GFP-170 Preamp, 125w GFA-5400 Amp for 1248 (+ cost of a
> > > tuner) I can't find an Adcom tuner, except for the multi-zone GTP-506
> > > Tuner/Preamp ...
> > >
> > > Stick with NAD? Any recommendations or advice are welcome! Thanks in
> > > advance.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mark R. Ransom
> > > Raleigh, North Carolina USA
>
>
> "Stephen Sank" > wrote in message
> ...
> > NAD ranges from mediocre to horrifyingly crappy, and reliability pretty
> well
> > sucks. Audio Source is a mid-fi brand that seldom achieves anything
above
> > garbage level. Cambridge is a brand from which I have only seen cd
> players,
> > which tended to be flakey. Adcom, while sometimes slightly crispy in
the
> > treble, is generally reliable as hell & always at least quite competent
> > sound. If you had bought Adcom instead of the NAD 7100 all those years
> ago,
> > you would not now be shopping for new stuff.
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
>
>
> I couldn't disagree more with the first sentence. I think NAD makes very
> high quality equipment, both in terms of build and sound. I've had a 3150
> since the late 80s and have had no problems with it whatsoever. It's built
> like a tank and sounds as clean today with my Cambridge Audio CD player as
> it did way back when with my Nakamichi Dragon.
>
> Stephen has correctly identified Audio Source as mid-fi but to say it
seldom
> achieves anything beyond garbage level may be a little harsh. However, it
is
> not a brand that I would vigorously recommend.
>
> I don't have mich experience with Cambridge Audio amps, thought I did
> audition the A500. It was nice and clean and fairly neutral sounding. I've
> heard good things about the P500 though. Their CD players though somewhat
> lacking in build and finish quality more than make up for their sound
> quality and economical price tag.
>
> Rotel might be a better option that Adcom. For a little more money, you
will
> get a vastly superior and truly high-end product.
>
>

Almost everything in this post is totally wrong. Stephen actually *does*
know what he is talking about.

Cheers,

MvB

Schizoid Man
August 5th 03, 05:07 PM
"Margaret von Busenhalter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > "Mark" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Is Audio Source or Cambridge Audio any good? I am looking at these
> > > > components to replace a NAD 7100 receiver;
> > > >
> > > > (1) An Audio Source PreAmp/Tuner Two and 150w Amp Three for a total
> of
> > > > about $740. Is Audio Source crap, or OK?
> > > >
> > > > (2) A Cambridge Audio T500 Tuner, C500 Preamp, two P500 50w Amps
for
> a
> > > > total of about 1156.
> > > >
> > > > (3) NAD C160 Preamp, C420 Tuner, and C270 120w Amp for 1280.
> > > >
> > > > (4) Adcom GFP-170 Preamp, 125w GFA-5400 Amp for 1248 (+ cost of a
> > > > tuner) I can't find an Adcom tuner, except for the multi-zone
GTP-506
> > > > Tuner/Preamp ...
> > > >
> > > > Stick with NAD? Any recommendations or advice are welcome! Thanks
in
> > > > advance.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Mark R. Ransom
> > > > Raleigh, North Carolina USA
> >
> >
> > "Stephen Sank" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > NAD ranges from mediocre to horrifyingly crappy, and reliability
pretty
> > well
> > > sucks. Audio Source is a mid-fi brand that seldom achieves anything
> above
> > > garbage level. Cambridge is a brand from which I have only seen cd
> > players,
> > > which tended to be flakey. Adcom, while sometimes slightly crispy in
> the
> > > treble, is generally reliable as hell & always at least quite
competent
> > > sound. If you had bought Adcom instead of the NAD 7100 all those
years
> > ago,
> > > you would not now be shopping for new stuff.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
> >
> >
> > I couldn't disagree more with the first sentence. I think NAD makes very
> > high quality equipment, both in terms of build and sound. I've had a
3150
> > since the late 80s and have had no problems with it whatsoever. It's
built
> > like a tank and sounds as clean today with my Cambridge Audio CD player
as
> > it did way back when with my Nakamichi Dragon.
> >
> > Stephen has correctly identified Audio Source as mid-fi but to say it
> seldom
> > achieves anything beyond garbage level may be a little harsh. However,
it
> is
> > not a brand that I would vigorously recommend.
> >
> > I don't have mich experience with Cambridge Audio amps, thought I did
> > audition the A500. It was nice and clean and fairly neutral sounding.
I've
> > heard good things about the P500 though. Their CD players though
somewhat
> > lacking in build and finish quality more than make up for their sound
> > quality and economical price tag.
> >
> > Rotel might be a better option that Adcom. For a little more money, you
> will
> > get a vastly superior and truly high-end product.
> >
> >
>
> Almost everything in this post is totally wrong. Stephen actually *does*
> know what he is talking about.

Just so that you know... by high-end, I am talking about audio equipment,
not Ferraris. In reference to our last conversation.

And in reference to our current one, I didn't say Stephen doesn't know what
he's talking about. I said that I disagree with him. Take an English lesson
before you insist on flaming next time.

Saw Metallica on Saturday at Reliant Stadium in Houston. Brilliant stuff.

Margaret von Busenhalter
August 5th 03, 05:56 PM
"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margaret von Busenhalter" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > "Mark" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Is Audio Source or Cambridge Audio any good? I am looking at
these
> > > > > components to replace a NAD 7100 receiver;
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) An Audio Source PreAmp/Tuner Two and 150w Amp Three for a
total
> > of
> > > > > about $740. Is Audio Source crap, or OK?
> > > > >
> > > > > (2) A Cambridge Audio T500 Tuner, C500 Preamp, two P500 50w Amps
> for
> > a
> > > > > total of about 1156.
> > > > >
> > > > > (3) NAD C160 Preamp, C420 Tuner, and C270 120w Amp for 1280.
> > > > >
> > > > > (4) Adcom GFP-170 Preamp, 125w GFA-5400 Amp for 1248 (+ cost of a
> > > > > tuner) I can't find an Adcom tuner, except for the multi-zone
> GTP-506
> > > > > Tuner/Preamp ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Stick with NAD? Any recommendations or advice are welcome!
Thanks
> in
> > > > > advance.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Mark R. Ransom
> > > > > Raleigh, North Carolina USA
> > >
> > >
> > > "Stephen Sank" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > NAD ranges from mediocre to horrifyingly crappy, and reliability
> pretty
> > > well
> > > > sucks. Audio Source is a mid-fi brand that seldom achieves anything
> > above
> > > > garbage level. Cambridge is a brand from which I have only seen cd
> > > players,
> > > > which tended to be flakey. Adcom, while sometimes slightly crispy
in
> > the
> > > > treble, is generally reliable as hell & always at least quite
> competent
> > > > sound. If you had bought Adcom instead of the NAD 7100 all those
> years
> > > ago,
> > > > you would not now be shopping for new stuff.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
> > >
> > >
> > > I couldn't disagree more with the first sentence. I think NAD makes
very
> > > high quality equipment, both in terms of build and sound. I've had a
> 3150
> > > since the late 80s and have had no problems with it whatsoever. It's
> built
> > > like a tank and sounds as clean today with my Cambridge Audio CD
player
> as
> > > it did way back when with my Nakamichi Dragon.
> > >
> > > Stephen has correctly identified Audio Source as mid-fi but to say it
> > seldom
> > > achieves anything beyond garbage level may be a little harsh. However,
> it
> > is
> > > not a brand that I would vigorously recommend.
> > >
> > > I don't have mich experience with Cambridge Audio amps, thought I did
> > > audition the A500. It was nice and clean and fairly neutral sounding.
> I've
> > > heard good things about the P500 though. Their CD players though
> somewhat
> > > lacking in build and finish quality more than make up for their sound
> > > quality and economical price tag.
> > >
> > > Rotel might be a better option that Adcom. For a little more money,
you
> > will
> > > get a vastly superior and truly high-end product.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Almost everything in this post is totally wrong. Stephen actually *does*
> > know what he is talking about.
>
> Just so that you know... by high-end, I am talking about audio equipment,
> not Ferraris. In reference to our last conversation.
>
> And in reference to our current one, I didn't say Stephen doesn't know
what
> he's talking about. I said that I disagree with him. Take an English
lesson
> before you insist on flaming next time.
>

I was trying to tell you in a very nice way that you don't know what you are
talking about. Got it now?

Cheers,

MvB

Schizoid Man
August 5th 03, 06:35 PM
"Margaret von Busenhalter" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

>> > > >
> > >
> > > Almost everything in this post is totally wrong. Stephen actually
*does*
> > > know what he is talking about.
> >
> > Just so that you know... by high-end, I am talking about audio
equipment,
> > not Ferraris. In reference to our last conversation.
> >
> > And in reference to our current one, I didn't say Stephen doesn't know
> what
> > he's talking about. I said that I disagree with him. Take an English
> lesson
> > before you insist on flaming next time.
> >
>
> I was trying to tell you in a very nice way that you don't know what you
are
> talking about. Got it now?
>
> Cheers,
>
> MvB
>

Nice way? I think you might be a little rusty on the social graces. But
thank you anyway.

George M. Middius
August 5th 03, 07:39 PM
Schizoid Man said:

> >>> Almost everything in this post is totally wrong. Stephen actually
> >>> *does* know what he is talking about.

> >> And in reference to our current one, I didn't say Stephen doesn't
> >> know what he's talking about. I said that I disagree with him. Take
> >> an English lesson before you insist on flaming next time.

> > I was trying to tell you in a very nice way that you don't know what
> > you are talking about. Got it now?

> Nice way? I think you might be a little rusty on the social graces.

Would you like some examples of not-nice ways of conveying the same
meaning?