NAD S300 integrated = Gryphon Tabu Century?

A friend of mine brought this to my attention. It would seem that the NAD S300 integrated amp from their Silverline series is no more and no less than a Gryphon Tabu Century integrated in a different box with different toroidal transformsers. The NAD S300 costs around £1500 whereas the Gryphon (no longer available) cost around double that

Don't know the whole story but if anyone knows it would be interesting to find out more. Seems like the S300 was designed and built in Denmark (home of Gryphon) with Gryphon acting as "consultants". The extent of their "consultancy" seems to have meen merely to recyle their no longer in production Tabu integrated! The one concession made was that where Gryphon alwyas use C-Section transformers, the NAD uses Holmgren toroidals. Apart from that (and the case of course) they are 100% identical.

The specs are identical:
- True dual-mono (separate toroidal xformers for each channel)
- 100W into 8ohms, 200W into 4ohms and 300W into 2ohms.
- balanced inputs
- Zero negative feedback circuit topology
- Separate power supply with own transformer for all non audio circuits

I can't find a pic of the inside of either but I suspect that they would look identical. The cases, whilst different have clearly the same layout of buttons and same basic size:

http://www.nadelectronics.com/hifi_amplifiers/s300_framset.htm
(NAD have been having bandwidth issues with their site so aren't allowing linking of images directly, you'll have to click on the link)



NAD doesn't mention any of this on their site but that may be part of the agreement they had. The Gryphon Tabu was extremely well received with critics rating it amongst the best (if not the best) integrated in the world. So, is this NAD an undiscovered hifi bargain (of the Century ) ?

Said friend had been listening to it in his system and comparing it with his MF A1000 and has been pretty impressed

Michael.

 

Here's a pic of the NAD attached to compare with the Gryphon:



Michael.

 

Being a (more than happy) owner of silverline stuff myself (S100/200), I've been interested in that question myself and while talking to a Gryphon dealer we touched this issue too.
That's what he told me: Though the two factories seem to be located more or less side by side up in Denmark, it nevertheless seems that Gryphon insists on having nothing to do with any of NAD's silverline products and it's all just rumours.
The similarities between the S300 and the tabu century indeed are striking though. Maybe they just have to deny any connection?
Of course I think that these NADs are an undiscovered hifi bargain.

 

One of the best dems I have ever heard was at some show in Preston, where a NAD Silverline CD and integrated amp were driving one of the floorstanding Dynaudio Audience models. The sound was quite stunning.

A week later we went to the "proper" Hi Fi show at Chester where the Naims and the rest did their very expensive things. Trouble was, not one exhibitor got anywhere near that NAD dem, so, yes, I guess that amp must be bloody good.

 

NAD's Silverline tuner is also exactly the same as Primare's, casework aside, although in this instance I think Primare licensed the design from NAD rather than the other way around.

-- Ian

 

I saw this NAD today in my perambulations around Basel. It was in its underwear (top off to reveal the two toroidal transformers and all the other fascinating bits and pieces). Tried to lift it, nearly ruptured myself. A mighty-looking machine, and so it should be for four and a half thousand Swissie Francs (about £1800).

 

Alot of the reviews on Audioreview point to the fact that the NAD is based on the GRYphon,but I thought I'd read somewhere else that, that was'nt the case,I to have heard the NAD and I think it's one of the best integrateds i've heard,it was partnered with the silverline cd player.

 

Finally found some better pics of the Gryphon, including internal shots. If someone has an S300 and could take the cover off maybe they could "compare and contrast"







Michael.

 

From what I remember, Michael, this looks very similar to what I saw, but then, perhaps this is the logical layout for such a gadget. Certainly the NAD had the two toroidal transformers up at the front, with the circuit board sitting behind and the long rod from the central knob into the innards. One difference - the finned heatsinks of the NAD are integral with the case, all looking very much like a single casting (if my memory serves me correctly), whereas these seem to be both smaller and added on to an existing case. (Now I come to think of it, I don't remember the two subsidiary circuit boards one each abutting directly on to the heatsinks).

 

Well I've just doen a double take. look pretty identical to me! Maybe a bargain to be had!

 

Not quite - the two small caps behind the four big ones are hard up against each other in one and far enough apart in the other for other components to be fitted in between - but perhaps just a detail difference.

 

Well, the circuit board is certainly not 100% identical so it wasn't a straightforward case of "using up surplus boards from Gryphon". However, it looks to me like the circuit and components are identical apart from the transformers...

Now, since the Gryphon cost around £3-4K when it was new and the NAD costs £1500 so either the NAD is a bargain or the Gryphon was a rip off. Just goes to show how much you pay for a name

Michael.

 

micheal,
i think classifying them as black and white as bargain or rip off is a bit ott. the psu's can make quite a difference and are not inexpensive if the tabu really did use c-cores (i remember peter qvortrup of audio note saying that he wishes he could make a good c-core as cheaply as a normal frame or torroidal aparently if you don;t get them right they buzz a lot or something?). also the tabu's casework looks a lot more complex and heavy duty than the nad's with internal cases for the psu's etc. lastly there may also have been some 'premium' componentry going on in the tabu too. ok there probably is some 'name price expansion' going on but maybe not as much as you think.
cheers


julian

 

Dunno, Julian, I'm no expert on casework, but the NAD has a much more "carved from solid" look about it - and from having seen the NAD in the metal, I can confirm that it is indeed constructed in the manner nnormally associated with battleships. To me the Gryphon (which I've never seen) looks quite flimsy in comparison. And I find it hard to believe that superior componentry can really justify a 200+% increase in price. I think this is indeed a charging what the market can stand. But the rest of the industry gets away with it, so why not Gryphon? Can Linn's price for the CD12 ever be justified on any rational basis, other than sheer elitism and snob value?

 

Maybe I'm just showing my lack anarak knowledge here, but if you'd mentioned the name "Gryphon" to me a couple of months ago, I'd have said "Gryphon, who? ".

Whereas arguably NAD are much more a household name. Having said that, NAD is a brand name forever synonomous in my mind (and no doubt others) with decent but budget concious kit. The numbers "3020" are surely almost always uttered in almost the same breath as the letters NAD...

 

Michael,

Not many of us take the lids off our units when we buy them as we just want to enjoy the music (if you'll pardon the pun). However, take the lid off many amps including some very popular names and you'll be surprised at what you find inside vs the price. The NAD amp is a great sounding amplifier for music lovers but it's a name that does not easily roll off the lips of audiophiles because it is ……… well, a NAD. What!! You bought a NAD - are you MAD? However, mention the name Gryphon and audiophiles start drooling over what they see as Scandinavian chic and these same audiophiles will happily pay more than twice the price of the NAD Silverline amp. Image is everything my friend. However, place both amps behind a screen so these audiophiles get to use only their ears (not their eyes) to choose an amp and they would have difficulty choosing which one sounds best. This could explain why I have now adopted this method for testing all equipment at home for you'll be surprised at the number of so called high-end gear that you can cross-off the list when you are not looking at them directly but only listening to them.

All I would say on this opic is that the Scandinavians are very fond of recycling and they do it very well indeed. Beyond that, I'll say no more. However, if there are any music lovers out there who just want to enjoy great sounds for relatively sensible money, the NAD Silverline components are worth a look. Pair up with decent and open sounding speakers and you can step-off the audiophile treadmill.



Enjoy the music,

Lawrie.

 

I had a look at the reviews of the Gryphon and reviews of the NAD. The descriptions of the amps' characters and conclusions on overall sound quality are remarkably similar...

Interesting to note, though, that each one is considered a serious contender at it's respective price point. Whilst the positive aspects of the amps are overwhelmingly similar in the reviews, some of the NAD reviewers found something to criticise while there was rarely any criticism of the Gryphon. A case of the reviewers basing their conclusions on price as well as brand image?

reg

 

Reg, very valid point, with more than hint of turth I feel. T.

 

Definitely good points. I would wager that had reviewers been told they were reviewing the Gryphon when in fact the NAD was being used they would have been more positive. Conversely, if they had been told they were reviewing the NAD when in fact the Gryphon was being used they would have found the something to criticise in the sound.

More to the point, given that the two amps measure pretty much identically and look to be almost identical in construction, I doubt very much that anyone would be able to tell them apart in a blind test.

Interesting that on the "FAQ" on the Gryphon site they have the following entry:

Trying to distance themselves from something that could cheapen their brand maybe? No doubt whatever agreement the two companies had that led to the NAD S300 included clauses that neither could admit that there was any agreement

Michael.