NAD C320BEE vs NAD C350

I haven't listened to either the C350 or C320BEE, but have had an NAD C340 for a couple of years (now being used as a preamp with a higher rated power amplifier) and can comment based on that, because the C350 is an uprated C340, the C352 is an uprated C350, the C320 is a lower-rated C340, and the C320BEE is an upgraded C320 that has the same power rating as a C340. These appear to be closely related designs, with some differences from model to model. All have toroidal transformers, impedance sensing circuitry, NAD "soft clipping," preamp-out circuits, the same general layout and configuration of controls, and power ratings between 40 and 80 watts/channel RMS into 8 ohm loads. The C340 is rated at 50 watts/channel, the C350 at 60 watts/channel, the C352 at 80 watts/channel, the C320 at 40 watts/channel, and the C320 BEE at 50 watts/channel. The C320 BEE and the C352 appear to be upgraded with multistage power supplies, better quality volume controls, and a few other circuit tweaks; the C352 also has an IEC power cord that can be replaced with higher-quality aftermarket power cords. The reason that NAD has been able to ring all these changes on the same basic design is simple. The basic design is a good one that offers genuine value: a moderately priced solid state integrated amplifier, designed in the UK and manufactured in Asia, with a balanced, musical sound on the warm side of neutral; reasonable clarity, detail and smoothness; and good headroom based on power reserves capable of delivering short-term peaks well above the rated power. All are good matches for comparably priced source equipment, such as such as NAD or Cambridge Audio CD players, and reasonably efficient bookshelf speakers, such as psb or B&W bookshelf models, so they provide a good basis for moderately priced systems. All do well with moderately priced interconnect and speaker cables, such as Signal Cable, MAS, Audioquest or Kimber. All are also capable of performing reasonably well with higher quality source equipment and speakers, so they can continue to anchor systems of increasing quality. The upgrades to the current C320BEE and C352 models apparently have audible sonic benefits compared with the prior models, but the prior models were quite good to begin with. I am currently using a C340 as a preamp with an NAD C270 power amplifier rated at 120 watts/channel, and a Cambridge Audio D500 CD player, to drive Vandersteen 1b speakers, using MAS interconnects,Signal Cable speaker cables, and a Cardas power cord on the CD player, and the sound of the system is very enjoyable. Higher quality (and higher priced) equipment would probably offer incremental improvements in imaging, soundstage, detail, clarity and smoothness, but NAD integrated amplifiers are a good place to start and provide the flexibility to support a growing system over a multi-year basis.

I agree that for $350 I would not be interested, but for $100 it's tempting. I'm not ready for the big jump yet!
I think the C320 would fetch closer to $300 and I would go used on the C352 for $400. Just wondering if there's any real advantage aside from the extra pre-out and the detachable power cord.

If power is important ... the C352 has some more power (80wpc) when compared to the C320BEE (50 wpc). I have been so satisfied with the NAD C320BEE (and granted it is used in a second system), that I would only change it, if I were to ready to seriously upgrade to the next level amp (over $1000 new) and the C352 is not at that level. I have the same model speakers (AR 302) in both my main and secondary systems, so it is easy to judge the effects of equipment changing. The sound improves very noticeably with the next level(s) amplifier. So, even for a $100 I would not go for the C352.

Regards, Rich

Thank you gentlemen for your input. It is greatly appreciated. You are probably correct, Rich, that it's a rather unnecessary 'upgrade', not to say I might not be foolish enough to do so anyway :)
Nice summation there pete! Interesting read!