What's the Feedback of Cambridge Audio Azur 551P

jay

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
348
Points
18
Hi,

Can someone please tell me whats the feedback about Azur 551P Phono Preamp?

I know most of you here are big fans of CNC but was just exploring if anyone has used this Preamp for their TT and whats their feedback.

Pls help.

Am posting this here as its related to Phono Turntables.
 
Sorry, I just got to this. IMO, the cambridge phonostage is pretty good for ordinary listening but not as good as the NAD phonostages. The NADs sound more pleasant and neutral and I thought the NADs were better filtered. When I listened to the Cambridge phonostage at a friend's place, I noticed that the record surface noise was more pronounced. The NAD tends to filter this better. This is what I noticed from the sound coming from the speakers. Of course, there are lots of variables and dependencies included in my statement. It could have been the TT or the cart or the records themselves that were responsible for the enhanced surface noise at his place.
 
Sorry, I just got to this. IMO, the cambridge phonostage is pretty good for ordinary listening but not as good as the NAD phonostages. The NADs sound more pleasant and neutral and I thought the NADs were better filtered. When I listened to the Cambridge phonostage at a friend's place, I noticed that the record surface noise was more pronounced. The NAD tends to filter this better. This is what I noticed from the sound coming from the speakers. Of course, there are lots of variables and dependencies included in my statement. It could have been the TT or the cart or the records themselves that were responsible for the enhanced surface noise at his place.

Thanks reuben.

Any idea how will the NAD phonostage perform in alignment with my yamaha amp? Do I need a demo 1st or its not required?
 
Thanks reuben.

Any idea how will the NAD phonostage perform in alignment with my yamaha amp? Do I need a demo 1st or its not required?

I had a experience with NAD PP1. For my ears it is not so good. Don't know about latest models. Cambridge Audio 651 is marginally brighter sound. The circuit inside 551 is similar one as 651 other than MC stage and Subsonic filter.
 
Thanks reuben.

Any idea how will the NAD phonostage perform in alignment with my yamaha amp? Do I need a demo 1st or its not required?

Honestly both the NAD phonostage is laid back and neutral while the cambridge phono stages is bright. If you are a guy who likes your music very bright and aggressive, then its better not to buy a NAD phonostage. However the filtering in NAD phonostages tends to be better.

On another note, inbuilt NAD phonostages especially in amps like the 3020, the 304 and 306 are outstanding. The 3020 integrated amp's phonostage is up there with phonostages in the high-price bracket.

Reviews and opinions are one thing but the best approach while buying audio gear is to audition in person and decide. What sounds good to one's own ears is what one should be buying, not something that sounds good to someone else's ears. That my 2 cents.

Note: my opinions on NAD may also be a bit biased as I have always been a pro-NAD guy.
 
What I wonder about is how come Phonostage from companies like Cambridge,NAD do not have an universal acceptance whereas a locally assembled CNC gets so much accolades?

Is it because we are biased which I dont think.Then is it because the price bracket we are thinking of the local made gives a far better product than the MNCs? Am sure it cannot be that Cambridge and NAD don't make good phonostage.

Then where does the problem lies?
 
What I wonder about is how come Phonostage from companies like Cambridge,NAD do not have an universal acceptance whereas a locally assembled CNC gets so much accolades?

Is it because we are biased which I dont think.Then is it because the price bracket we are thinking of the local made gives a far better product than the MNCs? Am sure it cannot be that Cambridge and NAD don't make good phonostage.

Then where does the problem lies?

If you open CA phonostage.You will find mot of the cheap Chinese parts inside.There are long threads on Vinylengine and Audiokarma forums regarding improving CA Azur 640p.They replaced almost all the components and opamps with better quality once,end result was good,but that was not easy and cost effective.
Quality of parts is most important things apart form the good design.We have built so many DIY amps like Pass B1,CNC,SSP,F5 turbo,Light speed Attenuator,Amp Camp Amp,AD797 Phonostage(FOr MC) they all have very good quality parts and people are very happy with SQ.

Regards,
Sachin
 
again a biased view-based question but I've not heard feedback from anyone pitching the CNC against a NAD phonostage :)

this could be a cat-amoung-the-pigeons-scenario here but I'd like to believe that the NAD 3020's phonostage could beat the CNC
 
What I wonder about is how come Phonostage from companies like Cambridge,NAD do not have an universal acceptance whereas a locally assembled CNC gets so much accolades?

Is it because we are biased which I dont think.Then is it because the price bracket we are thinking of the local made gives a far better product than the MNCs? Am sure it cannot be that Cambridge and NAD don't make good phonostage.

Then where does the problem lies?


It all boils down to performance at the price point. Many of the people who have built the CNC have compared it to budget phono stages from CA (can't recall model number but IIRC it was 640 something) and NAD (PP1/2) and think that it beats these factory-made preamps.

The glowing testimonials from builders are partly inflated by the halo effect of having built the device oneself, but if sufficiently large sample of builders have the same opinion, then what they say is probably not all empty claims.

My personal take: I too built the CNC but it didn't beat the performance of my existing (factory-made) phono stage so I have given it away to a friend. This friend was using the phono stage of his Marantz PM6003 amplifier, and as per him it beats the performance of the Marantz amp. I honestly don't know if he gave me this feedback to make me happy, or if it is his honest and unvarnished opinion.
 
Last edited:
again a biased view-based question but I've not heard feedback from anyone pitching the CNC against a NAD phonostage :)

this could be a cat-amoung-the-pigeons-scenario here but I'd like to believe that the NAD 3020's phonostage could beat the CNC

I agree that older NAD have very nice Phonostages,but I doubt that they will beat CNC.I think Santosh did make comparison with his NAD amp.

Regards,
Sachin
 
I agree that older NAD have very nice Phonostages,but I doubt that they will beat CNC.I think Santosh did make comparison with his NAD amp.

Regards,
Sachin

If Santhosh made the comparision with his NAD 1020A preamp (preamp stage of the 3020) and if the CNC beat it, then it its definitely go to be better than all NAD phonostages. Now I am really tempted to find out.
 
If Santhosh made the comparision with his NAD 1020A preamp (preamp stage of the 3020) and if the CNC beat it, then it its definitely go to be better than all NAD phonostages. Now I am really tempted to find out.

Yes that was the amp I think.Now the CNC has even better layout.I can send my old CNC to you for comparison.

Regards,
Sachin
 
Last edited:
My personal take: I too built the CNC but it didn't beat the performance of my existing (factory-made) phono stage so I have given it away to a friend. This friend was using the phono stage of his Marantz PM6003 amplifier, and as per him it beats the performance of the Marantz amp. I honestly don't know if he gave me this feedback to make me happy, or if it is his honest and unvarnished opinion.

Hi jls,

May I know which OPAMP you used for the comparison?

N.Murali
 
Hi Joshua,
You are using a very good standalone phonostage,(MS Phonomena?).CNC may not be the same class,but it has outclassed many high price Phonostages like Bel Canto,etc,and definitely better than most if not all inbuilt Phonostages and other budget offerings.I am experimenting different caps and Opamps with CNC .I will let you know if I find any improvement over previous build.

Regards,
Sachin
 
Last edited:
Hi jls,

May I know which OPAMP you used for the comparison?

N.Murali

Most of my listening was on the OPA2134. I tried the LME49990 too but find it etched and bright in my setup. I preferred the OPA2134 much more. I also tried some other dual opamps (whose numbers I need to look up) but nothing came close to the balance and neutrality of the OPA2134.
 
Hi Joshua,
You are using a very good standalone phonostage,(MS Phonomena?).CNC may not be the same class,but it has outclassed many high price Phonostages like Bel Canto,etc,and definitely better than most if not all inbuilt Phonostages and other budget offerings.I am experimenting different caps and Opamps with CNC .I will let you know if I find any improvement over previous build.

Regards,
Sachin

Yeah, I wanted it to beat the Phonomena but it was simply outclassed:) The CNC is quite the giant killer but I was probably trying to slay too large a giant for it:lol:

It is true that the Phonomena retailed at a much higher price point, and has real flexibility in adjustments.
 
Join WhatsApp group to get HiFiMART.com Offers & Deals delivered to your smartphone!
Back
Top