Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Acurus vs NAD amp?
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Acurus vs NAD amp?
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Help with Acurus A150 - fuse housing | Audio Opinions |