Cambridge Audio A500 czy NAD C320 BEE ?

[sfirek]

Ktory lepsiejszy ?? :D Doradzcie !! :))

[sfirek]

AAA......kolumny moje to Eltax Libert 5 +

[andrea29]

Sam sobie odpowiesz, jak porównasz.

 

Pozdr.

[Seba]

Dla MNIE lepsiejszy A500, ale dla Ciebie to nie wiem ? Może któryś z kolegów będzie wiedział ?

[Zbig]

Choćby z sentymentu zagłosuję na NADa. Pamiętam ten dzień, kiedy zaszedłem do sklepu w podziemiach Ś.P. Akwarium, i usłyszałem jak gra zestaw złożony z 3020, stosownego cd i monitorów też NAD, chyba 8225, czy jakoś tak.

[Arek]

słuchałem jednego i drugiego

i radzę Ci to samo, zamiast tego plebiscytu

[daGambus]

tez uważam, że najważniejszy jest Twój własny odsłuch.

Ale skoro pytasz, ja przed zakupem porównywałem bezpośrednio te same wzmaki - i (dla mnie - podkreślam) bezapelacyjnie wygrał NAD.

[soso]

W moim przypadku odp. jest prosta i jednoznaczna - NAD!

 

pzdrw

 

soso

[Seba]

chyba mam zapchanę uszy :)

[pawelm]

Nie martw sie ja tez wole CA niz Bee

Wyzsze dopiero graja lepiej ;-)

[soso]

Wysililem sie i skopiowalem dlugie i szczegolowe recenzje CA 500 (TNT) oraz NAD 320 BEE (Stereophile). Moze to jakis przyczynek do dyskusji jezeli czyta sie uwaznie.

;-)

 

*******************

*******************

*******************

*******************

*******************

 

 

TNT - CAMBRIDGE AUDIO 500

 

 

 

Cambridge Audio A 500 RC - integrated amp

The Major of Simpleton

 

 

 

Product: Cambridge A 500 RC - integrated amp

Manufacturer: Cambridge Audio - UK

Serial number: 802-A500RC-1098-0199

Aprrox. price: 400 $/Euro

Reviewer: Lucio Cadeddu

Reviewed: March, 2002

 

TNT-Audio has already reviewed Cambridge Audio products, namely the D 500 and the D 500 SE CD players. Hence, for more info on this UK-based Company, I'd suggest reading those reviews and/or visit the official website.

Cambridge Audio makes two integrated amplifiers, the A 300 and the A 500 RC under test (where RC stands for Remote Controlled).

These two amps have been around for a while, something I appreciate since customers are not forced to buy a new model every year or so. This also helps keeping a high second-hand value.

 

The A 500 RC is an integrated amplifier, quite powerful for the price (65 watts per channel @ 8 ohm and 85 @ 6 ohm), equipped with several inputs (6 gold-plated RCA line inputs, phono stage on demand) and a good number of features which also include tone controls (ha!), double bi-wiring ready binding posts and a pre-out output for external amping (or bi-amping).

The binding posts follow the strict CE safety rules so they don't have the usual hole for banana plugs but thanks God the holes for bare wires are large enough to allow a banana plug to be secured to them.

As usual with Cambridge products, the writings in the rear panel are "upside-down" so to make reading far easier, for example when installing cables from above.

Cambridge Audio A 500 RC no-frills no-thrills inside view

The AC mains cable is detachable thanks to an IEC socket (good for mains cable upgrading!) while the cabinet is dampened only via four plastic/rubber feet (the same as in the D500 CD player). The (included) SRC-01 remote can control many different Cambridge products (CD player, tuner...even lights!) but, alas, only the volume control on the amp. You can't switch the inputs nor turn on/off the unit. Volume, up and down, and that's all.

The Cambridge A 500 looks very classic with its aluminium black fascia and a large, centrally positioned, volume knob. This no-frills approach should allow the designers to concetrate on good sound only (hope so).

Tone controls are of the "audiophile" kind in the sense that their job is limited to a ± 6 dB area and they can bypassed via a "direct" switch for better sonic performance.

Tech specs claim a frequency response extended from 25 Hz to 60,000 Hz with a -3dB decrease. The power stages make use of two pairs of Sanken SAP-15 devices (one pair per channel) while the power supply section makes use of a real toroidal transformer (not like the "fake" toroidal into the D 500/D500SE CD player) with no metal shield and 4 filtering CapXon caps per channel (2200 uF each, 8800 total per channel). The volume pot comes from "Soundwell" and is connected to a small motor for remote control operation.

The audio boards sport Cambridge Audio writings almost everywhere and even a proud claim: "Designed with care and attention by Cambridge Audio". I wonder why there are no manufacturers who claim the opposite "Uncaringly and incautiously designed by..." I'd love to see that :-)))

The Cambridge A 500 RC is standardly sized at 43W x 30D x 9H cm. while it is a bit lightweight, considering the claimed power output.

Designed and engineered in the UK, the A 500 is actually made in China.

I've tested the A 500 with different partners and even into two different listening rooms.

 

The Major of Simpleton

Now close your eyes and listen: if you're familiar with the Cambridge Audio sound you will tell this is one of their amps within few seconds. Undoubtedly, the usual sonic signature of the UK firm is here and this means the designers know exactly where to go and HOW to get there.

Hence, you get the usual soft and warm sound I've described when reviewing the D 500 and, again, that kind of slowness that so heavily affected that CD player. I'll tell you about this peculiar aspect later. Now let's concentrate on tonal balance.

The Cambridge A 500 is warm and even a bit "loudness-like" with highs and bass slightly protruding over the midband. Actually, the midrange appears somehow recessed and shy, just to add that touch of smoothness often lacking in entry-level audiophile-oriented products.

The high range appears quite detailed, even if not so harmonically rich, and rather clean, considering the prige tag of this amp. Its major fault lies in the trasition region with the mid range: sometimes the amps sounds edgy in this area or, better, a bit "acid". Not metallic nor harsh, still quite disappointing especially with voices, which is a shame, considering the general character of the unit. In few words, it is not completely coherent and natural.

As said, the midrange is quite below the rest so the "being-there" effect isn't as one would expect. For example, Courtney Pine's sax on "Courtney blows" (Soul II Soul, "Vol II, A new decade" Virgin 91367-2) is not the "leader" of the track, as it should be. That metallic note that helps distinguishing a real sax from a synthetic (electronic) one is completely missing here. Courtney blows...but with this amp it rather seems he's just hitting keys on an electronic keyboard.

Voices are not bad at all, just a bit thinner than usual. Choirs appear to be quite small and way below the soloist. Actually, this amp tends to be smooth even when it shouldn't, for example when playing Bob Dylan's voice. Now, we all know he is not like Pavarotti but his voice has something harsh and peculiar that makes it unique and unforgettable (and fascinating, I'd dare to add). Dylan's songs sung by better vocalists always turn out to be a complete disaster and nonsense, indeed.

Take, for example, "Highway 61 Revisited" (audiophile edition by DCC Compact Classic, CD 24 kt Gold, GZS-1021). Here percussions and cymbals appear clearly above the rest and so the upper portion of Dylan's voice. The "body" of the voice is somehow lacking and, overall, it seems Bob took a shower with Coccolino (Coccolino - Cajolin in French - is a very popular product for washing machines. It adds that silky touch to your underwear :-)).

Silky, too silky, definitely too...silky. Dylan's voice ain't so.

 

As another clarifying example let's take Music where acoustic and electric guitars play a major role. Since the A 500 never wants to appear aggressive, the natural metallic sound of guitar strings becomes smooth and tender...as it shouldn't be.

I'm referring, for example, to "The Major of Simpleton" (XTC, "Oranges and Lemons" Mobile Fidelity OMR UltraDisc 24kt, UDCD 682), a track where the whole harmonic structure is based on Andy Partridge's guitars. The A 500, instead, seems to prefer cymbals and electric bass.

The same happens on "The Loving" (still the same CD) where the quite intricate guitar structure lacks verve and magic. You get the big picture, missing some interesting and intriguing detail here and there.

 

Switching to some Classical Music, the softening effect is self-evident with violins, which appear mellow and silky even when they should scratch...if you've listened to REAL violins in a LIVE environment you know what I mean. Generally, instruments like trombone's and trumpets seeem to lack, again!, that metallic note they have, a note which helps detecting them even during a large orchestra fortissimo.

Once again, even with large orchestra, you get a big picture but when you try to zoom in to detect single sections or instruments you find yourself wondering where are they hiding.

 

A special paragraph is devoted to the bass range. Here the "body" of the Music unexpectedly reappears, thanks to a powerful and gutsy performance in the region between 50 and 150 Hz or so. It is clear, in my opinion, this peculiar aspect, i.e. high concentration of energy in this area, has been one of the designer's main goals and later on I'll try to explain why.

This energy of the bass range decreases rapidly below 50 Hz and it shouldn't come as a surprise the claimed frequency response datum (-3 dB @ 25 Hz!) can be easily confirmed by listening to pipe organ good recordings.

As an example, consider the 30 Hz opening pedal in Strauss's "Also sprach Zarathustra" (Telarc edition, André Previn - Wiener Philharmoniker - CD 80167): to detect it you need to turn the volume so high that the subsequent crescendo becomes unbearably loud.

Generally, the rest of the bass range is rather boomy and often out of control but, these complaints aside, it helps adding muscle and weight to the sonic balance of this integrated amp.

 

Now let me try to explain why this amp sounds the way it does. The Cambridge A 500 RC is an audiophile-oriented amplifier, aimed to buyers on a budget willing to build a decent sounding HiFi system for less.

Predictably, this amp will drive a pair of inexpensive bookshelf loudspeakers and, these, generally, sound a bit shouty and edgy in the mid-high range, so to impress during fast A-B comparison tests.

Plus, these speakers, because of physical limitations (small sized woofer and cabinet) will have a bass range that can't be defined earth-shaking. Introducing you the A 500, the ideal partner for these guys: smoothing the mid-high range and improving the bass near the "punch" region (100 Hz) it helps to rebuild a reasonable tonal balance.

Below 50-60 Hz - where speakers of that kind cease to play :-) - the A500 smartly saves fuel as its efforts into the first octave region would result completely useless.

This choice is indeed a winning one, since the majority of inexpensive bookshelf loudspeakers are of the kind described above.

Anyway, when the loudspeaker has the very same tonal balance, guys you're in for trouble. Indeed, a careful amp-loudspeaker matching has to be taken into serious account before buying.

Also, that aforementioned "acid" note in the mid-high range can perfectly match a similar one from the speakers. For example, I've heard the A 500 sounding pretty unpleasant when matched to a pair of B&W 602 S2 loudspeakers.

 

One thing is for sure, this amp can smartly fascinate - even NOT at a first, quick audition - the beginning audiophile whose ears have ben splitted by lesser consumer gear.

The trained ear, though, can immediately detect the compromises which have been done and find some aspect of the sound of this A 500 quite unpleasant and unsatisfactory in the long run.

This doesn't really matter, actually, since the A 500 RC has precise goals in mind (as explained above) and knows how to reach them.

 

Dynamics

Considering the already cited "smoothing" effect this amp applies to Music, it shouldn't come as a surprise that it lacks energy and violence when required. Oh yes, it can play loud, louder than your neighbourhoods will ever allow you to play :-), but sound pressure isn't everything.

When forced to quickly jump from pianissimo's to fortissimo's the A 500 slows down, hits the brakes and leaves you wondering where the sheer energy of some Musical genre has gone.

Speed and "bass kick" are not among its forte's. Still lively and quite enjoyable with relaxed Music it fails to reproduce a realistic drum kit, for example. When the kick drum is hit, you should be able to hear the attack (the crashing sound of the kick pedal hitting the drum) and subsequently the boom (or thump, depending on the kind of drum and recording technique). With the A 500 the initial attack of the pedal is slow and mixed with the subsequent bass boomy note. Sometimes you start to think the drummer is playing a rubber drum kit.

Nonetheless, the Cambridge A 500 RC is perfectly adequate with modern Music and performs proportionally better than its cousin D 500. Slowness is still there but it is definitely more bearable.

Its slowness becomes pretty evident when comparing the A 500 with similarly priced amps gifted by a more "muscular" performance (Rotel and NAD come to mind).

To crarify a bit more, I'm referring to the sheer violence you need to adequately reproduce tracks like (guess what?) "TNT" (AC/DC "Live" Atco Records 7567-92215-2) where the power chords played by Young brothers' guitars should literally explode into your listening room.

Don't think hard rock is useless to evaluate HiFi components: with good recorded discs it can be as tricky as symphonic Classical Music. You just need to pick up the good recordings ("Load" from Metallica is another brilliant example)

 

In the microdynamics department the Cambridge A 500 RC performs reasonably adequate, at least with small acoustic ensembles and easy listening jazz or blues. The attitude of hiding a portion of the midrange doesn't certainly help here and when Music becomes "intricate" the A 500 tends to create a sonic amalgam that is quite hard to analyze.

 

3D soundstaging

Thanks to the behaviour in the mids, the depth of the 3D soundstage is surprisingly big. Indeed, you get a 3D image which is quite large and unexpectedly deep, considering the price tag pf this amp. The height of the virtual scene is sufficient and certainly adequate to what one expects from this kind of budget-oriented units.

The real problem is the focus of this quite large image. "Blurred" is the first adjective that comes to mind when trying to locate instruments and singers into the 3D scene. Even left-right separation is questionable since "ping-pong" effects are not so fast and precisely located as they should be. No, I'm not saying "ping pong" effects are something good, these are actually a silly heritage from the early days of stereo, but they are tremendously useful to detect channel separation problems. Perhaps the real culprit isn't channel separation (which I assume to be good) but the natural slowness of the amp, being unable to instantaneously follow crisp variations of level (fast left-right moving sounds, for example).

Anyway, please don't forget I'm talking of a 400 $/Euro amp, we can't ask to get everything right at this price. More expensive amps do exist for some good reason ;-)

 

Some advice

Nothing to remark: the Cambridge A 500 is easy to use and user-friendly, it can drive even low-sensitivity speakers (though output binding post suggest a minimum load of 6 ohms) and it plays right without the urge of finding the perfect position, the perfect feet or cables.

I'd suggest to use a good mains cable (of the DIY kind, for example) and adequate speaker cables and interconnects (better if fast and dry in the bass). As for feet, try using something softer (I've successfully used SonicDesign damping feet. The pre-out output is, in my humble opinion, completely useless since when an upgrade is needed, one should think to buy a new amp.

The Cambridge A 500 is quite silent (no buzzes or noises when on) and it just makes a slight "bump" when switching it on and off. This doesn't harm the speakers.

 

Complaints

As usual, the cabinet is quite resonant and wimpy, the binding posts are too close one to the other and, even worse, the "suggested" ones for monowiring are in the second row (that below the first one :-)).

This makes connecting cables a bit trickier than usual. I'd suggest to use the first row even for monowiring, since the two sets of binding posts are connected in parallel via a metallic strip. If the first row sounds worse (according to Cambridge designers) why should one use biwiring and degrade the signal feeding the tweeters (or the woofers, depending on your choice)? Funny question.

The SRC-01 remote control is totally useless if one doesn't own a complete Cambridge system. After all, it can only control the volume of the amp.

The phono stage is available as optional (at an extra cost) and the headphones output jack is missing.

 

Sonically, the Cambridge A 500 does nothing to hide its personality. A bit too soft and warm to suit my taste, it lacks authority and slam, depth of bass and focus. It is a bit inconsistent but it can work as an ideal partner into budget systems as explained above.

Considering the high power output (65 watts per channel) and the features it offers, I'd consider the quality/price ratio quite high.

 

Conclusion

The Cambridge A 500 RC is an integrated amp that can sound quite differently from its competitors. If you're looking for a warm and relaxed performer for a budget system, you should take the A 500 RC into serious account. If you're looking for a dry, fast and crisp "power generator" for your speakers, you'd better look elsewhere.

 

In case you were wondering why I titled this review "The Major of Simpleton" (besides being one of the tracks used during tests) here's an explaination that comes directly from the text of that song:

 

...when their logic grows cold and all thinking gets done, you'll be warm in the arms of the Major of Simpleton.

 

 

 

****************

****************

****************

****************

****************

 

NAD 320 BEE

 

 

www.hifichoice.co.uk

Date Printed: 02 June 2004

 

 

 

 

NAD's latest budget stereo amp gets some added BEE sting

 

 

BEE, or Bjorn Erik Edvardsen in full, has a lot to answer for. Half the hi-fi nutballs in the country caught the audiophile disease because of a product that he created, the NAD 3020: a seminal amp that turned a generation on to hi-fi.

 

The new C320BEE was also created by Erik, as he's known in the fjords. Like its ancestor this is a grey-finished no-nonsense integrated amp with line-only inputs and a single set of speaker outputs mounted above NAD's trademark soft clipping switch - which we left on for this appraisal.

 

The BEE is a bit like what Marantz would call an SE version - it's an upgrade on its predecessor, the plain C320. Changes include an increase in rated power from 40 to 50 watts per channel, improved tone control

accuracy and the use of a better

quality volume control. Frills have been added in the guise of multiroom

installation-friendly infrared connection port in and outputs for genuine remote control and a 12V trigger output for partnering components. The black and white remote is an attractive design which will also operate NAD source components.

 

Performance

Of the two main speaker options used for this group the NAD is clearly more at home with the more modest, though nonetheless revealing, Cyrus CL50s. Initial listening was via the B&Ws but their especially revealing top end proved a little too much for what is after all a modestly priced amp.

 

It sounds as though Erik was aware of the C320's high frequency limitations when he created this version because there's a little extra bass to smooth things out, a good alternative to rolling off the treble as is often done with budget designs. This balance suits most compact speakers well as they can be a bit lean in the bass.

 

There's no doubting the energy and enthusiasm that the NAD brings - give it almost any piece of music, even a relaxed one like the Bach guitar and it'll dig out the life and vivacity. Laid back music sounds engaging and higher energy stuff has real 'oomph'. There's plenty of power too, the amp digging deep into the bass on heavy tracks and driving them with gusto. And it does a decent job of subtlety - next to an HK AV amp it sounds natural, even lyrical, with good image depth.

 

The C320BEE delivers plenty for its thoroughly modest asking price, though the competition is hotter than when the original 3020 first hit the streets. It's worth spending the extra on the Arcam or Rotel if you're able, but if your budget will stretch no further it's a lot of entertainment for the money.

 

FEATURES

 

Remote control, tone controls, 5 line inputs, 2 tape loops

 

 

*****************

 

STEREOPHILE

 

If I were smart and well-funded enough, I'd leave writing alone and design and build a mass-market solid-state integrated amplifier that could sell for only $300 and still sound better than everything out there, except for perhaps the very, very best. It would have tone controls, a channel-reverse switch, a mono button, and a phono section. Each channel (there would be two) would have its own volume knob, these being tied together with a rubber belt allowing just enough slip for balance adjustments. I'd put the whole kit and caboodle in a nice-looking box and market it direct to college students and people just on their way into or out of the job market.

I'm too busy right now: too many deadlines, too much snow to shovel, too much grass to mow, and hey, those chimps-in-a-bar movies don't download themselves, you know. But nonaudiophile friends and family members keep asking me to recommend good two-channel music systems. With that in mind, I'm on a quest to find the best cheap amp I can; to start out, I've rounded up a couple of likely lads.

 

First there's the NAD C320BEE, which, according to its manufacturer, carries the torch for their well-loved 3020 integrated amp of the late 1970s and early '80s—this because both products bear the imprint of designer Bjorn Erik Edvardsen (hence the "BEE" designation—and you thought I was trying to sneak in another reference to Napoleon!). The C320BEE looks just like any other budget component from NAD, with its olive-drab faceplate and forest-green power button. It has defeatable tone controls—yes!—but no mono switch. It does have a balance knob, however, and for whatever reason, the C320's balance adjustment is one of the least intrusive I've used: It did little other than move the soundstage this way or that, which is a darned blessing.

 

 

 

The NAD weighs a little over 14 lbs, delivers 50Wpc, and has inputs for five line-level sources in addition to two tape loops. I got all excited when I saw that one of the input selections was marked Disc, but that turned out to be just another line-level input, for DVDs or something; the C320BEE doesn't have a phono section. (NAD offers a companion phono preamp, the PP-1, for $130.) Removable links allow the user to separate the preamp and power-amp sections from one another; the former has an output impedance of 80 ohms, while the latter's input impedance is 20k ohms. There are no preamp output jacks that would allow the C320 to be used with a subwoofer, however—so if you want to use a sub with this amp, it must be drivable by an amplifier-level signal (as are my current favorite subs, the REL Stadium and the Linn Sizmik). The US price of the NAD C320BEE is $399.

 

That's right: $399. In light of that, the C320's clean layout and excellent build quality come as nothing less than a shock. The transformer is a toroid, all the output devices and voltage regulators are mounted on generously sized heatsinks, and all the C320's active parts are discrete. Solid-copper bus bars abound. Connectors are gold-plated and sturdy without being silly about it.

 

Your $399 also gets you NAD's multi-product remote handset, and while it doesn't do everything you might wish for (there's no balance control on the remote, for instance), it at least lets you switch in and out of standby mode, select inputs, and turn the C320's motorized volume knob, all from what I assume is the comfort of your listening seat. I almost said the handset lacks a Mute button, but I just recently found it, hiding in plain sight between the volume buttons.

 

The NAD C320BEE sounded surprisingly good at the basics of playing music—listening to this amp was consistently more an exercise in fulfillment than frustration. Driving the Quad ESL-989s or the "se" version of Spendor's little S3/5, the C320's sound was free of noise and artificial texture. It could sound colorful, given the right source—stringed instruments on Ricky Skaggs' well-recorded Bluegrass Rules (CD, Rounder CD-0801) and Ancient Tones (CD, Skaggs SKFR-CD1001) albums sounded warm and real, as did the strings and woodwinds in some of my favorite small-scale classical recordings—and its low-frequency performance was at least darn good, being not anemic or spastic or slow.

 

Once up and running for a minimum of 20 minutes, the C320 reproduced stereo recordings with excellent depth. Try that first Leonard Cohen album, Songs of Leonard Cohen, for example (CD, Columbia CK 9533), and listen to how pleasantly distant the brushed snare sounds in "So Long, Marianne," and how realistic the space is between Lenny and his demure backing singers.

 

The C320 also preserved the music's sense of flow, regardless of style. I've become rather sensitive to this in recent years, but if you want a fairly obvious example of what I'm talking about, try any rock record that has a tambourine playing along with the beat for at least a couple of bars at a time. (Examples abound: the chorus of The Band's "Tears of Rage," Let's Active's "Waters Part," almost any pre-Revolver Beatles track.) All you have to do is listen to the tambourine and see if you can picture a living, breathing, rhythmically imperfect human being playing it, and not a machine. The latter will sound precise and soulless, the former organic, believable, and probably more convincing.

 

Speaking of pop, the NAD did a great job playing every track on one of my favorite albums from last year, Built to Spill's Ancient Melodies of the Future (Warner Bros. 47954-2). It got across the buzz'n'chunk of the opening number, "Strange," in an engaging and convincing way—lots of color, no fatigue—and managed to make the bass-and-drum combination sound impactful and fast at the same time. Ditto the same album's "Fly Around My Pretty Little Miss" (not the same as the fiddle tune of the same name), which also scooted right along through the C320. On the down side, a better amp—such as my old Naim 110—will make the neat synthesizer and slide-guitar glissando in "Alarmed" sound more dramatic.

 

Also on the down side, the NAD didn't sound quite big or substantial enough to do justice to such recordings as Pierre Boulez's of Mahler's Symphony 6 (CD, DG 445 835-2). Turning up the C320 made it louder, to a point, but the sound lacked scale—and better amps give me more of a sense of flesh and blood on this and similar discs. Don't get me wrong—the C320 is beyond good for what it is. But, based on my experience, if you want to hear Boulez's Mahler with all the drive it has to give, you need a Naim or Exposure or 47 Lab amp or something like that; if you want all that and all the natural color and beauty there is (as in those wonderful little woodwind chorales scattered throughout the first movement of the Sixth), you need a Linn Klimax, a really good single-ended triode, or maybe something even more exotic.

 

I don't feel the least bit silly putting a $399 integrated amp in the same system with a $3500 SACD player, $8000 speakers, and God only knows how many dollars' worth of cables. I do, however, feel silly being so critical of something that performs better in that setting than I have any right to expect. The C320BEE is a really nice little amp, and totally worthy of whatever laurel leaves the 3020 has shaken from its head. (I know because I used to own one—and I've owned the 1020 preamp that was derived from it, too.) The NAD is musically and sonically accomplished, and is probably about as close to organic sound as you can get for this kind of money.

 

 

***********************

***********************

***********************

***********************

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

pzdrw

 

soso

[pawelm]

The Cambridge A 500 RC is an integrated amp that can sound quite differently from its competitors. If you're looking for a warm and relaxed performer for a budget system, you should take the A 500 RC into serious account

 

He he he cieple i relaksacyjne brzmienie he he he albo nie znam angielskiego albo jestem gluchy jak pien, albo, co jest najbardziej prawdopodobne, CA nie napedzil testowanych kolumn.

[soso]

Pawelm,

 

Trzeba czytac wszystko - pisza, ze CA 500 jest malo dynamiczny w tym sensie, ze przy cichym odsluchu nadaje plasko. Oczywiscie, odkrecajac kurek jest glosno ale to nie znaczy, ze wciaz nie bedzie plasko. Bedzie. Dynamika to nie odpowiednik glosnego siania ale zdolnosc do pokazywania kontrastow glosnosci. I CA 500 tego nie ma.

 

Zreszta o tym nudnym brzmieniu CA 500 pisali takze w What Hi-Fi? Nie angazuje czy jak to tam formulowali.

 

Ale nie przejmuj sie. To tylko durne recenzje.

 

pzdrw

 

soso

[soso]

Dynamics

Considering the already cited "smoothing" effect this amp applies to Music, it shouldn't come as a surprise that it lacks energy and violence when required. Oh yes, it can play loud, louder than your neighbourhoods will ever allow you to play :-), but sound pressure isn't everything.

When forced to quickly jump from pianissimo's to fortissimo's the A 500 slows down, hits the brakes and leaves you wondering where the sheer energy of some Musical genre has gone.

[pawelm]

Wiec jeszcze raz napisze cos co jest poparte moim 3letnim doswiadczeniem

Przy kolumnach Totem dzwiek byl dynamiczny przy wiekszej glosnosci ( cicgho sie tego nie dalo sluchac to prawda)....i bylo w miare malo detali ( przestrzen miezla ) po zmianie kolumn okazalo sie ze CA nawet przy cichym odsluchu graja zywo ( ale obecne moje kolumny maja prawie 90 dB i sa 6 Ohm). Relaksacyjny ospaly i 'cieply' dzwiek CA mial z AE Evo 3...ale to dlatego ze ich po prostu nie napedzil. To gralo zle, co nie oznacza ze taki charakter ma CA !Ten wzmak nie jest uniwersalny i potrzebuje skutecznych kolumienek. To troche tak jak bys probowal napedzic jakies 3 drozne AF o skutecznosci 86 -87 dB podstawowym Creekiem?? Mial bys pryk a nie dzwiek...... i tyle o wyzszosci swiat Bozego Narodzenia nad swietami Wielkiej Nocy ( obu o tradycjach zreszta poganskich ;-)

[AskMe]

Podzielam uwagi koleguf o koniecznosci odsluchu obu urzadzen. Proponuje w rozwazaniach w tym przedziale cenowym uwzglednic jeszcze wzmacniacze stereofoniczne Yamaha. Znam takich, ktorzy je cenia wysoko. Nieco drozej, ale warte grzechu to HK 670 od Harmana i RA02 od Rotela.

Z moich odsluchow - stawiam na NAD...

Pozdrufka

AskMe - Daniel Duda

gg191341

[rolf001]

polecam creek 4330, zawsze bedzie bardziej audiofilski od reszty do 2000.............warunek to podłączenie go do gniazdan z uziemieniem.....bez tego nie jest w stanie pokazać swoich możliwości....

[zyzio]

Creek owszem, ale pod warunkiem że nie słucha się rocka i nie posiada trudnych kolumn, nie jest to wzmak dla każdego a recenzje z kolorowych pisemek to bzdury....

[Arek]

no to i ja dorzucę parę durnych testów

 

Ukryta Zawartość

Zaloguj się, aby zobaczyć treść.

Zaloguj się, aby zobaczyć treść (możliwe logowanie za pomocą )

Ukryta Zawartość

Zaloguj się, aby zobaczyć treść.

Zaloguj się, aby zobaczyć treść (możliwe logowanie za pomocą )

 

a skoro juz sie zrobił plebiscyt - stawiam na CA. Zdecydowanie

pod warunkiem dobrze dobranych kolumn, kabli, i po min. 1h rozgrzewki - zagra naprawdę bardzo dobrze.....

Ukryta Zawartość

Zaloguj się, aby zobaczyć treść.

Zaloguj się, aby zobaczyć treść (możliwe logowanie za pomocą )

Ukryta Zawartość

Zaloguj się, aby zobaczyć treść.

Zaloguj się, aby zobaczyć treść (możliwe logowanie za pomocą )

[iwo]

a ja zrobilem cos, za co audiofile mnie wyklna zapewne... otoz sluchalem CA A500, NAD 320BEE i Yamahy AX-596 i kupilem Yamahe. Ta sama cena, a moim zdaniem gra o niebo lepiej. Jedyny sensowny konkurent to byl Rotel 2, ale byl drozszy. No ale to oczywiscie na moje ucho, a nie jestem audiofilem:-PPP

[soso]

Arek,

 

skoro masz CA to nie dziwie sie, zes zadowolony. Ciekaw bylbym jednak Twojej opini po pol roku obcowania z NAD a nastepnie po powrocie do CA. Mysle, ze wowczas Twoja opinia bylaby bardziej wiarygodna.

 

Wlasciciele fiatow 126 takze sa zadowolenie i potrafia z niechecia patrzec na np. Tico. Rzecz jednak w tym, ze po przesiadce na tico nie beda juz nigdy mieli ochoty na 126. To jest temat naszej rozmowy, imho oczywiscie.

 

pzdrw

 

soso

[pawelm]

Widze soso ze spodobal Ci sie moj przyklad z samochodami ;-))

Pozdr

[pawelm]

do Iwo

CA z Twoimi Bawersami musial grac koszmarnie ;-)

[iwo]

heh, nikt mu nie kazal, ale rzeczywiscie, gral koszmarnie.....

[Arek]

iwo

wybrałeś tak jak nakazały Ci wrażenia z odsłuchu - i o to chodzi

 

soso

wiem jaki dzwięk lubię. Uważam że 2 sesje po 2-3 godziny - oba wzmaki w tym samym pomieszczeniu, kablach, kolumnach, + moje płyty "testowe" które b.dobrze znam - wystarczą, aby określić który wzmak bardziej mi pasuje, a który mniej

nie piszę że A500 jest lepszy od NADa. Nie piszę , że jest odwrotnie. Mam to gdzieś. Wybrałem ten wzmak, który bardzej pasował moim preferencjom. I jestem bardzo zadowolony

[soso]

Arek, nie denerwuj sie. Pasuje to pasuje. OK. Masz gdzies inne opinie - widocznie tak byc musi w Twojej sytuacji.

 

 

 

pzdrw

 

soso

[Ozzie]

Wiadomo ze kazda pliszka..... ale obecnie rowniez mam CA A500 do ktorego podpiete mam kolumienki ELAC 91 S II (90 dB / 2.83 V / 1 m / 4 Ohm) i raczej nie wydaje mi sie ze gra ospale....

A zreszta jeden woli zywca a drugi okocimia.... w czym problem ... trzeba sprobowac i samemu stwierdzic co bardziej "smakuje" ;-)

Pozdrawiam

[pawelm]

No wlasnie w czym problem

 

Ja jako byly wlasciciel mam wyrobiona opinie o CA

 

Natomiast bardzo zastanawia mnie soso. Jak czegos nie lubie to raz napisze i basta. A tutaj jakis strasznie uparty soso ciagle wypisuje, ba nawet twierdzi ze zwolennicy CA sa nieracjonalni ( no bo kto normalny z Tico by sie przesiadl do fiata 126 p)

Hmm soso moze bys cos napisal w o mnie i zaprzestal przesladowania CA ;-)

[soso]

Sorry, juz nie bede. Ale tak poza wszystkim to tylko odpowiadam na kierowane do mnie zwroty.

 

 

pzdrw

 

 

soso

[Arek]

soso

 

nie denerwuję się , spoko :-)

i nic nie musi być - moja sytuacja jest moim wyborem. Akurat ceny wzmaków były praktycznie takie same.

Zresztą, po Twojej opinii np. RA02 Rotela widzę że lubisz inne granie.

I rozumiem, dlaczego nie leży Ci A500 = OK, Twoje prawo. Tylko po co ten sarkazm wobec osób które uważają inaczej

pozdrawiam

Arek