Acurus vs NAD amp?

[David Finton]

I'm toying with the idea of upgrading my amp. The CD player is
an NAD 541i, and the speakers are Vandersteen 1b. These sound
good with my old NAD 7175PE receiver (75 watts per channel, 6dB
dynamic headroom).

I'm thinking about a used Acurus DIA 100, which is a nice 100 watt
per channel amp with an integrated passive preamp section. This
would be an upgrade to the receiver, certainly, but it might also
be a different sonic style, one which might not suit the rest of
the system or my listening tastes. An alternative is to feed a
passive preamp into the amp section of the NAD (something that
I've concept-tested with a cheap Radio Shack pot and liked).

So I'm hoping you all will be able to tell me something about
how the Acurus and the NAD compare in terms of presentation style.

As a reference point, I compared the NAD with Adcom amps when I
picked out the speakers (1991). I didn't like the Adcom sound
then as well as the NAD. I play trumpet, and I felt that the Adcom
made the Canadian Brass trumpeters sound too "closed in"--kind of
like hearing an English horn instead of an oboe, although the
difference was much more subtle. So timbre is very important to
me. I listen to lots of symphonic music, piano concertos, and
solo recitals.

I've heard people say that the Acurus is really bright; others
say that it's *neutral*, and you just need to give it a high quality
source. I've heard people say the NAD is bright also--is it? I've
also seen the NAD described as laid-back, so I'm wondering how these
amps would compare. I know I like the NAD in my system with a
passive preamp. I'm sure the Acurus would be an upgrade in quality,
but I'm wondering if I would find it brighter/harsher/more unforgiving.
The optimal thing would be a bake-off between the two amps with
my speakers, but that's not likely to happen. Any helpful observations
out there?

Thanks in advance,

David Finton

[Uptown Audio]

We are an NAD dealer and have had a few Acurus pieces come through on
trade. Most customers who traded-in the Acurus units sited a bright
sound and I would describe it as clinical. Some use the term harsh,
but I feel that it is more of a combination of an unforgiving
amplifier with revealing speakers. They needed to be mated with warm
or smooth sounding speakers. One customer who had traded in an Acurus
separates system a while back is now listening to the NAD integrateds
and finds them much warmer and more to his liking. He is trying to
decide between the 50w and 120w versions. Both sound nice and are
reliable. Using your power section in your NAD receiver would give you
power that falls in between and is going to be a good value. You can
loop the tuner section back through for use of that as well. One thing
you might also consider is the use of a tube preamp. A good preamp is
rather expensive, but does make a noticeable improvement as it affects
the entire system at an early stage. Passive boxes have their own
problems and many people including myself prefer a buffered, active
input. Choosing one with low noise and a smooth response is where it
gets a bit more pricey. You may find a vast improvement in tonality
and texture by using a tubed unit, while not measuring as well, it may
provide that realism that you are after.
- Bill
--
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"David Finton" > wrote in message
...
> I'm toying with the idea of upgrading my amp. The CD player is
> an NAD 541i, and the speakers are Vandersteen 1b. These sound
> good with my old NAD 7175PE receiver (75 watts per channel, 6dB
> dynamic headroom).
>
> I'm thinking about a used Acurus DIA 100, which is a nice 100 watt
> per channel amp with an integrated passive preamp section. This
> would be an upgrade to the receiver, certainly, but it might also
> be a different sonic style, one which might not suit the rest of
> the system or my listening tastes. An alternative is to feed a
> passive preamp into the amp section of the NAD (something that
> I've concept-tested with a cheap Radio Shack pot and liked).
>
> So I'm hoping you all will be able to tell me something about
> how the Acurus and the NAD compare in terms of presentation style.
>
> As a reference point, I compared the NAD with Adcom amps when I
> picked out the speakers (1991). I didn't like the Adcom sound
> then as well as the NAD. I play trumpet, and I felt that the Adcom
> made the Canadian Brass trumpeters sound too "closed in"--kind of
> like hearing an English horn instead of an oboe, although the
> difference was much more subtle. So timbre is very important to
> me. I listen to lots of symphonic music, piano concertos, and
> solo recitals.
>
> I've heard people say that the Acurus is really bright; others
> say that it's *neutral*, and you just need to give it a high quality
> source. I've heard people say the NAD is bright also--is it? I've
> also seen the NAD described as laid-back, so I'm wondering how these
> amps would compare. I know I like the NAD in my system with a
> passive preamp. I'm sure the Acurus would be an upgrade in quality,
> but I'm wondering if I would find it brighter/harsher/more
unforgiving.
> The optimal thing would be a bake-off between the two amps with
> my speakers, but that's not likely to happen. Any helpful
observations
> out there?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> David Finton