Price Paid:  $0.00

Summary:
I had a bad experience with reliability on the first one of these, but the second has been reliable. I have not been all that impressed with the sound quality. It seems fake , unnatural, or plastic to me. I compared it directly to the pre amp within a Sansui 9090 by using it with the built in power amp of the 9090. The 9090 preamp sounds natural and musical. It sounds live, and real. The nad sounds ok, but pretty cheap fake and unnatural as I said before. To me this screams poor design when one considers the "improvement" in technology since 1975. At $500.00 the Nad c 160 pre amp was the worst investment I have ever made. I have heard many pre amps and receivers, as well as integrateds that I liked a lot more.

Price Paid:  $625.00 from audiocentre

Summary:
this preamp is awesome..just buy it =)

Strengths:
clean sound,extended soundstage,controled bass and more.....

Weaknesses:
are you crazy =þ

Similar Products Used:
NAD C270
NAD C160
Paradigm Monitor 11v.2
Sony CDP-CE415
MIT Avt3 (bi wire)
Monster cable interconnect

Price Paid:  $325.00 from eBay (used)

Summary:
I upgraded to the C-160 from my homemade passive preamp (basically a Radio Shack pot). The NAD, while very very quiet and reasonably transparent, is nonetheless easily audible in the signal path. I also compared it to my 1982 Hafler DH-110 with the Musical Concepts mod, and I have to say I can't hear very much of a difference between their high level inputs (CD), although the NAD's phono section is clearly superior. But my passive pre trumped both these preamps by delivering a more musical sound that emerged from a much blacker background with a heightened sense of aliveness.

Associate equipment is a generic Japanese CD player with digital coax out, an MSB Link DAC III with 96KHz upsampling and upgraded op-amps, a significantly modified Dynaco ST-70 power amp, and average quality Audioquest interconnects.

This is a fine, fine preamp for the money, but I think I now understand why many top-rated preamps cost over $2000.

Strengths:
Seems reliable so far, selectable MM/MC input, dual outputs nice for subwoofer, lots of inputs, and the remote control is great.

Weaknesses:
Not quite a straight wire with attenuation. Power cord not removable and of ordinary quality.

Similar Products Used:
Hafler DH-110, homemade passive pre

Price Paid:  $599.00 from Sound by Singer

Summary:
This is the first pre-amp I've owned and so far I'm very happy w/it. I got it along w/the 270 amp. It was insanely loud at first, but there's an adjustment knob on the back of the 270 that will turn down it's output level so you can turn up the output level on the c160 pre-amp so that the loudness threshhold is around the 4 or 5-o-clock position on the dial instead of noon or 1. This allows for a much more accurate adjustment of the volume. The unit is very straight forward in it's connections and operation. Overall it's a very practical item in it's appearance and function.

Strengths:
The C160 sounds really nice. It doesn't add to or take away from the source material at all. In point of fact, when played thru my 1989 Klipsch Quartet speakers you'll hear it exactly for what it is. Whether it be good or bad. Some people find that tiring after listening for a long time, but I don't mind. The overall construction of the unit is good although it's not as beefy looking as what audiophiles would want to pay for. If you want stainless steel w/rivets and bolts all all over then this unit is not for you.

Weaknesses:
The phono output is QUIET. Going from vinyl to a CD requires a 1/4 turn adustment just to get the volume back to where you had it before. There's also no Digital IN/OUT and no AUX OUT.

Similar Products Used:
None besides DJ equipment and the stuff you see at Best Buy.

Price Paid:  $470.00 from Yawaonline.com

Summary:
I listened to the Rotel RA-1070 and the NAD C160 pre-amplifiers at home. San Francisco sound was kind enough to allow me to demo the Rotel. I’m a music junky but not an audiophile. I can appreciate the differences in equipment, but in the end, it’s what sound is most appealing.

I found the NAD to be precise and exceptionally detailed. Vocals are articulate and crystal clear. The sound stage is so expansive, it's as though you’re listening through headsets, you hear every detail. Did I hear that from behind? Also, when the volume is cranked, there is no booming bass impeding the midrange or high end. In other words, you can crank it without losing detail. I jammed my new favorite song, “SLOW COUNTRY” by The Gorillaz, and Damon’s vocals were so there!!! It was brilliant! So were all the effects, sounds and the bass was just amazing, no warbles here! At low listening levels though, the bass is not as full as the Rotel. More on that aspect later. However, slightly increasing the bass tone compensates for that (I can sense the audiophiles squeaming...) While with the NAD, you got every sound concurrently, lows, mids and highs. Is Neil Finn actually in the living room? Overall, if you prefer bass and warmth with your music, you should really try out the Rotel. But if you want exceptional clarity and detail with your music, listen to the NAD C-160. I choose the NAD. I hope I made the right choice mate!

My equipment:
Acurus A150 amp
NHT 2.51 speakers
Onkyo CD player

Strengths:
Exceptional value. Precise, clarity, defining bass, Awesome soundstage! Doesn’t miss a note or effect!

Weaknesses:
The phono input in the Rotel is a lot stronger than the NAD . However, I could hear an AM broadcast coming through the speakers with the Rotel whereas with the NAD, there was no interference whatsoever. Yet, the NAD phono input could be stronger. I found I had to crank the volume about twice as high on the NAD than when listening with the Rotel. I even changed my magnetic cartridge to be sure the record player was okay.

The Rotel looks professional. The packaging is first rate. However, it appears more was spent on the packaging than the insides. Whereas the NAD is extraordinarily plain looking and almost Kinda cheap in appearance. The knobs though sturdy, look cheap! It’s obvious NAD spent more on the guts.

Similar Products Used:
Rotel, Yamaha, Sony