DodgeTheViper
Moderator
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2001
- Messages
- 29,970
- Reaction score
- 18,926
- Points
- 7,946
- Location
- Inbetween Upgrades !
Think I’ll revisit their website for a 5 channel option
Jesus Dodge have you not done it already
This is the exact model, chose the upgraded speaker wiring and also added 2 pairs of RCA leads from Nord.
lead time is about 2 weeks.
Nord One MP NC252 2-4 250W Channels Black No of Channels: 4 Channels Speaker Output Wire: Silver Plated Pure Cu 14AWG
Which speakers and pre amp have you paired it with?
I'd be interested in your views on this tbh. I've just purchased a 2502 from Thomann for my DIY sub and was wondering about using them for the LCR as well? How would they compare to the Nord amps I wonder? They certainly don't look as pretty that's for sure but sound wise, interested to have an opinion
Tbh I'm not that fussed on the looks, it's sonic capability that I'm interested in and of course reliability. I genuinely am thinking of running more 2502's in my system until I do not need an av receiver and I can migrate to a stand alone processor. I just want to be sure in my own mind that I'm not wasting my time with all the effortThey look like play toys in comparison to the sheen of Nord / IOTVAX. But they are not made to look nice. They are made to be worked hard for long periods of time and treated a bit rough. I will be trying to make it so mine are not visible !
Interesting, what are the differences, are they measurable?I’ve owned Nord 500 monos in the recent past and currently have a Crown 1502 as a temporary measure whilst my amps are serviced.
For sound quality there really is no comparison imho - the Crown is excellent at its price point for what it was designed to do but falls some way behind the Nords just about everywhere except the price.
I recently added a Behringer A800 in bridged mono mode to an Arcam AVR550, to power my newly acquired kef reference centre speaker.
It sounds the same to me at lower volumes, and I measured the frequency responses of both the Arcam and the Behringer using REW and they were identical.
I posted them on the Behringer A800 thread.
I recently added a Behringer A800 in bridged mono mode to an Arcam AVR550, to power my newly acquired kef reference centre speaker.
It sounds the same to me at lower volumes, and I measured the frequency responses of both the Arcam and the Behringer using REW and they were identical.
I posted them on the Behringer A800 thread.
I recently added a Behringer A800 in bridged mono mode to an Arcam AVR550, to power my newly acquired kef reference centre speaker.
It sounds the same to me at lower volumes, and I measured the frequency responses of both the Arcam and the Behringer using REW and they were identical.
I posted them on the Behringer A800 thread.
I measured with REW at the highest volume that I listen at (reference) and -15db from reference, I didn't want to risk going any higher than that, and the curves look identical on both.how does it compare on higher volumes?
how does it compare on higher volumes?
I measured with REW at the highest volume that I listen at (reference) and -15db from reference, I didn't want to risk going any higher than that, and the curves look identical on both.
I am reluctant to describe the audible differences from a qualitative point of view, as I know how strong the placebo effect is in these situations. I definitely enjoy how things sound when I am listening to a bombastic film at reference level. I watched 'Crawl' recently and there were a couple of scenes that blew me more or less off of my chair. The sound is crystal clear, I never struggle to hear dialogue, and the dynamic peaks blow my head off!
It is difficult to know whether this would be the same if I was powering the centre from the Arcam, I think it is better with the Behringer, and for £150 I get peace of mind that I have more headroom, and a nice light display with the VU meters
Yes, I had one of those too. I was quite happy with it but it had a thump at power on and off. The A800 is a different amp - Class D instead of Class A/B, bit more power and no thump.I think, historically the A500 had reported issues with increased distortion at high sound levels.
This is why I was happy with the XLS 1002's because I'm not going to be running them at high levels, because my room won't take it, my ears won't take it and the wife will probably grumble, even at the other end of the house.
I am however aware this is a Nord thread. So I'm going to shut up soon before I get told off
I’m not about to get into this subjective-vs-objective merry go round and the difficulty of using prose and language to describe a ‘sound’ that we all probably process differently anyway
Some perspective is needed before I add anything else.
I picked up the Crown on these forums (from a very good seller) simply as a temporary measure. Less than £200 delivered. And it is very good. Cool, efficient, reliable. Very powerful - at quite silly volume levels the first power LED lit, the second never flickered. And this was driving a stereo pair of speakers at 8ohm nominal but with low dips through the bass region.
God knows what they’d be like bridges into 4ohm - the thought had crossed my mind of sourcing another to bridge and mono-block to drive my 800Ds.
Hell, why stop there - why not get another 3, bridge all four and run my speakers bi-amped and monoblocked - around 2KW per channel and (here’s the ‘perspective’ angle I mentioned)... all in, around the same price as a pair of Nord UP500 monos!!
Then I powered up the Crown, set everything to bypass crossovers, ran it in stereo and the correct input sensitivity for home hifi. 2 minutes from start to finish and I was ready.
Hhmmmm, something was missing. So I left it playing a huge Tidal playlist to warm up while I got on with other stuff.
Returning to it several hours later and not much was different. I’m not sure if it’s a function of the brick wall digital filters built into it but there was a lack of air, that shimmering detail, decay to symbols - all that arty farty prose I try to avoid but it’s the best I can do to describe it.
The midrange cam across as a little ‘shouty’ - this was probably a function of turning up the volume to get some of that bass detail I love (and know my source and speakers are capable of) but it never quite gelled in this room, with my music and my gear.
The Nords I used for a while didn’t show the same issues. True fit and forget fidelity. I’ve been i to this game for longer than I care to admit, owner some nice gear and listened to lots of even better (and unaffordable...) stuff and the Nords are up there with them all.
Now, let’s be realistic here - the Cown is a bargain. It’s good. I fully intended to buy it, use it then sell on when my amps are serviced. But I think I’m going to keep it. Why? After it sounds like I’ve slagged it off? Quite simply because I think it would make a very good fit into a surround system or even bridged for a passive sub. It’s fairly clean sounding through most of the frequency, power is NOT an issue and it seems fairly robust but that top end (purely in 2-channel music) niggled me slightly. There’s a chance I will be setting up a surround system in another room in the future and I think the Cown will be great driving rear channels or even fromt channels where impact takes precedence over subtlety.
I’m sorry, I don’t have measurements or figures and don’t own the equipment to even attempt it but there are forums out there with all the details. Basically, keep the Crown working within parameters (not difficult with the power available) and it’s fine as long as you’re not expecting a £7000 Bryston or Krell for around £200! And, to my ears at least the Nords are simply better.
No point in discussing people's "opinions" of right and wrong or the descriptive use of their understanding of what they can or cannot hear. The ambiguity in the english language can make one word mean many different things to different people, so perhaps not the best way to quantify the effects of a system setup.
This is why a scientific approach is more reliable IMHO. As such I have much more reliance on REW graphs. The microphones have a way better range of hearing than the human ear and as such one would expect a clinical impartial analysis of sound produced. Also means when you swap one component out and replace with another you don't need to worry about how did it sound some perhaps 20 minutes ago... Because the analysis is right in front of you.