good clean sound for a budget int amp.

slightly weaker bass than the nad 314 int amp

this is a great int amp for the money.much better than any int amp in the bulk electronics trade/carver/technics/pioneer/harmon cardon/kenwood/sony/yamaha/jvc/onkyo/ect. ect. ect...these are junk /crap sound even in ther highest grade modles/total rip off//nad has been making quality products for many years /ive never been disapointed with any of there product/when my nad 314 failed after many years of listening i desided to buy a mass produced int amp/i tride many different ones and every single one fell very short of what my nad sounded like/i will always stay with nad from now on.

Similar Products Used:

nad 314

Warmth, bass and midrange, smooth sound, good match for most speakers

First of all, I am not an audiophile. I have neither the money nor the desire to pursue that calling. Those who have posted saying they use this in a 2nd, or even a 3rd, system have my deepest admiration. But what I wanted was a decent integrated amp to go with the rest of the decidedly "mid-fi" equipment in my main, and only, system. No HT, just good old-fashioned two-channel stereo music reproduction. The NAD C350 delivers in spades.

NAD includes features you will use and leaves off the garbage. The phono preamp is extra, but is far superior in sound to what would have been included. And there are probably a lot of people who don't play vinyl anyway. Every thing else is covered with the seven line level inputs.

Put me in the camp that likes the soft clipping circuit. I didn't think I would ever use it until one night my 12-year-old wanted to play cds when some of her friends were over. You can be sure that Dad switched the soft clip to 'on'. The switch is on the back panel as extra insurance that none of these little geeks will get the idea to turn it off.

I don't use the tone controls, bypassing them with the tone defeat. Just a slight turn of the bass seemed to take the midrange out of the sound and artificially boost the lows. May be different with other rooms and systems and preferences. It's nice that they are included for those who want them.

My speakers are some older, low-efficiency, 6-ohm AR models. The NAD drives them with ease in a fairly large room. I listen at moderate volume levels 5 to 6 hours per day and the amp handles all types of music with no strain.

I really don't see how anyone who needed an integrated priced at under $1000 could possibly want anything other than NAD. The competitors in this range are all higher priced with less power. Any one wanting the higher end stuff will get separates. I'll take NAD and put the extra money into more music.

Many inputs

sounds harsh and boring

Bought it after I read all the good reviews on this site, but in my system it never managed to make the music sing, it sounded harsh and uninvolving. So I would not recommend it. I sold it and bought a used Linn Majik, which is much better.

Similar Products Used:

AE109SE, NAD C540

Superb control of speakers, detailed without sounding analytical.

Apperance doesn't scream "high-end component," but then it doesn't scream "conspicuous consumption" either.

I bought this amp as a replacement for an NAD 312 integrated. The 312 was a terrific little 25 watt amp, but when I upgraded from Paradigm Atoms to Meadowlark Kestral Hotrods, I had a gnawing sense that the 312 was not keeping up with the Kestrals. I was right! The added wattage of the C350 (60 watts) really took control of the bass that the Kestrals are capable of producing (flat down to 38 Hz). As an added bonus the midrange opened up as well.

On Kenny Burrell's "Lotus Land" from his Guitar Forms CD the soundstage stretched from wall to wall. The sound was highly detailed, but without grain or brightness. This combination of strengths really drew me into the performance.

The Cowboy Junkies "Miles From Our Home" was a CD that was always problematic for the 312/Kestral combination. The album contains a lot of very deep bass. Through my previous combo, the bass sounded loose and boomy. With the C350 replacing the 312, the bass tightened up a great deal. As a result rock music now has more drive, and the feeling of better timing. While the C350 is capable of great subtlety on jazz or other acoustic recordings, it can really kick butt when fed rock music as well. The C350 out-performed the 312 in other areas as well; with the 312 I always had the sense that a subtle sonic fog hung over the music (this was not always a bad thing), the C350 dispensed with that fog without becoming "bright" or overly analytical. The C350 always got the feeling of the music right.

I have listened to the Kestrals through the Audio Refinement Complete Integrated amp at length as well. The Complete has a more refined and holographic sound than the NAD (it also retails for more than 2x the price). While the Complete is a superior amp in most respects, it may sound a little too laid back with rock music. If the price were the same (or no object) I would have bought the Complete. For $400 you can't have everything, but if you use your $400 to buy an NAD C350 you can get a hell of a lot.

Equipment:
Meadowlark Kestral Hot Rod Speakers
NAD C320 CD player
Music Hall MMF-2 Turntable
Grado Red Cartridge
Synergistic THC interconnect
Carol Command Studio Grade Speaker Cable (bi-wirwed & hand twisted)

Similar Products Used:

NAD 312, Audio Refinement Complete

none so far

Bought the NAD C350 to replace my Sony receiver. I always thought the Sony receiver produced a very flat and muffled sound - not doing justice to my Yamaha CDC-775 CD player.

I did my research and found the NAD had very good reviews in the UK magazines (Hi Fi Choice and What Hi Fi). I compared the NAD to the Yamaha AX-596. The Yamaha sound was very similar except that its sounds were not quite as natural sounding as the NAD (especially the piano sounds) and the bass reproduction seemed a little bit aggressive compared to the NAD (OK if you really like bass emphasis). For similar price, I thought the NAD was the way to go. I have used it for a week and it sounds beautiful! Music reproduction is very neutral and clarity is excellent. Great value for money for those who are budget minded.

My system setup:

Yamaha CDC-775 CD player
NAD C350 intergrated amp
QED Qunex Two interconnects
QED Silver speaker cable
Quadral Ordin Mk III loudspeakers

Similar Products Used:

Sony STR-DE535, Yamaha AX-596

Great power, outstanding sound, easy to listen to for hours on end, all kinds of inputs

Can't see the position of the volume knob in a darkish room, remote that only works at some angles and doesn't do all it could.

I just recently started making enough money to even think about about upgrade from my crappy Sony Shelf system. I do not proclaim to be an audiophile, I just love music and thought that an investment in a mid-fi system would make my favorite cd's more enjoyable. I bought my speakers first, B&W DM 302's, and wanted an amp to compliment them.

The store I bought my speakers from was incredibly friendly, which is wahy I went there for the amp; other dealers in the area sell a wider range of brands, but I was not impressed by the people. So though I didn't listen to a wide selection of brands, I found that the C350 fit my ears and wallet the best.

The sound was fuller, and had substantially more bass than the lower level NADs. The highs were also less shrill and harsh, but still easy to discern. I found that the combination of the C350 and the B&W DM302s do an outstanding job of rendering male voices (John Popper, David Gray, Thom Yorke, and Mark Knopfler especially). Once the volume is at an acceptable level (about 10 o'clock) everything is wonderful, but as other reviewers have said, at lower levels there is a definate lack of bass and definition. There are a few of my favorite discs that have high parts that are almost unbearable on low quality gear, but with this amp they sound more comfortable and natural. When I first bought it, the mids were rather soft, and the highs almost harsh. After a couple weeks of listening, though, everything came together nd sounded perfect.

Some people have a problem with the look of NAD equipment. I find it handsome and discreet, exactly what it should be. A shiny exterior does nothing for sound. However, in the pursuit of a minimalist apperance NAD did not put any kind of visualization fetaure on the volume knob except for a small grey bump. In a dark room there is no visual representaion of volume, not that it's needed, just wanted. There have also been many complaints about the remote. I don't find it as abhorable as some, though it does require a bit of aiming to get things to actually work. As it is designed to work with most NAD products, it has controls for tuners, tape decks, and CD Players. I will never use the tape portion, and would gladly trade those buttons for a control for cd scan, but then again that isn't really necessary.

For my taste in music and money, the NAD C350 is perfect. Music has never sounded better to me.

Solid bass, warm sounding, smooth high-end. Lots of dynamic power. Lots of inputs.

At this price, there really are none.

Recently, it has become somewhat fashionable to "bash" NAD. After all, lots of manufacturers are producing more affordable components, and it seems that NAD has been around so long that most people think the other guys can do it better. I do not agree.

I compared the C350 with the affordable integrateds above, as well as a couple of others. The NAD was second in sound only to the Creek, which had a bit more punch and depth. But the Creek lost out due to only 5 inputs, no tone controls, no remote, and $50 more. I could have gotten a remote for it for an extra $100. It simply didn't sound that much better.

It's also fashionable to poo-poo tone controls, and I agree that probably 90% of the time they are not needed. If they are, you probably need a better system. But what about that 10% of the time when you have a CD that's to bright? Or want to tone down the bass a bit to listen louder at night without waking the wife? I want _usable_ tone controls that are defeatable. The NAD has those.

As for sound, it does everything well and has no glaring weaknesses, which is exactly what I hope for in a component in this price range. Deep, detailed bass response is an NAD hallmark, as is a neutral midrange. The highs are very smooth and perhaps a bit rolled off, but not excessively so. The C350 doesn't call that much attention to itself, and that's a very good thing.

There is no phono input, they're getting harder to find, especially at the low-end. Had they included one they would have had to compromise elsewhere. I bought the NAD PP-1 phono input and love it (it's MUCH better than the phono input in my old 7220PE receiver).

For normal listening, I have the tone controls defeated and soft clipping OFF. Also, to clear up and sweeten the sound I replaced the factory default steel jumper between the pre-amp and amp with a .5-meter length of Kimber PBJ. It sounds great.

Power is very good. NAD's have plenty of power on tap. I'm driving Magnapan speakers which are notoriously power hungry and can play very loud with no sign of strain. I am not in a large listing room, however.

The remote operates over only a fairly narrow range, but works well. I like the standby mode, so I can save a little electricity but not let it get cold. I'd leave it on all the time before I'd shut it off.

My Equipment:

NAD "Tuner" (a 7220PE receiver)
Revolver Turntable w/ Grado Cartridge
Cambridge Audio D500SE CD Player
Magnepan MMG speakers
Energy e:XL-8 subwoofer
Kimber and Strait Wire interconnects
Audioquest speaker cable (MMGs)
Monster XP speaker cable (Subwoofer)

Similar Products Used:

Creek 4330R, Cambridge Audio A500, some others

Excellent definition, Tight bass, welldefined soundstage

Clumsy remote has to be pointed directly at the sensor

I am extremely happy wiht this amp because of the sound quality. Every instrument seems balanced without boomy bass or overly accentuated highs. I listen to this amp with the tone controls defeated because it sounds perfectly natural. The only drawback is that bad recordings sound really bad but good recordings sound awsome. Vocals are really life like.
Powerful amp and very loud. Even at low sound levels the clarity and balance is still there. An exceptional amp for the price. I absolutely recommend it.

I bought this piece at unitedonlineshopping.com they have great customer service and prices are good. I also bought an NAD 523 from them: they are really good and I recommend them.

Similar Products Used:

None

An excellent amplifier, with terrific dynamics and neutrality. Very good detail as well, and the bass really kicks out taut and deep. Works very well with my B&W 602 S2 speakers and Arcam DiVA CD 72. This amp has the power to power a full-blown orchestra as well as rock really hard when called for.

Perhaps my only issue with the amp is that it sounds a little bright with my speakers - but then again the speakers may need time to run in, as they are also fairly new.

Similar Products Used:

Mission Cyrus One

very natural with great bass extension and control. Deep power reserves with 3.5 db of dynamic headroom. Gain matched to the C270 for bi amping.

No light on volume contol of amp and the remote is poor. But that is nit picking.

Great amp for the money. The 350 can more than double its power for dynamic peaks which is unheard of at this price. Drives 4 ohm loads without breaking a sweat. Very natural midrange and great bass depth and control. Very good with all music and movies.

NAD C350
NAD C521
Paradigm Mini Monitors
Definitive Pro Sub 100TL
Tara Labs Prism 55i Interconnects
Audio Quest Type 4+ Speaker Cable

Will soon be adding the C270 and Vandersteen 1C.

Similar Products Used:

Marantz Stereo Receiver