NAD C540 Review (CD Player)

[Bleib]

Thanks, do you also plan on testing Fosi Merak?

 

[diddley]

Thank you, Flo, for another great review, I have the C515bee but don't use it anymore because you convinced me with the Denon review to buy that one. Both of them are connected, but I don't use the NAD no more there is something wrong with the tray that makes it not a fun devise to use. I also have a nas where all my ripped cd's stand on, that one i use regularly. Have a good weekend!

 

[phoenixdogfan]

If someone gives this to you, or you find it in a yard sale or at a Goodwill AND you have a collection of CDs you like to play, then jump on it for $20, because it plays Redbook CDs as transparently as they need to be played. But if you no longer spin the silver disks, you have no use case.

Thanks for the nice review, NTTY.

 

[Vintage02]

Thank you Florent, another great presentation always as fascinating to read with measurements full of information. This thanks to the excellent NTTY TECHNICAL CD ...

 

[shuppatsu]

Guys, another review just dropped on VCDPSR (vintage CD player science review)!

 

[NTTY]

Guys, another review just dropped on VCDPSR (vintage CD player science review)!

ASR will be awarded for promoting reuse by the EPA

 

[NTTY]

Thanks, do you also plan on testing Fosi Merak?

Yep, it is on its way to me

 

[Bleib]

Yep, it is on its way to me

Cool, on its way to me too, will be great to have performance confirmation

 

[trevor_bartram]

I mean, all CD players will be at the very least sonically similar. Most will be sonically identical.

I had half a dozen CD & DVD players in my home to compare to the C540, I choose the A110.

 

[Billy Budapest]

Maybe today, but not always then (see my post above).

I agree with that statement. But nowadays, a CD player has to be doing something really wrong for differences to be audible.

 

[daniboun]

Hi amigos

If you like reviews with complete and precise measurements on all vintage HiFi equipment (CD player, amplifier, preamp etc.) then you will love this site where you will find hundreds of devices measured with a serious protocol.
I can tell you that the measurements coincide with those shared here (e.g., Yamaha C-2).

https://www.audiovintage.fr/category/platines-cd/

 

[aagstn]

Maybe that's the one I'm thinking of. I almost got one but got the Denon 2910 instead and it lasted a long time.

The players that supported HDCD usually had some sticker on them with the copyright information for the decoding. You still need to read the manuals though because I ran across some Panasonics that said they supported HDCD, but they did not support peak extend which kinda defeats the whole purpose of HDCD. HDCD is a weird one. I prefer to rip them with dBpoweramp which can properly decode them and it will save them as 24bit files to preserve any sound difference that might have theoretically existed. I don't mind playing most of my CDs on a CD player, but HDCDs are just easier to stream and be done with it.

Another fantastic review. Yes, most vintage CD players will sound the same in practice. However, I still enjoy seeing them tested to see the differences, especially with how they handle hot masters and scratched CDs.

 

[NTTY]

Hi amigos

If you like reviews with complete and precise measurements on all vintage HiFi equipment (CD player, amplifier, preamp etc.) then you will love this site where you will find hundreds of devices measured with a serious protocol.
I can tell you that the measurements coincide with those shared here (e.g., Yamaha C-2).

https://www.audiovintage.fr/category/platines-cd/

Thanks!
I contacted them to get a Yamaha CD-1 fixed some time ago, but the hobby/business is now out of their interest. Too bad for me. And yes, it is more than a great source of information that I leveraged many times

 

[dcolak]

I had two NAD C370's they both died.
I had NAD C541I it died.
I had NAD M3 it died.

NAD never again, ever.

 

[French Meloman]

My parents had a NAD entry-level player (model 522, unless I’m mistaken) for more than 20 years, from 1997 to 2019 or 2020. Apart from a faulty display that had to be replaced twice, it held up well. The mechanics gradually started to weaken over the last 3 years, when the tray began having difficulty locking, then it was the CDs over 75 minutes that no longer managed to be read all the way through, until the reading problems intensified and made usage impossible regardless of the CD. But after all that time, it was normal wear.
In any case, the model tested here is good enough in every way to be a good deal. If you have it, keep it and use it to the fullest.
Thanks to Florent for this work, always instructive.
As for the grumblers who do not like these tests, no one is forcing you to read them. If you do not like it, it is your right, but do not discourage others from it...

 

[GroeneLeeuw]

I had two NAD C370's they both died.
I had NAD C541I it died.
I had NAD M3 it died.

NAD never again, ever.

Their cd-players always had a bad reputation.
What you´re relating is something I´ve heard often in the past (10-20 years ago).

 

[pinger]

Hello Everyone,

This is a review and detailed measurements of the NAD C540 CD Player and Transport.

View attachment 525435

It was loaned to me by a friend who read the review of the Azur 640C V2, and saw the desire of @trevor_bartram to get the same review from a NAD C540. And since he had that one, he suggested me to go for it. So here we are.


NAD C540 - Presentation

Released in 1999, this more than a quarter century old CD player uses the BurrBrown PCM1716, a 24bits DAC that includes an 8x oversampling filter (selectable between slow or fast). As per the datasheet, it ranges from -90 to 97 of THD+N @0dBFS, we'll check that.

As per my research, it was a not so expensive CD Player at the time (around 220$). The specs were (taken from the Service Manual):

View attachment 525445

I like the good set of specs, especially fact it is mentioned it applies de-emphasis, including the error (I'll check too, of course). There's also a mention of real linearity, said to be better than -80dB, and I can tell you it's much better than that, hopefully for a delta-sigma DAC.

On the back, we get the minimum and essential:

View attachment 525446

RCA for analog output and SPDIF via RCA too, no Toslink.

Let's have a look at the inside:

View attachment 525448

The drive is a Sanyo that has been replaced in this one. The blue board hosts all functions, from SERVO control to analog outputs.

User experience

The drive is pleasantly fast, especially to FFW/REW, and also to skip one or several tracks, I like it. Some of the buttons are not so reactive and I suppose this an aging effect.

I'm always missing a headphones out, but for an entry level unit, I guess it's ok.

It is gapless playback, proper CD player that is, together with de-emphasis correctly applied.


NAD C540 - Measurements (Analog outputs)

All measurements performed with an E1DA Cosmos ADCiso (grade 0), and the Cosmos Scaler (100kohms from unbalanced input) for analog outputs, and a Motu UltraLite Mk5 for digital.

I am now consistent with my specific measurements for CD Players, as I described them in the post “More than we hear”, and as I reported them for the SMSL PL-200 review. I used the commercial version of my Audio Technical CD for all measurements. Over time, this will help comparing the devices I reviewed.

The NAD C540 outputs a higher than usual 2.262Vrms from left channel, and 2.241V from right channel (0.08dB less). This is a good 1.1dBu more than from the standard 2Vrms, which is enough to make this one "sound better" than most of the competitors, because it plays louder...

Phase is dead flat, and unbalanced outputs invert polarity.

----

As usual, let's start with my standard 999.91Hz sine @0dBFS (without dither) from the Test CD (RCA out):

View attachment 525497

The NAD is shy of almost one bit when compared to the best in class CD Players. This is due to the noise floor and some unwanted and non-harmonic distortion. That said, it is more than good enough and will remain hidden into music. And note that we are in the range of BurrBrown published specs. That means we can say thanks to NAD not to have degraded BurrBrown's engineering.

Let's try the same at -6dBFS:

View attachment 525500

Noise and distortion have both improved, so the conversion of this NAD runs cooler with tones a bit further from full scale.

----

Let's have a look a potential Power Supply leakages, the below is a 20Hz to 1kHz zoom with a punishing 512k FFT length to reveal issues:

View attachment 525501

Superb trace, absolutely no PS related disruption. But there is a weird spike at 328Hz. I don't know the cause (wobble generator?) as I never saw that before.

----

Next is the bandwidth:

View attachment 525512

This is within specs and very flat, only -0.3dB at 20kHz. You can see the 0.08dB channel imbalance, which is very low (and so very good).

----

Let's have a look at the behavior of the oversampling filter beyond 20kHz:


View attachment 525514

This view shows that NAD went for the fast filter of the BurrBrown DAC (I like that) and that the attenuation is max -80dB. That is a little weak, but again per specs of the DAC.
The aliases of the AES double tones (18kHz & 20kHz) are decently attenuated beyond the audio band.

This view also reveals how the delta-sigma modulator rejects noise beyond the audio band, as you can see the noise floor slowly increasing beyond 25kHz. This means, again, that this is kind of "value oriented" choice, more than high-end (less processing power required).

----

Let's have a look at the multitone test that a lot of you like very much:

View attachment 525516

This is a little more disrupted than best in class, especially at high frequencies were we get more than usual distortion (around 10dB more than best in class). This is not an audible concern though but it could have been better.

Note that the last 20kHz tone is missing on the graph because of the higher than usual pitch error (145ppm) which makes go a bit beyond 20kHz.

----

Oh yes, the jitter test:

View attachment 525518

Again, not best in class, but much more than good enough, to be honest. The two mains side bands are not only close to the fundamental, but low in level (-107dBr) and so will remain hidden to your ears.

----

Started with the Teac VRDS-20 review, and on your request + support to get it done (more here), I'm adding now an "intersample-overs" test which intends to identify the behavior of the digital filtering and DAC when it come to process near clipping signals. Because of the oversampling, there might be interpolated data that go above 0dBFS and would saturate (clip) the DAC and therefore the output. And this effect shows through distorsion (THD+N measurement up to 96kHz):

Intersample-overs tests Bandwidth of the THD+N measurements is 20Hz - 96kHz	5512.5 Hz sine, Peak = +0.69dBFS	7350 Hz sine, Peak = +1.25dBFS	11025 Hz sine, Peak = +3.0dBFS
Teac VRDS-20	-30.7dB	-26.6dB	-17.6dB
Yamaha CD-1	-84.6dB	-84.9dB	-78.1dB
Denon DCD-900NE	-34.2dB	-27.1dB	-19.1dB
Denon DCD-SA1	-33.6dB	-27.6dB	-18.3dB
Onkyo C-733	-88.3dB	-40.4dB	-21.2dB
Denon DCD-3560	-30.2dB	-24.7dB	-17.4dB
Myryad Z210	-70.6dB (noise dominated)	-71.1dB (noise dominated)	-29.4dB (H3 dominated)
Sony CDP-X333ES	-30.5dB	-24.8dB	-16.3dB
BARCO-EMT 982	-32.7dB	-24.5dB	-16.3dB
TASCAM CD-200	-73.5dB	-36.3dB	-19.7dB
Sony CDP-597	-30.4dB	-24.7dB	-16.5dB
SMSL PL100	-53.1dB	-31dB	-19.1dB
OPPO BDP-95	-39dB	-28.8dB	-19.2dB
OPPO BDP-95 (vol -2dB)	-95dB	-97.5dB	-32.7dB
SMSL PL200	-94.8dB	-97dB	-39.5dB
SMSL PL200 (vol -1dB)	-94.8dB	-97dB	-58.7dB
Orpheus Zero	-88.7dB	-87.3dB	-56.8dB
Azur 640C V2	-89.8dB	-91dB	-64.5dB
NAD C540	-34.1dB	-26.3dB	-20.4dB

The NAD has no headroom for intersample overs. Too bad as so many CD Masters are recorded too hot.

----

Let's continue with the good old 3DC measurement that Stereophile was often using as a proof of low noise DAC. It is from an undithered 997Hz sine at -90.31dBFS. With 16bits, the signal should appear (on a scope) as the 3DC levels of the smallest symmetrical sign magnitude digital signal:

View attachment 525525

There is a good symmetry meaning that the published specs were indeed pessimist. There is a little more noise than best in class, but we can very clearly see the 3 fundamental levels of the 16bits PCM code converted, so this is very good since many older R2R converters were only dreaming of that performance...

----

Other measurements (not shown):

• IMD AES-17 DFD "Analog" (18kHz & 20kHz 1:1) : -90.9dB
• IMD AES-17 DFD "Digital" (17'987Hz & 19'997Hz 1:1) : -74.3dB
• IMD AES-17 MD (41Hz & 7993Hz 4:1): -79.7dB
• IMD DIN (250Hz & 8kHz 4:1) : -76.6dB
• IMD CCIF (19kHz & 20kHz 1:1) : -74.2dB
• IMD SMPTE (60Hz & 17kHz 1:4) : -77.9dB
• IMD TDFD Bass (41Hz & 89Hz 1:1) : -111.1dB
• IMD TDFD (13'58Hz & 19841Hz 1:1) : -95.3dB
• Dynamic Range : 96.8dB (without dither @-60dBFS)
• Crosstalk: 100Hz (below -140dBr), 1kHz (below -140dBr), 10kHz (-122dBr)
• Pitch Error (GPSDO corrected) : 19'999.91Hz (19'997Hz requested) ie +145.5ppm
• Gapless playback : Yes

The IMD scores are only decent when high frequencies are involved, as we saw with the multitone test.
The Dynamic range is shy of 2dB compared to best in class, and of course still very good.
Crosstalk is extremely low, in the best in class category.
Pitch error is a high 145ppm+ which is unusual. The x'tal in use is said to be of a 30ppm precision per the service guide. So, I'd suspect that the coupling capacitors (20pF) have aged and would need a refresh, maybe.

----

Last and not least, I like to run a THD vs Frequency sweep at -12dBFS as it shows how the conversion has evolved over time. I am currently using the beta version of REW and I discovered that this sweep gives better and more reliable results than before. I overlayed the results with the Azur 640C V2:

View attachment 525536

The NAD is let down by the H2 distorsion it generates at this lower level. Not much of a concern though, at -92dB, especially being easily hidden second harmonic, but we are used to best in class results here.

----

As I did with the Sony CDP-597, I add a "max DAC resolution" measurement test. It is performed from a 999.91Hz sine @-12dBFS with shape dither (from Audacity). I restrict the THD+N span to 20Hz - 6kHz in REW not to account for the noise of the shape dither beyond 6kHz. I take the calculated ENOB and simply add 2bits to it (due to the -12dB attenuation, as 1bits=6dB). The potential maximum, when calculated from the digital WAV file, is 18.7bits under this test. A "transparent" DAC should achieve 18.7bits, ie 100% in this test.

Here are the results compared to others:

CD Player model or DAC	Calculated ENOB (999.91Hz sine @-12dBFS with shape dither, THD+N span = 20Hz - 6kHz)	Percentage of max resolution achieved (higher is better)
SMSL PL-200	18.7bits	100%
OPPO BDP-95	18.7bits	100%
SMSL PS-200 (from CD player)	18.6bits	99.47%
Denon DCD-900NE	18.5bits	98.93%
Orpheus Zero	18.4bits	98.40%
Azur 640C V2	18.3bits	97.86%
Onkyo C-733	18bits	96.26%
SMSL PL150	18bits	96.26%
SMSL PL100	17.9bits	95.72%
Sony CDP-597	17.5bits	93.58%
Onkyo DX-7355	17.3bits	92.51%
Denon DCD-3560	17.2bits	91.98%
Yamaha CD-S303	16.8bits	89.84%
Revox B-226S	16.8bits	89.94%
Accuphase DP-70	16.6bits	88.77%
NAD C540	16.6bits	88.77%
Sony CDP-337ESD	16.6bits	88.77%
Teac VRDS-25x	16.5bits	88.24%
Marantz CD-73	14.9bits	79.68%

Again, the NAD is let down by the high H2 that it generates and it's the only reason. As a consequence, the above results look worse than they are in real life, but hey, that's all about this test.
Of course, harmonic distorsion that is H2 driven is the one we should be less concerned about. And to be transparent, let me add this measurement for once:

View attachment 525541

As you can see, besides the H2, there's not much to mention. Had the H2 been on par with the H4, this would qualify as best in class.

----

On demand from the community, I now add a "de-emphasis test" to verify that this flag is detected and the compliance with the expected de-emphasis curve.

View attachment 525547

When the curve is within specs, we should see 8dB less at 11kHz, which is exactly what we get with the NAD (better than specs).


NAD C540 - Testing the drive

What would be good measurements if the drive would not properly read a slightly scratched CD, or one that was created at the limits of the norm? The below tests reply to these questions.

Here are the results:

Test type	Technical test	Results
Variation of linear cutting velocity	From 1.20m/s to 1.40m/s	Pass
Variation of track pitch	From 1.5µm to 1.7µm	Pass
Combined variations of track pitch and velocity	From 1.20m/s & 1.5µm to 1.40m/s & 1.7µm	Pass
HF detection (asymmetry pitch/flat ratio)	Variation from 2% to 18%	Pass
Dropouts resistance	From 0.05mm (0.038ms) to 4mm (3.080ms)	1.5mm
Combined dropouts and smallest pitch	From 1.5µm & 1mm to 1.5µm & 2.4mm	1mm
Successive dropouts	From 2x0.1mm to 2x3mm	1.5mm

I could see the interpolation mechanism kicking off as soon as with a 0.5mm gap, but I could not hear it. No "clicks" until 1.5mm and the drive did not stop reading even with 4mm dropouts (although it was skipping few seconds).

The above are decent results and if you have CDs in good condition, this is more than good enough.


NAD C540 - Digital output

Ok, so we get a decent CD player here, especially for the price. And to expect better from a modern DAC, we need a perfect digital output. Let's test that.

This is my standard 999.91Hz @0dBFS (no dither):

View attachment 525559

This is the same as the original WAV file that was used to create the CD track.

The 3DC test is nailed too, of course:

View attachment 525560

My ultimate proof of "perfect" digital output is when I reuse the intersample overs test at 5512.50Hz, with a phase shift of 67.5°, like I did for the TASCAM CD-200 review. This signal generates an overshoot of +0.69dB. And so, if the signal would be modified before being sent (by an ASRC for instance), it would show either a reduction of amplitude or we'd see some sort of saturation/increase of noise/distorsion. So here we go with the NAD via the Coax out:

View attachment 525561

No distortion and the dashboard shows +0.69dBFS as expected. No ASRC on the digital path here. SNR is only 95.5dB because there is rectangle dither in this test file (consuming half a bit of resolution).

So we get a "perfect" transport in case you're not happy with the internal DAC.


Conclusion

Besides a little higher than usual H2 at low level and high frequencies, I shall be happy with what I measured, considering this was a budget CD Player in 1999.

I liked the speed of the drive, fact that the digital output is "perfect", and I must say that the internal DAC will remain transparent to your ears even if not perfect. For the price, I thing there's not much more to desire.

Reliability, yeah, a familiar weak spot with NAD gear... The drive of this one had to be swapped out, but it’s running again, for the next quarter century, if we’re lucky

I hope you enjoyed this review and I wish you a nice "JeuDredi" as we say in the French part of Switzerland as we feel the weekend coming (combination of Jeudi (Thursday) and Vendredi (Friday), could be ThurFriday in English, I suppose).

Cheers.

Flo

Nice review. Two things i would like to see included though are how the display looks when turned on ( I have two players that have very low light displays you can hardly read from more than a few feet away) . Also what lights are illuminated on the front panel when turned on. Again not a criticism of your fine review. Thanks

 

[EJ3]

NAD - my NAD 302 Amp works day by day - since 30 years or so….

Pretty much so reliable as it can be.

So do my 6 NAD 2200's and 2 NAD 2100's from the mid 1980's.
Same: Pretty much as reliable as can be.

However, a CD player is a totally different type of device: electro/electronic/mechanical/digital all rolled into one.

 

[dcolak]

So do my 6 NAD 2200's and 2 NAD 2100's from the mid 1980's.
Same: Pretty much as reliable as can be.

However, a CD player is a totally different type of device: electro/electronic/mechanical/digital all rolled into one.

I guess that's when things were not made in China?

All my post 2000 NAD's have died on me, even NAD M3 amp.

 

[EJ3]

I guess that's when things were not made in China?

All my post 2000 NAD's have died on me, even NAD M3 amp.

Anecdotal evidence:
Japanese built NAD 2200's rarely go out. And, if they do, they are almost always rebuildable.
S. Korean built NAD 2200's do go out (but not at an alarming amount and are usually rebuildable.
Taiwan built NAD 2200's frequently went out in the first few years of operation because of the cap materials.
Usually because of the caps going out (leaking their internals out). Whatever the materials inside the caps was, it was caustic.
This caustic material ate everything it got on inside the NAD 2200. Therefore, the Taiwanese NAD 2200's are rarely rebuildable.