[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"fathom" wrote in message

Stereophile's Michael Fremer (the Analog Coroner) gets
his grubbies on the NAD Master Series M3 integrated for
a major test.

So what does he do? Well, he wastes large portions of
the article babbling about the $175 NAD 3020, circa
1979. In fact, every NAD test this rag ever does makes
reference to the 3020, because every disco-era
audiophile once owned one and has spent the last 25
years ignoring NAD products except to periodically
spooj over the 3020 like it was their first glance of a
bare tit. Well, maybe it was.

The Coroner eventually gets around to describing the
current product, including some unusual features which
he totally ignores during the test. He says he did this
because he wants to use the M3 like most audiophiles
would. He then completely tosses this concept by using
the $2800 NAD with speakers costing $46k and $70k. How
****ing dumb is this? NOBODY IN THE WORLD is going to
hook this amp up to speakers like that - so let's do it
for the major cover story review.

How crazy is a $2.7K integrated stereo amp? Probably,
about 10 times less crazy than a $26K CD player, or
$46-$70k speakers.

It's competitive with the Krell, the Audio Research CA
50, and the Bryston B100 SST, to name three.

In terms of sound quality, or alleged market segment?

It would be interesting to know how many copies of
equipment like this actually gets sold for the stated
asking prices. What are the margins?

Probably higher than for NAD's cheaper products.

Agreed.

Some people seem to be fascinated with the idea of ABX
tests of audio gear. It might be interesting to do an
ABX test of a $2.7K stereo (oh, "dual mono") integrated
amp and a $0.089K stereo receiver.

The balance control on the remote would give it away.

How would that be relevant to a bias-controlled listening test?