2. speakers
  3. 176877-166623

everything sounded great until the upgrade

In short: I loved the sound of my modest system, until I upgraded my amp. Now it  sounds pretty horrible. It went from a warm sweet embracing easy-to-listen sound to knives and forks trying to escape from a bathtub.

So...

1. I can just unplug this new amp (used) and sell it

Any other options? I could upgrade my speakers but I have no budget for that.

2. I could sell the speakers and use money to buy used ones that go with the amp. 

3. Lastly I could change the source, but was it the culprit - to begin with?

btw - the sound of the "new" amp is decent with my turntable, and terrible with my CD player.

(If I wrote brands and models it would throw the discussion into "A sucks, B is great")

grislybutter
grislybutter OP
3,627 posts
 

@russ69 thanks!

"easy" - everything is easy if you know how to do it!

decooney
2,334 posts
 

A different point of view. There is an old review out there comparing the A3.2 to the former MF A300, and reviewers indicated something that reminds me of how a 2252B will sound warmer closer to an MF A300. However there is praise the A3.2 brings to the equation. As others shared here, give it a few weeks, keep listening, give yourself a chance with the A3.2. If you plugged it in cold after sitting a while, let it play 10-14 days. Also comments the A3.2 reveals what you throw at it, hearing more of bad recordings too. Some of the older 2252Bs can be a veiled over sound. Or, the ones I've heard with original transistors still in them that is. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Article/quote: "A3.2 has that sense of harmonic ease, but the A300 is a touch more full than the A3.2. The newer A3.2 integrated has at least as much bass, but seems to control it a bit better. The end result of this is that the A3.2 sounds a bit leaner, but more in charge of the speakers. Throughout the midrange the A3.2 has a leaner tonal balance. Where the A300 is slightly warmer through the mids and can thus sound a touch laid-back, the A3.2 has a more up-front perspective. This isn’t to say that it’s bright or aggressive -- it’s not -- but rather that it’s a bit more incisive".

jetter
3,103 posts
 

@decooney 

The reviewer you quote describes the A3.2 as I remember it.  I thought the A3.2 was on the leaner side of the spectrum, not warmer.

No matter how it sounds now, take decooney's good advice and give it a chance to warm up thoroughly before making any decisions, I'm thinking it will really grow on you.

 

 

 

grislybutter OP
3,627 posts
 

@decooney 

that's pretty accurate. My initial thought was that it's unforgiving, highlights all the errors the 2252b hides/unable to reveal

russ69's avatar
russ69
3,573 posts
 

I can't speak about the A300 but I have two friends with A3.2s, one with Maggie 1.6s and the other with Martin Logan Requests. I spent a lot of time listening and improving those systems. Both were in very good rooms and both sounded very good. I think the A3.2 can play well with some proper set-up. Give it time and good speaker placement. 

More to discover