NAD AV 316 vs NAD C 350

happy new year my friend how are you doing??

Id like to know something; have u heard or do you have past experience with the nad 316??

its a surround sound amplifier(dolby prologic decoder) i think 40 or 50 watts stereo mode not sure from 1997 i think.

Off course its not a receiver because it has no tuner on it but its not an integrated amplifier either.

yesterday i switched on to it instead of the 350 and the sound (even being a nad amp)is very different very smooth,the highs sounds so but so sweet i felt i like more listenable and much less agressive than 350.

I got very confused caus its an older and cheaper amp and has no toroidal and its not an integrated amp without that technology that came on 2000 with the 350.

But is more musical? could be the word?

The bass is a bit more boomy and the tweeter(highs) very sweets of course less power is obvious but details are (i wouldnt say detals i can say sound stage spatial impression of it)

Can u help me here??

what do you think??


Andreas- I own a 316. Not sure what you mean "its not an integrated amp". By definition, and integrated amp has volume control, source selection, and amplification on one chassis. In this case, it is a Dolby Pro-logic integrated amp. It does not have Dolby digital or dts, but it is a nice sounding amp. As for design features and price, it is the execution of the design and the final sound that determine value, not list price.
Andreas, it seems pretty easy to me. You have both amp's, so you can compare them in your own room with your won stuff. If the 316 sounds better, then use it. Equipment is there to make you appreciate your music more, and age, price, features etc. don't matter if you've found a piece of gear you like.