![]() ![]() I wanted to love you, but you just didn't measure up in listeningtests. I also test drove anEmotiva, which was also far superior to the NAD (and even cheaper), althoughnot quite as good as the Parasound. Anyway, I have since returned it and settled on a Parasound instead,which to my ears is far superior (and cheaper to boot), not to mention that ithas HT pass-through and bass management capability. I was always aware that I was listening to electronics and notmusic. There was no body to strings, no palpability to theinstruments. I don't know if the unitwas faulty (it was an open box after all), but the sound was lean and wiry,with weak bass. This could be the one! But then I turned it on, popped in mylistening test disc, and was immediately disappointed. Thelook and feel, heft, and overall build quality are great, and it looked greatin my rack. Once I received it and cracked the wrapper, I was immediately impressed. This unit looked to be aperfect replacement and even looked like my old Adcom! When I saw an open boxavailable, I jumped on it. I lovethe 565, but wanted something with remote control. “I bought this unit to replace my Adcom 565 from the early 90s. Just for kicks I read through the customer reviews on Crutchfield forthe NAD and most all were very favorable…except for one which, wouldn’t youknow it, happened to be from someone who compared it directly to a Parasound! (what appears to be the Classic 2100 from thedescription) (although I do favor the retro styling and solid ergonomics of the NADpre over the Parasound – I’m having trouble with that smaller volume knob onthe P5) Sans-vinyl the pre may be mostly a question of features, styling,ergonomics, compatibility, etc., the latter of which would favor the Parasoundfor me since my power amp is a Parasound. the poweramp, especially when you’re not going vinyl. At the end of the dayI’m not sure how much discernable impact a preamp will have on sound vs. It seems like most are leaning toward the Parasound, so that may be thebetter way to go. Well, thanks everyone for valuable input. Normally I disagree with this, lol I am a firm believer in having the shortest signal path, when it comes to people wanting to use an avr in a music only system, but with the parasound p5 and its integrated dac it is different, the dac is not in the signal path unless you are using it. Pull the trigger on the parasound you wont be sorry, when emotiva had the usp1 for $350ish and their dac for $200 it was hard to rationalize spending twice as much on the parasound unit but now that the USP1 is no longer available the parasound stuff became a lot more attractive.Īnd don't rule out the Z gear, that zpre, zcd, zdac is all really nice stuff, don't let the small size fool you most of the preamps, dac's and cd players in full chassis size are just selling you empty boxes, take a look at the internal pics on the net, all of that equipment is empty, a couple small boards and thats it. Even the 2100 is still sought after, when they introduced the p5 there were a few 2100's available used but that was all guys upgrading to the p5. Parasound preamps are very nice, the proof is in the past, they have sold a ton of preamp and you hardly ever see them for sale on the used market and I have never seen a broken one for sale. Click to expand.Normally I disagree with this, lol I am a firm believer in having the shortest signal path, when it comes to people wanting to use an avr in a music only system, but with the parasound p5 and its integrated dac it is different, the dac is not in the signal path unless you are using it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |