Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Mark
 
Posts: n/a
Default Audio Source vs. Cambridge Audio vs. NAD vs. Adcom

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
  #2   Report Post  
Matt Distefano
 
Posts: n/a
Default Audio Source vs. Cambridge Audio vs. NAD vs. Adcom

"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



  #3   Report Post  
Stephen Sank
 
Posts: n/a
Default Audio Source vs. Cambridge Audio vs. NAD vs. Adcom

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



  #4   Report Post  
Schizoid Man
 
Posts: n/a
Default Audio Source vs. Cambridge Audio vs. NAD vs. Adcom

"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.


  #5   Report Post  
Margaret von Busenhalter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Audio Source vs. Cambridge Audio vs. NAD vs. Adcom


"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







  #6   Report Post  
Schizoid Man
 
Posts: n/a
Default Audio Source vs. Cambridge Audio vs. NAD vs. Adcom


"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.


  #7   Report Post  
Margaret von Busenhalter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Audio Source vs. Cambridge Audio vs. NAD vs. Adcom


"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








  #8   Report Post  
Schizoid Man
 
Posts: n/a
Default Audio Source vs. Cambridge Audio vs. NAD vs. Adcom


"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.


  #9   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default Audio Source vs. Cambridge Audio vs. NAD vs. Adcom



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?


 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
fix audio files [email protected] General 1 July 15th 03 05:44 PM
Info needed on Cambridge Audio R40s Kalman Rubinson General 0 July 3rd 03 03:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:22 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"