Audio Analogue and Atoll

I like the Puccini from AA. Not familiar with their other models. Very lively and hi-res sound good for jazz and classical. It will do a good job with classic rock too. If your taste runs into heavy metal, rap, house, techno and all that, you need to look at something else. Remember that AA voicing is little laid back but you won’t miss any detail. From what I have heard, Atoll is a good brand. Far better than most entry level stuff. I have not heard any, so can’t comment on any model.

MANek, ARJ, PRITHVI, BENKENOBI........ Are you all dead, with this post, come on guys cheer up and give your say.......

all i can do is concur square_wave...i too have heard only the Puccini and like he said..awesome for the oldies and the classical stuff...
not even classical rock will work with this amp...
will be utterly disappointed when compared with the NAD320BEE when u play rock and some peppy pop numbers...metal...don't even think abt it..

as far as Atoll goes, they have been regarded pretty highly...but at that price range i think u will have strong competition from Arcam and Rega(with regrad to CDPs)...and if u are lucky u could land a Plinius CD-101 for a little more than what the Atoll cd-100 goes for..
frankly, haven't heard any of the CDps that i have mentioned..
i am going only by reviews and discussions that i have come across in other forums and magazines..

Cheers

ojoi....

heard the AA puccini but not the atol....cant say anything on the atoll but a review I had rea said it did well for rock and metal...whatever that means....I would assume it is a bit forward sounding, a little bit agressive.

AA puccini is a laid back warm sounding amp.

manek.

AA Puccini is a very musical amp but lacks the drive for numbers which have deep bass passages..it's the vocals you want to enjoy..it's good..very warm

benks wrote :

will be utterly disappointed when compared with the NAD320BEE when u play rock and some peppy pop numbers...metal...don't even think abt it..

thats true but NAD loses in the mids to AA

No amp in this price point will do everything right. If you consider the entire frequency range, I would say the puccini is a more balanced amp than the Nad. Very musical and clean. Stay away from the puccini if you want spitty, attacking highs and fat- bloated bass normally associated with budget amps suitable for rock.

Square wave wrote :

Stay away from the puccini if you want spitty, attacking highs and fat- bloated bass normally associated with budget amps suitable for rock.

I really don't understand by spitty highs, bloated bass and budget amps suitable for rock...you need a very good amp to enjoy rock and even NAD takes a back seat here coz it plays rock the way you mentioned above. A good amp will make rock music clear without any extra colour to highs or lows..

I didn’t say you need bad amps for rock. All music needs a good amp irrespective of its genre. A hi-end setup with a highly transparent amp will amplify everything as it is recorded. But this costs a lot. When the budget is low, you need to make compromises based on your music preferences. Puccini is voiced for a certain kind of audience. Slightly laid back and tuby sounding without losing any detail. It is a good buy at its price point if your preference is jazz. Classical, classic rock. Amps in this budget have to be bought with care depending on your music preferences. If somebody is used to aggressive sounding budget amps, they need to stay away from Puccini.

About Nad. I think it is a very good amp for the money. Far better than any in the same budget. Have you heard a nad in a proper listening room? Most of the boom, bloat and muddiness you hear in systems are due to the reflections in a typical drawing room.

A lot of AA and NAD beating going on here :-)which to my mind does not make sense at all.

Here is my take on this for better or for worse.

I dont believe that certian amps are made for certian music. Neither do I conform to points that rocks sounds bad on AA and NAD and better on other amps....to me its all crap. Please do pay attention to other equipments in the chain, especially speakers and dont blame the amp.

Its a matter of how one wants to listen to rock or any kind of music one listens to. There are people who listen to rock on valves and love it, how about that ? According to whats stated above most valves do have the warmer sound, a little laid back and may be "tubby". So do we conclude that valve amps are not suitable for rock ? I think not.

What one needs is a well balanced amp. Well balanced in reference to your hearing and partnering equipment and room.

Manek.

hey Manek,
i agree taht they are not made for certain type of music , only that they sound bad for those genres..
Myself and Mohan(Sub_Boss) compared the Nad and the Puccini at his place with his speakers keeping everything else the same..
hence our view....
like i said..
its our opinion..make that my opinion..even though we have similar views i donot want to cause umbrage by making general statements...

I agree with manek about the importance of setup and rest of the chain. Frankly speaking, the AA puccini is a very dynamic amp. If paired with the right speaker and source, it will definitely rock. But at it's price point, there are other amps which is not laidback which may be more usefull for people who need very forward sounding setup.

From my experience, Nad are allrounder amps. They are not tweaked for a certain genre of music at all. Maybe the klipsch RF3 don't go very well with it. The rest of the chain is very important. The NAD C320bee, c350 and c372 are very popular with rockers all over the world.

IMHO, the NAD entry level and the AA range are in two different price and market ranges hence does not make sense to compare the two. The puccini may not be a all rounder but it is wonderful with strings/jazz... of course the AA Maestro is in a different league.

Atoll cd + amps are quite good, nothing remarkable. seem to go well with warm sounding equipment ( did hear it with a JMR Twin) and thought they sounded very good in all departments but for that price one could do better !

Dear Square wave,

I din't mean to tell you that NAd was bad, here's what i could draw out of comparo :

1> AA was unbeatable in vocals..NAD was nowhere as smooth as AA in mids.Lows took a slight back seat and highs were good too(remember i used a horn loaded speakers here).

2> NAD was fast and had solid dynamics , but lacked the smoothness of AA in mids and covered the rest with more than what it lost.

square wave wrote :

Maybe the klipsch RF3 don't go very well with it. The rest of the chain is very important. The NAD C320bee, c350 and c372 are very popular with rockers all over the world.

very true as I've heard another great frined of ours Mr.Sudharshan who conducted experiments with NAD and has a bitter experience that NAD's don't just gel with Klipsch.
but again Benks personally feels too that his NAD is doing good...but again Manek you've to agree with my set up it was AA for vocals and NAD for rest...

i somehow felt Rotel + Klipsch is near ideal for my listening..i know many would burst out laughing...but music is like food..whether you want wine and cheese..or rum and bacon...but it's beer for me....

Square wave no offences meant to hurt you or any other NADists...so don't pounce on me like sadists....