Anyone compared NAD and Cambridge Intergrateds?

I haven't heard this particular unit...but the 'House Sound' of the Cambridge is smoother and more musical than NAD to my ears.
That, and NAD has a bad habit, (in the past maybe not this unit), of having some thermal issues, or current greater than parts can handle issues...that, may be ancient history, as 3 months is an eon in electronics.

Good listening,

Larry

Larry,
I can assure you that 3 months is not an eon in electronics :-)

I have had very good experience with NAD amps. Compared NAD to Cambridge in 2005 when I was deciding on an amp. Mt ears preferred the NAD. I eventually used the integrated amp as a power amp after I got a TVC (passive preamp). The NAD was a very good power amp as well.

I can tell you that the Cambridge 340A is quite good. I haven't compared to NAD. Also, I haven't heard the newer version the 350A.

PMB

I used to own both the Cambridge 540A v2 and the NAD C326BEE.

They're both very nice budget amps, and I don't think you could go wrong with either.

The packaging and chassis on the Cambridge look nicer, but the NAD has slightly higher quality parts inside (bigger power supply caps, relays instead of IC switching, etc).

I think the audible differences between the two are overstated and are mostly a result of the one real difference I did notice, namely, that the volume controls track quite differently. In other words, put them both at the 9 o'clock position, and the NAD was much louder than the Cambridge. By the 12 o'clock position, they were closer in loudness. I think this alone explains a lot of the sonic differences being attributed to them, ie, people are hearing level differences more than actual sonic differences.

Beave, my impressions, above, were not based on level differences.