NAD new vs old

I have a 12 years old NAD Monitor 7000 receiver that served me all the
years very well. This model has excellent tuner and Phono input.
During these years I upgraded CD Players, speakers, threw away my
turntable and my vinyl records, connected my stereo to my computer but
did not touch the NAD 7000. Some attempts to replace it with more
Hi-end amplifiers just failed because while comparing it side by side
I did not find a real sound improvement or other justifications to
replace it.
The last rival was a NAD C350 amplifier that I have in another room
for DVD stereo watching.
I replaced my NAD 7000 with the NAD C350 and listen to it carefully
for few days. There was some refinement in the high and little more
accurate and stronger bass but as a whole I still liked the sound of
my NAD 7000 receiver better. Now I want to check the new NAD C320BEE
which received much praise but I do not know if it worth the efforts.
My stereo gear:
NAD Monitor 7000 receiver
NAD C541 CD Player
Mission 751f Speakers
S.B Creative Extigy sound card
My listening site is a small working room so I do not need much
volume. I listen mainly to classical and jazz music.
Is it possible that some this old NAD amplifiers surpass or even
better than the new ones or may be they had a little different sound
more appealing to some classical music listeners?

"Ishay" wrote in message
om...
NAD new vs old

I have a 12 years old NAD Monitor 7000 receiver that served me all the
years very well. This model has excellent tuner and Phono input.
During these years I upgraded CD Players, speakers, threw away my
turntable and my vinyl records, connected my stereo to my computer but
did not touch the NAD 7000. Some attempts to replace it with more
Hi-end amplifiers just failed because while comparing it side by side
I did not find a real sound improvement or other justifications to
replace it.
The last rival was a NAD C350 amplifier that I have in another room
for DVD stereo watching.
I replaced my NAD 7000 with the NAD C350 and listen to it carefully
for few days. There was some refinement in the high and little more
accurate and stronger bass but as a whole I still liked the sound of
my NAD 7000 receiver better. Now I want to check the new NAD C320BEE
which received much praise but I do not know if it worth the efforts.
My stereo gear:
NAD Monitor 7000 receiver
NAD C541 CD Player
Mission 751f Speakers
S.B Creative Extigy sound card
My listening site is a small working room so I do not need much
volume. I listen mainly to classical and jazz music.
Is it possible that some this old NAD amplifiers surpass or even
better than the new ones or may be they had a little different sound
more appealing to some classical music listeners?

Diagnosis: buyer's remorse.

I'll bet you never heard of expectation effects, placebo effects or
degradation of sound quality of equipment over time.

In article ,
(Ishay) wrote:

NAD new vs old

I have a 12 years old NAD Monitor 7000 receiver that served me all the
years very well. This model has excellent tuner and Phono input.
During these years I upgraded CD Players, speakers, threw away my
turntable and my vinyl records, connected my stereo to my computer but
did not touch the NAD 7000. Some attempts to replace it with more
Hi-end amplifiers just failed because while comparing it side by side
I did not find a real sound improvement or other justifications to
replace it.
The last rival was a NAD C350 amplifier that I have in another room
for DVD stereo watching.
I replaced my NAD 7000 with the NAD C350 and listen to it carefully
for few days. There was some refinement in the high and little more
accurate and stronger bass but as a whole I still liked the sound of
my NAD 7000 receiver better. Now I want to check the new NAD C320BEE
which received much praise but I do not know if it worth the efforts.
My stereo gear:
NAD Monitor 7000 receiver
NAD C541 CD Player
Mission 751f Speakers
S.B Creative Extigy sound card
My listening site is a small working room so I do not need much
volume. I listen mainly to classical and jazz music.
Is it possible that some this old NAD amplifiers surpass or even
better than the new ones or may be they had a little different sound
more appealing to some classical music listeners?

In a way, you're comparing same to same: similarly powered NAD amps.
You've perceived differences but found them unimportant. The new C320
has a different amp design but at low volumes in a small space and bass
shy bookshelf speakers you might not find that makes a big difference,
although the C320 has a good reputation. You might try the C370 with
twice the power, but you seem happy with what you have.

I looked at a brochure for a Monitor 7100 receiver and it looks really
good on paper, so maybe you don't need to replace yours.

FWIW, I have a C340 that is similar to the C320 BEE and I am very happy
with my system sound in a moderately sized room with supposedly bass shy
speakers.

Stephen
Stephen

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:26:41 GMT, MiNE 109
wrote:

FWIW, I have a C340 that is similar to the C320 BEE and I am very happy
with my system sound in a moderately sized room with supposedly bass shy
speakers.

LOL!

--
td

"MiNE 109" skrev i en meddelelse
...
In article ,
(Ishay) wrote:

NAD new vs old

I have a 12 years old NAD Monitor 7000 receiver that served me all the
years very well. This model has excellent tuner and Phono input.
During these years I upgraded CD Players, speakers, threw away my
turntable and my vinyl records, connected my stereo to my computer but
did not touch the NAD 7000. Some attempts to replace it with more
Hi-end amplifiers just failed because while comparing it side by side
I did not find a real sound improvement or other justifications to
replace it.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it !
my 0.02,
Tom

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:48:29 GMT, MiNE 109
wrote:

In article z,
The Devil wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:26:41 GMT, MiNE 109
wrote:

FWIW, I have a C340 that is similar to the C320 BEE and I am very happy
with my system sound in a moderately sized room with supposedly bass shy
speakers.

LOL!

Amps make all the difference...

Indeed! Let's get to the milli-factor*.

--
td

* Something like a small example of current squared times resistance.