NAD C320 vs C320BEE

[nallyvaico]

Not too many, mainly 3-5 years ago when I was out looking for a good amp and finally settled on NAD. Not been disappointed. Listened well to Arcam, Classe (good one but above $1,000), Rotel, Cambridge, let alone low grade non-audiophile Sony's, Technics, Marantz. Also, a good bunch of other higher end models (like Audio Note etc) that I have forgotten, which didn't impress me considering their price range (all above $1,000). Thus, my price range is $300-500, and one should try really hard to convince into raising it. On one ocasion I got fascinated by Copland (merely by rave reviews and by friends' admiration, and by its mere looks LOL), and was even considering one, but then found out that model (18 I guess) was no longer in production.
I didn't hear Creek, but have its headphone amp (21), well acclaimed in reviews, but actually rather disappointing. So I just guess the integrated amps would be just as good.
In a sense, the NAD C320 is a benchmark for me: I can ENJOY listening to it for hours, without fatigue. By tweaking and playing with cables mainly I have significantly impoved its sound, and now I cna enjoy its life-like sound. I never cured its poor bass however. The C320BEE has it galore. I just wonder how the rest of the spectrum would compare.

[entwistle101]

I currently have a NAD C350 Amp driving Whafedale Dimond 8.3's. I have seen a NAD 214 Power Amp up for grabs on eBay and was wondering weather or not to put an offer on it and use it to drive the woofers and let the C350 drive the tweeters. What do people think?

Any help/comments appreciated

Ste

[psonic]

Sounds like a good idea adding the 214. Which reminds me, the original poster could just add a power amp to the 320 and then get a better preamp later...