NAD 2200 Vintage Amplifier Review

[DaveM]

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.

Yes, I remember that receiver. I had no need for a tuner and wanted the amp to be separate so it could be easily connected to my DJ mixing board. I went with the 1300/2600 combination. The 1300 stayed home while the 2600 went to the party.

 

[restorer-john]

Yes please.

Here you go, I've had this actual brochure since the day I went in to a local NAD dealer when it was released.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sRfUMXSHEaip0MJpftL6IzFSgpbmCtDJ/view?usp=sharing

I've uploaded that scan I just made to HiFiEngine, as there wasn't an original brochure in their database. It should be online in a day or two for download at that site also.

 

[Blake Klondike]

So cool to see such a great review from an old product like this-- great to see that the NAD designs live up to their rep. Thanks to Amir and the sender! Out of curiosity, anybody have any experience with the 7600 integrated?

 

[BDWoody]

Here you go, I've had this actual brochure since the day I went in to a local NAD dealer when it was released.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sRfUMXSHEaip0MJpftL6IzFSgpbmCtDJ/view?usp=sharing

Thanks John. I love the old gear...your "warehouse(s)" is the stuff of dreams.

 

[restorer-john]

Thanks John. I love the old gear...your "warehouse(s)" is the stuff of dreams.

And nightmares. When I think what is going to happen to it all down the track. LOL.

 

[restorer-john]

@amirm

The FR in your tests corresponds to the Normal input which has an ultrasonic and infrasonic filter:

As mentioned previously, it will be pretty much ruler flat through the "LAB" input.

 

[DaveM]

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.

May not be so much a reliability issue as encountering too many steep inclines and declines.

 

[martin900]

The main culprit with NAD is that they often fail and you can be sure they do. It's a good amplifier to buy if you can get it for cheap and fix it yourself.
Their AVR's and C3xx series are the best (worst?) example - mediocre solder job, cheapest capacitors money can buy and very questionable if not stupid design decisions to place capacitors in pretty much sealed cans with class A driver stages or directly next to a hot heatsink of a voltage regulator.

I've done a 370 once, never ever again. Had to replace almost every electrolytic capacitor and have spent hours fixing bad solder joints on the thing.
You have about 100% chance it's already partially decayed if you find one for sale online.

And don't even start me on their CDP's....great while they work but they break down due to mysterious reasons, not only because of laser and electrolytics failing.

It's a shame because otherwise NAD gear really does sound very good and often delivers more than what they promise.

 

[PeteL]

@amirm

The FR in your tests corresponds to the Normal input which has an ultrasonic and infrasonic filter:

View attachment 68102

View attachment 68104

As mentioned previously, it will be pretty much ruler flat through the "LAB" input.

Yes, I'd be interested in knowing which input is used. I'm not as sure as you about "ruler flat" tough. I don't have this 2200, but have the 2700, which according to the letter from the restorer, he made improvements to get it close too. On mine there is no "lab" input, but the thx input is the same Idea, getting rid of the filter. It's an awesome amp, I love it, but it definitely have a different sonic signature than my Ncore 500 based amps. It does not sound "ruler flat" to me. It's a smoother sound, les detailed. Ncore are ruler flat. I love em both, but they are different.

 

[Angsty]

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.

I use a NAD 1600 preamp and a C272 power amp daily with no issues. The 1600 was purchased new in 1991. The C272 is a bit younger, purchased in 2005. It replaced a Proton AA-1150 that had developed significant THD problems.

The older NAD stuff was better quality than mass market and was well-engineered for value (see Amir’s review). I could afford “better” now, but for my second system, it performs admirably.

 

[DaveM]

The main culprit with NAD is that they often fail and you can be sure they do. It's a good amplifier to buy if you can get it for cheap and fix it yourself.
Their AVR's and C3xx series are the best (worst?) example - mediocre solder job, cheapest capacitors money can buy and very questionable if not stupid design decisions to place capacitors in pretty much sealed cans with class A driver stages or directly next to a hot heatsink of a voltage regulator.

I've done a 370 once, never ever again. Had to replace almost every electrolytic capacitor and have spent hours fixing bad solder joints on the thing.
You have about 100% chance it's already partially decayed if you find one for sale online.

It's a shame because otherwise these amps really do sound very good and often deliver more than what they promise.

I think this may be true of the newer amplifiers except maybe the M series but not their amps from the 1980’s. I know mine was and still is solid with just relay replacement after pretty heavy party use. From what I read, the 1980’s NAD amplifier’s achilles heal may have been their binding posts. Probably because they stuck out a lot from the rear panel. I was careful when moving the amp and only used old school bare speaker wire.

 

[McFly]

@amirm

The FR in your tests corresponds to the Normal input which has an ultrasonic and infrasonic filter:

View attachment 68102

View attachment 68104

As mentioned previously, it will be pretty much ruler flat through the "LAB" input.

So @amirm can you retest in LAB input , and test bridged output power vs distortion? Very interested to see how the bridged mode affects distortion.

 

[restorer-john]

So @amirm can you ... test bridged output power vs distortion?

He might smoke up his expensive precision dummy loads. Not sure what they will take, but nearly 2KW is possible from that amplifier.

 

[McFly]

He might smoke up his expensive precision dummy loads. Not sure what they will take, but nearly 2KW is possible from that amplifier.

Tell him to pull out his hot water cylinder element. Should be good for 3kw.


Edit: Sarcasm, if it wasn't obvious

 

[oldsysop]

My hatred for the new is boosted when I see good vintage equipment.
Thank you very much Amir !!!

 

[amirm]

So @amirm can you retest in LAB input , and test bridged output power vs distortion? Very interested to see how the bridged mode affects distortion.

I don't want to stress/test the bridge mode with vintage gear. It is not like I can go to the store and buy another one for the owner.

But did re-run a few of the tests in lab mode and added to the review. Performance definitely improves a notch or two.

 

[wwenze]

New output semiconductor is almost unavoidable... a long time back I had to repair a NAD amp which used... Motorola transistors.

 

[gvl]

Another example of Schiit Vidar being left behind in the dust by 30 y/o tech.

 

[Wes]

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.

didn't the earlier 2100 have a "power envelope" ??

whatever it was, it supposedly improved performance at clipping

 

[YSC]

Somehow reading some measurements of these hyper expensive amp for pairing with hyper expensive passive speakers I have a feel that way down is super out of budget for some nice sound, seems like active monitors are a much cheaper for good measured performance?