I think it's time I refreshed my NAD C325Bee, NAD D 3020?

mrk

mrk

mrk

Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
104,069
Location
South Coast
Edit*
Having done all the research the D 3020 is being bought, updates from post #92 onwards.


I have just been browsing the NAD website for a suitable upgrade to my stereo amp and the D3020 (http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/D-3020-Hybrid-Digital-Amplifier) (articles here and here) looks like it ticks all of the boxes. I just wanted to know if anyone has one of these or similar and what they think of it in practice?

Having recently stepped up my car audio and portable to A2DP bluetooth from my phone I am immensely impressed by the ease of connectivity and sound quality from this type of connection, so much so I want to bring that into my desktop audio as well but at the same time keep the fidelity of the C325Bee that I love dearly.

The D 3020 has a lower wattage than the C325 but this is a non issue, we all know what proper amplifier wattage vs lesser brand power is like. My C325Bee is great but it's also big, it takes up a hell of a lot of space and in this modern age I'd like something smaller, something that doesn't generate 45 degrees of heat at the top vent alone...

I have Tannoy V4 floorstanders and will also be connecting HD595 headphones to it. The C325 does this perfectly and I'd like to stick to this brand as I much prefer the sound from their amps.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
I need to hear it before al else! I've asked for a review unit, let's see what happens but it does seem that way aye lol.
 
From the looks of it, 1 Optical in, no HDMI at all, no wifi, no DNLA, no Airplay, 1 aux in?!!!!!

It's fine if you only plug in a CD player, computer and nothing else I guess. It suits your needs but it is SERIOUSLY limited in terms of future proofing yourself though.
 
Last edited:
This isn't supposed to be an AV receiver, it's a stereo audio amplifier, why would it have HDMI? NAD have receivers for that market segment.

And how is it "seriously" limited? It has plenty of connections (6 inc bluetooth):
SHGZ61E.jpg
 
lol at an amp needing wifi and hdmi.

You can use your phone via bluetooth, a pc via usb, a games console via the optical and a CD player/tape/vinyl deck with the analogue inputs.
 
Janesy B said:
lol at an amp needing wifi and hdmi.

You can use your phone via bluetooth, a pc via usb, a games console via the optical and a CD player/tape/vinyl deck with the analogue inputs.
Click to expand...

Wifi, yes wifi, even a pair of scales these days comes with wifi, my Apple TV the size of the palm of my hands that came out 4 years ago has wifi, I am not sure why you are laughing. What is so funny of having less connectivity.

More connectivity means Future Proofing, i am sure you know what that means. Even the review says it is disappointing it doesn't have wifi and Airplay (longer range than Bluetooth) and what's would be a negative of having HDMI, any entry level receiver has one these days. I fail to see a negative in having more connections, especially HDMI and wifi, for an amp that is going "Digital"...why not have it in?

Having to get the top model to get those features when Airplay can be had on an entry level receiver these days is cheeky too.

HDMI carries both Sound and visual, I am sure you know that.

A games console will need another cable to the screen instead of one.

So
Conole takes up Optical
The PC takes up the USB
The CD takes up the Aux
The phone on Bluetooth.

Now you want sky/Virgin media and you use the last optical.

Or you bought 2 consoles, you are stuck.
Or you want a record player....
Or now your friend is over with his laptop and wants to play some music. (with airplay when he is on the network, it's easy)

May be you can buy a HDMI switch...?

What's wrong with a bit of future proofing? I fail to see the LOL in it.
 
Last edited:
If you want all that you'd buy an AV receiver, this is a small high quality desktop amp? How would I stream music to it via WiFi it it's just a 'dumb' unit?

As below, less gadgets and better sound quality is a higher priority for some people.
 
Last edited:
The LOL in it is that in hifi, extra gimmicks simply means less to spend on quality.

Hi-fi is a specialist toolkit, not a swiss army knife.
 
I mean if that is all you will need and all you will ever need, go ahead. I am sure the quality is great and works as it should with great reliablity.
 
That's the point, AV amps are generally pretty large, there is a market for more compact units which cut out the gimmicks and focus on SQ.
 
Janesy B said:
If you want all that you'd buy an AV receiver, this is a small high quality desktop amp? How would I stream music to it via WiFi it it's just a 'dumb' unit?

As below, less gadgets and better sound quality is a higher priority for some people.
Click to expand...

okay....I see your argument.

The other argument is how about remove all those tech and go back to pure hifi? even better sound quality? You know, no Bluetooth, no optical, no wifi, no Ethernet (as in their top range model) and go back to basics.

I got one of those...a Musical Fidelity X-A2 in my bedroom, something like £800 when new. It's very basic to a point that it does not even have a remote but the PSU is external to limit interference, the facia is brushed aluminium with a solid clunk when you change input connections, the terminals are gold plated, there doesn't even have a phono stage built in (they sell that separately with another separate PSU) to "keep" the cost down to £800.

That NAD is going "digital", the moment you open that door but then immediately crippling yourself with an half arsed attempt to fulfil something ordinary as wifi with not a single HDMI port these days is short sighted.
 
ITT: Raymond doesn't understand the point of a high quality audio amp vs an entry level av receiver. :p

An entry level receiver won't have the same audio quality that something like a quality NAD will have either regardless of having wifi or not. This might be the mid range model of a trio but these are all high end digital amps compared to entry level stuff. The £400 isn't paying just for features for its class, it's paying for the component quality too.

If you want HDMI/WiFi etc you get the next model up, simple.
 
mrk said:
ITT: Raymond doesn't understand the point of a high quality audio amp vs an entry level av receiver. :p

An entry level receiver won't have the same audio quality that something like a quality NAD will have either regardless of having wifi or not. This might be the mid range model of a trio but these are all high end digital amps compared to entry level stuff. The £400 isn't paying just for features for its class, it's paying for the component quality too.

If you want HDMI/WiFi etc you get the next model up, simple.
Click to expand...

I do understand.

Hence I didn't buy a £300 reciever, I bought one with an RRP costing 4 figures (not that i paid that).

I am an audio nerd at heart (one point I was stupid enough to buy a pair of VDH The First Ultimate IC), I like good sound as much as the next guy but when you start adding tech into it, it seems to me that is muddling the waters of pure HiFi already. I mean why do people have a receiver and then getting a stereo amp powering just their front 2 speakers for music? It is purely that reason, they want pure sound, good quality sound (I got my MF amp for that purpose too, just never got round to setting it up).

The NAD seems like a limbo product, neither one or the other, so if you have some tech to it, but not even Wifi, something you find in the most basic home appliance these days, that's is disappointing.
 
I don't think you do still!

It seems you've been easily disappointed by many things this week without a real valid reason :/

I also don't understand your muddying waters point, why does this affect pure hifi? These products exist because there's a market for them and reviewers who have listened to them have said they can see them being very popular with the modern crowd who want good quality sound in a desktop friendly package.

Times change, makers have to adapt and provide products to cover all markets. Some do this without sacrificing quality, which is excellent for us.
 
Some people might have a squeezebox they like to use and wish to just upgrade the amp without paying extra to enable something they already have.
 
I can see the target audience perfectly.

The digital age, as opposed to the purist who are wholly analogue - vinyl, there are people who think CD players are not high quality enough so they have SACD.

Can Bluetooth have the bandwidth to carry those kind of files? Is this what you call "high quality" HiFi?

So they made it small, they made it compact, it turned into a life style product (It sounds like something Bose make...) they add in Bluetooth, except they left out a lot the modern digital technology, basic stuff. Yes you can get it in the top end model but then you are looking at $1000...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom