Like

NAD 320BEE vs NAD C352

 

New member
Username: Big_scott

Post Number: 1
Registered: Dec-04
Hi
I'm deciding between the NAD 320BEE and the NAD c352. I will be running the int amp with a Cambridge Audio D500se Cd player, and a pair of axiom m22ti's speakers. I am fairly new to hifi market and want to know if there will be any significant difference between the two models, and whether or not the extra power provided by the C352 is worth an extra 150 dollars.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Onimushalord

Post Number: 14
Registered: Nov-04
The new C352 is worth the cash, get it over the older 320BEE, the difference in fidelity is quite real, but honestly not a day vs night difference.

Whether it's worth the extra $150, it depends how deep your wallet goes, for the long run(aka if you don't intend to sell the amp next few months) you better get the C352. The base/house sound of NAD is present in both though just a bit more refinement, better stereo imaging and power in the C352.

To boot, the newer C352 is "What Hi Fi's" new Amp of The Year 2004. Analogy, it's like Marantz PM7200/ CA 640A/ Rotel RA-02 > NAD C320BEE by a short yard but the NAD C352 > Marantz PM7200/ CA 640A/ Rotel RA-02 by another yard

;)
 

nout
Unregistered guest
It's won Hi-Fi Choice's 2004 award too: best amp under £500


But I'd rather listen and then decide: I actually like Marantz PM 7200 better than NAD C352, although every magazine rated the NAD higher.

Also check out Denon's new PMA 1500-MKII.
"Stereo" and "Stereoplay", two German magazines, rated this amp higher than any other rival (Marantz PM 7200, NAD C352, Harman Kardon HK670, Rotel RA-02 etc.).
 

Franco
Unregistered guest
I own the c320bee - had it for a couple of months and i must say i'm a little dissappointed with the sound.. quite detailed and smooth but lacking in punch - fine for jazz or acoustic music but doesnt have the attack for Led Zeppelin or the pixies.. sounds a bit bland - the lower registers are a bit blurry..

I'd say go for the c352 - much better bass control and better detail
 

Unregistered guest
Franco--
Did u replace the mains cord in your 320bee?
 

Franco
Unregistered guest
No, it's a built in affair.. not like the kettle leads on more expensive stuff..

And opening up the case to replace the lead would invalidate my warranty - and warranties can be useful.
 

New member
Username: Richt

Post Number: 1
Registered: Jan-05
I'm facing the same dilemma at the moment, NAD 320BEE vs NAD C352. I will be getting the NAD 542 CD player and using B&W 602 S3s. Interconnects / speaker cables: QED silver anniversary range.

I listen to a wide range of music, from rock to pop to classical. My room's not massive and due to neighbours I wont be listening at anything at great volume. :-) So I don't think power is a big issue? Having said that, I have heard that the C320BEE is not too well tonally at low volumes. Would the more powerful C325 rectify that?

The NAD C320BEE seems to consistently get great reviews, but I've read that some people are have been disappointed with the NAD C352. Comments such as, it's not as musical and warm as the NAD C320BEE? I basically would pay the extra for the C352 but I don't want to be taking a sideways step or even worse a step backward!

I'll probably audition both, but I'm still very interested in opinions from people with more experience than me (as I have almost none!). So has anyone heard both that could comment?
 

nout
Unregistered guest
You could say that NAD C352 is the perfect compromise between NAD C320BEE and Rotel RA-02.
NAD C320BEE has a "warm" and lush sound (a bit of a loudness-effect in the bass, pretty coloured for sure. It lacks some finer details and subtlety.
Rotel RA-02 has a very clean, detailed and accurate sound, quite lot of speed too, but its midds and treble are very forward sounding, sometimes pretty unforgiving.
NAD C352 has a warm sound but it's less coloured in low midds and bass than C320BEE, it's detailed and accurate, but without being fatiguing in the long run. (A rounder and more fluid music delivery than Rotel).

I'd definately go for NAD C352. (as the Rotel can be fatiguing due to its bright sound, the C320BEE can be fatiguing by not giving enough detail)

Note:
I actually like all three amps and would be perfectly satisfied with any of them, but if I had to choose...)
 

New member
Username: Richt

Post Number: 2
Registered: Jan-05
That's a revealing comparison, thanks! I'm now leaning towards the C352!

How does the C352 perform at lower volumes? Is it an amp that needs to be turned up to get the best out of it? Or is it just as good at medium-low volumes? (when I say "medium-low" I mean, not disturbing the neighbours kind of volume :-))
 

nout
Unregistered guest
Just as good at medium-low levels in my opinion.
I forget to mention that its dynamics are especially good compared to rivals
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ca_convert

CardiffUK

Post Number: 18
Registered: Jan-05
The dynamics of the C352 are great at the price. It also works very well with the NAD C542 cdp and B&W DM303's

This system for the money has a huge soundstage, with a big but smooth sound. The 352 exercises great control over the DM303's its a great system for both rock and classical. I have heard the diamond 9.1's and I am wondering what the fuss is about..
 

New member
Username: Richt

Post Number: 3
Registered: Jan-05
OK. After much research I've decided to go with the NAD C352 and NAD 542 cd player.

Now, to the speakers. I originally thought I'd be getting the B&W 602 S3's. I'm now considering Quad 12L's. The build quality looks SO much better. I really don't like the veneer used on the 602's and the quads are a bit smaller too, which in a relatively small room, is probably a good thing.

I'm just a bit worried that they will be a little bit too "cold" sounding and clean compared to the B&W 602 S3s with this setup.

I can't find anywhere close to where I live to audition them, so would be interested to know if anyone has any opinions or has heard them with the NAD setup ?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ca_convert

CardiffUK

Post Number: 36
Registered: Jan-05
Richard, sorry cant help you there. But, let me know what you find since I am considering upgrading my speakers later this year and Quads are on my shortlist
 

New member
Username: Richt

Post Number: 4
Registered: Jan-05
ca convert, I just found this post that was helpful... https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/9010.html

Seems the Quad 12Ls will make a nice match for the NAD gear.

Still interested in hearing more opinions on this setup though. Particularly, if possible, in comparison to using the B&W 602 S3s.
 

Anonymous
 
Just another vote for the 352 over the 320. I arranged to listen to the CD player & amp in both series (320BEE/521BEE & 354/542) thence 542 player through the 320 amp. The difference in the amp was palpable, thinnner, flatter sound with the 320 with a notable lack of depth with piano (Keith Jarrett being the acid test).

Both amps are a step up from my old Marantz piece of classic hi-fi but I picked up the higher combo today with a Tara Labs interconnect. Can't wait to plug it all in :-p
 

New member
Username: Richt

Post Number: 5
Registered: Jan-05
What speakers were you using? :-)

It would also be good if you could report back how the Tara Labs interconnect performs.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Amir

Post Number: 35
Registered: Jul-04
There is anyone who have already heard this combination?:
Nad c352 with cambridge audio 640C,
compared with,
cambridge audio 640A with 640C.
What is the diffrences between the 2 combination(i am meaning to the differences in the medium vocal and the details of the sound and the low bass )
 

New member
Username: Asmo242

Post Number: 1
Registered: Mar-05
I currently own the NAD c320BEE and Paradigm Monitor 5 v2s, I am going to be upgrading to Paradigm Studio 40 v3s, and am curious what amp to get, I was thinking of upgrading to the 352 also, any opinions?
 

New member
Username: Ellison

Post Number: 3
Registered: Mar-05
320 to 352 is not a good upgrade I think. The improvement is only subtle. besides 320 has its own good points that 352 doesnt have. 320 is more musical and involving. I would go a little further if I were you.
My system is Nad320Bee Nad521 cdp and MordauntShort 914 Floorstanding.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Tevo

Chicago, IL USA

Post Number: 85
Registered: Feb-05
Yes and no. I agree with Ellison Go on the refinement, C320BEE is exceptional for this price.

If you are looking for more resolution, increased soundstaging, I am not sure if this upgrade will give you much more of that.

However, what the C352 offers is power. I am a firm believer in having plenty of headroom (power).
Especially if you have less sensitive/harder to drive speakers, the extra power helps.

Try your new speakers with your existing integrated and see how you like it. Best solution would be to find a dealer that allows at-home auditioning of the C352 and seeing how it compares.
 

New member
Username: Richt

Post Number: 7
Registered: Jan-05
I think Ellison may be right!

I bought the following setup:

NAD C542 cdp, NAD C352, Quad 12Ls, QED silver aniv bi-wired speaker cable, Van Den Hul The Name interconnect. I've also replaced the amp's pre-out main-in connector with the cable that came with the C542 CD player.

Where to start? Well, I think the Quads are amazing. The build quality is faultless, the stereo imaging is increadible. However, I think they're lacking a bit of bass warmth, though this will probably improve with time. With my current setup, they're sounding a bit blarey.

I'm finding that I'm having to use the amp's tone controls to get a sound I'm happy with. The bass knob is almost always turned up a quater turn from neutral. Then I need to add a bit of trebble too, just to balance it out and "open" the sound up.

The C542 is great is just what you would expect from the reviews. It's great :-)

The C352 I'm not sure about. It sounds thin to me. As I say, I almost always find I need the bass control turned up or it just lacks some in the low mids and isn't an involving kind of sound. I thought it may be the speakers as they're known for being very detailed. But even with the headphones plugged in, it still sounds thin and too trebbly, so I don't think it's down to the speakers.

The CD player is very detailed and revealing too which could be part of the problem. I'm not sure.

Get this... I'm actually thinking of "downgrading" to the NAD 320BEE as from what I've read, it's a bit more bassy and musical sounding.

With my current setup, I feel like the music is being disected into little parts and laid thinly on the table.

I don't want to be forced to use the tone knobs to get a sound I'm happy with.

I'll let everyone know if I do downgrade to the C320BEE and what I think.
 

New member
Username: Asmo242

Post Number: 2
Registered: Mar-05
I was just worried that the 320BEE wouldn't be enough power for the Studio 40s, I have nad 542 cdplayer, I am going to get my new speakers next week, I will try them with the c320BEE, it is only 50w per channel, I can't damage the studio 40s by underpowering them? Maybe I should use the 320 and save up for something better
 

New member
Username: Ellison

Post Number: 4
Registered: Mar-05
I think the 352 is not thin sounding. Maybe the cds that you are listening is the culprit for sounding thin. Mostly popular pop recording don't sound really great on transparent amps. I suggest freezing the cd and sandpaper the edge of cd and apply some cd stoplight. And put some "rain-x" on the cd or "Finyl". Then put some mats on. The sound will have more weight and body.
320BEE is great. But you will miss the dynamic presentation and the sheer power involvement in the music if you downgrade the 352 to 320BEE.
And by the way, my 320BEE sounds thin sometimes. Iam still tweaking my system to make it not thin and sounding congested at complex chorus at times.

By the way is replacing the pre out main jumper with a high quality interconnect improve something?



 

Bronze Member
Username: Tevo

Chicago, IL USA

Post Number: 86
Registered: Feb-05
Asmo,

Same precautions apply- if you detect audible signs of distortion from amplifier clipping, turn the volume down. NAD rates their amplifiers conservatively, so that 50w goes quite a ways.

And you could always turn on the Soft Clipping circuit if you are really cranking out the dBs.

-------

AudioQuest makes jumper replacement interconnects which are said to offer improvements. They are ~ $40USD. You could always give this "tweak" a try. From what I understand, the jumpers on NAD and other integrateds are said to be "high quality", for what its worth.
 

New member
Username: Richt

Post Number: 8
Registered: Jan-05
I've found that replacing the pre>main jumper noticeably improves the bass depth and control. I would probably get the AudioQuest replacement, but I'm in the UK and I'm not sure they ship here.

I don't really think I need the extra power that the C352 provides. I have quite a small room (about 13ft x 8ft) and never turn the volume knob up past the 4th little notch thing.

I listen to all sorts of music from classical to rock and it pretty much all sounds thin without using the tone controls. I sometimes wonder if there may even be a problem with the amp. Some of the music I just can't imagine anyone wanting to listen to with tone defeat on.

I wouldn't downgrade without hearing them side by side first anyway. Maybe I should try a different amp altogether. What's the best amp for full-bodied rich lush sound? :-)
 

New member
Username: Asmo242

Post Number: 3
Registered: Mar-05
I replaced the pre>main jumpers with Tara Labs RSC Link on my NAD c320BEE and it is worth the $40 easily.

--

I guess I will have to hear the Studio 40s on my 320bee to decide for myself if it suits my needs, maybe if it is ok, I will hold out til I can afford something better than the 352 even.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Tevo

Chicago, IL USA

Post Number: 87
Registered: Feb-05
You folks better watch yourselves, lest we incur the wrath of the "cables are b.s." brigade. :-)

Richard:
In the same price range? Not sure... not many integrateds left in the "entry level" hi-fi scene.
I found the Audio Analogue Primo ($799 USD) makes for an excellent integrated if a "full-bodied rich lush" sound is what you're after.
Musical Fidelity's X-80 (not sure if available anymore, ~$900USD) and X-150 (albeit, > $1,000USD) are pricier alternatives.

Hmmm... to my ears, the C352 has better bass control than the C320.
 

New member
Username: Richt

Post Number: 9
Registered: Jan-05
I would definitely listen to the Studio40s on your current amp before upgrading. It may simply not be worth it.
 

New member
Username: Richt

Post Number: 10
Registered: Jan-05
"You folks better watch yourselves, lest we incur the wrath of the "cables are b.s." brigade."

lol you're right :-) But I can honestly say that I am absolutely 100% certain replacing the jumpers improves the sound.

 

Bronze Member
Username: Tevo

Chicago, IL USA

Post Number: 88
Registered: Feb-05
Hmmm... maybe I should have put up my system for sale here on this board, (instead of consigning to dealer).

I had a Primo int. amp + CD player that I was selling for the price of a new C352/C542 combo.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 63
Registered: Mar-04
how about going for the gusto and getting the c 372. Double the power of the c 352, with two sets of speaker connectors for biwiring? I have the nad c272 amp which is paired with a passive pre and it's the bee's knee's, let me tell you....
 

Bronze Member
Username: Tevo

Chicago, IL USA

Post Number: 90
Registered: Feb-05
That's an idea... their pre-amp + C372 are rated highly.

Although, for me personally, once it gets into the ~ $1K USD range, my attention starts wandering elsewhere...
 

New member
Username: Asmo242

Post Number: 4
Registered: Mar-05
What about the c370? I see some good deals on used models, I've heard pre amp + amp is good too, but does get towards 1K in price for a good nad combo. Is it worth it though?
 

New member
Username: Ellison

Post Number: 7
Registered: Mar-05
There are many integrated Amps or power Amps that can deliver great and powerful presentation beyond $400. Let the money speak!:-) But if Id rather b contented with the NAD Integrated for now. I just do not comprehend how the 352 may sound thin. Anyway as iam contended with 320BEE even with some imperfection. I'd with hear some suggestion about filling my floorstander(MS914) with sand or not in the lower chamber if there will be advantages or disadvantages.

By d way I try replacing the jumper of pre out main with a Vandenhul the source half meter in it. And wala! And it turns out to be more open and precise in imaging. it turns out more musical. Sometimes I really just cannot believe that one tiny jumper will make a difference. I think the difference is about 4% postive.
 

New member
Username: Ellison

Post Number: 9
Registered: Mar-05
Nad352 is a great amp. I cannot even comprehend that it will sound thin. Buy anyway I suggest the solid state preamp Power combo of musical fidelity. That will add some thump and mid band ecstacy. Now thats really an upgrade.

I tried replacing the pre-out main jumper with vandenhul the source, and it turns out more open and musical. I just can't believe that this tiny jumper will make a difference. Anyway the changes to positive is about 4%.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Tevo

Chicago, IL USA

Post Number: 92
Registered: Feb-05
I have heard lead shot is better than sand with floorstanders- less chance of trapped moisture in there. If it were bookshelf speaker stands, I don't think it matters but to mass load a nice speaker... me thinks it be best not to have moisture in there.

I'm not much of a tweak or cable person... perhaps someday I will try jumper replacement.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Richt

Post Number: 11
Registered: Jan-05
Ellison, Do you listen with tone defeat on? What kind of music do you listen to? I'm increasingly thinking that there may be a problem either with the amp or with my head! haha. I might just exchange the amp for another C352 just to make sure it's not the amp.

Tevo, I would really recomend trying a jumper replacement. Even a cheap interconnect will do. As Ellson says, the difference it makes is surprising.
 

New member
Username: Ellison

Post Number: 10
Registered: Mar-05
Maybe its the head! ha ha. I do listen with tone defeat on when Iam really seated at my music chair. but sometimes i listen without tone defeat on. it depends on the mood. tone defeat on makes my listening transparent (but some cds really dont like tone defeat on on my system. -which I do not know. eg. stacie orrico). tone defeat off makes my listening more relaxing and more bodied in dvd watching.
352 is great- Id exchange my 320 with your 352 if you want. ha ha :-)

I agree with u. Yah I really dont like the sand coz of the moisture that will accumulate inside. But Theres no lead shots here in my country. but anyway does it improve the sound filling it? Subtle?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ellison

Post Number: 11
Registered: Mar-05
By the way most music i listen to is CelineDion, ToniBraxton, Tina Arena, Britney -Mostly pop, some classical, dance music, No heavy metal, No heavy rock

 

Bronze Member
Username: Richt

Post Number: 12
Registered: Jan-05
lol. If you lived in the UK (don't think you do?) I wouldn't mind swapping amps for a while just to see how they compare.
 

mcgreek
Unregistered guest
hello. i just got the NAD C352 amp. To save money, i was thinking of either getting the C541i CD slightly used OR the new 521BEE model. which is "better"? what's a better way of spending $300, and with that amp, which would "go" better? i know NOTHING about stereos, am relying on reviews. also, could you suggest speaker wires? i was thinking of the Paradigm Monitor 3 speakers, by the way. any thoughts? would be grateful for ANY insight, advice, wisdom or even two-cents. also, anybody know a great discount stereo shop for NAD and/or paradigm where i can buy online or by calling the 1(800) number? thanks a lot. marianne in california
 

StuartNADfan
Unregistered guest
Funny, my shop suggests going the other way around, i.e. the 320BEE amp and 542 player. They are convinced that the 542 is equivalent to much more expensive players. I'm tempted to go with the 352 but they feel that for the speakers I'm using (Totem Mites) the 320BEE is fine. Based on this I guess the 541i would be the better choice for you.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 64
Registered: Mar-04
stuart I would get the c352 over the c 320 bee. The former with it's greater power will work fine with your mites but also allow you to move to other speakers without having to wonder if with the bee you will have enough oomph... I would get the 542 over the 521 bee as well. Yes it costs more but how often do you buy cdp's? Less often if you get the better one first I assume.
I own the 541i and wanted the 542 when it first came out simply because it was newer, but I shall wait... When nad phases out the 542 in 2 years or so they will be going for 299 just like the 541i did...

 

StuartNADfan
Unregistered guest
id. Just in case you're familiar with this, suppose I move up to the STTAF speakers. Would the 320BEE be OK or would the 352 be better? I'm feeling a pull on my wallet for the STTAFs.
 

New member
Username: Asmo242

Post Number: 5
Registered: Mar-05
I picked up a c352 yesterday, was on sale at my local dealer and I had them hook up a 320BEE and the 352 to studio 40s in store to compare. There was definetly more presence with the 352 on these speakers, and with the good price I got on the 352, I snatched it up and am enjoying breaking it in this weekend right now.
 

morphosis
Unregistered guest
How about C352 paired with Paradigm Monitor 7? anyone has this set up? Will C352 has enough power to drive Monitor 7?
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 110
Registered: Feb-05
I heard that setup at Northwest Audio Labs here in the Willamette Valley. NAD C352, C542, and Monitor 7's. Sounded very good! The NAD had plenty of grunt to run those 7's to quite the volume. Good clean sound. I prefer the Monitor 5 over the 7's due to cabinet resonance but I still like the 7's. I have owned Paradigm's in one form or the other for 10 years, so if you have any questions feel free to ask.
 

morphosis
Unregistered guest
Thanks Arthur, So the 5 is better than 7? hmmm cheaper too which is nice :-)...but what about bass? I love to listen rock and dance music...in this price range is there better speakers?
 

bumblebee
Unregistered guest
from NAD's website, an excerpt on AVGuide's review of the C352.

"If you have efficient speakers, NAD's own C320BEE offers similar sonic attributes and will save you a few hundred bucks. According to Mr. Stone, both units use the same "design platform," but the smaller sibling gives you less power and flexibility."
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 122
Registered: Feb-05
The 7's definately have the advantage over the 5's in bass extension, but not in bass accuracy. I have a Paradigm PW2100 sub which flat out does the job. Tight and controlled for Music and outright slam for movies. I believe that my Paradigms are tops in their class but the competition is so stiff and everone's ears so different that I can only offer my opinion. If I were to look at any other speakers in the price class it would be B&W, Ascend, and Wharfedale 9.6's. For me the Paradigms fit the bill.
 

morphosis
Unregistered guest
Thanks guys, really helpful. I'm not sure I will find Ascend in my country but I've seen B&W advertised here...
 

New member
Username: Nsanghani

Post Number: 3
Registered: May-05
Should I consider NAD C372 over NAD C320BEE given that C372 are double the price?
 

StuartNADfan
Unregistered guest
372 instead of 320BEE? Only if you need waaay more power than the 320 offers.
 

New member
Username: Skareb

Post Number: 5
Registered: Jun-05
my opinion since I've tested this 2 amp side by side last week.

The 320BEE is good if you don't plan to play loud, theres more bass in low volumn more warm, whereelse the 352 is more flat or sounded thin when compared.

I bought the 320BEE
 

Silver Member
Username: Sun_king

Leeds, West Yorkshire UK

Post Number: 256
Registered: Mar-04
No way man. The higher up the Nad range you go, the less 'thin' the sound becomes. Power equals depth and width to the sound, not just more volume. I have listened a C372 and a C320BEE in the same system at low volumes and the BEE was very thin in comparison and had way less weight in the lower frequencies. The BEE is a great amp but under no circumstances whatsoever does it 'beat' the C352 or especially the C372.
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 179
Registered: Apr-04
I agree with SunKing here! I think maybe you better try placing your system in another configeration!
 

Bronze Member
Username: Onimushalord

Post Number: 21
Registered: Nov-04
Do not under any circumstances get the NAD372 as this one is a let down in the great NAD line. Yes, it does have more raw watts to pump up the sound but that's where it ends in terms of quality.
Apparently, the WHF rated them as the worst of a bunch in an amp test recently. For the money, get the RA-03 or stick with the tested C352CT/320BEE.

The best is of course audition yourself, if u r still undecided, try reading several reviews from different mags/users, try not to get too involved with just any 1 review from any particular mag :-)
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 183
Registered: Apr-04
The 352 is exactly the same as a 372 except that the 372 has more power! If What hi-fi says it was the worst one does not mean it is! That is one persons opinion and I have learned after listening to sooooo many high brand names that a lot of this is crap! Many times people don't want to admit that some of the lower price brands like NAD are really good. It is hard for them to justify that at that price you can have such great sound. Be careful what you read........go listen instead. Your ears are your best critics and this tends to be what people on these boards forget!
 

New member
Username: Skareb

Post Number: 9
Registered: Jun-05
just my opinion base on what I heard, but then again I've to list out the things that go along

Maranzt 5400
Wharfedale diamond 9.1
QED silver spiral and silver anniversary Bi.

The C352 sounded thin, less bass but more transparent and the bits and pieces really comes out.

The C320BEE sounded heavy or warm, like they say more musical but you dun have the clarity or transparency of the C352

Neither is better than they other just that they both have thier own character. I bought the 320BEE and now I wish I have gotten the 352, but then again if I've gotten the 352 I'll wish I've had extra cash for the RA03...
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 185
Registered: Apr-04
I think that maybe you should of experimented more before buying. The RA03 is thinner than the NAD usually unless there is something new I am not aware of!
 

New member
Username: Skareb

Post Number: 10
Registered: Jun-05
I've not audition the RA03, but judging from hifi mag yes its more transperant hence the thinning. My wharfedale are very warm speakers naturally so blending with 320BEE is a mistake, the music now are very heavy.

I spoke to my local sales guys and hes willing to do a home audition for a pair of audiopro black pearl V2 tomoro at 8, so I'll see what is actually wrong with the system.
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 187
Registered: Apr-04
Never mind what a mag tells you.......AUDITION IT!

Wharfedales are warm and so is your NAD which should be a great combo! You won't probably like the sound of the RA03 with these speakers.

By the way......there is nothing wrong with your system! I would try a different CD player before trying new speakers. Your Marantz may be part of your problem (as you call it).
 

Bronze Member
Username: Skareb

Post Number: 13
Registered: Jun-05
thats the fun of component set up we never seem ever to be satisfy, we love sitting there and finding fault then we get an excuse to spend some money
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 206
Registered: Apr-04
I have tried to stop that. I even stopped myself from going to an expensive upgrade for a little wee difference in sound! I like my stuff and I am ging to stick with this brand and just upgrade when newer models come out instead of spending 3000$ on a lonely CD player!

The money I saved was used for more important things like my family!
 

New member
Username: Mackace23

Toronto, ON Canada

Post Number: 1
Registered: Jun-05
I just got my 320BEE and PP2 today. 1st things 1st, this is one ugly amp even for NAD. I have had alot of NAD components and still own quite a few this is by far the ugliest I've owned. If that makes any difference. How long does it take to "burn" one of these in? A few days?
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 213
Registered: Apr-04
Burn in is not really proven but a few CD's should do the trick. NAD may not be pretty but they sound really good.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Skareb

Post Number: 14
Registered: Jun-05
I find the amp sound improve within 10 hrs but after that cant really detect anything, whereelse the speakers thats a longer period.

The amp sound poor when cold so I leave it on fulltime.
 

New member
Username: Mackace23

Toronto, ON Canada

Post Number: 2
Registered: Jun-05
Really? You reccomend leaving it on all the time? 24hrs a day?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Skareb

Post Number: 15
Registered: Jun-05
yup have not turn the amp off for more than a week now
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 215
Registered: Apr-04
Make sure you have good surge protection and ventilation and it will not hurt your unit.
 

Silver Member
Username: Sun_king

Leeds, West Yorkshire UK

Post Number: 257
Registered: Mar-04
Any amp will sound better after 30 mins to an hour of listening, when everything has warmed-up. I just learned to live with it. I don't see the point of leaving it switched on all the time just to save 30 mins or so of not quite perfect listening pleasure. As for how long a new amp takes before it is "burned in".....that's a myth. It's all solid state. Does a new computer or tv not work correctly straight from the box? Any new amp will sound just how it's supposed to after the standard 30min warm up. Speakers are the only hifi component (in my opinion) that actually do benefit from a break-in period. The cones and drivers need to loosen up and this can take 30+ hours depending on the speakers. Some folks won't break their speakers in for maybe 6 months if they don't use their hifi a lot!
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 220
Registered: Apr-04
I agree with SunKing. What I do is I turn the amp and CD on for a few minutes before listening to music. NAD products go into stanby when you use the remote and in order to turn them off, you have top press the switch. I use that.

Speakers are one for break in for sure as all the ones I bought over the years sounded rather strange when first used.......but who knows, that may be psychological!
 

NAD fan
Unregistered guest
I have a C320BEE. I'm planning to get the C352 or if budget will permit, the C372. Do all three have the same preamp? Cuz if they do, I just might get the C272 power amp.

Thank you all.
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 321
Registered: Apr-04
No the pre in the 372 is not the same as the 320Bee.

I would suggest the 272 with the 162 if you could shell out the extra cash. The increase in sound is amazing.
 

NAD fan
Unregistered guest
Thanks Danman. I'm taking that route (162/272). But for now, the 320BEE's preamp will do. How about the BEE's preamp and C352?
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 322
Registered: Apr-04
The 352 is an integrated amp and so is the 320Bee. I don't think you should put both together.
 

NAD fan
Unregistered guest
Sorry for the confusion...

I mean how's the BEE's preamp compared to the C352's?
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 324
Registered: Apr-04
I think the 352 is in the same boat as the 372 but I never owned one. I did own the 320Bee and 372 before what I have now. I have listened to the 352 and the sound is very close to the 372 and better than the 320Bee, so my judgement would be that there is probably a better line of components in the 352.
 

bumblebee
Unregistered guest
According to NAD:

BEE's preamp is sonically similar to the c352's and has a slightly better frequency response. The c372's preamp is slightly better than the c352's and has better shielding.
 

Silver Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 691
Registered: Sep-04
In my view, the 352 is significantly better than the 320BEE. It has better resolution, better drive and better grip.

Regards,
Frank.
 

Silver Member
Username: Danman

QUEBEC CANADA

Post Number: 412
Registered: Apr-04
Yes Frank is right!
 

Bronze Member
Username: Skareb

Post Number: 22
Registered: Jun-05
I agree wit Frank I've changed my BEE for a C352 no regret. Go for the C352 once and for all.
 

New member
Username: Selvx

NicosiaNorth Cyprus

Post Number: 1
Registered: Sep-05
Hi to everybody,
I've just finished reading messages you've posted since December 2004 and wish I had noticed it before buying my staff.

As much as I understand I made the right buying decisions and want to share my experiences with you too. However, since this is my first board discussion thing via the net please write a respond tothis message so that I understand how the sytem works...

Thanks
 

New member
Username: Selvx

NicosiaNorth Cyprus

Post Number: 2
Registered: Sep-05
Hi there,

I think I understood how the board works, pretty easy and I feel like a dumb really. :-)

I wanted an Integrated and thought HK-670 amp. would suit my CD player FL-8380 good; since they were both Harman Kardons. However I was not
impressed with the amplifier's sound at the dealer. Therefore I went to a NAD dealer and listened to the C-320BEE and the high powered C-372.

First coupled with a pair of JM-Lab Chorus S series book self and then a pair of floor standers, I was very impressed with 320BEE. The sound had a character with good presence and detail. It didn't struggle to feed the JMLab's as they were sensitive enough (around 90db.s).

C-372 unfortunately, even though much powerfull (and punchy it felt)lacked the resolution and detail 320BEE had and warmth of the mid-range was gone.
 

New member
Username: Selvx

NicosiaNorth Cyprus

Post Number: 3
Registered: Sep-05
Then it was C-352 that won my heart. A dynamic and transparent sound with more resolution than 320BEE but without its bloaty bass.

Almost as punchy as 372; its coherent sound was very musical, succesfully integrating the low, middle and high frequencies. It also had more controlled, clear and tight bass than 372. That said, I too really can't comprehend how C-352 sounded thin..

I bought the NAD C-352 but lacked the money for the JMLab speakers. I had heard that NAD amplifiers sounded very well with B&W's and based on the editorial reviews I bought B&W DM 602 S3's that were on sale.

Cables;
I chose Black Rhodium (Old Sonic Link) AST 200 X2 biwire spk.cables. They simply have outstanding price/performance ratio.

Not much left in my pocket, lack of alternatives led me buy Audioquest Sidewinder interconnects.
 

New member
Username: Selvx

NicosiaNorth Cyprus

Post Number: 4
Registered: Sep-05
RESULT: NAD C-352 started to sound even better after about 10 days time so give it about two weeks before coming to a conclusion.

B&W DM602S3's even though very remarkable speakers (they needed a month to sound their best);

1. They haven't lost their somehow metallic treble coloration completely. Paired with C-352 they pro- duced good bass and vocals,and highly transparent sound.

2. If you don't listen to classical music you will love the combination. I was dissapointed to see that Georges Biset's CARMEN became so lifeless and lost its tempo completely!

And 3. After passing NAD's 10 o'clock volume position, despite their 120W power handling capability B&W's start to loose their sound
coherence...
 

New member
Username: Selvx

NicosiaNorth Cyprus

Post Number: 5
Registered: Sep-05
Each of the above points were not bearable for me especially since I had listened the JMLab floor standers. Hence I sold the B&W's and ordered JMLab "COBALT" 816S Signature floorstanders. And God with C-352 they sounded really stunning at the dealer.I can't wait for my new speakers to arrive.

But the thing is now I'm confused. What is upgrading and how should we upgrade. Before I sold my old set, if they told me that buying a pair of speakers approximately 3 times more expensive then the amp. could change the sound quality so much I would've laughed and carry on.

What's more; I'm not sure that buying one higher level amp. with lower grade speakers will give equally high quality sound.

Puzzled and partially broke (financially), I only know the sound I heard satisfied me so much and I'm sure that JMLab's will sound even better when I upgrade my NAD in the "far" future.

A letter long message posted but I hope it helps to new NAD fans like me and will welcome any honest comments...
 

New member
Username: Gbmcleod

Post Number: 1
Registered: Sep-05
Hi:
I just stumbled across this site while researching integrateds.
I have a friend who has a NAD 320BEE I encouraged him to buy. He's had it for 2 years, so its seen some use.
My take on the 320BEE is that it IS warm in the midbass and not exceedingly well-defined. It is better in the upper bass, however.
Sonically, the images do sound somewhat flat, although there is some SENSE of dimensionality to the sound. I used Walker Audio pucks on most of the components (Sound Dynamic RTS 3s, the NAD and the JVC XL-Z1010TN cd player [highly modified]). I could never quite get the bass to sound as clear as I'd like. Also, the NAD may sound less dimensional because it does not have a genuine sense of "air" around the instruments, although it does provide an ILLUSION of that aspect of sound reproduction. It is just a bit dry, which may account for the slight lack of ambience that allows one to differentiate one concert hall from another, and the highs are good, but not detailed enough. I like the amp,and my friend will keep it, but I also got him an Arcam FMJ 22, which has not yet arrived.
Reading these posts on the 320BEE, I found myself saying "uh huh, it is too warm and not detailed enough in the bass. I also played the disc "Super Bass" which features 3 upright bass players. They should be distinctly separated, even on a modest system, but the NAD struggles with the sense of space between the 3 and even letting one know that there are 3 basses, and not merely 2 [the center one is the most "phantom-like" of the 3 instruments].
NAD is good, but for bass dynamics, obviously there are better.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1584
Registered: Feb-05
The 352 is another league than the 320BEE. The 352 is not just a more powerful 320BEE it is a different amp. Listen and compare, I'm confident you'll hear the difference.
 

nout
Unregistered guest
Selvx wrote: 1. They haven't lost their somehow metallic treble coloration completely

That's something I noticed too with the 602 S3's, a pity because otherwise they are excellent. And I'm afraid they will never lose it.
JmLab is a good choice, because its sound has a great resemblance with B&W, but without the slight metalic edge in the highs.

 

New member
Username: Selvx

NicosiaNorth Cyprus

Post Number: 7
Registered: Sep-05
Learning the brand characters I think will enable us to squeze the most out of our NAD's using correct components and cables etc.
 

iRich
Unregistered guest
Get a NAD C 370, astonishing bit of kit for the money and discounted now. Powerful enough to power Gotham City, great range, lush clean wall of sound, good separation and soundstage. Broke my heart to flog it in the Turks Islands but I was travelling light...
 

New member
Username: Nadfreak

Post Number: 1
Registered: Jan-06
hi there,
i currently have the nad 352/542 combo but want to upgrade my current speakers(eltax liberty 5's).
thinking about getting the kef iQ5's. any views?
 

Silver Member
Username: Sun_king

Leeds, West Yorkshire UK

Post Number: 312
Registered: Mar-04
I've got Kef Q7's and used to have Q5's - I think Nad systems match Kef speakers perfectly.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Angello

Post Number: 35
Registered: Oct-05
shiwajee tell us if you will audition iq5
 

New member
Username: Proud_monkey

Post Number: 1
Registered: Mar-06
hi people,

nice to see so many active members here!

i was in a dilemma recently, to buy a NAD C320BEE or C352. i did get a demo of c320bee but not a c352. i have decided to go in for c352...purely 'cause it is more powerful and so it can drive the speakers nicely. speaker i plan on are tannoy fusion 4...now called mercury F4...

does anyone have any suggestions?

also how do i bi wire them? and how can i possibly upgrade the amp (like add a power amp) as the c352 is integrated amp?

love & luck
proud monkey
 

New member
Username: Papaqin

Belleville, Ontario Canada

Post Number: 1
Registered: Mar-06
I am looking to replace my NAD 502 with a 542. I have'nt auditioned yet but the reviews are really good. There are still some 541i's available used - would the 542 be worth the extra money. BTW I auditioned both the NAD272 and NAD270 power amps using a NAD705 as a preamp. The 272 is MUCH better than the 270 I could'nt believe the difference.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Uback007

Post Number: 23
Registered: Mar-06
this thread has confused the hell out of me:-)!!!
Anyone else feel that way?
 

Silver Member
Username: Sun_king

Leeds, West Yorkshire UK

Post Number: 360
Registered: Mar-04
What thread?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Uback007

Post Number: 25
Registered: Mar-06
this thread.
the one about the choosing a NAD 320bee or 352
 

Bronze Member
Username: Fatelvis

Post Number: 16
Registered: Feb-06
The over year-old thread that not once suggests to any of these poor b@stards to get off the NAD horse and check out Arcam or Cambridge Audio? Some of those displeased with the "lightweight" nature of the C320BEE and "harshness" of a Rotel (though I'd disagree... it seems to come up a lot) might be surprised by the tonal depth of Arcam A65+... assuming they don't need too much raw power. Sweet amp.

Though my NAD 7240PE still looks great in the closet. Can't bring myself to sell it. The C320BEE never felt as fitting a replacement for the 7240PE that the Arcam does.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Uback007

Post Number: 26
Registered: Mar-06
But Jeff the Arcam's out of my budget. What do you suggest to mate to my Paradigm Titans?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Fatelvis

Post Number: 18
Registered: Feb-06
Check eBay or Audiogon often enough and you can pick up an A65+ for around $350....
 

Bronze Member
Username: Crl21

Ann Arbor, Michigan USA

Post Number: 21
Registered: Mar-04
I have to agree with Jeff. When I purchased my first system a year ago. I went into the shop expecting to purchase some NAD gear to put with my Paradigm Mini-monitors. After listening to the NAD stuff and then comparing it to the Arcam CD73 and Arcam A65 +. To me there really was no comparison. I dropped the extra money and I've been happy ever since.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Crl21

Ann Arbor, Michigan USA

Post Number: 22
Registered: Mar-04
I have to agree with Jeff. When I purchased my first system a year ago. I went into the shop expecting to purchase some NAD gear to put with my Paradigm Mini-monitors. After listening to the NAD stuff and then comparing it to the Arcam CD73 and Arcam A65 +. To me there really was no comparison. I dropped the extra money and I've been happy ever since.
 

New member
Username: Dexxas

England

Post Number: 1
Registered: Jun-06
hi John hear Bournemouth i have a NAD 340 and it to bits. i had the the nad bee cd player. I found that i had to switch the tone defeat off and ajust the bass to five two and the treble flat out for my own personal listening prefrences. I then bought a cambridge azur 640c best thing i ever done. tone defeat back on music sounding so wonderful.I have had the 340 for a few years and was wondering whether to go up to richer sounds and by one for £249. why? well my 340 has developed a hum in the transformer. Someone said there take it on if i buy the 352 so it would go to a decent home. Lovely amp very enjoyable toe tapping listen. Is the 352 better folks.
 

New member
Username: Gbmcleod

Post Number: 2
Registered: Sep-05
I haven't been on this sise for a while.
I see the Arcam A65Plus is being recommended. It's nice, but there are two things that have not been mentioned: it has a "dry sound" up in the lower through upper trebles and also, the upper/midbass frequencies are not terribly dynamic. I used this on the Genesis 6.1, the Manger Zerobox 109, Tetra Live 405s and several other speakes. The transparency is excellent, and I admit to being knocked out listening to them on the Zerobox speakers (someone should import these again!). It was as "real"-sounding as any system I've heard, but again, it lacks authority in the lower frequencies, and I was using Transparent Reference speakers cable, which, we should assume, is NEVER lightweight in the midbass. So, the Arcam was good, but the NAD has a more "immediate" sound to it.
 

New member
Username: Mike_novalis

Post Number: 1
Registered: Aug-06
what would be the best partner for psb b25? Nad320bee or 352ct?
I am also planning to upgrade to nad 542cdp soon, so want all the components to match. Will the 353ct be on overkill to psb b25?
I like a detail sound with fair amount of low end bass.
 

New member
Username: Nike

Post Number: 8
Registered: Dec-05
Mike,

I have the same speakers and am happy with NAD c320BEE and C521.
I hear there is a new NAD amp on the block 325BEE??? Try that.
 

Silver Member
Username: Uback007

Post Number: 120
Registered: Mar-06
Mike,

The 352 will suit the PSB's just fine...
You can even go with the 325BEE and be fine too..
The 352 allows for easier addition of a subwoofer as its as its pre-amp output facilitates that..
Good Luck
 

New member
Username: Mike_novalis

Post Number: 2
Registered: Aug-06
Thanks Uback,
As i said, in future I will be upgrading my cdp to NAD 542. Do you think C320BEE or 325BEE will do justice to 542?
Has anybody in this forum heard 325? Is it better than 320? The website says it uses the M-series design...
 

Silver Member
Username: Uback007

Post Number: 121
Registered: Mar-06
I would probably opt for the 325 as it has an input for an MP3 player such as an IPOD..yes it will work with the 542...
 

New member
Username: Mike_novalis

Post Number: 3
Registered: Aug-06
Thanks Uback, I am a bit puzzled after reading the reports in this forum and cant decide between 325 and 352. In all what i understand is -
320/325 is musical with loudness in bass, not so trasparent at lower volume, but the best that a price point.
352 - less bass (loudness) but very transparent even at lower volume, punchy sound but less musical. does justice only to good recording.

Correct me if i am wrong.

So is 325/320 the way to go....?
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Shop Related Deals

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us