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

Bose? Seriously!

Why would bluetooth not be able to handle lossless audio? The aptx codec is more power efficient than wifi and CSR (who acquired the technology) state that:


Benefits
- Outstanding Bluetooth® Stereo audio quality
- Audio bandwidth matching CD performance
- Flat Frequency Response. Full audio bandwidth faithfully reproduced
- Low audio coding delay. Minimizes latency and ‘lip-sync’ issues
- Non destructive transcoding, means there are no dueling effects with other algorithms
- Uses Time Domain ADPCM principle rather than Psychoacoustic masking
- Small code / data memory size
- Backward Compatibility: when aptX is not available target device will pair down to SBC

Edit*
The aptX audio codec is available for high quality stereo audio over Bluetooth. When incorporated in Bluetooth A2DP Stereo products, aptX audio coding delivers full 'wired' audio quality. With the aptX audio codec source material is transparently delivered over the Bluetooth link, whether it is stored uncompressed or in an alternative compression (MP3, AAC, FLAC) format.
Click to expand...

All decent 2012 phones onwards support this tech. I can confirm the quality is up there easily with CD as I use bluetooth streaming currently.
 
Last edited:
It was a question and if it can then great. Like i said, i am sure the quality from NAD is good and reliable, but it is limiting in terms of most basic things like wifi (unless you want to spend $1000 !).

Yes it was a reference to Bose....i am sure you can see why I said that?
 
I can't see any similarity to anything Bose have marketed in what has been shown for these Nads. Or are you saying that because the units are small that they're similar to a Bose?
 
It's a desktop amp, it's supposed to look nice on a desk, just like all other tech products designed to sit on a desk and not in an AV unit like a classic amp/receiver. What Bose has to do with this I really have no idea :/
 
That's the point ! I know !

All other AV products have a large foot print, speakers, amps, what not. Bose do not.

This does not, urgo the Bose reference.

So they made it small, they made it compact, it turned into a life style product (It sounds like something Bose make...)
Click to expand...

It's a reference, at no point I stated you can get the same thing from Bose.
 
It's a reference that has no relevance to the discussion though which was why it was a bit weird.
 
mrk said:
It's a reference that has no relevance to the discussion though which was why it was a bit weird.
Click to expand...

Because it is small, people buy Bose because of their design - Small and compact being the obvious one here.... JUST like this NAD.

I would suggest you buy it, it suits you clearly to your current needs.

For me, I need/want wifi. Everything these days have wifi, a phone, the Wii, Roku box, Apple TV, all tablets etc etc etc have wifi. Once you have wifi you can basically have limitless number of connections (128?).

But then if you want the wifi version of this NAD then you are looking at $1000.

But then I would question why would anyone spend $1000 on something like this? Is it because the size?
 
LTZK9Mg.gif
 
^^ that's how i am feeling.

An amp that is targeted at the digital age for the modern audience without airplay/wifi/HDMI is an oxymoron.

An amp that is advertised as HiFi with good quality sound for $500 but add in all these digital tech to a Hifi Purist is also an oxymoron. One could argue that an Hifi without all these digital tech for $500 will blow this out of the water.

You either go one way or the other.

The need to spend another $500 to get wifi when it comes built into something like the Roku sells for £50 ?

Is that money well spent?
 
Last edited:
Onkyo amps also come in equally small desktop friendly packages, people buy them... Why dirty this thread with Bose!

It's all fine stating how something is for you, but then you go full on by calling that thing a failure because it doesn't have what you may or may not want.

This is a mirror of the watch thread debate pretty much.
 
mrk said:
Onkyo amps also come in equally small desktop friendly packages, people buy them... Why dirty this thread with Bose!

It's all fine stating how something is for you, but then you go full on by calling that thing a failure because it doesn't have what you may or may not want.

This is a mirror of the watch thread debate pretty much.
Click to expand...

I have not used the word failure to describe this product once.

In fact i called it - good, reliable and quality.

I just think it is in limbo. I never said it sounded like Bose, i said its design - looks wise, is a reference to Bose. I have also not called Bose a bad brand, i said it is small, compact and life style product, which is what this NAD is.

Why are you twisting my words?

The watch thread is subjective. The fact that this "digital" amp (3020) is missing some of the most basic "digital" inputs/outputs is not subjective.

It is a fact.
 
Last edited:
You called it "seriously limited" "half arsed attempt" and "short sighted" - All of those things are no different to calling something a failure.
 
mrk said:
You called it "seriously limited" "half arsed attempt" and "short sighted" - All of those things are no different to calling something a failure.
Click to expand...

That is your subjective opinion.

It depend on your perception on it.

From the perception of looking at it as an purist hifi product, I think it falls short, i don't want these stuff to muddle it.

From the perception of wanting digital connections, I also think it falls short, I want more.

From your perception of this middle ground, obviously it does not.
 
Last edited:
From your edited post:
Raymond Lin said:
From the perception of looking at it as an purist hifi product, I think it falls short, i don't want these stuff to muddle it.
Click to expand...

What does this mean, what is being muddied exactly? It's not sold as a purist hifi product, it's not advertised as such. It's advertised as a high quality amplifier for those who want a compact desktop amp without sacrificing what NAD do best. The D 3020 is a re-imagining modern equivalent of the highly regarded original 3020 from decades ago as well. It will even power the same speakers that amp did back then. It can then, every modern essence, be called a purist amp even if it's not built or marketed as such. I bet that when reviews emerge next month we will see them praise its sonic performance. Yes you've said you're sure it has great quality sound but then you say it can't be purist either. So which way is it.

Raymond Lin said:
From the perception of wanting digital connections, I also think it falls short, I want more.
Click to expand...

That's perfectly fine, a model exists that offers more. It costs more but then again why would it not cost more?

Raymond Lin said:
From your perception of this middle ground, obviously it does not.
Click to expand...

What does this even mean.
 
Last edited:
1 - muddle means purist wants less stuff - my MF has no balance control, no remote, its basically input - power - out. There is no Bluetooth stuff inside, no Optical this, no HDMI that. There is nothing in there to interfer with the amplifier. Those are what I call muddle.

Their sales pitch

REINVENTING AN ICON, the D 3020

The original NAD 3020 introduced a generation of Music Lovers to true high fidelity sound. The term High Fidelity literally means “true to the original”. In the ‘70’s over a million people rediscovered their music when they placed a NAD 3020 between their turntable and their loudspeakers. This little gem could embarrass amplifiers costing 10 times more with its big, warm and detailed sound. Once people realized what they had been missing it lead them to a lifetime of enhanced musical enjoyment.

REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE

NAD rewrote the rules for amplifiers by designing the 3020 for the real world; instead of allowing laboratory test equipment to have the last word, we made sure that we could properly drive real loudspeakers with real music. The result of this real world approach was an amplifier that had less cost and more sound.
Click to expand...

Even if it is not advertised as that and pretend they never wrote that, it is sold as a digital amplifier :-

2 - The latter being digital product - it falls short because it doesn't have the most basics of connections out there (wifi, HDMI), even if the top model has it, but it is $1000 !!!! if you just want wifi you have to pay $500 for the privilege...call me crazy but you don't think that is a little extortionate? When a Roku streamer costing £50 has it built in? Sure they up the power but if you just want the wifi, you are looking at $500 for that upgrade.

3 - middle ground - So you want good sound (HiFi) with lots of digital connections, the middle ground. I still think you are missing things from either end there too. I want best of both worlds. The best part of the digital world is not Bluetooth, its wifi and HDMI, everything is wif and everything is HDMI these days.

So, I am looking at it from a purist (like my MF) and I think there are all these things that I am paying for that i won't need.

However, if I am looking to buy an amplifier because these days i have lots of digital stuff to hook it up to, I am thinking, how do I plug in my X-box, Sky, Computer, CD player, Bluray player? I would want more connections. I have something like 5 HDMI things in my amp, granted, you may not, I didn't either, i started with just 2 ! Thus why I said Future Proofing

This is not a £50 product, this is a £300-400 product, and I would hate it if you buy it today and in 18 months you want another input and find yourself unstuck. I mean you can't even add in an HDMI switch, even that would help a lot.

That is my perception of this 3020.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom