New review in Hi-Fi News of the 332/333/35
Scored 88%
12 Likes
Ah, that elusive 12%.
G
2 Likes
Hopefully my copy of HFN should be waiting for me when i get home from work. Iām assuming that Andrew Everard reviewed the 300 series ?
He did indeed with the help of Paul Miller!
1 Like
I have three inputs in my system. Sonos and CD player connected via an external DAC and an Arcam AV receiver feeding through the front two channels.
For the test, I ditched the external DAC and connected Sonos and CD player digitally to the 222. This is what I based my comments on.
I didnāt think people would be particularly interested in Sonos, so I didnāt say any more. I could of course bypass Sonos to access internet radio, my NAS and Qobus directly from the 222. This was the only way I could experience anything beyond CD quality. With the 222 on its own, for CD quality music the two routes were neck and neck. Adding in the 250NC made the direct route better than via Sonos. I only wrote down ābetterā and Iām afraid my memory wonāt allow me to elaborate.
1 Like
NSC333ā¦ Salisbury air on sale
1 Like
I havenāt said anything inconsistent. Bear in mind that my observations are comparatives, not absolutes. As I went up the value chain the experience improved, going down reversed that.
I can add that when my own system was fired up once more (282 & 250 Classic instead of 222 & 250NC) my first reaction was āHoly sh*t, this is crapā. Today, a few days later, I am enjoying it just as much I ever did even though I have a distinct recent memory of a much better musical experience sitting in the same chair as I am writing this.
5 Likes
I look forward to reading the review, but as for the % score it feels like hardly any products ever score anything but 85-90%. Makes it somewhat pointless having a score at all.
I continue to be a hardcopy subscriber and enjoy reading the magazine, but given that the vast majority of the stuff they review is at the higher end of the market (once you get past 20 pages of ads), Iād hope that buyers of that type of equipment donāt pay the score much attention anyway.
Sorry, thatās a grumpy post thatās not aimed at anyone here. Iāll get off my soapbox now!
There is a wide financial gap between the bottom system (222+NC250) Ā£11400 and the top system (333+300 (I know the 300 was missing), 332+300 and 350 x 2) Ā£39200.
So three questionsā¦ā¦
(i) Did the top system warrant the extra price differential, from the bottom?
(ii) What combination of the 300 series and NC 250, represented the best value?
(iii) Money no object, would you buy the top system? 
This is the way I felt when I compared 282 with 82 where the veil was lifted when listening to the 82.
1 Like
Unfortunately Iām not sure that the comparison with a 282 is like for like - the 222 was being used as a DAC also from my understanding; not solely as a pre ampš¤·š¼āāļø
Iām sure the review will be positive. I will read it when Iāve stopped licking the front cover.
2 Likes
ā¦.although not necessarily better, just different (thereās a sizeable price difference)?
This is a multi-faceted question, and subjective according to personal circumstances. Setting aside the opportunity cost of the system, what is there left to think about?
The bottom system already allows me to reproduce to a very acceptable standard, in my living room, a high percentage of recorded music available in the world and also gives me stonking audio for all TV programmes and films I watch in that room. But only in the one room. Other costs are subscription fees and the electricity required to run the equipment. As I already have a system and subscriptions then any increased cost is marginal, whichever system I buy.
The additional cost of the top system is Ā£27800. So, do I want to allocate Ā£27800 towards an even better sound system in my living room?
An alternative approach - say I was to keep the system for 5 years that works out at about Ā£15 per day, assuming I listen to it every day (If anybody wants the workings, just ask). The calculation will change if I have any kit to trade in, and also if I factor in days I expect not to be at home to listen to the system, on holiday for example), but Ā£15 a day is a good worst case figure.
In this case, I pay Ā£15 per day over the next five years for even better sound quality, again only when I listen to music/ watch TV in the living room. Personally I am inclined to look at a 10-15 year time horizon; at 15 years the cost drops to Ā£5 per day.
I think someone needs a very clear understanding of how much better the experience is for them, and how much they value it, before they can decide whether it is worth paying for.
The 333/332 were a cut above the 222/300. Adding the 300 to the 332 was the icing on the cake.
I didnāt give 333/332/300/250 a fair hearing because I was cheesed off by the comparatively poor performance of the 250 when dropping down from the 350. However, unless someone suggests that pairing them with the 250 is detrimental I think itās safe to say that 333/332/300/250 would work very well. I can only speculate on the effect of pairing a second 300 with the 333.
If money was no object I wouldnāt stop at the 300 series 
!
I think I am going to need a home demo before making a final decision. Iāll share one quandary I need to resolve. One of my test tracks is one I have known and loved for nearly 30 years. At one point the singer is belting out her line at high volume and towards the top of her register. When I played this track through the 350 I picked up something different, something odd in the voice in this passage. Adding the 300 to the 332 showed that her voice is cracking. She is straining to get the line out and/or a number of takes have been patched together to try to get it right.
Now, my home speakers are said to be very revealing. If I start finding multiple blemishes, faults and other miscellanous irritations in what I am listening to itās going to take a lot away from my enjoyment.
6 Likes
Sound quality was definitely better. It was the signatures which were different and a matter of personal preference I would imagine.
How did the signature differ?
The 200s tended more towards higher frequecies and the 300s towards mids.
In musical terms the 200s were the soprano to the 300s alto, or violin to viola, descant recorder to treble recorder, etc.
I just set up my new 332ā¦ the balance on the remote is opposite as well.
2 Likes