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

[Howard]

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

Because the pricing of Linn equipment makes me giggle, along with how they bleat on about their wonderful 24/96 'studio master' recordings of their dull Jazz artists they sell on their record company website , which leads me neatly to my point below...

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.

Don't make me laugh. Next you'll be telling me the quality of the USB cable affects what you'll hear through this amp. You sound like the sort of person who is a marketing department's dream and I bet you lap up all of the buzzwords and 'new technology' adamant that you really are gaining.

USB1 (11mbits/sec) is enough for uncompressed "red book" Audio CD (~1.4mbits/sec (44.1k samples per second * 16 bits per sample * the number of channels (2) = 1411.2kbits/sec) ) data never mind a lossless FLAC.


Increased sampling rates for consumers are a bit of a con really, unless your ears are capable of hearing frequencies at more than 20khz

The benefits of a higher bit depth can be more apparent in that you're lowering the noise floor simply because there's more "bits" of data for each sample. If you think of an amplifier with only 4 possible volume level choices, you don't get much in the way of a variation, or resolution. Double that to 8, and you will get more, and so forth. Therefore you're gaining in dynamic range. But there's still so much potential to the standard PCM "audio CD" format that you're unlikely to run into any limitations other than those in your own mind.


In short, 16/44 audio is all you ever need as an "audiophile" and USB 1 or 2, even with overheads, is plentiful. With this amp, Nad have focussed on getting the required components right rather than filling it with unnecessary ******** in the name of marketing.

 

[Raymond Lin]

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.

But does it have Bluetooth?

 

[mrk]

I've had a look at Naim/Arcam and the only suitable deals below £1k were for units like the Solo which don't interest me really, the Naim Stream units are +£1K. Unless there are older models I've missed?

I looked at the Onkyo units in the past which I like quite a lot but again it's not the kind of unit I'm after all things considered. I have a Xonar STX soundcard so have a capable source. I just want a quality discreet amp to drive my headphones and speakers (The Xonar has a headphone amp yeah but I prefer NAD's headphone amp sound, it's warmer) with bluetooth so I can stream music with the added digital connection benefits for use with my other devices and also in the near future. The D 3020 looked like it ticked those boxes.

In short, 16/44 audio is all you ever need as an "audiophile" and USB 1 or 2, even with overheads, is plentiful. With this amp, Nad have focussed on getting the required components right rather than filling it with unnecessary ******** in the name of marketing.

Yup.

It's obvious I like NAD, what they do, they do very well without going overboard with marketing or specs that aren't needed for that price/class point of device.

Having had the transformer in mine replaced in the past under warranty, I felt like I was being dealt with by a single person who kept me in the loop, the technician called me from his workshop rather than my amp being put in a queue and me being given a reference number to check back with. The feeling of 1to1 with their support was welcoming. I'm sure other companies are similar but first impressions and all that...

 

[Raymond Lin]

FYI mrk

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.

I am well aware of an entry level receiver will not sound as good as another entry level stereo amp in the same price bracket.

Personally, I won't class a £3/400 amp as a "high" end amps, it's barely barely midrange on the grandscheme of things. The fact that you linked to a Krell shows that you do know what High End means. When you go into mono blocks designs and then separate the pre/power then you really start go into High End. A tiny little amp in a single plastic looking casing and reliance on the sales pitch for its digital side of things like Bluetooth as its main feature and call that high end? Really? Honestly?

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

For $500 more? You serious think that is actually a reasonable price to pay for wifi and HDMI?

I am sure if you go out and buy a $1000 receiver won't be "entry" level anymore, and I am sure a $1000 receiver will sound pretty good too.

I find it amusing the insistent on the Bluetooth feature. You either want the convenience of it wireless playback or do you actually want bluetooth itself? Why only limit yourself to streaming music from the phone, why not get an app on your phone and use that as a remote then stream your entire library from your computer to the amp? You can probably do this with your current set up, without the Bluetooth dongle you bought.

ITT: Raymond doesn't understand the point of a high quality audio amp vs an entry level av receiver.

Oh...my amp history

Some Technics amp I pick up in Uni for £10.
A Marantz amp I got from Richer Sound - PM-66Ki sig
Then a NAD C370 for a brief period
Back to Marantz PM-6010 Ki sig
Then I had a Cyrus 7 & Naim 3
Had a Pioneer VSX-921 (this is entry level), returned after a week (not just because it had a dent).
Then I got my Pioneer LX55 (this is what I call "Midrange" receiver), more than double the VSX-921 (which I am paying for the sound quality, not features as they are pretty close)
Now my Musical Fidelity X-A2

I know the point of high quality audio amp thanks. I sold the NAD because I prefer the Marantz sound. MF's audio signature is closer to that of Marantz than Cyrus, and Naim was too clinical.

 

[9designs2]

Because the pricing of Linn equipment makes me giggle, along with how they bleat on about their wonderful 24/96 'studio master' recordings of their dull Jazz artists they sell on their record company website , which leads me neatly to


In short, 16/44 audio is all you ever need as an "audiophile" and USB 1 or 2, even with overheads, is plentiful. With this amp, Nad have focussed on getting the required components right rather than filling it with unnecessary ******** in the name of marketing.

Pricing is down to the individual as to what's of value..... I mean we could make a law and ban anything that people considered "expensive".... So all cars have to cost less than 20k, and cameras max 1000 quid.... Outlaw all Apple products And on and on.... You pays your money and takes your choice.

As for the choice of music, it gets better and better, some really good stuff on their and not all Jazz... Plus they are now able to sell stuff from other record labels. So some classic reissues are available for download.... It can only get better.
Whether you benefit from studio master downloads is something easy to try, buy a track in two versions and compare.

The point as I understand it of data being in say 24/192 etc is it allows the digital processing to be done much further away from the audio spectrum. So isn't about hearing over 20k

 

[mrk]

FYI mrk



I am well aware of an entry level receiver will not sound as good as another entry level stereo amp in the same price bracket.

Personally, I won't class a £3/400 amp as a "high" end amps, it's barely barely midrange on the grandscheme of things. The fact that you linked to a Krell shows that you do know what High End means. When you go into mono blocks designs and then separate the pre/power then you really start go into High End. A tiny little amp in a single plastic looking casing and reliance on the sales pitch for its digital side of things like Bluetooth as its main feature and call that high end? Really? Honestly?



For $500 more? You serious think that is actually a reasonable price to pay for wifi and HDMI?

I am sure if you go out and buy a $1000 receiver won't be "entry" level anymore, and I am sure a $1000 receiver will sound pretty good too.

I find it amusing the insistent on the Bluetooth feature. You either want the convenience of it wireless playback or do you actually want bluetooth itself? Why only limit yourself to streaming music from the phone, why not get an app on your phone and use that as a remote then stream your entire library from your computer to the amp? You can probably do this with your current set up, without the Bluetooth dongle you bought.



Oh...my amp history

Some Technics amp I pick up in Uni for £10.
A Marantz amp I got from Richer Sound - PM-66Ki sig
Then a NAD C370 for a brief period
Back to Marantz PM-6010 Ki sig
Then I had a Cyrus 7 & Naim 3
Had a Pioneer VSX-921 (this is entry level), returned after a week (not just because it had a dent).
Then I got my Pioneer LX55 (this is what I call "Midrange" receiver), more than double the VSX-921 (which I am paying for the sound quality, not features as they are pretty close)
Now my Musical Fidelity X-A2

I know the point of high quality audio amp thanks. I sold the NAD because I prefer the Marantz sound. MF's audio signature is closer to that of Marantz than Cyrus, and Naim was too clinical.

So it's clear you have your preferences, just like everyone else has theirs. The problem was that people were asking why you were so adamant to question the preference of other people just because it differed from your own. You dismiss their reasons as "excuses" :/

Anyway. I choose bluetooth because it's seamless. I'm not using a separate app to control the audio when I currently just click play in PowerAMP and music instantly comes out of the bluetooth output whether it's car or something else. You're forgetting the key point, convenience/efficiency. BT is just the most efficient way, there's no app to install, it works in 100% of apps without having to do anything other than initially pair bluetooth to the output.

The bluetooth dongle I bought isn't primarily for my amp. It's for when I'm mostly out and about staying at other places, for the sake of convenience.

Also, my entire music library is on my phone, that';s why I have a 64GB mSD card in there. Sure, there's a local copy on my PC which goes into the amp but PowerAMP offers a nicer interface for media list and queue control when I want to listen to music and I'm not sat at the desk which wifi remote apps do not (which I also have but seldom use because of the lack of convenience mentioned earlier).

A £400 amp won't be classed as high end, nobody has said it is in fact. But there's no reason why a good quality amp won't output high end sound. My Tannoy V4 was awarded best floorstanders in the up to £700 range by hifi magazines, I don't put much thought into those awards but at least they've compared against a whole bunch of others in that price range. How much were the V4s? £340.

 

[covenantuk]

I've had a look at Naim/Arcam and the only suitable deals below £1k were for units like the Solo which don't interest me really, the Naim Stream units are +£1K. Unless there are older models I've missed?

Have you looked at the bigger shops' ex-demo webpages? Also AVForums classifieds are always worth a look

 

[Raymond Lin]

So it's clear you have your preferences, just like everyone else has theirs. The problem was that people were asking why you were so adamant to question the preference of other people just because it differed from your own. You dismiss their reasons as "excuses" :/

Are you refering to the watch thing again?

I have not used the word "excuses" once in this thread either. Where did I say that?

And also, the fact that this amp lacks some basic, modern day, common features such as wifi is not a preference, it is a statement of fact.

A preference would be you prefer Bluetooth over wifi to play music.

Anyway. I choose bluetooth because it's seamless. I'm not using a separate app to control the audio when I currently just click play in PowerAMP and music instantly comes out of the bluetooth output whether it's car or something else. You're forgetting the key point, convenience/efficiency. BT is just the most efficient way, there's no app to install, it works in 100% of apps without having to do anything other than initially pair bluetooth to the output.

The bluetooth dongle I bought isn't primarily for my amp. It's for when I'm mostly out and about staying at other places, for the sake of convenience.

Also, my entire music library is on my phone, that';s why I have a 64GB mSD card in there. Sure, there's a local copy on my PC which goes into the amp but PowerAMP offers a nicer interface for media list and queue control when I want to listen to music and I'm not sat at the desk which wifi remote apps do not (which I also have but seldom use because of the lack of convenience mentioned earlier).

Fair enough, have the Bluetooth. You seem to be very insistent on it, and like I said before about 5 times, buy the amp, it suits you. You seem to like NAD so any criticism to their product you appear to take offence personally.

A £400 amp won't be classed as high end, nobody has said it is in fact. But there's no reason why a good quality amp won't output high end sound. My Tannoy V4 was awarded best floorstanders in the up to £700 range by hifi magazines, I don't put much thought into those awards but at least they've compared against a whole bunch of others in that price range. How much were the V4s? £340.

I didn't, no one else did, you did though.

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.

Unless I am mistaken, you referred the "trio" as to these NAD amps and labelled them as High End.

If £400 is High End, what bracket is a £2,000 amps?

Or

If £400 is high end when compared to entry level stuff, how much are these entry level amps and what do you consider midrange?

 

[mrk]

In the context that they are compact desktop digital amps, they are certainly high end would you not say? Reports from CES were that they sounded every bit as good as you'd expect and nobody questioned the 3020 naming of the D (which they would have had it been only up to mid range).

It would be immensely helpful if you stopped mixing context. And I've not taken offence to anything other than your posts really. Up until a few posts ago nobody recommended an equivalent or suitable alternative and when they did I checked them out. Up until then it's been a discussion, well, as it turns out a debate...

I think I will just leave it there, it's a pretty pointless exercise to get you to understand a point within the right contexts and this isn't the first time either lol.

Have you looked at the bigger shops' ex-demo webpages? Also AVForums classifieds are always worth a look

Apart from RS and Empiredirect I've not bought from anywhere else before, any of note to look at? I do actively check AVF but nothing has come up that takes my fancy sadly.

 

[Raymond Lin]

None of these other amps are likely to have Bluetooth though or fall within the £400 budget.

The ones that are High end will cost a lot more, and would likely still lack the Bluetooth connectivity still. Seriously, having to HAVE Bluetooth in the amp limits your choice greatly. Everyone has shifted to DLNA/Airplay.

In the context of compact desktop digital amps, something like a Cyrus Streme X2 would be starting to get into the High End Market. And Cyrus has a lovely lovely sound. Modular unlike anything else out there, they even sell a custom made AV stand for their products.

Again, it lacks Bluetooth. (and way over your budget)

 

[mrk]

Like I said, Bluetooth just works, immediately, and is said to be no different in quality to CD thanks to csr's apt-x codec. I never even considered it until recently when I got this system all sorted out via my phone and realised just how useful it is compared to other wireless means.

 

[mrk]

Review units are all out and have been for 2~ months and will be for a while yet so I'm just going to go into the fairly local Sevenoaks who have stock and demo then buy one on Saturday.

It's been too long now and I've been longing to go all digital and benefit from the digital connectivity benefits.

Reading Stephen's article on stereophile reinforced this somewhat.

It's going to cost £400 and I've got my C325 Bee on sale for £100.

I think I'll also be able to sell my Xonar STX soundcard as I'll be using async USB playback from the PC on this, no more need for analogue *edit* although I might still prefer the warm analogue output from the STX and upgraded opamps...

 

[Participant]

Seems weird to buy an amp with a built in dac then use an analogue connection? Can't you just use the optical out on the Xonar?

 

[mrk]

I've been reading up on it more and the noise floor improvements on an Asynchronous USB connection is one of the biggest benefits of using that vs coax/optical. I'm all for that. The D 3020 is said to have a nice spacious warm sound out of the box anyway so I think this will be covered nicely here and I won't need to the Xonar any more.

The PS3 will be connected using optical and that leaves the mini<>toslink connection free for whatever else.

 

[Participant]

So does this asynchrounous USB connection transmit bit perfect digital data? Is it in any way inferior to using an optical connection? How does it transmit sound information without a sound card? From the PC's motherboard sound? How do you tell the PC to transmit the sound information over USB?

It's obvious I know nothing about this, but it sounds interesting.

 

[mrk]

So does this asynchrounous USB connection transmit bit perfect digital data? Is it in any way inferior to using an optical connection? How does it transmit sound information without a sound card? From the PC's motherboard sound? How do you tell the PC to transmit the sound information over USB?

It's obvious I know nothing about this, but it sounds interesting.

Essentially yes.

Naim have an excellent article on how USB audio connections work and the 3 types of protocols used over the years:
http://www.naimaudio.com/sites/defa...s/files/dac-v1_asynchronous-usb_mwp_jan13.pdf

Installation and use is the same way as any other USB device really, a driver is usually needed for Windows PCs (Macs support them natively) and in this instance NAD have the USB audio driver for download which tells Windows that it can use it as an audio output device and you can then select the output device from Windows Playback Devices panel in the system tray.

The downside is that you're limited to 2 channels so stereo only which is perfectly fine if you are not in a multi speaker setup. If you are multichannel then obviously optical out is the connection you want to use and that does mean using the mothoerboard or soundcard outputs.

 

[kona786]

How does it sound then mrk? compared to the 325?

Better or comparable?

 

[mrk]

How does it sound then mrk? compared to the 325?

Better or comparable?

I made a post about it here and before using the USB cable used the same RCA cable from the STX to the amp to see how it differed to the C325 as an analogue connection and it was cleaner sounding with a bit more detail. The USB connection is better yet with none of the background noise you get from analogue connections at high volume (that in itself isn't a problem, many people like that ambient noise as it reminds them of an LP).

Basically the sound is properly clean, more detailed and more lively without having to touch any tone or EQ controls in the playback software.

The Bluetooth streaming doesn't sound any different to the wired connection either. I was expecting this anyway since it's uses the apt-x codec.

 

[kona786]

Wow I'm very impressed at how they've managed to pack better SQ into a much smaller package.

Congrats.

 

[mrk]

Technology has shifted considerably in modern times. The man who designed the original 3020 did the same with this so excellent sq was never doubted