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

Raymond Lin · 25 Jul 2013 at 16:38

Then I can say.

Gregorius, you are wrong, not all technology will go out of date !!!

on a side note, what about all these people swears by Lossless? or these people who only rip music with FLAC or in 320kpbs?

Janesy B · 25 Jul 2013 at 17:12

Do you think there will ever be a market for 24bit music which would be over 100MB for a song, let alone anything more? I doubt most people couldn't pick out the difference between a 16 and 24bit file.

It's funny because they could have said it had a USB 3 port, even though you would never be able to appreciate it and you would have considered it a plus point

gregorius · 25 Jul 2013 at 17:20

Raymond Lin said:
Then I can say.

Gregorius, you are wrong, not all technology will go out of date !!!

Of course it won't. As I said, I'm still running my old Quad amplifiers from the nineties and there's no sign of them becoming obsolete. The issue is one of which technologies will go out of date. Optical and coax digital have lasted quite a while and appear to be continuing; HDMI on the other hand is a pretty awful standard and may very well disappear. Current incarnations of wifi have problems as a digital hifi transport (but note sonosnet) and might be replaced. The list goes on and on. The secret to futureproofing is either to keep funtionality modular or to second guess the future :cool:

on a side note, what about all these people swears by Lossless? or these people who only rip music with FLAC or in 320kpbs?

Given the low cost of storage these days, there is no penalty to ripping into lossless. Transcoding into lossy compressed formats for portable use is easy. In addition, there's the promise of future DSP sound processing systems; one might as well keep all the information in the source format in order to make the most of these when they arrive. What is there not to like about lossless?

gregorius · 25 Jul 2013 at 17:23

Janesy B said:
Do you think there will ever be a market for 24bit music which would be over 100MB for a song, let alone anything more? I doubt most people couldn't pick out the difference between a 16 and 24bit file.

I'm dubious about the aural benefits of 24bit recordings. However, what the extra word width gives you is additional headroom for digital processing - this is one of the reasons studios use 24 bit. If sophisticated digital processing (such as DSP room correction) arrives in the mass market, we might as well have as much headroom as we can.

Raymond Lin · 25 Jul 2013 at 17:23

Janesy B said:
Do you think there will ever be a market for 24bit music which would be over 100MB for a song, let alone anything more? I doubt most people couldn't pick out the difference between a 16 and 24bit file.

It's funny because they could have said it had a USB 3 port, even though you would never be able to appreciate it and you would have considered it a plus point

The point of having capability of carrying a higher bit rate or the bandwidth and also is that this is a HiFi product, powering HiFi speakers and not your £40 PC speakers. So it would be nice to have the current tech in there and give you more headroom.

I can't see the negative and not really sure why you are against having USB 3 in there.

Raymond Lin · 25 Jul 2013 at 17:25

gregorius said:
Of course it won't. As I said, I'm still running my old Quad amplifiers from the nineties and there's no sign of them becoming obsolete. The issue is one of which technologies will go out of date. Optical and coax digital have lasted quite a while and appear to be continuing; HDMI on the other hand is a pretty awful standard and may very well disappear. Current incarnations of wifi have problems as a digital hifi transport (but note sonosnet) and might be replaced. The list goes on and on. The secret to futureproofing is either to keep funtionality modular or to second guess the future

Given the low cost of storage these days, there is no penalty to ripping into lossless. Transcoding into lossy compressed formats for portable use is easy. In addition, there's the promise of future DSP sound processing systems; one might as well keep all the information in the source format in order to make the most of these when they arrive. What is there not to like about lossless?

Then we agree that if they are putting in USB, make it the latest and current one.

More bandwidth, more headroom

Janesy B · 25 Jul 2013 at 17:30

Raymond Lin said:
The point of having capability of carrying a higher bit rate or the bandwidth and also is that this is a HiFi product, powering HiFi speakers and not your £40 PC speakers. So it would be nice to have the current tech in there and give you more headroom.

I can't see the negative and not really sure why you are against having USB 3 in there.

I'm not against it, there's just no bloody point.

This is the largest bitrate you'll probably see over this unit when listening to music:

2 channels (stereo) of 24-bit@96Khz=562.50KB per second (32.958MB per minute)

USB 2.0 can handle up to 32MB per second, that's FIFTY EIGHT times more bandwidth than you need, how much headroom do you need!? This is such a dumb argument, it's just adding crap for the sake of adding crap.

gregorius · 25 Jul 2013 at 17:53

Raymond Lin said:
Then we agree that if they are putting in USB, make it the latest and current one.

More bandwidth, more headroom

Although USB 3.0 does offer higher data throughput, from an audio point of view it doesn't yet have any great advantages to offer. After all, USB audio class 1 (24bit/96KHz) and USB audio class 2 (24 bit/192KHz and does it do 32 bit - can't remember) work perfectly fine on USB 2.0. There isn't yet an USB audio class 3 (goodness, do Microsoft even support USB audio class 2 yet?) so putting in a higher speed interface in anticipation of a future standard would seem to be making oneself a hostage to fortune!

Janesy B · 25 Jul 2013 at 17:54

Looks cool though doesn't it? :cool:

Raymond Lin · 25 Jul 2013 at 18:06

gregorius said:
Although USB 3.0 does offer higher data throughput, from an audio point of view it doesn't yet have any great advantages to offer. After all, USB audio class 1 (24bit/96KHz) and USB audio class 2 (24 bit/192KHz and does it do 32 bit - can't remember) work perfectly fine on USB 2.0. There isn't yet an USB audio class 3 (goodness, do Microsoft even support USB audio class 2 yet?) so putting in a higher speed interface in anticipation of a future standard would seem to be making oneself a hostage to fortune!

Janesy B said:
I'm not against it, there's just no bloody point.

This is the largest bitrate you'll probably see over this unit when listening to music:

2 channels (stereo) of 24-bit@96Khz=562.50KB per second (32.958MB per minute)

USB 2.0 can handle up to 32MB per second, that's FIFTY EIGHT times more bandwidth than you need, how much headroom do you need!? This is such a dumb argument, it's just adding crap for the sake of adding crap.

Fair enough, so...

Raymond Lin said:
Then I can say.

Gregorius, you are wrong, not all technology will go out of date !!!

Janesy B · 25 Jul 2013 at 18:10

gregorius didn't even say that, or at least I didn't see it.

9designs2 · 25 Jul 2013 at 20:11

Avoiding all the circular debating

.......

Why not do the job properly and get one of these as an all in one units.

http://www.linn.co.uk/all-products/network-music-players/sneaky-dsm

or if you don't want the HDMI interface, and just a wired streaming interface one of these:-

http://www.linn.co.uk/all-products/network-music-players#sneaky-ds-black

A proper Hi-Fi solution

mrk · 25 Jul 2013 at 20:58

Gonna have to spend more money on the already pricey Linn there to get additional features like bluetooth though

Not gonna run additional ethernet cabling to where the PC/speakers are willy nilly!

Although...a lotto win or similar would see something like this: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/photogallery/new-audio-gear-ces-n?image=7 or perhaps even this http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/photogallery/new-audio-gear-ces-n?image=9

Accompanied by various other additionals because let's face it, desktop space won't be an issue then

9designs2 · 25 Jul 2013 at 21:34

Don't need Bluetooth as it supports Airplay over WiFi..... and you can use Homeplug to get wired connection around the house.
It gives you streaming, internet radio, local connections, App controlled, 24/192 if required....and decent quality as well.... just have files stored on a NAS or PC running a media server software...... Simple

PS.... oh don't like the linked kit, tacky bling

..... and bit cheap..... get a Linn Klimax kit if you want hi-end

mrk · 25 Jul 2013 at 22:04

Erm I think you've missed the point of this thread then!

9designs2 · 25 Jul 2013 at 22:18

mrk said:
Erm I think you've missed the point of this thread then!

Hmmm was suggestion alternative to the NAD in the first post, not the banter that followed....

That said wanting "quality" but to connect by Bluetooth seems a little strange. There are better ways.....
What phone/portable player are you trying to connect ?

mrk · 25 Jul 2013 at 22:33

Bluetooth with aptx is a quality medium to connect devices that are compatible though? It's the same quality as CD.

Besides, the Linn unit you linked to is £1700, typical of a Linn product. It is not an alternative to the D 3020 at all. That's like saying a Bentley Continental is an alternative to an M3. Both are capable sports cars, one costs 3x more minimum.

Don't tell me you're one of the "proper hifi audio" brigade

I'm connecting my phone, Galaxy Note II which supports the higher quality bluetooth codec. I'd rather not utilise WiFi for this purpose. Besides, my router is at another end of the house to where my setup is.

9designs2 · 25 Jul 2013 at 22:52

I don't presume to know peoples budgets ...... you seemed to have decided the NAD is the best thing going...... that's good..... go buy one and enjoy it.

Sure I have a proper Hi-Fi, even spin vinyl... I also have in the same set up digital and remote control convenience .... shock horror... what will the purist say

mrk · 25 Jul 2013 at 23:01

I'm not getting what you're trying to put across here. If you'd seen the links posted you'd have seen that the NAD is a £400 amp. My current amp was a couple of tens shy of £400 when new as well so it doesn't take much to figure out a rough budget.

That and my Op already states I'd prefer to stick with NAD as I'm a fan of the sound they output.

Anyway, I've asked for a review unit from NAD, I'll review it and if I like it I'll look to buy one. After all this I think that's the best option.

Howard said:
OTOH I love my Nad C352 and it drives my Kef Reference speakers via a Meridian power amp rather wonderfully.. Nad FTW

They're pretty robust little (relative

) amps for their time aren't they

Think the slimmest amp I've owned is the Rotel RA-02, that thing was PS3 slim-slim but unfortunately the fader on it went bust. That had a really nice sound too and would have loved to hear how it powers my now Tannoy. Back then I had Mordaunt-Short speakers.

covenantuk · 26 Jul 2013 at 07:51

OP:

There's good offers available on both the Naim and Arcam all-in-one solutions if you hunt around. Both are worth considering for a small setup.