NAD 2200 Vintage Amplifier Review

[tjf]

@carlob: "see the specs above..."
Not an answer to my question:
-- the freq resp measurement Amir made (he made only one FR graph) implies use of the filtered "Normal" input,
-- my curiosity has to do with what Amir 's measured FR graph would show if he also tried the "Lab" input for an FR test....not interested in NAD's spec sheet from the 80's, but thanks anyway for your input...

 

[DaveM]

Great review Amir. I remember the 2200. It was one of the products that made a name for NAD back in the 1980’s. I am an original owner of a 2600A amplifier which I still have and is sitting in a box in my attic. Its relays were replaced last year by my local NAD service center. It’s first and only repair after 35 years of use! I first used it as the DJ in my fraternity for several years. The technician who repaired it said it is still operating at its original factory specifications. Not sure if you want to test it? I also have the NAD 1300 preamplifier which I also bought new and not using right now.

 

[carlob]

@carlob: "see the specs above..."
Not an answer to my question:
-- the freq resp measurement Amir made (he made only one FR graph) implies use of the filtered "Normal" input,
-- my curiosity has to do with what Amir 's measured FR graph would show if he also tried the "Lab" input for an FR test....not interested in NAD's spec sheet from the 80's, but thanks anyway for your input...

can you read?

 

[DaveM]

Amplifier is in better shape than the box after several moves cross country.

 

[carlob]

I have a 2200, recapped a couple of years ago, not much in use anymore.

 

[tjf]

can you read?

View attachment 68078

I would ask you the same question...I'm not interested in NAD's spec sheet -- I'd like to see the actual measured results if Amir would be so good to run the FR test again using the LAB input...
Is that OK with you?

 

[Eetu]

Ridiculously good! Beats the C320BEE which came out years and years later.

Actually, C320BEE's power amp (preamp bypassed) measured better:

 

[Budgeter]

Overall, I am happy to recommend the NAD 2200. I almost gave it the highest honors but given the upgraded nature of the test unit, and the fact that used amps may have issues, I avoided that.

Question. Since the unit is modified, it is not an original one anymore, so is it legit to use this specific sample to recommend the model? Although throughout the review, it is clearly stated that the device is upgraded, I'm just a little bit picky about the wording here.

 

[LTig]

I have 2 of them sitting on the floor in need of new output relays. Otherwise they are just fine. Can someone post a link to those relays or a matching replacement?

Here someone measured 1.8 kW power in bridged mode:

 

[amirm]

Here you go:

 

[Angsty]

Teary just a little bit - Quirk Audio is now on my radar screen. I have a vintage C272 power amp and 1600 preamp that I use daily. Good to know there is someone out there that can restore them expertly if the need arises.

 

[carlob]

I have 2 of them sitting on the floor in need of new output relays. Otherwise they are just fine. Can someone post a link to those relays or a matching replacement?

The original part is Taiko Rxs 2405U, a suitable replacement should be this one

 

[ta240]

Question. Since the unit is modified, it is not an original one anymore, so is it legit to use this specific sample to recommend the model? Although throughout the review, it is clearly stated that the device is upgraded, I'm just a little bit picky about the wording here.

Vintage equipment is really hard to get solid tests on. They either seem to be untouched and likely in need of at least new electrolytic capacitors if not also adjustments or they are like this where you have new output chips and circuit modifications with extra capacitors.
In either case I don't think it is fitting scientifically to consider it a valid test of the specific model number being referenced.

 

[GXAlan]

This provides evidence for the comment that "vintage Hi-Fi" is often a great bargain.

Here are the advertised specs:
Continuous output power into 8Ω * 100W (20dBW)
Rated distortion (THD 20Hz - 20kHz) 0.03%
Clipping power (maximum continuous power per channel) 140W
IHF Dynamic headroom at 8Ω +6dB
IHF dynamic power (maximum short term power per channel)
8Ω 400W (26dBW)
4Ω 600W (28dBW)
2Ω 800W (29dBW)

Damping factor (ref. 8Ω, 50Hz) >100
Input impedance 25kΩ / 1000pF
Input sensitivity (for rated power into 8Ω) 700mV

Frequency response 3Hz - 80kHz / +0, -3dB
dB Signal/noise ratio ref. 1W >91dB ref.
rated power >111dB THD (20Hz - 20kHz) <0.03%

Bridged Mode Continuous output power into 8Ω * 400W (26dBW)
IHF Dynamic headroom at 8Ω +5dB
IHF dynamic power (maximum short term power per channel)
8Ω 1.2kW (31dBW)
4Ω 1.6kW (32dBW)

 

[ta240]

This provides evidence for the comment that "vintage Hi-Fi" is often a great bargain.

It should probably be "Restored/Upgraded Vintage Hi-Fi is often a great bargain"

Vintage can put them outside of the average lifespan of electrolytic capacitors. And more complex amplifiers that have adjustments for things like bias and DC offset can need more technical work to makes sure they are operating at their best.

I think a lot of people buy vintage based on reputation and likely end up with equipment that has and is continuing to drift out of spec. It would be great to see a test on something 45 years old before and after the electrolytic capacitors are replaced and then again after the output chips are upgraded.

 

[restorer-john]

The 2200 was NAD's first "power tracker" commutating rail power amplifier. When it came out in the 1980s, it basically re-wrote the high dynamic power game and many other brands followed suit. Prior to the NAD 2200, Hitachi had hit the market 5+ years before (1977) with an even more powerful (200+200@8R continuous and well over 600W dynamic) commutating rail monster, the HMA-8300. I have one of those somewhere in my storeroom- all 24kg of it. It also runs (192V) +/-96V rails with 125V reservoir caps.

Some interesting things about the 2200 amplifier:

It runs the two channels permanently in opposite phase but reverses the polarity at the speaker terminals, makes better use of the power supply.
As such, bridging is really easy and simply sends the same signal to each amplifer.
Having one "negative" speaker terminal at 0V (chassis) and the other "positive" speaker terminal at 0V in stereo operation, caused many of these amplifiers to go up in smoke, especially when people used them with certain Polk SRA speakers which required a L-R crossfeed.
In bridged mono, it delivers well over 1.6Kw short term at 4R...

I have an original 2200 brochure I can dig out and scan on this amplifier as I regarded it as a groundbreaking design at the time if anyone is interested.

 

[BDWoody]

I have an original 2200 brochure I can dig out and scan on this amplifier as I regarded it as a groundbreaking design at the time if anyone is interested.

Yes please.

 

[restorer-john]

It would be great to see a test on something 45 years old before and after the electrolytic capacitors are replaced and then again

I have plenty of stock 45 year old amplifiers which test as well as the day they were made. And plenty of others that needed lots of work. And everything in between.

 

[Xyrium]

Like a Ferrari...lots of good clean power but not reliable enough to make it a long term...daily driver. Always liked NAD for what they stood for...a stepping stone.

 

[milosz]

View attachment 68081
Amplifier is in better shape than the box after several moves cross country.

I have a NAD 7600, which is a receiver with the 2600 power amp stage. HUGE amounts of power! I don't use it any more, but it's an impressive thing. The remote control "brain" has had some issues, but in it's day it had a very good tuner, fine discrete FET phono stage, and ALL THAT POWER. I bought in 1988.