Can a new amplifier affect speaker placement?

Wow - that's a lotta feedback. Thanks, all. Let me start by saying I prefer the M2 in nearly every way over the Creek. While I could still return it, I doubt that I will. The top-end and midrange are noticeably more spacious and detailed. The soundstage is certainly wider (though perhaps not deeper). Transients are much more obvious - you can really hear the pluck of a string with this thing! (sorry) There's more music there, or the pacing's better, or... something - I just want to sit and listen, where I'd find myself getting a little bored with the Creek in the mix. You know what's really cool? Space. In music where there's lots of space (I'm mostly a jazz guy), instruments are set against an utterly black background. I've never heard anything like it, never knew I wanted it, and it's awesome. In short, The M2 addresses many of the "problems" I was hoping to solve in purchasing a new amplifier - and gives me some extras I didn't even know I "needed". I like it - a lot. I just wasn't expecting a perceived bass deficiency, I guess because a) my speakers are pretty sensitive, b) when I heard the amp prior to purchasing, it certainly did not seem bass-shy to me, and c) reviewers had specifically commented on the quality of its bass.

I burned-in the amp for about a hundred hours before paying much attention to its sound - though it may be that it could use more. I'm still running it continuously, so we'll see if the bass opens up some as a result.

I run Pangea power cables for all my equipment. The one I use for my Creek made a huge difference. I never bothered with the stock cable on the NAD. Maybe changing my power cable will help here - hadn't thought of that.

I've had the Creek for quite a few years, and am probably used to its sound. Synergy is the reason I own the speakers I own. When I decided to upgrade from my Totem Acoustics a few years ago, I didn't want to go upgrading my amp as well. I chose the speakers that sounded best to me with the Creek: Paradigm Reference Studio 60v5's. These were not my favorite speakers, but the Aerials I fell in love with lost their magic with the Creek - and I did (and do) really like the Paradigms.

To Mezmo and Winoguy's point, I do kinda think I need to give myself more time to settle in with the M2. FWIW, I spent a LOT of time on speaker placement, chair placement, room treatments, even equipment placement (sidewall!) when I built out my listening room (I'm one of those Jim Smith disciples who believes the room and positioning are exceptionally important factors - and this is where I've spent a healthy amount of resources, while allowing myself to purchase what some might call "budget" equipment (a la Creek and Paradigm), instead of, perhaps, vica verca). So my biases tend to lead me towards fixing problems by optimizing the room first - then looking at everything else.

It's possible the bass coming off the Creek has been a little bloated all along. I "voiced" my (Creek) system using a combination of headphones, room treatments and RTA to get pretty flat in-room response from the Paradigms. BUT I never heard the kind of texture through the Creek that I do through the NAD. The bass is just (seemingly)... bigger through the Creek. It may not be better. Hmmm... could it all be in my head? Could be, could be.

Like Mapman, I'm moving from a Class A to a Class D. More and more, it's sounding to me like I need to let the M2 burn-in some more, sit and listen some more, and then potentially suck it up and go through the whole room optimization process again. I hadn't really anticipated that, but like many said, it's part of the "fun" right? Then perhaps start looking at my cables. Then possibly optimize again. Rinse, repeat!

Thanks everyone.

Hi all,

I'll start with the last first:

Foster: Early on, I did use the compensation filter - to great effect. Bringing it down from the default 8 ohms (and my speakers are mostly an 8-ohm speaker) to 5 ohms (which the Paradigms run at in the higher frequency range, according to John Atkinson's tests in Stereophile's coverage of the speakers) definitely made for better sound. NAD claims, in the manual, that using the filter achieves measurable - but inaudible - results. I completely disagree - results were definitely audible. All that said, making the adjustment did not affect bass performance (insofar as I could tell).

Hasse and Mezmo: I think I agree - at least partially. The bass is somehow cleaner, more textured. Bass instruments are more easily defined (though I don't think the Creek was a slouch in this area).

Zd: Yep, the Creek's a great little integrated. I may find a way to press it into service elsewhere, rather than selling it. Between the solid headphone amp, its passive pre, and its amplification section, this thing's been a winner for me all the way.

On with the show:
Over the weekend, I did some tinkering with speaker placement. After moving the speakers a full foot back, the bass snapped right into place! Tracks that I knew to have robust bass lines sounded how I knew they should, without sounding wooly or bloated. Imaging seemed to be unaffected.

It's worth saying that I had a helluva time getting the bass right in my little room with the Creek. My assumption at the time was that the Paradigms were a little too much speaker for my 16'x12'x8'h room (never gave you my room size, Philjolet - there it is), but I resolved to make it work. I had the fronts of my speakers 53" from the rear wall. Now they're 41" - a more "normal" distance. I'm sure I'll tweak their positions some more (I've lost my transients somewhat), but I think I'm pretty close. The treble is still sparkly, imaging is still excellent (possibly improved?), midrange is rich and detailed.

For giggles, I threw in an orchestral work the other night. I'd forgotten this was one of the reasons I bought the amp: dynamic swings with the Creek were just never quite what I thought they should be. Good golly! With HUGE dynamics like this, I could get into this whole classical thing!

Long & short of it: thanks all. I'm a bit dismayed that an amplifier change would require such a big change in speaker position, but there you have it. I'm now well on my way to being a very, very happy camper with my new M2.

Zd,

That would be an interesting exercise - I could try the Creek as my pre and the M2 as my amp. The M2 is quite an unusual integrated though. It takes digital feeds directly from sources, and effectively amplifies them. That's not to say it's an amp with a DAC built-in a la Peachtree or similar. Rather, one might think of it as a DAC with amplification capabilities. One might do even better to think of the DAC as non-existent - to think of it as a "digital" amplifier (note that Class D does not mean 'digital' - this is a misnomer), yielding a similar purity of signal that an analog source might achieve with just about any other amplifier. No digital to analog conversion takes place, just a sort of re-mapping if you will.

Conversion in the M2 actually comes in to play in converting analog sources to "digital" (I'll use/abuse 'digital' here rather than getting further than I'm qualified into pulse wave modulation and NAD's efforts to map the digital signal to PWM (which also essentially operates as a 1/0 or on/off, similar in concept to digital). The amp's architecture is similar in concept to units from TacT or Lyngdorf - though its sonics purportedly surpass these (I admit I wouldn't know personally!).

It's quite a feat of engineering really - and a bit surprising I think to come from NAD of all companies. I'd be very surprised if we don't see many similar products coming to market in the next few years, particularly in the world of home theater. The M2 is still ugly looking - NAD hasn't completely forgotten its roots! So... while I'll probably take on this exercise (I'm a tinkerer) for the helluvit, I think it would negate the M2's raison d'etre. ...and if I like the sound better, well, god help me!

The M2 can indeed take an input from an external pre - well, at least according to the manual it can. It says: "FIXED: This setting should be selected when M2 is connected to the output of a preamplifier and is used primarily as a power amplifier. Output level is fixed and the M2’s Volume Control is bypassed. Adjust the level using the source signal’s preamplifier volume or input level control."

Again, I think doing so would be to bypass the M2's reason for being - but it does at least appear capable of acting as an amplifier only. Using the M2 as pre of course isn't possible, since as you said Foster, it doesn't have the outs. I wish it did - would like to be able to connect a headphone amp to it.

Hey Foster, I think you were onto something, btw, with regard to current earlier. Perhaps the Creek's high current required me to place my fairly-sensitive speakers further into the room to reduce bass bloat than the M2? Dunno, but it's a theory!

Hey there Foster -

Plan on a loooong break-in for the M2. More than 200 hours in (I've lost track at this point), I sat down to listen to the Branford Marsalis Quartet's new disc: Four MFs Playin' Tunes. While traveling recently, I'd listened to it a lot through headphones and was anxious to hear it at full resolution in the cave. Long & short: the bass was lumpy! I was obviously getting more bass energy than I wanted from closer placement to the rear wall.

After all that earlier foolin' around with speaker placement, I wound up moving the speakers 6" back into the room. I'd tried this very placement a week ago, and the bass wasn't right. Now it is. Sigh.

Mine neither (it's a refurb). So... whadya think so far?