[DefectiveAudioComponent]

On impulse, I've bought a Vintage NAD C160 preamplifier to use as a headphone amp. The model is from 1999, so it's not that old. It's got a nice alps volume control, and the serveral line level inputs can come in handy. (The current NAD model that has replaced this one is the NAD C165BEE, which appears to have similar (not exactly the same) functions but different electronics inside.)

Do you people think that the 100 ohm output impedance of the headphone section will affect the sound? (If so, are there any kind of headphone that would be more or less affected?) I would expect that they thought about the impedance when they built it, but maybe it can have an effect nevertheless?

It's got the usual NAD ugliness on the outside, but the inside looks well-arranged.

I might post a comparison with the XCAN later.

 

[Headdie]

Mine has a 80 ohms preamp out and is excellent with D2000.

 

[DefectiveAudioComponent]

Not only does it sound good, it's also very convenient to have a headphone amp with a lot of inputs to use. For my future comparison I've connected my xcan to a tape output.

Here is a picture of the inside, that someone posted on the web (so it's not of my particular unit). I think it looks well-organized.

 

[DefectiveAudioComponent]

A quick comparison with the x-can using the Senn HD580 gives more bass to the NAD, and more mids/space to the XCAN.

Using the vintage Dual DK 270, for me the situation is similar, but for my friend who likes to max things out, the Dual distorts horribly at maximum volume, whereas the Xcan still sings fine. The NAD seems to lack the balls for the combination of half-deaf guitarrist and vintage headphone.

 

[Michgelsen]

When I had a NAD C352, I found the headphone output to be of very good quality. This was with my HD650 and X-Can v3 back then. The X-Can v3 was somewhat smoother and silkier in the highs and mids, but I felt the bass of the NAD was a bit tighter.

 

[elrod-tom]

I used an NAD (3020, 1155) as my headphone out for years, and sometimes with cans (AKG K240) that were of high impedence and hard to drive. It does a pretty good (which is not to say great) job. It's passable, but a decent headphone amp is desireable as an upgrade IMHO.

 

[DefectiveAudioComponent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michgelsen /img/forum/go_quote.gif When I had a NAD C352, I found the headphone output to be of very good quality. This was with my HD650 and X-Can v3 back then. The X-Can v3 was somewhat smoother and silkier in the highs and mids, but I felt the bass of the NAD was a bit tighter.

That's my view too with the 600, except that with the Dual volume cannot be maxed out on the NAD. Not that I can listen to it then, but my guitarrist friend can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif I used an NAD (3020, 1155) as my headphone out for years, and sometimes with cans (AKG K240) that were of high impedence and hard to drive. It does a pretty good (which is not to say great) job. It's passable, but a decent headphone amp is desireable as an upgrade IMHO.

I think it sounds very good, although different from the XCAN. The Dual 720 is not an ordinary headphone, it gobbles up an amazing two watts without blinking. It's a lot harder to drive than my other headphones.

I also hope that the phono preamp section is good on the NAD.

 

[DefectiveAudioComponent]

Finally, I've found a used remote control that fits the NAD.It's very convenent, since I don't like using the volume control in the computer or in itunes. It feels wrong somehow to use a volume control in the computer when I have this bit-perfect setup and blah blah. I've never had an amplifier with a remote control before, so for me it's quite new.... maybe the rest of you have more modern gear....
(yes I've heard about programmable remotes but it also felt wrong paying more for the remote than for the amp...)

I've used the NAD for a while now and I really like it.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Ugly? I've always liked the clean, uncluttered look of NAD gear.

100 Ohm output impedance isn't great for headphones with an impedance under 100 Ohms. The ideal is to match the output impedance to the headphone impedance. The closer the two value are, the more efficiently power transfers. If there is a mismatch, you can use a formula to calculate the power loss. IIRC, the international standard for headphone impedance is 120 Ohms, which is why your NAD is close to that.

An amp will struggle with an impedance load lower than the output impedance. It will struggle to deliver power and the mismatch will also cause the amp to heat up. This is why some speakers, like a notorious 1.2 Ohm Apogee ribbon, will literally melt lesser amps. You probably won't kill the NAD running efficient Grados, but if you try to push inefficient 62 Ohm AKGs, you'll probably feel it warm up.

 

[DefectiveAudioComponent]

Hmmm.... i should probably not plug in my vintage Pioneer can with 4-16 ohm matching impedance?

Right now, I'm using a 120 ohm Grudnig headphone, which should then be a good match.

 

[KonstantinT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif The ideal is to match the output impedance to the headphone impedance. The closer the two value are, the more efficiently power transfers.

Hi!
I thought, output impedance of the amp should be lower as the headphone impedance, the lower, the better.

I have a NAD 3240PE and Sennheiser HD565 Ovation (150 Ohms).
I replaced the 220 Ohms resistors of the NAD with 100 Ohms (btw with better tolerance and metal film). I think it improved the sound quality a bit. Anyway it increased the gain.

I want to get soon better Sennheisers, HD600 or even HD650 if I find one for an affordable price. Both have 300 Ohms.

Is it better to solder the 220 Ohms resistors into my amp again for 300 Ohms phones? Or should I keep the 100 Ohms?

Thanks in advance!
Konstantin

 

[elbuzzard]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ugly? I've always liked the clean, uncluttered look of NAD gear. 100 Ohm output impedance isn't great for headphones with an impedance under 100 Ohms. The ideal is to match the output impedance to the headphone impedance. The closer the two value are, the more efficiently power transfers. If there is a mismatch, you can use a formula to calculate the power loss. IIRC, the international standard for headphone impedance is 120 Ohms, which is why your NAD is close to that. An amp will struggle with an impedance load lower than the output impedance. It will struggle to deliver power and the mismatch will also cause the amp to heat up. This is why some speakers, like a notorious 1.2 Ohm Apogee ribbon, will literally melt lesser amps. You probably won't kill the NAD running efficient Grados, but if you try to push inefficient 62 Ohm AKGs, you'll probably feel it warm up.

I like the looks of the NADs too. Battle ship grey looks TUFF.
I witnessed my friends 1APOGEE Scintilla melt his 2 week old Parasound class A amp. It was pretty sad. But I will say that the sound coming from those speakers before the meltdown was the best I've ever heard. EVER! unmatched to this day and Ive tried to at least find a similar experience.