NAD or Musical Fidelity for 2 Channel

[Polkitup2]

I currently have a NAD C370 integrated but am looking for something with HT Bypass. I have had my eye on the Musical Fidelity A3.5 but have not been able to hear one. Has anyone had the opportunity to compare NAD with the Musical Fidelity? Just wondering if I would be making a lateral or vertical change in sound quality if I went with the Musical Fidelity A3.5

[AsSiMiLaTeD]

I've compared both in home (along with Cambridge Audio). I had the Music Hall A25.2 and the NAD and CA around the same price. I preferred the MF over the other two, so I kept it and then bought another for my other 2 channel system.

I've moved since then, but I'll go back and see if I can find my review notes. One thing that I do remember, and the main reason I kept the MF, is that the MF sounded better at lower volumes.

EDIT: Wow, completely misread the title and then continued using the wrong name for my equipment throughout my post. My stuff is Music Hall, not Musical Fidelity (although I do have a Musical Fidelity X-CAN v3 and X-DAC in transit to me as I write this). However, my impressions and comparisons were with my Music Hall gear. I've no experience with Musical Fidelity as of yet.

[Polkitup2]

Thanks for the edit, I appreciate the effort.

[AndyGwis]

I have owned my Musical Fidelity A3.2 (similar to the newer, more powerful 3.5) for maybe about a year. I love it! Looks great, very musical, GREAT build quality. All around, a solid performing piece of gear. Full function remote, very musical, powerful, etc. Great at low and high volumes. Plenty of bass, even out of my Thiel 1.2s. Probably my favorite piece of gear ever (but also my most expensive).

I have had many Nad amps over the past couple years as well. Solid performers, great value, but I didn't think they were quite in the same league as the Musical Fidelity 3.2. Also, not nearly as good looking.

Disclaimer: I like shiny things and my IQ is 78.

[unc2701]

The A3.5 kinda falls in a weird spot in my opinion. The X-150 has almost the same power supply (but no HT bypass) and the A5 is hands down, waaaaay better. If you didn't need the HT, I'd say go with the X-150.

Have you considered the krell kav-300i? You can set one input to HT bypass via an internal jumper & on the used market it's about the same cost as the A3.5 Unfortunately, it's also got a "questionable" power supply.

[Zero]

Polkitup2,

A number of years ago, I made a transition from the NAD C370 integrated to the Musical Fidelity A3.2 integrated. Here's my personal break down;

The NAD C370 is an excellent integrated amplifier that may be one of the better buys on the used market. The 370 is relatively smooth for an affordable transistor amp, has gobs of power and has a respectable amount of resolution. Best of all, its a great match with a large variety of loudspeakers.

The Musical Fidelity A 3.2 is a very handsome unit that adds a bit more flavor to the sound. The presentation is darker, the bass has more weight, the highs have more sparkle, and the mids are much warmer. While I never felt that the A 3.2 was a tremendous leap over the C370, I nonetheless thought the extra expense was worthwhile.

The one area the A3.2 was lacking in contrast to the C370 was horsepower. It's dynamic handling was not as effortless as the 370. Provided your speakers are no less efficient than 87db, and you don't plan on bringing down hanging objects from the walls - it is a forgivable compromise.

The latest A 3.5 integrated, in my opinion, is a step backwards. While its presentation seems cleaner and less obviously colored, I also feel that it fails on conveying the message of the music in the way the A 3.2 and the A3 does. If you were to step into an affordable MF integrated, I would look into the A5.

There are many other options to explore. The best part about reaching an end to the means is the adventure itself. Good luck!

[Polkitup2]

Thanks guys. I am thinking if I want to make the step it should be the A5 or Krell 400xi, or Rogue Audio, or ???

[AndyGwis]

The A300 from MF can often be found for cheaper than the A3.2, and offers a bit more power, if I'm not mistaken. Maybe add that to your list.

It does have a gold knob, but I don't think it looks bad at all.

[Chicomoralessxm]

Just a question what about the CA840? Just an idea. Not sure if it has ht bypass though i'd have 2 check on that........

[dorokusai]

I'm a NAD fan but sonically the MF has the edge, no question. It has much better dynamics but you can't lose either way.

Aesthetics wise, NAD is a shy wallflower and the MF is a pimped out whore.

[Chicomoralessxm]

dang...........not thats an analogy

[beardog03]

once again, Doro is quoteworthy !

and while I do enjoy a wallflower on ocassion, I am definatly into pimped ot hoes !!

[Midnite Mick]

once again, Doro is quoteworthy !

and while I do enjoy a wallflower on ocassion, I am definatly into pimped ot hoes !!

Who isn't?

[markmarc]

I've heard both side by side, the MF digs deeper and is clearer/cleaner IMHO. But, it is more $$. If possible, do yourself a favor and audition both in your rig, it's the best way to know what will suit you best.

[dorokusai]

I would swear that there was someone who didn't like the MF in their rig....anyone remember who?

[Zero]

That person is likely me. :p

[know nothing]

I listened fairly critically to the 370, A3.5 and A5 through B&W 603s and CM7s and some Paradigm towers (don't recall the model). I agree with most of the other posts hear, the MFs sounded better across the board, although the Paras sounded pretty good in combination with the NAD. The Musical Fidelity gear is just a lot more sophisticated and nuanced than the seemingly muted presentation of the NAD. The A5 is a noticeable step up from the A3.5.

Correct me if I am wrong, doesn't the NAD have a plastic face plate? That's a problem for me, but may not be for you.

Aside: I really liked the voicing, soundstage and looks of the new B&W CM7 floor standers. The synergy between these speakers and the MF A5 CDP and amp was special.

[AndyGwis]

Anything that comes with a 1/4" or thicker aluminum faceplate is a nice piece of gear in my book.

My Theta Pro has like a 1/3" thick aluminum front (maybe even thicker). No wonder their DACs sell for $1500+ retail.

My MF looks great and has a wonderful asthetic appeal to it as well.

[Emlyn]

I would swear that there was someone who didn't like the MF in their rig....anyone remember who?

Isig sold a MF A5 integrated because it didn't have good synergy with his SDA-SRS.

[beardog03]

I am starting to get the MF itch again..!!

I wonder how it will mate with my current setup?