Wonderful and natural detail, stage size, fatigue-free treble, fleshed-out mids, no "transistor" sound (neutral, slightly warm presentation)

Microdyamics, inability to "throw" notes, lack of PrAT, "fat" bass

You will notice that despite all the audio press raves about this piece, there is, at this juncture, only one enthusiastic review posted. I bought the M3 because I was enamored of the NAD 372 sound (see my separate review) and thought this would just be "more better." Instead, I got a completely different presentation.

Between the 372 and the M3 I tried a Red Wine Sig 30 and a Musical Fidelity NuVista m3. I reverted to the 372 with all its warts both times, for different reasons. I had high hopes for the M3, but in the end, it wasn't to my liking. Yes, it is extremely and naturally detailed, and has the same slightly warm presentation as the 372. It can play small scale classical music in a league with the big boys. But there is something...I don't know..."wussy" about it with most music that volume alone won't cure. I think the Stereophile review hit on its two weaknesses correctly: it has an "inward" presentation despite the fact that all the information is there, and it has push-pull tube sounding bass (read, overly warm at 100-200 hz), which is unexpected and (in my case, anyway, as a recovering push-pull junky) unwelcomed. The biggest detraction from an involving musical experience is the "inward" thing - the treble info, etc. is all there, but the amp doesn't seem to get microdynamics quite right, and it doesn't "bounce" well from note to note. In a word, "polite." The 372, on the other hand, is a bit rougher - more like your good natured beer buddy; lots of life, lots of laughs, a good time. Impolite, but forgiven for his sins. I find the bass balance much better on the 372, even if a little woolly. The stage depth is as good, but the "up front" part is more "up front," i.e, there is a bit more presence with the 372. To me, this was a good lesson in "more $ does not necessarily = better sound." It was different, and better in some technical ways, but ultimately unsatisfying. I wound up shipping my 372 up to Chris Johnson at the Parts Connexion for upgrades to the op amps, caps, and other key parts. Although fearful I would get in return a completely different sounding amp, I was pleased to find that I got what I was hoping the M3 was going to give me: "more better." Except for a bit of residual wooliness in the bass, my 372 is now laughably better than the M3 in every standard, objective audiophile way, including inner detail and dead-on tonal correctness. Notes fly, and they decay properly - microdynamics are great. And the amp is still fun - still beer, but now it's a micro-brew $10 six-pack. I have a $1300 wunderkind. I have owned much more expensive equipment, and better equipment, but I have never come close to this price/performance ratio in the amplification arena. I wish I could say the same for the M3, but I can't. On the other hand, if a restrained, polite presentation is your goal, and you listen primarily to small scale classical music, the M3 is hard to beat. But if you include so much as small scale jazz in your listening ensemble, I just can't recommend it. It won't "swing." At least it didn't for me, in my room, with my other gear, which is all I have to go on.

Similar Products Used:

See review above

wide range of control capability
good drive into difficult loads

terribly compressed midrange at low volumes
price is a joke for this level of poor performance

I have to say this amplifier did not live up to expectations. My biggest complaint is that at low listen levels, like at background music levels, the midrange was so compressed I simply couldn't make it out. I mean it was just terrible. I eventually improved the situation by using the tone controls and muting both the base and treble -3dB and then turning the volume up a little effectively improving the midrange dynamics. If you listen to this at louder than background, it seems to work fine so for me i was constantly changing the tone controls from flat to -3dB depending on listening levels. Totally unacceptable for an amp in this price range.

I go so disguested with it, I broke out my 30 yr old Pioneer SX-950. That thing blew away the M3. Better sound stage (wider, deeper, better defined), better dynamics, better tone. Incredible. I may actually stick with the 950!

I was so unimpressed by the M3's performance, I seriously questioned if this particular unit had a defect that was causing this compression I simply can't believe a 3 grand integrated could suck like this at midrange freqs, so I played around with various sources. I found that higher output sources mitigated the problem somewhat, but the pioneer was still better at virtually everything.

n the end, I don't really care---I dumped it. I'm lazy enough that the lack of remote for the 950 will probably cause me to search out another integrated. I really do hope this is anomolous and that NAD did not really design such a crapy piece of audio equipment!

Similar Products Used:

simaudio
classe
arcam

Sound Stage
Tone
Just very very good

None, well if you spend a ton more then maybe.

Awesome

A very very fine piece of equipment, matched with the NAD M5 and B&W 804S.

Customer Service

Have not needed any

Similar Products Used:

Marantx
Panasonic Elite
NAD
Mission

Class A components for the price.
World class design and construction.
Clean,Powerful amplification
Runs 2 separate systems with 2 separate remotes included
Excellent heat sink design
customized balanced(1) and unbalanced inputs

weird speaker connections

180 watts/channel integrated amp. from NAD. Class A components part of the
newest Masters Series. Dual monoblock design.
Sweet, musical sound without the digital harshness. Awesome power range. Built like a tank. Considered a Macintosh or Krell. I feel this amp blows them away for the
price. Best integrated power source for the money. Made STEREOPHILE's class
A recommended components. Could not be happier with the musicality of this amp.

Similar Products Used:

Macintosh
NAD 572

purity of tone, cohesiveness, general sense of musicality, great remote and functions.

must still use interconnects on the back instead of those silly jumpers - really makes a difference.

Wonderful sound - that alleviates the need for me for neurotic tube rolling and tube amps. In this price range this amp stands head and shoulders above the overated amps both tube and ss that permeate the nmarketplace.

its liquid, present, harmonically rich, boogies, and has musicality. the longer you have it the better it sounds. sounds better then the digital amps thata re in vogue now or at least the ones i have had and listened to.

it is very sweet and voices are compelling. Make sure you like your speakers and cd player and turntable before you purchase this unit - because it wont make them sound better. the amp is not a cure all for stinkiness elsewhere in your system.

a real winner.

Customer Service

wonderful to deal with

Similar Products Used:

nad 372, cayin 272 tube, pass aleph a, vac renaissance, asl,