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".