NAD integrated vs pre/power

[Barnard]

Hi guys, what you think about the NAD integrated 375BEE versus the pre/power combo, 165/275BEE? At over 1000$ more both have same power output, will there be much of a sound difference driving RF7 II speakers? Is this good choice for these speakers or do I go to Cambridge 851 series, at a higher price?

[MookieStl]

I cant comment on all of your points, but I just got a NAD integrated amp last night and was extremely impressed. It is a step down from the one you propose (356BEE) but at 80 wpc pumping through my Belles, I was more than pleased. Only got to play with it for a few hours but have had plenty of different components that underwhelmed, this one was a definite hit. Separates give you flexibility for upgrades but my amp and they one your looking at both have two sets of pre outs and one pre in, so you can loop additional amps or simply add a different amp with ease. Happy shopping. Great choice for two channel listening.

Edited January 20, 2016 by MookieStl

[jason str]

Never heard a bad NAD product but have not heard all of them either.

 

Always clean, warm & detailed.

[richieb]

I've read and spoke with a dealer that dropped the Cambridge line about their reliability. I have no personal experience and it may be heresay, just passin' what I've learned. NAD's been around a long, long time.

[Barnard]

I was pretty much sold on the NAD but just found a the Anthem 225 integrated... Anyone have any opinions??

Edited January 20, 2016 by Barnard

[willland]

Hi guys, what you think about the NAD integrated 375BEE versus the pre/power combo, 165/275BEE? At over 1000$ more both have same power output, will there be much of a sound difference driving RF7 II speakers? Is this good choice for these speakers or do I go to Cambridge 851 series, at a higher price?

 

From my understanding, the C375BEE is basically a 165BEE/275BEE all in one chassis.

 

Never heard a bad NAD product but have not heard all of them either. Always clean, warm & detailed.

 

Same goes for me.  All NAD gear I own and have owned was rock solid.   As a matter of fact, the T773 AVR(without external amplification) I own has driven my RF-63 system easily with great dynamics.

 

Is this good choice for these speakers or do I go to Cambridge 851 series, at a higher price?

 

I can't say which would drive your RF-7II's better but I have and do own both brands and am very pleased with the results.

 

Bill

[willland]

I was pretty much sold on the NAD but just found a the Anthem 225 integrated... Anyone have any opinions??

 

I like Anthem also.  Very neutral and detailed amps.

 

I think between the three you mentioned(NAD, CA, Anthem), there is not a wrong choice.

 

Bill

[jason str]

A good upgrade from the NAD would be the Marantz reference series PM-14S1 but it will cost a bit more.

 

Info

[willland]

Barnard,

Where in the price range do the integrated amp offerings from Yamaha(A-S1000, A-S2000, A-S1100, A-S2100) fall? Any of those mentioned will have an easy time with your RF-7II's.

Bill

[Barnard]

Sure is a hard choice, already own a Yamaha receiver so wanted something different, even Yamaha may be good. I was hoping someone would say the NAD separates would be a clear winner over all the integrateds, but maybe that's not the case. The Anthem has got a lot more power than all the others, but have read about some volume control issues...

[Barnard]

This is a big upgrade from my old 5.1 system, but will remain a 2 chanel.. The reason I thought about the NAD separates was the clarity of a separate power amp and if I thought I needed it could add a second later on and run bridged. Or would that power just be too much and wasted with the RF7s

[MookieStl]

Sure is a hard choice, already own a Yamaha receiver so wanted something different, even Yamaha may be good. I was hoping someone would say the NAD separates would be a clear winner over all the integrateds, but maybe that's not the case. The Anthem has got a lot more power than all the others, but have read about some volume control issues...

There is seldom a clear winner. As stated ealier, you have narrowed it down to quality options that simply insures that you don't have a bad choice in the mix. That is what I tried to do and how I ended up buying the NAD. The others are also good choices. Anyone one that says there is only one clear choice is kidding themselves or trying to sell you something.

[jason str]

I have no ties to NAD or any other electronic goods but do think NAD is a step above, at least to my ears.

 

May not be full of options among other things but I'm purely speaking of sound quality.

 

I rarely recommend something i have not heard unless it comes recommended by others with similar musical tastes.

 

Personally i think Yamaha products sound kind of sterile but others may like that sound in their system.

 

The only way to be sure its good for your tastes is to go out and hear them and even then once you have it in your room it may just sound different than you expected but at least you get a taste of it all.

 

If all else fails flip a coin.

[willland]

This is a big upgrade from my old 5.1 system, but will remain a 2 chanel.. The reason I thought about the NAD separates was the clarity of a separate power amp and if I thought I needed it could add a second later on and run bridged. Or would that power just be too much and wasted with the RF7s

I can see that reasoning.

Bill

[jason str]

Power is never wasted but simply not used + overhead is a good thing.

[MookieStl]

Power is never wasted but simply not used + overhead is a good thing.

Agree, and under head is a bad thing!

Don't forget the diminishing return on adding wattage. You net out 3db when the watts are doubled and 3db is just noticeable. So to jump from 100 watts to 150 sounds like a lot but does not net you out a huge increase. Good to have if you need it though. There is also the added bonus of bogus ratings from certain manufacturers. Your finalist all produce excellent gear.

[robert_kc]

I own an NAD C375BEE and Klipsch RF-7 II, but they’re in different systems.   (My NAD C375BEE is in a system with Klipsch Palladium P-37F.)   I’m mostly a tube guy;  I use the NAD C375BEE for movies.  With that said, I’m satisfied with the NAD C375BEE.  One nice feature is that you can engage or disable the tone controls from the remote control, which can be useful when the Klipsch’s high frequencies need to be tamed (i.e., for a bright recording).

 

What type of music do you listen to?  How large is your room?  How loud do you like to listen?

 

When driving RF-7 IIs, I doubt that you will realize any benefit from more power than the NAD C375BEE.  Of course all watts aren’t created equal.  I own more than 2 dozen amps.  Mostly tube amps, which range from 8wpc to 75wpc.   My most powerful solid state amp is rated at 270wpc.   In a moderate size room, with reasonable listening levels, my 8wpc SET tube amp (same price as NAD C375BEE) will drive the RF-7IIs with ample volume, dynamics, and bass.  And sound beautiful.  (I mostly listen to classical music and opera, which often have far greater dynamic range than pop music.)  

 

Bottom line, if you want a solid state integrated amp, the NAD C375BEE is a good unit.   On the other hand, if you engage in serious listening to music involving natural instruments (e.g., classical), I suggest that you consider driving the RF-7 IIs with tubes.  With a tube amp you can “voice” the sound quality by changing tubes, enabling you to optimize how the amp mates with the speakers.   And, if you buy a well-regarded vintage tube amp, you can always recoup your investment.  Or, new made-in-the-USA SET tube amps are available in the price range you’re considering.  I can provide more info (and pics of my systems) if you’re interested.  (I’m not trying to sell you anything, and I have no affiliation with any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.)

 

Hope this helps …