[Zazersmel]

I'm looking to buy a new stereo system, and noticed the NAD C320BEE integrated amp. I've read some favorable reviews of it, and I was wondering if anyone else has had positive experience with it. Also, does anyone have reccomendations for some decent speakers I could get for it under $500/pair?
Thanks!

 

[pbirkett]

I have auditioned one, and frankly I cannot understand why this amp is so hyped, because apart from the fact its reasonably powerful, the sound simply is not very good IMO. This is NAD's attempt to be slightly more forward than its other products, but the bass is weak, it sounds rough and grainy, and ultimately their attempt to hot the sound up doesnt work, because it sounds boring. Spending a bit more will get you a much better sounding amp from Rotel, Rega, or Marantz.

 

[gastro54]

I would suggest hopping over to AudioCircle.com real quick and checking out opinons on the panasonic SA-XR25, 45, and 50 digital receivers. A lot of people seem to like them a lot.

 

[arnett]

Head-fi’s the only place I’ve seen negative reviews for the C320BEE. The response both on www.audioasylum.com and in professional print reviews has been overwhelmingly positive for the NAD. Speaking of audioasylum, here’s a thread on the Panny XR45 vs. the C320BEE.

I’m really satisfied with my C320BEE (although I haven't heard many other integrated amps in this price range). In fairness, the C320BEE takes a really long time to burn-in – literally 200-300 hours. It was a little grainy at first but has smoothed out nicely. One cost-effective tweak for the C320BEE is to replace the stock metal jumpers on the back of the amp with a pair of high quality interconnects. It makes a HUGE difference – especially in the bass and soundstage.

I also like the headphone jack of the C320BEE for high-impedance phones. Using Senn and Beyerdyanmic cans, the NAD beat several dedicated headphone amps I’ve tried. Then again, I seem to like the rich, warm sound of 220-ohm headphone jack impedances.

In terms of loudspeaker choices, I'm using the C320BEE with a pair of KEF Q35.2s. They sound really nice paired together, IMO. Very warm and never harsh sounding.

See these threads from audioasylum.com:

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...EE&r=&session=

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...+2&r=&session=

All in all, the C320BEE is a nice little amp for around $300.

 

[Zoide]

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnett I also like the headphone jack of the C320BEE for high-impedance phones. Using Senn and Beyerdyanmic cans, the NAD beat several dedicated headphone amps I’ve tried.

Such as which headphone amps?

 

[bln]

He hasn't posted in over two months. Try a new thread instead of bumping this one.

 

[Wodgy]

The C320BEE is terrible when you compare it to its competition as well as NAD's other amps. Just not worth the money.

 

[vrao81]

I would purchase a vintage stereo receiver or integrated amp from Marantz, Sansui, Yamaha, etc. You would save a ton of money and the sound quality of my Marantz 2230 and Sansui 4000 receivers is about 80-90% as good as my modern Cambridge Audio A300 and Marantz PM7000 integrated amps. Then spend more on your speakers, since that, imo makes the biggest improvment in sound.

 

[Zoide]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vrao81 I would purchase a vintage stereo receiver or integrated amp from Marantz, Sansui, Yamaha, etc. You would save a ton of money and the sound quality of my Marantz 2230 and Sansui 4000 receivers is about 80-90% as good as my modern Cambridge Audio A300 and Marantz PM7000 integrated amps. Then spend more on your speakers, since that, imo makes the biggest improvment in sound.

How would those vintage receivers compare soundwise to a modern, budget integrated amp like the Pioneer Elite A-35R?

 

[dd3mon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnett Head-fi’s the only place I’ve seen negative reviews for the C320BEE. The response both on www.audioasylum.com and in professional print reviews has been overwhelmingly positive for the NAD. Speaking of audioasylum, here’s a thread on the Panny XR45 vs. the C320BEE.

I think it's because Head-Fi has less of a predisposed opinion of NAD (as a "great" budget Hi-Fi company) than AudioAsylum. I read that whole thread, and I'm not sure that anyone posting in that thread has ever owned both units.

I have owned both a Panasonic SA-XR25 and a NAD C320BEE, both for an extended period (6 months or more), both with the same speakers (PSB Image 2B) and I owned both at the same time for a long period (two months). The NAD probably has a slightly more forward midrange and a slightly sweeter top end. That's where the NADs capabilities end IMO. My Panasonic outperforms it massively in bass, lower midrange, power (efforless presentation), blackness, speed and overall resolution. This is all comparing the analog inputs of the Panasonic to the analog inputs of the NAD - using the digital inputs things just get better for the Panasonic.

Considering my Panny cost just over a third of what the NAD cost (clearance sale @ Circuit City), takes up less space and has many more features (tuner, full HT capabilites, more inputs), there is absolutely no contest in my mind. The only hitch is that the Panasonic all but requires an aftermarket power cord, the supplied one doesn't do it ANY justice and the Panasonic is the most power-sensitve piece of equipment I've ever owned or even heard about (power cables & conditioning really make a huge difference with these units, probably because of a poor quality power supply). The C320BEE sold quickly (and with almost no value loss due to it's popularity in recent pro reviews) - and I've never regretted it for an instant.

However, there is one area the NAD really outdid the Panny, and that's the headphone jack. For high impedence phones, the Panny's headphone jack is thin and underpowered. The NAD's headphone jack was quite good for a built-in job (not quite a dedicated amp, but very listenable).

-dd3mon

 

[peter braun]

I second the recommedation of a vintage receiver or integrated amp. Units from the seventies or early eighties offer an extraordinary amount of value when compared to modern pieces, as their build quality surpasses only the most expensive units found today. Models such the Marantz 2250, Sansui 6060, or Pioneer SX-838 receivers all can be found for under $300 in very good condition, and will hold their own against any entry level hifi unit today. Sansui also made a number of excellant integrated amps during the seventies which I have found pair very well with PSB products (the AU-717 or AU-517 models for example).

 

[taymat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbirkett I have auditioned one, and frankly I cannot understand why this amp is so hyped, because apart from the fact its reasonably powerful, the sound simply is not very good IMO. This is NAD's attempt to be slightly more forward than its other products, but the bass is weak, it sounds rough and grainy, and ultimately their attempt to hot the sound up doesnt work, because it sounds boring. Spending a bit more will get you a much better sounding amp from Rotel, Rega, or Marantz.

Well I didn't think the nad was boring when I heard it, just darker than the pm7200 and smoother than the ra-02. Okay so its detail isn't as good as the ra-02 but its still a good amp and IMO the pm7200 is bright. Still out of the three I'd say ra-02 all the way unless power is an issue.

 

[MoodyDragon]

NAD 320BEE is good for its price. Specially considering you get 20percent off MSRP very easily. System matching is of course important with this amp: Be sure to get a speaker which does take advantage of NAD's bass and one that is not too bright. Not sure how it stacks up against the vintage amps but I do know it has a very low noise floor (which is appreciable with sensitive speakes: try it.) that the older amps do not usually have..... to each his own, I guess.

Above all: audition before you buy, with components that will be similar/same to what you will use. Also, try to audition a few 'systems' and see what kind of sound you like: laid back/neutral/bright (all dealers will tell you their system is 'neutral' by the way

Part of the fun of this hobby is in getting there... have fun!

 

[marmul]

I second the audition idea. Let your ears do the talking (well you know what I mean).

I own the 320BEE and agree that out of the box it is harsh sounding. Given some time it mellows, either that or my ears are accustomed to it now. I also think the price is right for such an amp.

 

[Asmo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoide Such as which headphone amps?

I've compared my NAD c320BEE to the Rega Ear, and a cmoy, the nad was on par with the rega ear, I sold the rega ear and stuck to using my nad.

As far as for speakers, I bought this amp initially for speakers, I paired them with my paradigm monitor 5s, which they have great synergy with, I compared this nad amp to the others in its price range at the store, and the NAD was clearly more musical.

At the time, the NAD was JUST within my price budget, so I could not stretch anymore, down the road, maybe if I had a lil more, I may of gone with something else, but for the price, and exactly that price, the NAD is a very good amp, but only auditioning it with your speakers will tell you if its the right amp.

PS: I did not compare it to any Rotels, only yamaha, marantz, cambridge. The only Rotels at the store I bought it from were too expensive.