Good clean sound. Very beautiful, clean and simple design

The cd drawer should feel less flimsy, but ehh i haven't seen one that didn't...

It is much harder to compare Cd-players than amps. I'm sure happy with this one. It simply sounds good and feels solid [except the drawer]. The very nice, simple design made it stand out for me, compared with a Marantz that looked like a Tetris-capable car-stereo.

Similar Products Used:

Denon DCD435

Sweet sounding, price

Lack of bells and whistles but who cares

This player sounded better in my system than at the dealer. I was suprised with this player's level of refinement especially for it's price. Sweet sounding with good pace and drive. Low level resolution is excellent. Focus and depth were also good. Kimber PBJs are a good match for this player. Build quality appears on par with the competition.

The player does lack some features compared to the competition but the sound quality more than makes up for it. It's whats inside that counts anyway: 20bit Burr Brown DACs, high quality passives. Low impedance output. The player has an understated look which I prefer anyway.

Overall an amazing product.

Similar Products Used:

Rotel, Marantz, Sony, Arcam

minimalist design; warm, yet detailed sound.

....has 4-5 times skipped on discs that have never skipped on my rotel changer

...I'm a big fan of NAD products. I have a twelve year old NAD receiver (7250PE) that has never failed me (despite spending two years in an attic where temps. swing from -5 - 120 degrees F.) The 520 is in use in my home office along with my receiver. It sounds great! ...I have only two gripes: First, ..it occassionally "inexplicably" skips while playing discs that never seem to skip on my rotel changer. This happened during the first 20 or so hours of use. Since then, it hasn't happened except in such case where I'm playing a disc I know to have a problem.

My second gripe is that the drawer has a fairly "flimsy" feel. Now I realize that NAD is all about what's inside and that "drawer rigidity" has nothing to do with the sound, or long-term durability of the machine. Afterall, although the tray will open/close thousands of time during the machines life, it's not weight-bearing (..what does a cd weigh?), and has no "moving parts" integrated into it's design. Nonetheless, ...when a consumer could buy a japanese mid-fi cd Changer for $50 less that this single-disc player, they should find the more expensive unit to have a better tactile feel. ...Don't misunderstand, this unit does have an expensive feel (the buttons, display, fit/finish, etc. all feel solid), it's just the damn drawer that feels so "plasticy".

Anyway, ..as for the sound I can only say that there are very few CD players that I can listen to at a fairly high-volume for extended periods (2-3 hours) without getting a headache, or reaching for the volume control. This unit stands alone price-wise among these players. It still doesn't sound as "sweet" as a good turntable, but it comes very close for the $.

Similar Products Used:

rotel changer

Clean cohesive sound, easy to use, looks v. classy (i think), blue display

no programming feature

This is a cracking cd player, with very easy to use dials and buttons. Now has a digital out (improvement on old one.) I have this CD player set up with a Nad C320 amp and Eltax Symphony 8.2 speakers. I also invested in some Cambridge pacific interconnects. This is all very good stuff, and helps to emphasise the true quality of this CD player.
Overall, i reckon this is by far the best CD player on the market at this price - GET IT

Similar Products Used:

Marantz CD4000, some Sony CD player

smoothness, clarity, detail, involvement

thin, wimpy, laid back sound, lack of resolution, thin, wimpy, laid back sound, questionable transport/EC thin, wimpy, laid back sound, questionable transport/EC sys

I just did a test of a friend's brand new NAD C520 20-bit player,
which I had recommended on the basis of the reviews seen here. I was
comparing it directly to my old original Arcam Alpha player, which is
an old school multibit that has at least 10 years on this new unit.
Both players were initially tested as transports on the back of a
Theta Pro Basic DAC (FWIW, analog cables used were MIT 330 Shotgun and
digital was a Theta coax). But they were also later tested on their
own merits, and while the subtraction of the external DAC from the
signal path removed its contribution to the sound, the basic nature of
both CD players proved to be the same. Therefore all observations
about their sonic character remains the same, regardless of whether
the Theta was in the loop or not.

First, let me say that the NAD worked on all the commercial CD's I
used, but y'all weren't kidding about the drawer. It's pretty pathetic
for a $450.00 (CDN) player, as it is about as thin as a CD case. It
may not be asked to hold much weight, but one little slip of the
wrist, and you're looking at a very hefty repair bill. This is why I
recommended to my friend to get the *extra* warranty plan! Anyway...

Sound: The characteristic of the NAD in relation to the Arcam, is that
it has a thinner, lightweight sound, and is lacking the deeper, solid
bass of the Arcam and the richer but darker sound of the Alpha. I
would further characterize the NAD as a smooth and laid back sound
(most certainly not as upfront as the Arcam's view of things). I
consider this difference as having advantages and disadvantages. The
smoothness makes it a little less grating in the midrange (bane of
most CD players), but it's rather too smooth, because the smoothness
and laid back nature makes everything bland. It was hard to
distinguish one instrument from the other, and even vocals blended
into the mix. The Arcam had more 'bite' than this, but it was easier
to follow lyrics on the NAD, because the C520 had a more refined, and
to a certain extent, a more detailed sound. It also had more PRAT than
the Arcam, so in this case, laid back and boring doesn't have to mean
uninvolving.

However, I can get a far more PRAT and involvement from a 30 year old
turntable than either of these players, so neither do much for me in
the area of musicality. And I would not change the Arcam for the NAD,
because even if it was more involving in one sense, it had a much
smaller soundstage, less resolution in certain aspects, and the lack
of presence made it inoffensive, but less "interesting" to listen to,
in an overall sense. It also didn't seem comfortable at all when being
asked to handle loud, complex music (the latter part of Dave Matthew's
"Best of what's around", for example). It sounded like a toy, making a
barrage of noise that did not resemble music in the least. But the
Arcam was only a bit better in this aspect. (Blu-tacking the NAD's
crystal did improve things here, as well as adding much needed focus
and resolution to the sound).

The NAD is definitely an improvement over the older generation of
harsher players though, and while it reminds me of a 24bit Kenwood
changer I once had for a brief while, (ie. smooth and detailed without
the usual harshness, but a lack of timbral delineation), I don't have
it any longer to compare and I don't know how the C520 stacks up to
its direct competitor's. Maybe the price is too low to have much
of any real competition. But after listening to this unit, I feel I
did not give my friend bum advice, that it will fit well into a budget
audiophile system, and while I do not wish to imagine this, you could
probably do a lot worse. As long as you don't expect too much it, such
as asking it to compare to the higher overall resolution of even a
modest turntable, it's not a bad little unit, and I see no real reason
not to recommend it.

Similar Products Used:

Kenwood 24bit changer, Arcam Alpha

Big sound, detailed, godd value for money

Few funstions, too simple,hi-mid frequcies not there.

NAD 520 Help !!!! 18 Mar, 2001 18:00 GMT

I would appreciate any solution to the following: I have a Marantz PM54SE amp, B&W 602 S2 speakers ans have just purchased a NAD520 at a bargain price, brand new at £99/- frm you know where. I used to have a Sherwood 5090R CD player (fairly new to the game, you see). After hookng on the NAD520, I got more detail but have lost a big big chunk in the mid freqencies. I mean, the top airy treble is fine, but frequencies for snares, rim shots are are missing. My system has lost it bite! I like my music detailed and on the fierce side with good controlled bass (not boomy). I don't think that it's the speakers. I have a spare pair of Tannoy Reveals (Studio nearfield monitors), and feel teh same mid lacking. I gain some of the mid by hooking up a Sherwood 6095 AV amp via the NAD520 and the B&W's, but at the expense of a flabby bottom and splashy tops. Is it the case that my CD player showing flaws in my ageing amp? or a case of the 'that's the way the NAD is'. It's been a mistake going for the sherwood amp and other kit. I should have know better. However, what do I do now? Do I buy my self a new amp for £200 or get another CD player, which works well with the NAD520 and B&W 602 S2? There is the alternative of buying an equaliser to set it to a fixed setting to boost up the mid freqencies...mmm now there's a thought. Any help will be much appreciated. Thanks SAndeep.

Excellent sonic quality (dynamic, transparent) for the buck

none of significance

I know some people who were playing cds of a dvd player and then switched to the c520 - whoa, what a difference!

Recently purchased the NAD C-520, and I agree that the tray seems a little flimsy. However, as long as you're careful when loading and unloading, there's no reason this player wont run for decades - it's an otherwise sturdy unit in the tradition of NAD (simple, clean), with an incredible dynamic range that's beautifully clear (see below).

If you run this player against anything in it's price-range (up to and around $250 US) you'll quickly realize you can't beat this player in bang for the buck. As a lowest-end hi-fi unit, this player is perfect for the new enthusiast whose on a budget.

The up model is built with a little sturdier tray . . . I gave a listen and they sounded the same to me. I listed on the store's speakers, the store's amps and cds, so maybe not a fair test drive - nevertheless, I don't think the 521 is worth the diff.

We first ran this unit (flat through a big ONKYO home theater unit, to large custom Philips 3-ways with an additional 15" Klipsch sub) via analog RCAs, and were a little underimpressed with what we heard. After a few hours, we returned from the stereo shop with some digital coax cables, and we were completely blown away - really opened up the range (suddenly, the bass was tighter, deeper, and the highs emerged beautifully, and perfectly), and we heard really dynamic audio (exciting and punchy, but not harsh - we grabbed a whole bunch of our fav horn cds and gave them a whirl). We listened for hours, and I suspect you'll do the same if you snag this unit.

I guess that means that our ONKYO dig-->anlaog processor is superiopr to the NAD players' (I think that's what it means). If you've got a good dig processor, and a decent amp and speaks, then run the C-520 with dig coax, and buy some cds with the money you saved.

Cheers.

Incredible sound, very nice detail, nice remote

Can't countdown time remaining in track!

The sound from this player is rather incredible for the price -- it may help that it's paired with an NAD T760 receiver. After this player has burned-in for awhile, the detail really starts coming through.

I haven't had one bit of trouble out of mine -- but then again, I bought it NEW. (And I actually like the supplied remote but don't use it in favor of my learning remote.)

The only problem is that it can't show the remaining time of a track -- only the whole disc.

Similar Products Used:

H/K FL8550, Kenwood, Sony

Overall sound, value for money.

Does not play some CD-Rs, but that's not important, and it has been known (twice in six months), to skip even on perfectly unscratched CD's. But nothing major.

Excellent sound all round with exceptional detail and powerful bass for the price. Teamed with Nad C 370 Amp and Mission M73 speakers, it blows my Sony JE640 MD player out of the water when it comes to listenability. It is due to be replaced by a higer model as soon as possible, as are the speakers, but if you are looking for a budget player that sounds out of it's class, then look no further. Or check out the 521.

NAD C521....The sound quality and ease of use.

None. The drawer unit and mechanism has been greatly improved over earlier models.

After being allowed to "burn" in, the sound quality makes this unit a "Best Buy".

Similar Products Used:

Aiwa