Quote:
Originally posted by TheeeChosenOne
So what % of sound difference between the two? I know this is subjective, but I'm interested in your opinion. |
That's a tough thing to quantify. Let me put it this way:
1) When you listen to the Model Two, you are immediately surprised at how good he sound is for such a small system. The only glaring fault is the pronounced lower midrange; however, as I mentioned in several short reviews I've posted on the M2, for most radio listening this actually makes listening less fatiquing.
2) When you listen to the Alpha Minis *next* to the Model Two, you are immediately surprised at how much better the Alphas sound
Quote:
| Did you use the subwoofer with the Model 2's--that brings the sound a 1/2 octave down. |
I use the Model Two without the sub. I've heard the sub, and while it's not really a true sub, it does add a bit of upper bass. However, it doesn't really take much of the lower-mid emphasis away, so I didn't really think it was a bit improvement.
Quote:
| BTW, me thinks if I were in the market for that NAD receiver, I'd get Axiom speakers like the $275 M3 or M2 over PSB. The M3 pro reviews put it as Product of the Year (soundstage.com) (said to compare with $1000 speakers). Comparisons of this speaker size between Axioms to B&W, PSB, Mission, Paradigm from reviewers on boards hand their preference to Axiom. I'm just reporting--don't shoot the messenger. |
No problem
However, when you consider that the Axioms are $250 - $300, while the Alpha Minis are $99-$132, I don't know if you'll find that the difference in sound (assuming you prefer the Axioms, which is not a sure thing), to be worth the extra money. In my experience, you really have to go up to $400-$500 to get something that makes you go "wow, these are way better than the Alphas." In my opinion, in this range (sub-$300 speakers from NHT, Axiom, PSB, etc.), the differences tend to be more personal preference than "clearly" better or worse. PSBs tend to be very detailed with a nice, warm sound; NHT tend to be very detailed with a colder sound; others tend to fall somewhere in the middle, with some having less detail.
Quote:
| Also, about that NAD receiver, for it's price, I think I'd go separates as you can get some awesomely well-taken care of used equipment from audiophiles at audiogon.com than buying an NAD all-in-one. |
If you're paying full price for the L40, don't mind the space of separates, and are willing to do some research and shop around, you can definitely get a great setup for around the same price. But the person above was asking for something small and easily moveable.
However, if you can get it on sale ($380), you'd be hard pressed to find something better via separates -- you'd have to be VERY lucky. Consider that this is basically an NAD 310 integrated amp, an NAD 412 tuner, and an NAD 500-series CD player, all in a single enclosure (with the convenience of a remote
). If you can find better separate components for that total price, even used, more power to you.
Quote:
My first comment is to ignore many of the reviews at AudioReview. I've seen glowing reviews of crap there, as well as horrible reviews of some of the best equipment ever. The reviewing is just horribly inconsistent, and you can't tell anything about the background or experience of the reviewers.
That said, check out the reviews of the NAD Music System:
http://www.audioreview.com/Mini,Syst...7_2749crx.aspx
All 5/5, no real weaknesses.
Quote:
| They're not that glowing (flimsy CD tray, cd playa skips, problem driving other speakers in case of upgrade, etc). |
Here's where I question what the reviewer was smoking
The L40's CD tray is actually one of the sturdier ones I've seen in a CD player of this price range. It's never skipped on me, even when playing crappy CD-Rs. And I've driven a bunch of other speakers with the thing. I have a VERY difficult time giving validity to claims of problems driving other speakers. First of all, this is a 20W amp. It's a mini-system! Anyone trying to treat it as a 100W separate is clueless. But even so, this is an NAD amp -- NAD amps have HUGE power reserves, and can easily drive more difficult loads than most other 20W amps.
Quote:
| It was rated as having a good FM tuner, but no AM tuner? |
Correct. It's based on the 412, which is an FM-only tuner. I have no problem with that, since the audio quality of AM is so bad, I usually want to hear it on a small, mediocre system anyways
In fact, the Model Two is the first decent AM tuner I've owned in years. My other tuner is an early-80s Techniques analog FM tuner (back when they made higher-end stuff).
Quote:
| Not having heard the NAD, I'd be highly skeptical if it could approach the Model 2 in the radio regard. Yup, I'd definitely go used separates. |
Well, owning both, I can tell you that the tuner on the Model Two is a bit better, but not by much. We live about half a mile from a major transmission site -- we constantly get dual reception problems with our TV -- but neither tuner gets much crosstalk (the selectivity is excellent on both). In addition, they both have excellent sensitivity (ability to receive very distant signals). I would say that the slight increase in sensitivity on the Model Two is offset by the RDS digital tuning features on the L40: you can store a bunch of presets and use RDS or text input to name them. It's kind of a toss-up. I've never really said "this one is better than that one."
Again, keep in mind that most reviews of the Model Two are not comparing it with component-quality tuners; it's being compared with the Bose and CSW table radios, and other small radios. A high-quality separates tuner should have better performance than any table radio.
Hope these comments help
