timpy
Snake Oil free!!!
Amp or speakers?
It's a tough call, there are better amps in the world, the Nad isn't bad, but I prefer a more cohesive presentation rather than the slightly "over cooked" sound that isn't very even handed, and at worst can make music sound as though it has been through some sort of (fairly innocuous) scrambler with all the best (loudest and most interesting) bits boosted and then thrown back together again. The Nad is colourful and full of life (if not speed), but to use an analogy, for me it's the equivalent of a quick car which hasn't had the handling fully sorted. It has all the right ingredients, but somehow ends up less than the sum of it's parts if the speakers tend towards revealing / need good control.
Also I'm with TonyL. I wouldn't recommend Isobariks for the system anymore than I'd recommend a Ferrari F40 as a second car for the school run / trip to Waitose etc. Even in pancake land, there are a number of competent amps thought of as unsuitable for driving these things. Also system balance does need to be kept in check. I don't much like Isobariks personally anyway, but lets not get bogged down here.
However, IME the Cresta 2s are speakers that have caused me a great deal of trouble in the past with system matching, room interaction etc. They can be good (not usually very good unfortunately) but life is too short, and usually they seem to exhibit all the same qualities of the NAD at the lower end. I classify them as the all too common situation these days with a makers budget range, i.e. need a cheap range to speakers to compete with the likes of Mission who are cleaning up at the budget end, so build a small cheap speaker and bung an enormous port on it for grunt becasue the punters are going to want bass. To my mind this seems how the Cresta 2 was formed, and it is all the more disappointing considering the competition, B&W DM302, Tannoy MX2 etc, Acoustic Energy Aegis 1 / AE100, and even it's forerunner the Kef Coda 8, all of which (I think) are vastly superior designs.
So given the choice the Kefs would get the boot first if it were me. The Nad can do better. Better still, do the two together. If you change speakers, make sure the new ones work well with the NADs likely replacement.
Cheers
It's a tough call, there are better amps in the world, the Nad isn't bad, but I prefer a more cohesive presentation rather than the slightly "over cooked" sound that isn't very even handed, and at worst can make music sound as though it has been through some sort of (fairly innocuous) scrambler with all the best (loudest and most interesting) bits boosted and then thrown back together again. The Nad is colourful and full of life (if not speed), but to use an analogy, for me it's the equivalent of a quick car which hasn't had the handling fully sorted. It has all the right ingredients, but somehow ends up less than the sum of it's parts if the speakers tend towards revealing / need good control.
Also I'm with TonyL. I wouldn't recommend Isobariks for the system anymore than I'd recommend a Ferrari F40 as a second car for the school run / trip to Waitose etc. Even in pancake land, there are a number of competent amps thought of as unsuitable for driving these things. Also system balance does need to be kept in check. I don't much like Isobariks personally anyway, but lets not get bogged down here.
However, IME the Cresta 2s are speakers that have caused me a great deal of trouble in the past with system matching, room interaction etc. They can be good (not usually very good unfortunately) but life is too short, and usually they seem to exhibit all the same qualities of the NAD at the lower end. I classify them as the all too common situation these days with a makers budget range, i.e. need a cheap range to speakers to compete with the likes of Mission who are cleaning up at the budget end, so build a small cheap speaker and bung an enormous port on it for grunt becasue the punters are going to want bass. To my mind this seems how the Cresta 2 was formed, and it is all the more disappointing considering the competition, B&W DM302, Tannoy MX2 etc, Acoustic Energy Aegis 1 / AE100, and even it's forerunner the Kef Coda 8, all of which (I think) are vastly superior designs.
So given the choice the Kefs would get the boot first if it were me. The Nad can do better. Better still, do the two together. If you change speakers, make sure the new ones work well with the NADs likely replacement.
Cheers
