I was more biased towards the NAD but then when I heard Bryston here against each other... Bryston all the way. Sound stage is wider, midrange better, etc. (listening on professional studio monitors). I may look now to buy Bryston and sell my hybrid integrated (tube pre-amplification combined with d-class amplification). Well done!
The Bryston costs £6500 and the Nad costs £1700, therefore the price of the Bryston is almost FOUR times the price of the Nad BUT the difference in sound quality is not that too obvious and hence the Nad is a fantastic value for money
if value for money is the main parameter then ok, I have a integrated from the 70’s refurbished that does a good job in being excellent value for money. Back to the comparison, from this demo is clear that the Bryston is more of a full bandwidth performer in comparison. Is it worth 3 times the price? From this demo yes. When hearing the NAD in this video the brain clearly focuses on what is missing out of the reproduction. I’d rather go for a serious upgrade and get greater scale sound than getting emphasised HF at a cheaper price.
Imo Bryston is a bit better. More bass quality, more bass quantity, more revealing vocal (because of its forwardness I guess). NAD cuts off fading sounds too early and Bryston do it right. But comparing the price I'd better buy NAD. It's a miracle amp in its league.
Thank you for one of the nicest sound demo's ever. As an owner of a an NAD power amp that has wondered what I was missing by not owning a Bryston, this beautifuly done demonstration has told me. Still love my NAD though.
De 'snelheid' van de NAD is indrukwekkend (vooral goed hoorbaar in de Adele opname, zowel stem als akoestische gitaar). Het totaalplaatje van de Bryston heeft mijn voorkeur, is meer in balans en heeft een iets diepere soundstage. De NAD is duidelijk cleaner in de bovenkant van het middengebied. De Bryston wat meer adem tussen de toetsaanslagen van de piano. Maar indrukwekkend dicht bij elkaar, zeker als je kijkt naar de prijskaartjes.
The NAD wins this shootout hands down. At first blush, the Bryston sounds warmer and deeper, but that's mainly coloration. It has a slightly murky sound compared to the NAD which is cleaner and clearer. Listen to all the tracks and it becomes obvious that the NAD is superior.
An amazing quality demo. NAD is completely value amplifier, but, the mids and the lows in the Bryston... OH MY GOD! Of course, the speakers is hi-end too. Thank you guys for this demo, keep going.
closer than it possibly should be; the Bryston has more weight of sound (kicks harder) but the NAD is not lacking and handles everything else really well.
Nad has all bass notes without missing any of them comparable with the professional amplifier Crown XLS 2502 class D amplifier making roundest sound musically speaking. Bryston is more aggressive in some notes but needs more definitions in the lowers bass notes. Any way both are high end in quality sound. Class D amplifier will be in shortly time the next high end sound generation.
@@rainelBM8567 I actually heard all the detail in the Bryston when I used decent headphones. Its more weighted but still coherent. Listening in my car the Bryston sounded a little less coherent in the bottom. Leads me to believe that it's indeed clear all the way down
Compared the NAD C-658 pre-amp/streamer and C-298 amplifier to a Bryston set-up that cost many thousands more. Both sounded very good but went with the NAD gear! Much better value and amazing sound quality.
HI, Nice comparison but i noticed a constant hiss in all NAD recording samples. Is it really the case with the NAD? Its present on all 3 recordings and I cant hear it with Bryston and its not the traffic sound you mentioned earlier. I am sure the NAD has like more than 110 S/N ratio or something...are you sure the wirings and impedence matching etc are all OK? Coz if not so...the hiss will cause the NAD to sound less lifelike...as it does in these recordings, as can be seen by people preferring the Bryston. Looking forward to more video comparisons.
The difference in favor of the Bryston is clear, much cleaner, more detailed and better bass control. How would it go with a Roksan, a Pass or an accuphase?
Listening through my Sony mx1000m4 and my laptop without watching I would not have been able to tell when the amp switch was made. Nice demo but this absolutely needs to be done in person.
I have not heard these bookshelves but I have heard some really good ones that will put my ml 60xt towers to shame, but most of them easily costed more. Nice amps, the nad holds its own for the money, Bryston if you have champagne pockets, and nevermind Boulder etc.
I hear more air, transparency, and completeness in the Bryston upper end. NAD sounds great but doesn’t to me have that same sparkle. Not something I saw in anyone else’s comments. My imagination? I used to own an NAD receiver back around 1988 and loved it.
They definitely sound almost identical. In Adele I found the NAD slightly more transparent. Same with the Little Fugue, Bryston was slightly veiled in the upper mids by comparison. Everything is system dependent of course, it's synergy in reaction to room acoustics.
Well done comparison , level matched so well its hard to notice especially considering the completely different topologies of the amplifiers . I think amplification is probably the least important factor in the chain of factors that really make noticeable difference , assuming its of reasonable power and quality . Room , speakers and recording quality being the top of that list , its funny how many pump thousands into another amp chasing audio nirvana without spending a dollar on room acoustic treatments .
I consider an amplifier choice the way I would consider a house. I have been using Brystons for a while now, and I treat them like a "reference test bench." The circuit topology is so straightforward, and the amplifiers are so well toleranced and forgiving to output impedance, that I feel like Bryston amps were the first thing that allowed me to truly begin "hearing speakers".
Great video! I know the compressed video on TH-cam doesn't tell the whole story but the fact that the Bryson is noticeably better in every way even on TH-cam compression tells me I made the right decision with my 4b3. I already knew that though it's the best amp I have heard at any price range. Still it was nice to get the confirmation from this video performance. Thank you for sharing.
Do the same on the Stella Utopia, the Bryston should demonstrate it's power advantage on more full-range speakers. Great job on the video, sounds wonderful all the way through.
I'm listening with Grado GS1000 and I can tell you guys does a phenomenal job of setting your room up. The differences to me are negligible, I found I like each amp better with different tracks; NAD first track and Bryston on the second track. What I cannot tell is how much more forward the NAD positions Adele without being in your room and if I am really discerning a slight closing in of the left/right staging. Fantastic set up nevertheless.
Thought close the Bryston’s sound is fuller and more relaxed, sure a big price difference but it is better. Also it is harmonically richer with better decay.
I have a bryston amp. I don’t see how anyone could have an issue with them it’s just become an integral part of my life and I called them once about something and they chucked me straight onto James tanner and I kinda nerded out haha
The T+A R 200 would also be an interesting test as it also uses the Purifi Eigentakt but on paper a better power supply and voltage circuit than the NAD. It also scores a very high "87" from Stereoplay magazine.
Hard to tell over YT compression but IMHO I prefered the sound of the NAD. It was a tad more pleasant to listen too. The sound stage was wider and airy, more balanced. How can you go wrong with a Bryston tho !!! Given a budget I would go with the NAD any day and put my money on a nice pre amp and TT.
I had hopes of buying a C298 to replace my ageing home-built class-A amplifiers for driving my giant electrostatic speakers. However, I was concerned about the very low impedance load that would be presented to the amplifier at high frequencies by the speakers so I wrote to NAD for advice.I was informed that the amplifier would definitely go into current limiting on a regular basis, resulting in muting of the audio. I then wondered if bridging the amplifier to provide more peak current might ease restrictions but was informed that the situation would actually be worse as the minimum acceptable impedance is increased.. Sadly, that is the end of the matter, much to my disappointment.
"However, I was concerned about the very low impedance load that would be presented to the amplifier at high frequencies" You have it backwards. Resistance decreases as you go down in frequency, not up. Also, don't bridge. Bridging a stereo isn't the same a mono amp. When bridged, the amp sees half the resistance it used to. For example, if your stereo amp is running under 4 ohm load, when you bridge the amp, that same 4 ohm load is now 2 ohms.
@@AT-wl9yq Perhaps I didn't make the situation sufficiently clear. The Acoustat SPECTRA 6600 electrostatic speakers have an impedance versus frequency curve that almost looks like an inverted parabola: 3 ohms at 20 Hz, rising to a maximum of 26 ohms at 500 Hz, thereafter falling slightly to 22 ohms at 1kHz, then to 13 ohms at 2 kHz, approx. 8.5 ohms at 4kHz, and an almost straight line descent (with a few small kinks) after that through a value of 4 ohms at 10 kHz to eventually reach 1ohm at 20 kHz. As I mentioned, I wrote to NAD about it and the person who answered my email query agreed with me that the C298 amplifier would NOT be suitable for driving such a load. I have subsequently bought the amplifier but am using it with another system and am very impressed with its sound quality.
Thanks alpha audio for the great videos. I have re-watched this comparison a dozen times. And where I first favoured the Bryston as the more dynamic ear cathing sound, I now start to wonder if the NAD isn't just a little more effortless, say the more relaxed flavour of both. For example: I have recently compared a couple of class AB vs A and the class A feels more eased and less forward / upfront than the AB. I can imagine a slightly more forward presentation survives the mic-in-a-room-2-youtube a bit better. Could it be i might like the NAD better for longer listening sessions? I'm looking into going class D (c298) with a great tube pre vs an Accuphase e650 (or maybe the pass int) integrated. Any thoughts?
Really looking forward to the written review of the NAD c298. Curious to find out you take on the sound quality vs arcam class G (pa240 is a direct competitor but i suppose the SA20/30 might give an idea how it compares) and like already mentioned how it fares against the GATO amps recently reviewed. This NAD is high on my wish list! Sound quality over the headphone is awesome
Bryston sound better. observed the bass hit. it hit a bit clearer, each hit is tight and distinguish. And the multiple continous fast small bass hit in between also is clearer and more distinguish. I can hear it better separated. For NAD, everything just song one flat and muddy bass... definately is bryston...no wonder they are famous of speed and tight bass. Overal mre pronounce to me... the bass is more dynamic in bryston..
NAD sounds more 'live' and clear to me. The Bryston makes it sounding like a blanket is put over the system (like when you play cd's), therefore it seems to have more bass, but the bass and mid of the NAD is clearer and better defined. The NAD is faster so the music sounds more musical to me, tIming seems better and the clarity makes it more analystic, you hear the instruments better as a real bass, real tom with the reverb, etrc. It sounds very good, but of course this whole set with the streamer, dac and cables can't beat my digital T+A R1000E which sounds like an amp from Audio Research... Should take cables like Supra that are not to thick and the music should flow like water, that's when streaming is done the best. Also the dac needs to sound analogueish and the streamer should be extremely fast and have a great clocking. Then you need a fast internet connection like wifi or cabled internet and run the music straight away from your Qobuz Sublime subscription. But nice demo, guys!
I would like to see the PS Audio M700 against the Bryston. The NAD is a great amp for its price and it has a clean neutral sound but for bigger lows and a little more detail, the higher wattage M700's would be a better comparrison
Bryston... lower noise floor (by a lot), a more natural openess without being muffled, more holographic, and more weighted. If the NaD had a lower noise floor, it would be a little closer. Seems like another type of opamp may help make up some of the difference as well.
Vocals are much better, less agressive with the Brystol, and globally the sound is deeper and softer at the same time. But the NAD is a nice value for money.
Quite a strange comparison to make, obviously there will be differences, you have a Home HiFi 185w per channel Class D in comparison to a Studio Grade amplifier with 300w per channel. £1750 and 185w against £8000 and 300w What you could have done is also bridge two C268 costing £1600 to match the wattage specification of the Bryston, though funny enough if you bridge two C298 you exceed the specification of the Bryston and some may actually prefer the cost of the still cheaper more powerfull C298's in mono config, 620w per channel for £3498. And a Bryston 3B would have been a closer match wattage wise, so again a better comparison. Just like you could have reviewed many higher power amplifiers costing £32'000 then complained about what the Bryston lacks in comparison too? Regardless, pound for pound the NAD's are nipping the Bryston in the heel and measuring well too. I love Bryston myself. But NAD M66/M23 vs Bryston BR20/3B Cubed as an example. £8000 vs £14000 and some similar specs, then to compicate it when your not listening as much as you used to and see the lower end NAD's pairing for £3500 a pairing with again Dirac Live and similar wattage, it gets hard to justify a lot. Dirac bass management and so much convenience in a lot of stuff these days.
I think Adele's voice has a little more body with Bryston and the bass is a little deeper. Overall i prefer the Bryston but law of diminishing returns bites hard.
@@johnlg2209 We have reviewed loads of amps, including Class D. You can check our Sample database for lossless samples. Just register on alpha-audio.net and register. After loggin in, you can browse the sample database.
Pfffhhhh,, extremely close, and the NAD is less than 1/3 of the cost. Very impressive. I would take the differing 5000Euro and spend on speakers. That would in my case do more good than buy the Bryston. Thank you soo much for this comparison and in general for your time and work. 👍⭐👍
Irene Sörius Yes Bryston is expensive, but in comparsion with NAD about 70% of that high price can be justified.About 30% is just overpriced brand IMHO. First of all NAD was( mayby still) using very cheap components and it isnt something rare that 5- 7 years old amps needed restoration/repair. Capacitors are trash and led free soldering makes cold solder joints. Bryston is giving 20 years warranty. Second of all, sound compare, strictly the bass NAD is D class and still loose vs 4B SST3 without any doubts. That tells a lot. In terms of higher freqencies especially midrange Bryston was never associate with super musicality, magical midrange etc. and there for Alpha Audio is using a Pass Labs pre amp to compensate that a bit technic/raw sound. But still 4B sounds better that C298. Additional 5000 Euro +2000euro base is 7k Euro. Very often speakers in that price are very fussy about matching amps. I assume that this NAD can handle difficult loads cause of high power, but it's obvious it will never match full musical capabilities of speakers from that price range. But yes, speakers vary more in sound beetwen themselfs, thant amps. Components are design to match with simmilar price ranges. Refined speakers with cheap class-D amps is a bit waste of money IMHO. Personally i have integrated amp 2x times more expensive than speakers and still im not getting the full potential of them (speakers, wich were from highest line 2nd from 4 in terms of size) .
@@sheerenergy8602 Mmm,, I agree and fully understand, but I would´nt worry to much about how long the lifespan of the NAD is. With the current development speed in amplification tech, even "better" and "cheapish" amps are one the way. We truly live in the best of HiFi-times. Cheers,, 🍻😎👍
@@IrenESorius "With the current development speed in amplification tech, even "better" and "cheapish" amps are one the way. We truly live in the best of HiFi-times." Can't agree with that sorry. My Accuphase is from 1997( Dec. 96) and counting inflation is 10.000$ today in USA even more. This amp will last longer than that C298 manufactured today with 23 years falstart. And about quality sound, golden era of hi-fi was in 70' and 80' and never gonna back. Ofcourse, nowadays we can build a little bit better amps, but it never is chaper, always a lot more expensive. Finest Alnico drivers from Tannoy also arent manufactured anymore. But overall speakers and sources gain a lot of technology. Amps are pretty much still the same. Or maybe you counting blutooth modules, but i can ad aditional module to an old amps as well. In XX century manufacturers build to last, and now we have era of "planned obsolescence". Even good new capacitors now cant match to an old ones. Even tubes arrent the same, and audiophiles fight for New Old Stock tubes, and Russian tubes are valued. And when I buy an amp for 10k $ I want it will last for decades. Even if i will replace my main amp, I want to sold ma old one, not to throw it to trash. And cheap amps for 400-600$ are not even worth to comment - garbage. Cheers!
@@IrenESorius As an example lets take amp, Yamaha A-S 3200 a fully analog amp still manufactured very simmilar to its predecessor. And peoples talking that old model from golden era sounds better. IMHO the A-S3200 has really bad sound signature, sounding very forward and thin with his pushy upper midrange but in the same time not so heavy in a bass. A such beutyful amp and such nightmare sound sugnature. You need match it with recesed midrange speakers. But recesed midrange speakers in hi-end?? Do you know any??? Cheers :)
Interesting that so many are making a opinion based on a TH-cam video possibly on a smart phone. Can you really tell these differences here? I doubt it..Go audition these two amps and I am sure there is a clear winner. If you audition with a "cost doesnt matter, I want the best sound" approach then I am sure Bryston will be on top. If you audition with "price matters and I want best bang for my buck" then NAD wins..I am making my judgement using both brands through my Focals. I love that both are Canadian brands and the 20 year Bryston warranty is spectacular..
I am not a fan of these speakers. I don’t like the sound. I can imagine that the NAD will sound differently on tower speakers. So, this demo is not useful for me to decide which amp is better.
Good review, very well done, thank you! I am about to buy this power amp, but exploring people experiences with the same unit, I found out: The power supply makes a fair amount of mechanical noise. Looking around the Internet other people have reported this issue, some of them have been told that this is normal for this type of power supply. What do you think about this? Some people have no such a problem. I could not use amp with that noise/buzzing. Please replay....Regards!
I think the Bryston is my pick. Tune out the vocals and just listen to those pops and clicks, not sure what those are but more detailed and part of the track. The NAD a little more subdued to me. This makes me think in general, nuances will be picked up. I like the vocals better as well. Those are forward speakers. The Bryston on other speakers perhaps with a tad of warmth perfect. NAD might be a little mellow.
The Bryston is better. It is clearer, more defined and refined with better musical separation. It's also a bit more forward in presentation than the NAD.
The Bryston has more of everything. I can still hear class D it's like a cheap shop Rioja than one bought from Spain itself.. My amps are Kondo so in a different league to these. This was interesting though :-)
Amazing video as usual! 1) How do you compare the NAD C298 to the Metrum Forte, in a use case where you plug an Adagio or a Morpheus straight to the amplifier? 2) Do you plan to test the Sonnet Kratos amplifier? Hermès + Morpheus + Kratos would be a fun, all Sonnet test!
Thanks! We had that question before in the mail. They are both neutrally tuned. But they differ a lot in power output and matching. So... Different beats. I think the Forte is a bit more fluid. We will definately test the sonnet trio
I can't manage to hear any difference between these two amps... In fact, it's true a very small difference , but the Bryston costs 4500 euros more than the nad !!!!
Bryston just has more space between the layers. The bass is so well defined. And the vocals are a separate layer. The NAD sounds a bit muddled in the bass by comparison and the vocals are smearing with the rest of the music (smearing for lack of a better word). The presentation is narrower in NAD. By no means are either of them bad. And given the price, NAD is pretty good. But Bryson just takes it for me here.
For me the NAD wins in a walk. But I like a completely natural sound if I can get it, not a colored one. If I liked a lot of bass the Bryson would be fine.
Bryston 4B SST sounds muddy. NAD opens up with bothering shrill sounds and mixing the lower frequencies. NAD is way more relaxed. Bryston is congested.
My personal opinion, I have owned Bryston amp for many, many years and processors. I presently have a Nad PrePro, really good clarity and detailed, but much more digital sounding. I prefere Bryston sound, if I had more $$$ . For me, Bryston all the way.
if indication and sound would be switched NAD would get more credits and for some hard to admit it's a winner and that for 1/3 of the price Als indicatie en geluid zouden worden omgeswitcht, zou NAD meer credits krijgen en dat is moeilijk toe te geven, gezien het enorme prijsverschil is het de winnaar
@@TheAlphaAudio About 7k CAD. And can likely can get further discount from a dealer. That NAD amp still seems like a really good value - in your video I did not hear a huge difference between the amps. Not sure what it's like in real life.
@@TheAlphaAudio By the way based on the wattage required to drive those speakers you may be able to do just fine with Bryston 2.5 or 3 which are a lot cheaper than 4.
I was more biased towards the NAD but then when I heard Bryston here against each other... Bryston all the way. Sound stage is wider, midrange better, etc. (listening on professional studio monitors). I may look now to buy Bryston and sell my hybrid integrated (tube pre-amplification combined with d-class amplification). Well done!
Honestly, the differences are hardly noticeable!
@@Hendoneabdar Good monitor headphones (like Sony MDR-7506) or professional monitors will do the trick.
The Bryston costs £6500 and the Nad costs £1700, therefore the price of the Bryston is almost FOUR times the price of the Nad BUT the difference in sound quality is not that too obvious and hence the Nad is a fantastic value for money
Indeed
The evaluation should be with three-way speakers.
I totally agree but those are audiophiles will spend that difference for a subtle improvement, I'm not in that group financially lol.
if value for money is the main parameter then ok, I have a integrated from the 70’s refurbished that does a good job in being excellent value for money. Back to the comparison, from this demo is clear that the Bryston is more of a full bandwidth performer in comparison. Is it worth 3 times the price? From this demo yes. When hearing the NAD in this video the brain clearly focuses on what is missing out of the reproduction. I’d rather go for a serious upgrade and get greater scale sound than getting emphasised HF at a cheaper price.
@@williammorales8204 only if they can afford it. I would love to have the tiny bit of improvement but i simply can't afford it.
Imo Bryston is a bit better. More bass quality, more bass quantity, more revealing vocal (because of its forwardness I guess). NAD cuts off fading sounds too early and Bryston do it right. But comparing the price I'd better buy NAD. It's a miracle amp in its league.
Vor allem nimm die NAD als Mono, dann weißt du wo der Hammer hängt! Und immer noch günstiger! Läuft bei mir an Tannoy Turnberry ….
Thank you for one of the nicest sound demo's ever. As an owner of a an NAD power amp that has wondered what I was missing by not owning a Bryston, this beautifuly done demonstration has told me. Still love my NAD though.
You are very welcome. The NAD is amazing value.
yeah, I just got a Nad C368 and am thoroughly impressed by the clarity and balance. Huge value to be had with NAD these days!
The Bryston is putting out more bass but that doesn't necessarily make it better. The NAD is very clean in the mids and certainly better value.
At 09:40 you can hear the transition to NAD C298 and white noise / static sound. Any ideas, did you notice it in person?
As noted, best sound demo's on YT, your channel is the reference
Thanks man!
I agree!
Still the Pass+Bryston combo is a bit better but the NAD is no slouch, they’re pretty, pretty close
The NAD is a lot more balanced and would be the amp i would listen to for long sessions .
You guys are doing a great service to the community. Thanks.
Thanks!
@@TheAlphaAudio what amp is playing should imo be up on the screen at all times
@@hanzen5174 check out newer video's.
I listened to the Bryston parts with a NAD and NAD parts with a Bryston, I couldn't tell any difference.
The NAD is a blank canvas, only restricted by what speakers and preamplification used before it.
True
De 'snelheid' van de NAD is indrukwekkend (vooral goed hoorbaar in de Adele opname, zowel stem als akoestische gitaar). Het totaalplaatje van de Bryston heeft mijn voorkeur, is meer in balans en heeft een iets diepere soundstage. De NAD is duidelijk cleaner in de bovenkant van het middengebied. De Bryston wat meer adem tussen de toetsaanslagen van de piano. Maar indrukwekkend dicht bij elkaar, zeker als je kijkt naar de prijskaartjes.
The NAD wins this shootout hands down. At first blush, the Bryston sounds warmer and deeper, but that's mainly coloration. It has a slightly murky sound compared to the NAD which is cleaner and clearer. Listen to all the tracks and it becomes obvious that the NAD is superior.
Not sure i can determine anything via TH-cam but i just felt so much happier each time the Bryston came in 😀
An amazing quality demo. NAD is completely value amplifier, but, the mids and the lows in the Bryston... OH MY GOD! Of course, the speakers is hi-end too. Thank you guys for this demo, keep going.
closer than it possibly should be; the Bryston has more weight of sound (kicks harder) but the NAD is not lacking and handles everything else really well.
Indeed!
Nad is way cheaper you have my attention 😊
In the room was Nad leaner and brighter than Bryston?
Nad has all bass notes without missing any of them comparable with the professional amplifier Crown XLS 2502 class D amplifier making roundest sound musically speaking.
Bryston is more aggressive in some notes but needs more definitions in the lowers bass notes. Any way both are high end in quality sound.
Class D amplifier will be in shortly time the next high end sound generation.
@@rainelBM8567 I actually heard all the detail in the Bryston when I used decent headphones. Its more weighted but still coherent. Listening in my car the Bryston sounded a little less coherent in the bottom. Leads me to believe that it's indeed clear all the way down
Another demonstration of how excellent the Sopra 1s are, and how yours are the best quality HiFi recording demos on TH-cam 😁
Thanks man. We have some nice surprises for the next demo's and the Live Streams.
Great, I'll look forward to it!
@@TheAlphaAudio you guys rock! You are really testing what people actually care about
Compared the NAD C-658 pre-amp/streamer and C-298 amplifier to a Bryston set-up that cost many thousands more. Both sounded very good but went with the NAD gear! Much better value and amazing sound quality.
I'm hard pressed to hear any difference in sound quality, but easy to see the better value proposition.
HI, Nice comparison but i noticed a constant hiss in all NAD recording samples. Is it really the case with the NAD? Its present on all 3 recordings and I cant hear it with Bryston and its not the traffic sound you mentioned earlier. I am sure the NAD has like more than 110 S/N ratio or something...are you sure the wirings and impedence matching etc are all OK? Coz if not so...the hiss will cause the NAD to sound less lifelike...as it does in these recordings, as can be seen by people preferring the Bryston.
Looking forward to more video comparisons.
No. It's dead Silent. I Will check the source of the hiss. Thank you for pointing it out.
I've got a C658/C298 set. I can recommend this. Awesome value for money!
Yes, it is! :-).
Considering this exact set-up.
Is the sound lean? My other choice is Simaudio 330a!
@@locmanw1583 just try it.
@@rdh67dh This weekend will try Simaudio first. Than Nad. I'm worried about Nad quality on their c298!
I own a Bryston 4bsst2 . The price bump of 4b3 made me blink . I would buy the Nad in a heart beat.
The difference in favor of the Bryston is clear, much cleaner, more detailed and better bass control. How would it go with a Roksan, a Pass or an accuphase?
Majestic taste .,
Song is perfect ,,
Nad surprise me a lot
The NAD on Adele’s song has a higher noise floor at the start than the Bryston? The Bryston is better if you can afford it.
Yes. Wow....you have good ears. There was some traffic at the start.
@@TheAlphaAudio I wasn’t sure if I was hearing things or if it was because of TH-cam compression of audio. Thanks for confirming.
@@TheAlphaAudio An ambulance siren I think.
@@bernardogolub2206 Could be the case yes. I tried editing around the noise. But I couldnt mask it all ;-).
@@TheAlphaAudio All praise for the effort and the unique and objective approach.
Best regards
Listening through my Sony mx1000m4 and my laptop without watching I would not have been able to tell when the amp switch was made. Nice demo but this absolutely needs to be done in person.
Just found this, excellent demo, always wondered how the purifi amps would compare with Bryston and the likes
I have not heard these bookshelves but I have heard some really good ones that will put my ml 60xt towers to shame, but most of them easily costed more. Nice amps, the nad holds its own for the money, Bryston if you have champagne pockets, and nevermind Boulder etc.
I hear more air, transparency, and completeness in the Bryston upper end. NAD sounds great but doesn’t to me have that same sparkle. Not something I saw in anyone else’s comments. My imagination? I used to own an NAD receiver back around 1988 and loved it.
They definitely sound almost identical. In Adele I found the NAD slightly more transparent. Same with the Little Fugue, Bryston was slightly veiled in the upper mids by comparison.
Everything is system dependent of course, it's synergy in reaction to room acoustics.
Does the NAD use the 1ET400A or the 1ET7040SA module?
1ET400A
I just purchased the NAD M23 and it's end-game amp for me. At least several years......
Indeed great amp!
Yes, the Bryston is better. But it's amazing how close these Eigentakts come to one hell of a superb amplifier like the Bryston!
Shocking how good the class d is!!
Hello 👋 please what is your record XY setup ?
Well done comparison , level matched so well its hard to notice especially considering the completely different topologies of the amplifiers . I think amplification is probably the least important factor in the chain of factors that really make noticeable difference , assuming its of reasonable power and quality . Room , speakers and recording quality being the top of that list , its funny how many pump thousands into another amp chasing audio nirvana without spending a dollar on room acoustic treatments .
I'm hearing considerable differences with the exact same variables
I consider an amplifier choice the way I would consider a house. I have been using Brystons for a while now, and I treat them like a "reference test bench."
The circuit topology is so straightforward, and the amplifiers are so well toleranced and forgiving to output impedance, that I feel like Bryston amps were the first thing that allowed me to truly begin "hearing speakers".
Great video! I know the compressed video on TH-cam doesn't tell the whole story but the fact that the Bryson is noticeably better in every way even on TH-cam compression tells me I made the right decision with my 4b3. I already knew that though it's the best amp I have heard at any price range. Still it was nice to get the confirmation from this video performance. Thank you for sharing.
Do the same on the Stella Utopia, the Bryston should demonstrate it's power advantage on more full-range speakers. Great job on the video, sounds wonderful all the way through.
I'm listening with Grado GS1000 and I can tell you guys does a phenomenal job of setting your room up. The differences to me are negligible, I found I like each amp better with different tracks; NAD first track and Bryston on the second track. What I cannot tell is how much more forward the NAD positions Adele without being in your room and if I am really discerning a slight closing in of the left/right staging. Fantastic set up nevertheless.
Thought close the Bryston’s sound is fuller and more relaxed, sure a big price difference but it is better. Also it is harmonically richer with better decay.
I have a bryston amp. I don’t see how anyone could have an issue with them it’s just become an integral part of my life and I called them once about something and they chucked me straight onto James tanner and I kinda nerded out haha
The T+A R 200 would also be an interesting test as it also uses the Purifi Eigentakt but on paper a better power supply and voltage circuit than the NAD. It also scores a very high "87" from Stereoplay magazine.
Thanks! I will look into that one!
@@TheAlphaAudio Looking forward to such a review if you can pull it off, I think it would be very interesting!
Obviously Bryston have better sound control overal, but frequency balance is to me way better on nad, more effortless
Totally. NAD for long long listening.
Hard to tell over YT compression but IMHO I prefered the sound of the NAD. It was a tad more pleasant to listen too. The sound stage was wider and airy, more balanced. How can you go wrong with a Bryston tho !!! Given a budget I would go with the NAD any day and put my money on a nice pre amp and TT.
Very nice recording. It would be interesting to see how a Crown XLS 1502 would compare against the NAD.
I had hopes of buying a C298 to replace my ageing home-built class-A amplifiers for driving my giant electrostatic speakers. However, I was concerned about the very low impedance load that would be presented to the amplifier at high frequencies by the speakers so I wrote to NAD for advice.I was informed that the amplifier would definitely go into current limiting on a regular basis, resulting in muting of the audio. I then wondered if bridging the amplifier to provide more peak current might ease restrictions but was informed that the situation would actually be worse as the minimum acceptable impedance is increased.. Sadly, that is the end of the matter, much to my disappointment.
"However, I was concerned about the very low impedance load that would be presented to the amplifier at high frequencies"
You have it backwards. Resistance decreases as you go down in frequency, not up. Also, don't bridge. Bridging a stereo isn't the same a mono amp. When bridged, the amp sees half the resistance it used to. For example, if your stereo amp is running under 4 ohm load, when you bridge the amp, that same 4 ohm load is now 2 ohms.
@@AT-wl9yq Perhaps I didn't make the situation sufficiently clear. The Acoustat SPECTRA 6600 electrostatic speakers have an impedance versus frequency curve that almost looks like an inverted parabola: 3 ohms at 20 Hz, rising to a maximum of 26 ohms at 500 Hz, thereafter falling slightly to 22 ohms at 1kHz, then to 13 ohms at 2 kHz, approx. 8.5 ohms at 4kHz, and an almost straight line descent (with a few small kinks) after that through a value of 4 ohms at 10 kHz to eventually reach 1ohm at 20 kHz. As I mentioned, I wrote to NAD about it and the person who answered my email query agreed with me that the C298 amplifier would NOT be suitable for driving such a load. I have subsequently bought the amplifier but am using it with another system and am very impressed with its sound quality.
I dont hear much difference. To me the NAD sounds more clearer. I cant tell any about depth. I wonder what amp i want in the future.
Thanks alpha audio for the great videos. I have re-watched this comparison a dozen times. And where I first favoured the Bryston as the more dynamic ear cathing sound, I now start to wonder if the NAD isn't just a little more effortless, say the more relaxed flavour of both. For example: I have recently compared a couple of class AB vs A and the class A feels more eased and less forward / upfront than the AB. I can imagine a slightly more forward presentation survives the mic-in-a-room-2-youtube a bit better. Could it be i might like the NAD better for longer listening sessions? I'm looking into going class D (c298) with a great tube pre vs an Accuphase e650 (or maybe the pass int) integrated. Any thoughts?
HI Hello, do you think Focal Sopra N°1 is more suitable for NAD or YAMAHA? Thank you (NAD C658+C298) (YAMAHA A-S series)
@@生日快樂-o4o that depends on your taste. Yamaha is more smooth.
@ Thanks ~ I haven’t tried it yet, but the appearance of YAMAHA is deeply rooted in my heart.❤️
Is this the latest Bryston 4b3 cubed?
Really looking forward to the written review of the NAD c298. Curious to find out you take on the sound quality vs arcam class G (pa240 is a direct competitor but i suppose the SA20/30 might give an idea how it compares) and like already mentioned how it fares against the GATO amps recently reviewed. This NAD is high on my wish list! Sound quality over the headphone is awesome
I was interested in Arcam until I read user reviews and issues.
Nad more transparent and true to the recording Bryston colors' the music a little
Bryston sound better. observed the bass hit. it hit a bit clearer, each hit is tight and distinguish. And the multiple continous fast small bass hit in between also is clearer and more distinguish. I can hear it better separated. For NAD, everything just song one flat and muddy bass... definately is bryston...no wonder they are famous of speed and tight bass. Overal mre pronounce to me...
the bass is more dynamic in bryston..
NAD sounds more 'live' and clear to me. The Bryston makes it sounding like a blanket is put over the system (like when you play cd's), therefore it seems to have more bass, but the bass and mid of the NAD is clearer and better defined. The NAD is faster so the music sounds more musical to me, tIming seems better and the clarity makes it more analystic, you hear the instruments better as a real bass, real tom with the reverb, etrc. It sounds very good, but of course this whole set with the streamer, dac and cables can't beat my digital T+A R1000E which sounds like an amp from Audio Research... Should take cables like Supra that are not to thick and the music should flow like water, that's when streaming is done the best. Also the dac needs to sound analogueish and the streamer should be extremely fast and have a great clocking. Then you need a fast internet connection like wifi or cabled internet and run the music straight away from your Qobuz Sublime subscription. But nice demo, guys!
Hello Alpha, what would be better match for pro ac sm100 speakers, nad c298 or soundimport eigentakt eval 1? And why? Thanks in advance
@@dominiksikulec3454 I don't know. I haven't tested that speaker.
@@TheAlphaAudiohow about amps? Nad vs eigentakt
@@dominiksikulec3454 we have tests on our website.
I would like to see the PS Audio M700 against the Bryston. The NAD is a great amp for its price and it has a clean neutral sound but for bigger lows and a little more detail, the higher wattage M700's would be a better comparrison
Bryston... lower noise floor (by a lot), a more natural openess without being muffled, more holographic, and more weighted.
If the NaD had a lower noise floor, it would be a little closer. Seems like another type of opamp may help make up some of the difference as well.
Just curious, did Focal raise their prices in Europe over the last few years?
Yes. Definately.
Vocals are much better, less agressive with the Brystol, and globally the sound is deeper and softer at the same time. But the NAD is a nice value for money.
Quite a strange comparison to make, obviously there will be differences, you have a Home HiFi 185w per channel Class D in comparison to a Studio Grade amplifier with 300w per channel.
£1750 and 185w against £8000 and 300w
What you could have done is also bridge two C268 costing £1600 to match the wattage specification of the Bryston, though funny enough if you bridge two C298 you exceed the specification of the Bryston and some may actually prefer the cost of the still cheaper more powerfull C298's in mono config, 620w per channel for £3498.
And a Bryston 3B would have been a closer match wattage wise, so again a better comparison. Just like you could have reviewed many higher power amplifiers costing £32'000 then complained about what the Bryston lacks in comparison too?
Regardless, pound for pound the NAD's are nipping the Bryston in the heel and measuring well too.
I love Bryston myself. But NAD M66/M23 vs Bryston BR20/3B Cubed as an example. £8000 vs £14000 and some similar specs, then to compicate it when your not listening as much as you used to and see the lower end NAD's pairing for £3500 a pairing with again Dirac Live and similar wattage, it gets hard to justify a lot. Dirac bass management and so much convenience in a lot of stuff these days.
I think Adele's voice has a little more body with Bryston and the bass is a little deeper. Overall i prefer the Bryston but law of diminishing returns bites hard.
The NAD is Incredible.
@@TheAlphaAudio Since the NAD is class D is it cold-sounding or harsh. How is Purifi Eigentakt compared to other class-D amplifiers?
@@johnlg2209 the C298 is a Purify Eigentakt amp... So...
@@TheAlphaAudio I know it is. How does the NAD/eigentakt compare to Gatos class D amplifier that you have reviewed or other class D amplifiers?
@@johnlg2209 We have reviewed loads of amps, including Class D. You can check our Sample database for lossless samples. Just register on alpha-audio.net and register. After loggin in, you can browse the sample database.
Pfffhhhh,, extremely close, and the NAD is less than 1/3 of the cost. Very impressive.
I would take the differing 5000Euro and spend on speakers.
That would in my case do more good than buy the Bryston.
Thank you soo much for this comparison and in general for your time and work. 👍⭐👍
Thanks!
Irene Sörius
Yes Bryston is expensive, but in comparsion with NAD about 70% of that high price can be justified.About 30% is just overpriced brand IMHO. First of all NAD was( mayby still) using very cheap components and it isnt something rare that 5- 7 years old amps needed restoration/repair. Capacitors are trash and led free soldering makes
cold solder joints. Bryston is giving 20 years warranty.
Second of all, sound compare, strictly the bass NAD is D class and still loose vs 4B SST3 without any doubts. That tells a lot.
In terms of higher freqencies especially midrange Bryston was never associate with super musicality, magical midrange etc. and there for Alpha Audio is using a Pass Labs pre amp to compensate that a bit technic/raw sound. But still 4B sounds better that C298.
Additional 5000 Euro +2000euro base is 7k Euro. Very often speakers in that price are very fussy about matching amps. I assume that this NAD can handle difficult loads cause of high power, but it's obvious it will never match full musical capabilities of speakers from that price range. But yes, speakers vary more in sound beetwen themselfs, thant amps.
Components are design to match with simmilar price ranges. Refined speakers with cheap class-D amps is a bit waste of money IMHO. Personally i have integrated amp 2x times more expensive than speakers and still im not getting the full potential of them (speakers, wich were from highest line 2nd from 4 in terms of size) .
@@sheerenergy8602 Mmm,, I agree and fully understand, but I would´nt worry to much about how long the lifespan of the NAD is.
With the current development speed in amplification tech, even "better" and "cheapish" amps are one the way.
We truly live in the best of HiFi-times.
Cheers,, 🍻😎👍
@@IrenESorius "With the current development speed in amplification tech, even "better" and "cheapish" amps are one the way.
We truly live in the best of HiFi-times."
Can't agree with that sorry. My Accuphase is from 1997( Dec. 96) and counting inflation is 10.000$ today in USA even more. This amp will last longer than that C298 manufactured today with 23 years falstart.
And about quality sound, golden era of hi-fi was in 70' and 80' and never gonna back.
Ofcourse, nowadays we can build a little bit better amps, but it never is chaper, always a lot more expensive.
Finest Alnico drivers from Tannoy also arent manufactured anymore.
But overall speakers and sources gain a lot of technology. Amps are pretty much still the same. Or maybe you counting blutooth modules, but i can ad aditional module to an old amps as well.
In XX century manufacturers build to last, and now we have era of "planned obsolescence".
Even good new capacitors now cant match to an old ones. Even tubes arrent the same, and audiophiles fight for New Old Stock tubes, and Russian tubes are valued.
And when I buy an amp for 10k $ I want it will last for decades. Even if i will replace my main amp, I want to sold ma old one, not to throw it to trash.
And cheap amps for 400-600$ are not even worth to comment - garbage.
Cheers!
@@IrenESorius As an example lets take amp, Yamaha A-S 3200 a fully analog amp still manufactured very simmilar to its predecessor. And peoples talking that old model from golden era sounds better.
IMHO the A-S3200 has really bad sound signature, sounding very forward and thin with his pushy upper midrange but in the same time not so heavy in a bass. A such beutyful amp and such nightmare sound sugnature. You need match it with recesed midrange speakers. But recesed midrange speakers in hi-end?? Do you know any???
Cheers :)
Main difference ise Bryston has weighty bass line, NAD has better imaging and cleaner sound but still smooth.
Indeed.
The Bryston may have more bass, but it sounds sloppier and less defined and punchy than the NAD, IMO
Interesting that so many are making a opinion based on a TH-cam video possibly on a smart phone. Can you really tell these differences here? I doubt it..Go audition these two amps and I am sure there is a clear winner. If you audition with a "cost doesnt matter, I want the best sound" approach then I am sure Bryston will be on top. If you audition with "price matters and I want best bang for my buck" then NAD wins..I am making my judgement using both brands through my Focals. I love that both are Canadian brands and the 20 year Bryston warranty is spectacular..
I am not a fan of these speakers. I don’t like the sound. I can imagine that the NAD will sound differently on tower speakers. So, this demo is not useful for me to decide which amp is better.
Ok
Greetings.
Do you intend to publish a written review of the NAD C 298 amplifier?
BR
Absolutely!
@@TheAlphaAudio I'm looking forward to it!
I wondered how NAD would sound with a tube pre-? I think that an excellent preamplifier could make it sing great.
Could work...!
Good review, very well done, thank you! I am about to buy this power amp, but exploring people experiences with the same unit, I found out: The power supply makes a fair amount of mechanical noise. Looking around the Internet other people have reported this issue, some of them have been told that this is normal for this type of power supply. What do you think about this? Some people have no such a problem. I could not use amp with that noise/buzzing. Please replay....Regards!
Never heard any buzzing. I guess it depends on your situation. If there is any DC in the grid, you will get hum / buzz...
@@TheAlphaAudio thank you! what is your final recommendation? is there anything better in this price category?
Are the amps even level adjusted??
Yes. All samples are at -3dB.
Bryston is more detailed , bass is more controlled and apparent yet delicate the NAD is adequate for the money
I think the Bryston is my pick. Tune out the vocals and just listen to those pops and clicks, not sure what those are but more detailed and part of the track. The NAD a little more subdued to me. This makes me think in general, nuances will be picked up. I like the vocals better as well. Those are forward speakers. The Bryston on other speakers perhaps with a tad of warmth perfect. NAD might be a little mellow.
How about a single Bryston 4B SST3 vs 2x NAD C289 (still cheaper overall)?
About the same. The difference is mainly control in the bass. And a bit of imaging
Nad is slightly fuller in midbass and prat with a higher noise floor. Bryston is more refined but unmoving and thin.
A little slower than NAD perhaps.
NAD sounds great can it run my Focal Electra 1038BE at the moment im using Naim XS Integrated
This amp can run virtually anything I think
Excelent side by side! Its Clear the diference.
The Bryston is better. It is clearer, more defined and refined with better musical separation. It's also a bit more forward in presentation than the NAD.
The NAD is good, but thin. The Bryston is fuller hitting the 40hz range much better, more open image.
The Bryston has more of everything. I can still hear class D it's like a cheap shop Rioja than one bought from Spain itself.. My amps are Kondo so in a different league to these. This was interesting though :-)
Thanks for sharing!
Has anyone compared Nad c298 to Adcom 565se?
Close for me, but I prefer the Bryston for cleaner sound.
Amazing video as usual! 1) How do you compare the NAD C298 to the Metrum Forte, in a use case where you plug an Adagio or a Morpheus straight to the amplifier? 2) Do you plan to test the Sonnet Kratos amplifier? Hermès + Morpheus + Kratos would be a fun, all Sonnet test!
Thanks! We had that question before in the mail. They are both neutrally tuned. But they differ a lot in power output and matching. So... Different beats. I think the Forte is a bit more fluid.
We will definately test the sonnet trio
I can't manage to hear any difference between these two amps... In fact, it's true a very small difference , but the Bryston costs 4500 euros more than the nad !!!!
Bryston just has more space between the layers. The bass is so well defined. And the vocals are a separate layer. The NAD sounds a bit muddled in the bass by comparison and the vocals are smearing with the rest of the music (smearing for lack of a better word). The presentation is narrower in NAD. By no means are either of them bad. And given the price, NAD is pretty good. But Bryson just takes it for me here.
I likes Bryston more...longer decays, NAD cut off too clean(does not sound natural)...NAD has better control
For me the NAD wins in a walk. But I like a completely natural sound if I can get it, not a colored one. If I liked a lot of bass the Bryson would be fine.
Bryston 4B SST sounds muddy. NAD opens up with bothering shrill sounds and mixing the lower frequencies. NAD is way more relaxed. Bryston is congested.
The NAD sounds more real to me, while the Bryston sounds more artificial, like a recording
My personal opinion, I have owned Bryston amp for many, many years and processors. I presently have a Nad PrePro, really good clarity and detailed, but much more digital sounding. I prefere Bryston sound, if I had more $$$ . For me, Bryston all the way.
Bryston is definately lovely.
Hard to tell with a recoding, The Bryston is more natural In my opinion. Bryston Win.
if indication and sound would be switched NAD would get more credits and for some hard to admit it's a winner and that for 1/3 of the price
Als indicatie en geluid zouden worden omgeswitcht, zou NAD meer credits krijgen en dat is moeilijk toe te geven, gezien het enorme prijsverschil is het de winnaar
Первый трек классный,а есть ещё что нить на подобе!?
Ik wil de NAD C658/C298 weleens tegen de M33 zien en horen.
Zal NAD waarschijnlijk niet goed vinden😉
Jawel hoor! Maar we hebben toch onze sample database? Daar kan je - na inloggen op Alpha Audio - alle samples gewoon downloaden en vergelijken.
Why don`t you give 1 track for each amp? and you put Brystol on climax of the song!
Great video, thanks!
Ja leuk weer .👍👍
Bryson kills it
Nad amps are for people that can't afford the better Bryston amp.
And Bryston amps are for people that can't afford the better Pass Labs amp...? That's a bold statement you made...
The Bryston is more beautiful to look at...
So much bass in so small speakers? Sounds amazing!
Bryston is clearly overpriced in the Eurozone.. maybe because of tariffs.. here in Canada it costs much less.
How much is it in Canada?
@@TheAlphaAudio About 7k CAD. And can likely can get further discount from a dealer.
That NAD amp still seems like a really good value - in your video I did not hear a huge difference between the amps. Not sure what it's like in real life.
@@TheAlphaAudio By the way based on the wattage required to drive those speakers you may be able to do just fine with Bryston 2.5 or 3 which are a lot cheaper than 4.
@@michaela.5363 true. But we need an amp that van drive practically all speakers. That's why we use the 4b... :-)
@@michaela.5363 in real life the difference is not that big... The nad is a good deal.
pass int 25 sounds more powerful/dynamic than both these two on the focals.
Int25 is beautiful.