everything sounded great until the upgrade

@grislybutter what source do you play from most, phono/turntable, CD, streamer, other?

@grislybutter as you learn about DACs, you’ll find a subset of folks in search of DAC units trying to make regular 16-bit CDs sound closer to vinyl. And other camps who are into hi-res, oversampling. Different roads to take. Take your time learning. In your case, learning through members like @rar1 who’ve heard and matched up your A3.2 with specific MF CD players is a good approach if choose to stay with CD only. As others have pointed out, some older CD players can be a gem too.

DAC: For any reason you decide to buy a streamer later on down the road, buying a good DAC would allow you to run a CD player -AND- a streamer through the same DAC, thus benefiting both sources. Many of us here use external DACs. You’ll literally find hundreds of other threads here on A’gon about "which DAC".

A different point of view. There is an old review out there comparing the A3.2 to the former MF A300, and reviewers indicated something that reminds me of how a 2252B will sound warmer closer to an MF A300. However there is praise the A3.2 brings to the equation. As others shared here, give it a few weeks, keep listening, give yourself a chance with the A3.2. If you plugged it in cold after sitting a while, let it play 10-14 days. Also comments the A3.2 reveals what you throw at it, hearing more of bad recordings too. Some of the older 2252Bs can be a veiled over sound. Or, the ones I've heard with original transistors still in them that is. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Article/quote: "A3.2 has that sense of harmonic ease, but the A300 is a touch more full than the A3.2. The newer A3.2 integrated has at least as much bass, but seems to control it a bit better. The end result of this is that the A3.2 sounds a bit leaner, but more in charge of the speakers. Throughout the midrange the A3.2 has a leaner tonal balance. Where the A300 is slightly warmer through the mids and can thus sound a touch laid-back, the A3.2 has a more up-front perspective. This isn’t to say that it’s bright or aggressive -- it’s not -- but rather that it’s a bit more incisive".

@grislybutter Under the hood, do you see those big donut torroidal transformers on each side?, and the two mosfet output transistors screwed into those heat sinks on each side... A nice dual mono class AB design. Letting those transformers bake and saturate a bit before playing will yield a different result too.

A quick and fun experiment to try one time. Leave your A3.2 integrated powered on for 24hrs straight and then listen again. Only need to try this once, 2-4 hours next time. Then, ratchet back from there until you find the warmup sweet spot for yours. My former dual mono SS torridal mosfet based amps sounded different at 1,2,4,24 hours. On critical listening days I’d let them warm-in for 2-4 hours, minimum of 2. Try it and see if you notice any difference or not. Should smooth out, sound a little softer and a little more musical too. An easy test if you wanna give it a go.

@grislybutter now with your more revealing amplifier in play, and sources in review by you, one other thought will drive some silly. I will ask anyhow. Its likely I missed it, and apologize if so...  What interconnect RCA cables are you using now (brand/model/length) between your phono or CD player to your A3.2 integrated today?