Price

Treble, transport etc...

I guess this is a player that can sound either quite alright or simply HORRIBLE depending on the rest of your equipment.

For me, this player is a piece of PLASTIC CRAP! The transport is so weak I'm afraid I'll break it putting in a CD!! Ok, the design is pretty clean which for me is a good thing.

Now for the sound:
This one is the number one killer for your poor ears played in the wrong system.
My equipment:
Edison 60 - integrated tube-amp, class A.
Snell E/III - floorstanding speakers, class A.

The treble is SO damn sharp and the sound is cold like ice even with a tube-amp! The Snell's are very forward and detailed and with this crappy player they sound far from what to expect! The details are there but the treble is unbearable!

It might sound pretty decent on other equipment so be careful with matching!

Inexpensive. Warm, refined sound that fits practically all styles of music.

Too laid back. The sound lacks dimension and is "too flat". Can almost be regarded as a rather weak sound. Had to turn vol up to feel engaged by the music.

System:

Sony STR-DB940 receiver
Mordaunt Short MS-902s speakers
Toshiba SD-2109 DVD player

I got the NAD cause it was cheap and I wanted a dedicated CD player (before I was playing CD's on my Toshiba SD-2109 DVD player). However, I was to be disappointed. After hooking up the NAD and letting it rip into my SONY STR-DB940 receiver I sat back with expectation. No such luck. Some people may describe the sound as warm and refined. I would say quiet and boring. Sorry, but I was totally underwhelmed by this player. Then I thought perhaps its the interconnects. Changed those. Nope - still drab. Played a CD on my DVD again for comparison. Ah... that's what's missing - bite. The DVD had a lot more balls in its presentation - in fact, too much (became almost painful to listen to some tracks because they were so raw) which is why I went looking for a dedicated CD player in the first place.

Perhaps its just a case of bad component mix. Perhaps not. Either way, I've went out and purchased a Marantz CD6000ose and boy does that thing go. Awesome piece of kit.

To summarise: if you like music that is warm, crisp and refined you may find the NAD a good buy. If you like music that jumps out and grabs you by the balls and totally grabs your attention without tiring you - then I highly recommend the Marantz.

Similar Products Used:

Marantz CD6000ose

Natural sound, display, very silent inside, it plays all kind of music with plenty punch and detail.

Transport is a little bit weak, about $100 more expensive than the c520 only for a cd-r compitablility and a better
transformator and separated digital/analogue circuit.

NAD C521

system consist of:

KEF Cresta 2 (+ klipsch kw10 subwoofer)
NAD c340 amplifier
Linn speakercable
QED interconnects
Sony mds-je 520 md player
NAD c521

With this set-up you are in the good midclass-sigment and have a system which realy shakes the books from your shelves
in small rooms (-15m2). The 521 is the last one added to my system, and it just improves on the buget sony and philips players. In fact the 521 also improves on the sony QS in the upper high and upper bass-frequencies (29-120 Hz). It can also play much louder than the sony. The other players are absolute NO match for this cracking NAD player. The sony QS came close but the nad simply blast it away. The difference between the Sony QS and the Nad is the same difference as between the Nad, and the Arcam Alpha7se.
So if you look for a lapyer beneeth $1000 go for the NAD, when you have a higher budget go for the REGA-planet or the ARCAM FMJ-23

Similar Products Used:

Sony XB930, Rotel rcd 931, Marantz cd 6000ose, Sony mds-je 520 MD player.

Detail level, musicality, bass depth, no frills

Some grain in treble on lower quality recordings, no frills

Associated gear:
- Cambridge Audio A3i integrated amp
- QED Qnect 1 interconnect
- PSB Century 500i speakers
- Tara Labs Prism Omni speaker cable

This player is musical and very enjoyable- it deserves the acclaim it has received. I feel it has a good level of detail, as well as decent soundstaging and good range. The deep bass and clear highs are impressive, though a few of my CDs have been a little grainy on the high end- but this is probably partially due to the recording quality as well. My amp is very clear and revealing, and allows the musical nature of the C520 to shine through. I recommend using the player with the QED Qnect 1 interconnect- a very nice cable for about $ 50. The reproduction of jazz and folk is very natural and involving, with very accurate (and slightly warm) vocal reproduction. Complex, loud passages (Garbage, for example) of electronic rock do not faze it, either.

It does not have any fancy features, but the only one I can admit to missing is track programming.

The overall finish is pretty good, and I haven't had any skipping problems (though my discs are generally in pristine condition) or other issues. The rounded look is a surprisingly large improvement over the more edgy look of the previous models, in my opinion. I got my C520 for about $ 275, and am very happy with it. I would be surprised if you could find a more involving player for the price. It is worth noting that it has been very well received in the U.K., including awards from What Hi-Fi magazine.

For value this player deserves a full five stars, but in the grand scheme of things there are many players out there that can outperform it (but for a lot more money)- so three stars overall. Don't let the latter scare you if you are looking for a budget player, though- be sure to audition the C520. It will be well worth your while.

Similar Products Used:

Sony low-end equipment, Marantz 6000 OSE, other low-fi gear

Sounds Sweet, Design, Price

Remote (see below)

My set up is
Arcam 5+;
Mordent Short MS20i on Apollo stands;
QED Qudos; and
QED Qnect2. ("What Hi-Fi?" readers, anyone?)

Music is R&B and Jazz.

My Sony broke after a lot of use and I went out to buy the Yam 393 seeing that it was priced A$100 less than the NAD and A$150 less than the Yam 493. That thought me - I returned the 393 after 3 days. The sound was sharp and at times too bright for easy listening. And bass, what bass?!

The justification to spending A$100 more was easily reached. Don't get me wrong, I moved the speakers around, away from the wall, closer to the wall etc., even cleaned the connection points but no luck. Conclusion - return the unit pronto chop chop (also, has anyone seen the monster remotes that come with the Yams).

I went to another hi-fi shop as he had agreed to me bringing my 5+(obsolete now) along, and of course my fav CDs. After setting it up and all, I tested the Yam 493 and the NAD. I knew at once the NAD was for me - the unit 'sang'. For that money, you can't go wrong - the sound was sweet. I must admit that I was initially a little if-fy when I first saw the made in PRC sticker but NAD proved that the place of manufacture is irrelevant.

Next to my friends Marantz 63SE on a similar set up, I do see a few short comings of the NAD (bass control with R&B) but we are looking at an extra A$300 (at that time).

Now the remote - functionality 5 of 5, but the location of the buttons are not the best. The handheld is cute but could do with a little organisation. Holding it in the palm of my hand and using my thumb is sometimes a little uncomfortable as the buttons are concerntated at the bottom of the remote. No big drama though.

All in all, great unit that deserves the ratings. If you are looking for a value for money CD player - look no further.

Similar Products Used:

Yamaha 393, Sony (5 yrs old)

Review update - see below for original review.

Just wanted to update my review:

1) I said this is not a CD player for Metallica -- I was wrong. I tried out "Load" and "Reload" just for the hell of it, and both sounded amazing. Very tight and intense - just as metal should be. I'm not a huge fan of this music (although I was 15 years ago when I was a teen) - but the 520 "kicks ass" in this department as well.

2) It is "breaking" in - and after 48 hours of use, the overall sound has become much more warm, and less wimpy. Clarity and definition still remains strong -- and I like the player better and better with each CD I try out.

I'm revision my rating to "5" across the board.

TRANSPARENT, WARM SOUND. SIMPLISTIC LAYOUT AND DESIGN...

FLIMSY CD TRAY

RECENTLY TOOK DELIVERY OF MY C520, ONLY TO HAVE TO RETURN IT DUE TO A FINICKY TRAY MOTOR. THAT ISSUE ASIDE, MY NEW FUNTIONAL UNIT IS TERRIFIC. THE SOUND IS BEAUTIFUL, WITH A CLARITY BOTH IN THE MIDS AND HIGHS. BASS IS REPRODUCED WITH HEFT AND PRESENCE. THIS IS A MAJOR IMPROVEMENT OVER MY 7 YEAR OLD SONY UNIT...I WOULD ALSO RECCOMEND VERY NEUTRAL, OPEN INTERCONNECTS FOR THIS UNIT. I USE IXOS GAMMAS AND COULDN'T BE HAPPIER EITH THE RESULTS. GREAT VALUE...

Similar Products Used:

CAMBRIDGE, SONY, ROTEL, MARANTZ

Clean sound,Detailed sound

none

After I auditioned Marantz cd 48,Nad 522 and Nad C520,
I decided to choose Nad C520.This is a good CD-player,
It produces music with great detail.I haven't had any problems (skips while playing)with this player,but I have
some problem with Nad 522(sometime the cd door close by itself).At this price ($275)I think Nad 520 is the best.

Similar Products Used:

Sony

excellent sound, remarkable detail, and great price (Audio FX)

CD tray flimsy

Great CD player, I am hearing instruments and backup vocals that I could not hear on a ~10 yr old 16 bit CD player. Nice remote control, look forward to buying a NAD amp to upgrade my system. For those with sensitive ears, please note the following. I am very sensitive to high frequencey sounds (both audible and inaudible), and at first my ears were irritated by the music-though the music sounded great. Was recommended to burn in the CD player for 24 hrs (speakers off) with variable music. Did that and my ears were fine.

Similar Products Used:

Luxman, Sony

inexpensive, simple, reads almost any CD

brittle sound, a bit thin, grainy

I bought this CD player after using a stereo warehouse SONY 5 disc changer for years. I had hoped for a major improvement in sound, seeing how it cost nearly three times what the Sony did.
I was wrong.
It took nearly a month for me to distinguish between the NAD and the Sony. They were very very similar.
Maybe it was a burn-in period, maybe there wasn't much diff, I was just disappointed in the end.