2. member-reviews
  3. 1038674345

Review: NAD C-320BEE Amplifier

Category: Amplifiers

The NAD 320BEE is used as the power source in my second system. It is a 2 channel system that is used for both music reproduction and home theater. The NAD 320BEE replaces a Harmon Kardon 3370 receiver (used as a preamp) and an Audiosource Amp 2 power amplifier. Replacement was necessary as the HK 3370 shorted out and went up in smoke. Previous to this set-up, a Denon 2801 home theater receiver was used. The NAD 320BEE was purchased at Harvey Electronics (NYC).

Music/Sound Reproduction:

Both male and female vocals were clear, deep, full, and warm sounding (Nanci Griffith, "Winter Marquee"; Raul Malo "Super Colossal, Smash Hits of the Mavericks"; Frank Sinatra, "Songs for Swinging Lovers"). Guitars and strings, in general, were crisp, distinct, and revealing (I heard guitar lines in Neil Diamond's "Shilo" for the first time in 30 years). Rock music sounded exciting and powerful (Rolling Stones remastered, "Let It Bleed"); compelling and inviting (Robert Plant, "Dreamland'); and alive, with well reproduced bass (Doves, "The Last Broadcast" and Metallica, "S&M"). Horns were clear and deep and had just the right edge to them (Clifford Brown, "With Strings"). On action/adventure DVD's (James Bond, "Tomorrow Never Dies"), explosions/gun-shots/crashes/helicopter roars were loud and in-the-room realistic sounding.

The NAD 320BEE plays loud. The NAD replaced previous units that were rated as having more power, but the NAD just sounds as if it has much more power. It drives my AR speakers (85 db sensitivity) with ease. In fact, the NAD really brings out the best in the AR's (very musical sounding, full range speakers capable of going down to 35 hz).

Product Features and Build

The unit appears to be solidly built and has good heft to it (it weighs in at just over 14 pounds). It has inputs for 7 sources (cd; video; disc; tuner; aux; tape1; tape2 ), as well as defeatable tone controls and NAD soft clipping. The unit is supplied with a remote control that can be used with other NAD products (CDP; tuner; etc). My only two quibbles with the general design (and they are minor) are: I would have preferred a "lighted" volume control (so, I can see the volume level in low light conditions) and a detachable power cord.

This is my first piece of NAD gear in 31 years of enjoying quality gear (I got started early ... when I was 14). I enjoy believing that if I pick quality equipment up front, I can spend my time listening to the music and not worry (so much, anyways) about the gear. So, my comments are usually about how the music sounds and not so much about soundstaging; etc. (if you have house cats, speakers are usually placed where the claws aren't). The NAD320BEE is a quality piece of equipment that makes the music sound very good.

Product Weakness: Not forgiving of poorly recorded music sources.
Product Strengths: Smooth non-fatiguing sound. Excels at music reproduction (vocals; strings; brass). Quality product build and full feature set.

Associated gear
Pioneer Elite PD-65 CD Player; SONY S560D DVD Player; Acoustic Research 302 Speakers Classic Series (85db sensitivity); IXOS GAMMA SILVER 1002 interconnects; Radio Shack Gold Series 16 gauge speaker cable
rar1
rar1's avatar
rar1 OP
1,828 posts
 
Hi Mosfetti,

A few months ago, I was wondering the same thing, so I A/B'd the NAD 320 BEE and the MF A3 in my living room system. My expectations going into this was that the sound should be very similar, since the only thing that would be different is the CD player (normally, each system would be using the same speakers ... the Acoustic Research 302).

Both amps were enjoyable to listen to. Both amps emphasize sounding musical, as opposed to sounding analytical. However, for pretty much all of the music that I listened to, the MF A3 sounded richer and smoother. The MF A3's sound just had more depth to it. You could tell that the MF A3 was the more expensive amp, because it just sounded that way. The NAD and MF are both good amps, the MF A3's just takes the sound to the next level.

I got a good deal on the MF A3 from Upscale Audio (paid $875; list $1200) and I paid list for the NAD ($400) at Harvey's. Is the MF worth 3 times or 2 times the value of the NAD ... possibly ... but then you are getting into the whole audiophile/worth discussion.

Hope I haven't confused the issue too much. Regards, Rich
ferrari
617 posts
 
This is the 25 year anniversary edition of the famed NAD 3020, which in itself set a very high standard in 1979. It is little wonder that the NAD C-320BEE is receiving such I praise, its pedigree is unchallengeable. And the designer is the same gentleman as for the 3020 Bjorn-Erik Evardsen, hince the BEE designation.
rar1's avatar
rar1 OP
1,828 posts
 
I forget in which magazine I was reading this, but the BEE designation also has other significance within the NAD world. Apparently, Mr. Evardsen feels that the BEE designation is for those NAD components that give you 90% of the overall performance that you would expect of a component in its class and that it would cost you ten times the BEE component's cost to achieve that additional 10%. (I believe I got this right). Very impressive statement and if the 320BEE is any indication of other BEE designated components ... I might tend to agree.

Regards, Rich
rar1's avatar
rar1 OP
1,828 posts
 
Another update regarding the associated gear that I am using with the NAD 320BEE ...

The Pioneer PD 65 cd player has been replaced with the Music Hall MMF CD25 cd player. The difference in system performance is literally like comparing night and day ... and I have always been skeptical of these types of claims. There is a synergy between the NAD and the Music Hall that just did not exist with the Pioneer. If this makes any sense ... the music just sounds sweeter. For example, there is an enhanced richness to vocals ... especially male vocals. This was particularly evident with the new Mavericks recording, as well as the Jayhawks "Rainy Day Music." Music with acoustic properties and/or a stripped down quality sound more exciting (Beatles "Let it Be ... Naked" and Pete Townshend "Scooped"). Even a 1st generation CD pressing of CSN&Y's "DeJa Vu" sounded pretty good. A real surprise.

I have resurrected my 14 year old Adcom GTP 500 II tuner/preamp and I am using it as a tuner only. The TEAC T-1D was OK sounding, the Adcom is just better.

That's about it for now.

Regards, Rich
arj_nair-d77e
1 posts
 
I have been using this for just over 3 months now, and am very impressed ! much better than the Rotel Ra02(Which was a a bit brighter with my speakers) as well as the Marantz PM7200..
The strength lies in its Smooth Warmth as well as its Very well controlled Bass.
As a tip, try replacing the rather cheap connector (removable) between the pre-amp and Power Amp section with any decent Interconnect and the difference is pretty Good. I use this with a NAD 521BEE CDP and love it !!
More to discover