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
128x128rar1
rar1's avatar
rar1 OP
1,746 posts
 
BUI:

I have only used the NAD C320BEE as an integrated amp ... its preamp is actually pretty decent, especially given the price of the NAD. The sound is quite detailed and musical and can be listened to for hours. If you like, please refer to my 2 channel HT system to see how I use the NAD.

In that system, the room size is 15 X 10 X 8 1/2 and the speakers are not very efficient (85 db), but the NAD will play very loud with music (somewhat less so with HT, as HT poses more of a drain on power).

Without knowing your particulars, the NAD is an excellent integrated if paired up correctly.

Regards, Rich

gonglee3
304 posts
 
Anyone compared the sound of this to the old 3020?
or to the NAD monitor series recievers?

I am curius...
rar1's avatar
rar1 OP
1,746 posts
 
Hi Gong:

I am not quite sure what would be achieved by comparing these two amplifiers head to head, unless you were going to do a four way comparison and use both modern era and vintage speakers. The comparisons would then be 320 w/modern; 320 w/vintage; 3020 w/modern; and 3020 w/vintage. This would be the only way to be fair to both amplifiers.

Amplifiers are designed either using certain speakers or with certain speakers in mind. In my experience, vintage amplifiers/receivers sound best when paired with vintage speakers. Now, not that the vintage stuff will sound bad with modern speakers ... but they tend to shine with vintage speakers. I have two vintage receivers (Marantz 2240 and 2216B) that see a lot of use in my house and the speakers that I have wound up using (NHT SB2 and Omega Super 3's) sound pretty good, but my hunch is that the Marantz's would be happier with say ... EPI 100's or AR4's, etc.

Regards, Rich
gonglee3
304 posts
 
I heard that they were both designed by the same guy - after all these years...

That might make the sound similar, but I am wondering if the later has not gone down in quality. Some companies once a reputation is established, cut back on quality - thinking of the profit morgin no doubt, like Adcom, and Mark Levinson.

Has the same thing happened to NAD? Some say the 3020 is their best effort so far. Is this true, in which case one might want to hunt one down, and replace the capacitors. Or is the more powerful 320bee equal to his earlier effort?

I am looking for affordable systems for my friends, who do not want to spend that much.

rar1's avatar
rar1 OP
1,746 posts
 
Hi Gong:

See your point ... but words like quality, and I am taking that to mean sound quality, are so subjective. I still think that a meaningful (and pretty cool) comparison, from an academic point of view, should be done with speakers and possibly sources from both today and 25 years ago. For example, the 320BEE does not have inputs for a turntable, assuming that the amp would be paired with a CD player or a DVD/CD player. With that in mind, the designer, Bjorn-Erik Evardsen, may have voiced the amp differently than he would have 25 years earlier.

I am torn when it comes to vintage equipment. First, you have to track the item down and then restore it. The restored item winds up costing nearly as much as something new or alternatively, you now have a DIY project and even after having the experience of working with my Dad for years repairing TV's and radios ... it is not something that I would jump at doing.

I had a Marantz 2240 receiver restored. The 2240 listed for $450 in 1974 and is actually a little bit older than the 3020. Dollar wise though (adjusting for inflation, etc.), the amp section on the 2240 and the 320 should be on par (as well as the 3020). The 2240 has a nice pleasing sound, has a fantastic tuner, and has a superb retro look ... but today's NAD 320 is clearly superior as an amp ... when using speakers from today. I wonder how the NAD 320 would fare with the speakers that I had back in 1979 (EPI 100's), because the Marantz was killer with those.

Regards, Rich
More to discover