NAD or B&K 2 channel amps?
- Thread starter gentlejax
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
In general I believe the B&K is a "higher end" amp than the NAD, hense the price. I have had the pleasure of listening g to several B&K amps and found them very pleasing. No direct experience with the NAD. For what it's worth I precive the B&K as a "better" (if you will) brand. I could not consider them in the same class if all specs similar.
I once owned the NAD 2700. It is a very fine amplifier with little "solid state harshness" and is of course very powerful. I recommend the 2700. As it has output level controls, no preamplifier is needed if you use only one line level source. I know nothing of B&K amps.
lol so score is even with both posters not having owned both but favoring the one brand they had. Id like more opinions before i decide to go after one. I like the fact the NAD is bridgeable I beleive BUT the build of the B&K looks more substantial. this from online pics, I also like the gain controls on the front of the NAD BUT which sounds the best at higher levels ? thats the question. I think either can sound as good as my adcom 545ii
Ah a comparison I can speak of exactly
Have had , and do have some adcom amps and the B&K amps will be more acurate and more detailed and a less "warm" in nature with faster bass and cleaner highs. All things being to same I wouldn't hesitate taking a B&K over an adcom for a second. As stated above with the NAD it is in general and a perception. I know people that have gone from both adcom and NAD to B&K but never heard from B&K to NAD. Just saying. That's my opinion and advise.
Have had , and do have some adcom amps and the B&K amps will be more acurate and more detailed and a less "warm" in nature with faster bass and cleaner highs. All things being to same I wouldn't hesitate taking a B&K over an adcom for a second. As stated above with the NAD it is in general and a perception. I know people that have gone from both adcom and NAD to B&K but never heard from B&K to NAD. Just saying. That's my opinion and advise.
The 2140 is an outstanding performer with a very nice non fatiguing sound. You can play that amp loud without it breaking a sweat and it also sounds great playing loud. I had one playing my stacked Mac ML1c's wired in parallel for most of the summer. It sounded as smooth as any amp I own and it drove them effortlessly. I'm not a fan of anything NAD as every single unit I've brought home over the years has had a problem somewhere.
Jayrosc
Super Member
Just to make it worse, I'll throw in some semi-useful info. I have a couple NAD products, the closest to what you are considering being the NAD 7600, which has within it the 2600 amp. Real powerful. I've run all types of speakers through it too....4ohms, 8 ohms, 6 ohms, whatever. This unit cannot be killed, and it has so much power (and headroom) that I've never had a problem listening to anything at top volume....like right now....Boston's first album coming through loud and clear from some jbl 4312's. My take on the NAD sound? Not brittle at all, leaning more toward a smooth tube sound than anything else. I guess I wonder what pre amp you are using. that should help you decide, right? And, of course, I know NOTHING about B&K!
Having restored and upgraded a NAD 2700 (for a fellow AKer), it's pretty well made inside. The only thing that can let it down are the speaker relays and the smaller electrolytic capacitors. NAD were one of the manufacturers that had problems with Chhsi capacitors, but don't feel bad, so did some of the big players in the computer world such as Dell, IBM, Apple and HP. I would have no hesitation buying one, but then I have the ability to restore it.
I have no experience of the other amps mentioned, but I would like to hear one one day. Why not buy both, and give us a review?
Lee.
I have no experience of the other amps mentioned, but I would like to hear one one day. Why not buy both, and give us a review?
Lee.