First, because it contains stereo amps that had long been feared lost to the more fashionable (but dare we say less satisfying) world of home cinema. Those who have stated that the Arcam A65 Plus outperforms the NAD C320BEE and not the NAD C352 and C372 have made a foolish statement since the later two offer no improvements in sonic quality, simply the amount of watts supplied.For hi-fi fans, this group is refreshing for two reasons. I would recommend the Arcam A65 Plus over the Rotel RA-02 (and Rotel RA-01) and the NAD C320BEE. It has a warm and musical sound that has a very true timbre. It has stunning dynamics and is extremely articulate. However, I found that it was less dynamic and articulate than the Arcam and that its sound staging and imaging characteristics were less stellar. It sounded great at higher volumes and had very warm and mellow characteristics. I didn't have any maintenance issues with it and the sound was impressive. It lacked the warmth and musicality that both the NAD and the Arcam offered. I found the Rotel RA-02 (which is the same as the Rotel RA-01 with an added remote control) to be too forward for my liking. In fact, I have owned both the NAD C320BEE and the Arcam A65 Plus. Posted on Wednesday, Ma01:16 GMTI have listened to the Rotel RA-02, NAD C320BEE, and Arcam A65 Plus extensively. I'm not an expert, these are just my opinions. Objectively spoken the NAD C352 is the better amp of the two, I think (in comparison with Marantz PM 7200) Every audio magazine (German, English etc) considers the NAD C352 to be the best amp in its pricerange (with exception of Hi-Fi Choice).īut Kenn, you have to listen for yourself, maybe you don't hear that much difference between C352 and C320BEE and your choice will be easy.
I am not saying the NAD sounds agressive or brash, but with some recordings, especially vocals the Marantz was more refined and gentle. When I compared NAD, Marantz and Rotel I favoured the Marantz PM7200, but with some serious doubts: the NAD C352 has better dynamics and more drive, but in my set up (cd 5000 sounds agressive at times) the Marantz sounded smoother. The overall sound is bigger, stronger and has a better definition than the C320. It's a very dynamic and warm sounding ( slightly dark colored low midds) amp with a strong bass. I never compared NAD C352 side by side with C320BEE.īut I am confident enough to say that NAD C352 sounds better than C320BEE (those names are really annoying to type ). Later I heard the Rotel RA-02 and NAD C320BEE sise by side. I compared the NAD C352 with the Marantz PM7200 (which I own) and the Rotel RA-02 when I was in a search for a good amp. Well maybe it is, as I said I don't know how it will influence the actual sound. Posted on Thursday, Novem00:10 GMT Maybe i thought if the power amp section of it is good, maybe thew bass definition is smoother and also midrange and treble
0 kommentar(er)
