Otherwise the amps are functionally similar, broadly speaking. One reviewer referenced past Cambridge amps as having “something of the biscuit tin about them” with “casework that wasn’t what you’d call well-damped”. Neither comment I feel is justified based on my experience with multiple iterations of the A1, the A5, early CD players and the first models in the Azur range. I can’t help but feel it could have been better engineered in places too. A bigger power supply would vastly improve the performance of the amplifier, and a better preamp would give the amplifier a chance to show what it is really capable of. Neither are difficult to design, and neither should add significant component cost to the product. If you’re competent in electronics and DIY-minded though, the older AM10 and the AXA35 are perfect candidates to form the basis of a DIY Gainclone. Cambridge are nicely designed and they do sound good, and I would expect that good sound from the New CX series. Cambridge makes great DACs for the money, and excellent Streaming devices. The preamp appears similar if not identical to the AM10. It is responsible for most of the noise in the amp’s output – 79.8dB signal to noise ratio (A-wtd, ref 0dBW). It’s a bit of a shame Cambridge didn’t spec up the preamp a bit to better match the performance of the output stage. Nevertheless it is well designed with NE5532s unsurprisingly making up the basis of its audio circuitry and input selection and volume control handled by digital logic. Not quite sure what happened with the deal between Cambridge Audio and Richer Sounds. Cambridge Audio certainly used to be a well respected independent Hi Fi manufacturer. Like many companies I suspect they started heading to the wall or were running into trouble and aroun that time there was a tie in with Richer Sounds. I don't know what those details are but it would appear that Cambridge Audio is very much the in house brand at Richer Sounds and consequently it feels like an almost exclusive outlet in the UK. I don't know if RS has any sort of controlling interest in Cambridge Audio but it wouldn't surprise me. It is also quite likely that the kit that k-spin's parents have are the original Cambridge Audio company.

AXA25 | Cambridge Audio

Covering the history of Cambridge Audio and the evolution of its budget offerings would serve only to prematurely wear the keys of my already battered keyboard. If you’re interested, I wrote on the subject at length in my AX series summary. If you’re not, the review herein is strictly dedicated to the AXA35 amplifier and will also detail the AXA25. On paper the two amplifiers are very similar with only a 10W jump in output power and specification improvements setting them apart, but in practice they are two very different amplifiers. The AXA25 is a very indirect successor to the A1 and to an extent my A5, whereas the AXA35 is cut from the same cloth as the proceeding Topaz AM10 and the Topaz receivers.

It just serves to tell you that mains power is coming to the amp. You have to work out for yourself whether the amp is actually on or off. The frequency response is relatively flat. There’s a gentle roll-off below 100Hz and above 10kHz, but it’s only 0.2dB down at 20Hz and 20kHz, the limits of the audio band. In reality this won’t be audible, so any characteristic sound will be due to its limitations in power, component-level tuning and preamplifier noise more than anything else. The AXA35 like the AM10 predecessor is essentially a commercial ‘Gainclone’ implementation. The LM3886 output devices can theoretically deliver 68W per channel into a 4Ω load and 38W per channel into an 8Ω load with a symmetrical power supply delivering +/-28V. Cambridge’s specification of 35W into an 8Ω load is therefore a sensible one. The AXA35 will actually deliver the 38W into 8Ω before clipping.

AXA25 - Integrated Stereo Amplifier | Cambridge Audio HK AXA25 - Integrated Stereo Amplifier | Cambridge Audio HK

Putting the AXA35 on a little plastic plinth that’s − to all intents and purposes – invisible, is a canny move on Cambridge Audio’s part, too. It makes the amp look a little like it’s floating, and in a sector of the market where aesthetics play a distant second fiddle to cost considerations, it’s a very welcome design oddity. Cambridge Audio AXA35 features − Defiantly old-fashioned when it comes to connections and features If we ignore the poor customer service and the spotty quality control, when they work, they work exceptionally well. And keep in mind that the spotty quality control is based on Internet rumors. Speaking of the tone controls. They are of the shelving type and cut and boost at 100Hz and 10kHz respectively. They’re not subtle as a result, but as this amp is likely to be paired with smaller bookshelf speakers or less capable floorstanders they will be more useful than controls that adjust the 20Hz and 20kHz frequency extremes.

Cambridge Audio AXA35/AXC35

If anything, I suspect Chinese manufacturing, and poor quality control, and I blame poor quality control on a corporate desire to maximize profits at the expense of consumer satisfaction. Which also explains poor customer service. This is not limited to Cambridge, it can be found in may sectors of audio and non-audio products. It might be the AXA35’s confident way with timing that’s the single most surprising/impressive aspect of its performance. Vinyl gives a system every chance to show off its facility (or otherwise) for the timing and unity of a recording, and the AXA35’s phono stage lets Felt’s The Splendour of Fear roll along in the most natural manner.

Cambridge Audio AXA35/AXC35 | Hi-Fi Choice Cambridge Audio AXA35/AXC35 | Hi-Fi Choice

The latest manufacturer to highlight this advantage is Cambridge Audio. The company was arguably better known for making premium products in its formative years – such as the groundbreaking CD-1 compact disc player in 1985 – but has more recently become known for its excellent value two-channel audio components and multi-room speaker systems. Here I’m looking at (and listening to) the AXA35 stereo amplifier. Can a brand-new yet retro device like this make us all nostalgic for the good old days? Cambridge Audio AXA35 design − Visually arresting (by traditional hi-fi standards)Another peculiarity is that the USB port fitted to the rear only provides power to a connected USB item – it is not actually an audio input. Also at the rear are a set of good-quality loudspeaker binding posts and Cambridge continues its tradition of labelling all its available connections both upside down – so that you can see the input you’re grappling with on the rear panel when looking over the top of unit – as well as the right way up, which all helps to make interconnect and speaker cable connections a doddle. It should be noted though that abusing the tone controls to get more bass out of a low-powered system is not always a good idea. It’s nothing to do with some snobbish view that “it’s not how hi-fi should be heard” blah blah, but because with a 35W amp excessive use of the tone controls at high volume will cause the amp to clip sooner. Clipping, a flattening of the peaks in the audio waveform, is more often than not the cause of blown speakers, not excessive power. Thus you’re more likely to damage your speakers with this amp if you turn the bass to max and crank up the volume than you will if you leave the tone controls flat. One of the key differentiators is the user interface. The AXA25 has old-fashioned analogue knobs for bass, treble, volume and balance. I presume that it is a fully analogue component design, though I don’t have one here so I can’t lift the lid to say for sure. The AXA35 has a digital interface as evidenced by the push-button input selection and digitally-controlled volume, complete with volume level display and tone and balance controls hidden behind a simple menu system. Assuming I’m right about the AXA25’s implementation of good old-fashioned potentiometers, the better AXA35 should be a significant jump in performance without the channel mismatch and noise issues associated with cheaper analogue pots. It’s true to say that the new casework is better, but examples of poorly damped biscuit-tin casework are more prevalent in boutique British equipment at several times the price of any Cambridge. Poorly built casework and preschool electronics design aside, some of that gear is ugly enough to offend a blind man’s sense of aestheticism.