SteveR750:plastic penguin:
hi fi newbie:Cheers in what aspects of the delivery did you consider it to be a better amp?
The Kandy has shed loads of detail and has a forthright or "ballsier" character. However, this is also its weakness because it can sound a little too gun-ho in the extreme frequencies when pushed hard.
Just like a 352 then? I think the Kandy would be a noticeanle improvement over the 352 which whilst very good ( I had one for 4 years and loved it) its not the last word in bottom end control, and bass guitars can become a little one note. If the MkIII is half the ability of the K2 then its going to be an improvement in my ears opinion.
I agree - when you consider the Kandy at almost twice the price of the Nad you'd hope for a decent step-up. And, indeed, this is what you get. I'm just pointing out that if you prefer a slightly laid back sound to your music, like myself, there are others that maybe better suited.
Regarding the Nad - it may have up front sound with deep bass and top-notch timing. However, I found when compared to my A65+, and although it had more than the Arcam, the Arcam, to my ears, sounded slightly better balanced - but it was marginal.