MeanandGreen
Well-known member
All of those accolades from the press and satisfied customer reviews for both the D3020 and the original 3020 must be wrong then eh?
MeanandGreen
Well-known member
Vladimir said:
I think all well regarded products in audio are probably overhyped. However in saying that, having read so many peoples tales of refined, enjoyable and reliable performance from their 30+ years old 3020's isn't really something to be sniffed at. How many other amplifiers from the original 3020's era and price point are still talked about so fondly and still providing people with listening pleasure over 30 years after purchase?
NAD's philosophy of spending where it counts and offering a sensible features/performance balance with honest and accurate on paper specs is something they have always stuck by. Their amplifiers are renowned for delivering clean peaks well in excess of their continuos power ratings.
The new D3020 does offer a good selection of digital connectivity previously unheard of in a budget 2 channel stereo amplifier. Let's face it most integrated stereo amps are strictly analogue, or maybe they have one digital input. No Bluetooth, no wifi, no sub outputs.
You can by cheaper headphone/DAC type units with no pedigree which can also drive a pair of speakers and with similar digital conectivity to the NAD, but not with Bluetooth or Wifi capability. Also they don't have on paper specs as good as the NAD, 0.005% THD is pretty respectable.
I'm not going to deny that I am a NAD fan, having owned a few pieces of kit by them I've always felt they offered me the best option for my money. I have always found they perform impeccably and generally offer useful flexibily combined with the performance.
Reading opinons from buyers of the amp as well as the press awards, it would seem that the D3020 is a good performing stereo amplifier. It's not the best thing since sliced bread, it could be bettered in sound or perhaps in features, but not BOTH sound and features at the same time for the same cost or less. That seems to be the general consensus on it as far as I've looked into it.
MeanandGreen said:
I am also fond of the brand, and maybe because of that I am finding their latest marketing/product strategy the more disappointing. My brother still keeps nowadays an original 3020 to which I listened for countless hours when I was younger.
At least in regards to their D series, they are making it quite difficult to understand the specs. And they are anything but accurate.
This whole thing of the D 3020 power rating of the 30W @ 4Ω has had me thinking, because I had the memory that the figures were different. So I've checked the data sheet that can be downloaded from the Nad site and indeed, the rating there is 30W @ 8Ω.
So let's summarise a few points:
- The D 3020 is initially rated as 30W @ 8Ω.
- According to the product page, the D 7050 is rated at 50W. Pretty much anyone would immediately compare this figure to the rating of other amplifiers. It's only when you download the data sheet that you find out that this rating is at 4Ω—so not comparable.
- All these figures they publish about "IHF Dynamic Power" don't mean anything. They don't explain for how long the amplifier can sustain this figure, or how long it needs to recover afterwards. In addition, since this is not the way that other vendors publish the specs for their amplifiers, it is again not comparable. In short, truly meaningless, and there just to show a large number.
- A <=0.005% THD value is very low, granted. But they don't tell you under what conditions, and in particular at what power, that is achieved.
- Finally, they publish that the rating of their D 3020 is 30W @ 4Ω.
So in my opinion, there is lots of marketing b*******t and quite a bit of incompetence regarding the specs that have been published for these amplifiers.
As for which one of the figures given for the D 3020 is correct, I'm inclined to believe that it's actually the first, 30W @ 8Ω. The other would just be too incredibly ridiculous for any class D amplifier larger than a chewing gum pack. Well, that may be an exaggeration but you get my point. Besides, I believe that the D 3020 and the D 7050 may actually implement the very same amplification—30W @ 8Ω/50W @ 4Ω. It would make sense. And then, they published the rating of the D 7050 at 4Ω to make everyone believe that they were getting more power with the more expensive amplifier, when they were just getting the added functionality.
I mean, you may like these amplifiers or not. And you may even think that they sound superb in your system and all that. But at this point I think it should be very difficult to deny that the way that Nad has provided all this information has been quite misleading, and anything but accurate and honest.
I too was going to reply with the pdf as evidence of 30W @8.
I'm loving my d3020 paired with kef ls50s. I believe its a popular anp as it brings in a new crowd / generation to the realm of seperates.
Prior to finding the d3020 I was only considering various active systems. The little amp sparked my interest in separates that I was excluding due to a fear of bulky systems.
I was disappointed by the way they market the d7050 which has the better amp tech but is not more powerful.
Great amp - love it to bits. plays nice with digital files, no crackles pops, hum or hiss.
i would consider upgrading to a powerfull amp when they are more like this one in terms of usability and features.
I'm loving my d3020 paired with kef ls50s. I believe its a popular anp as it brings in a new crowd / generation to the realm of seperates.
Prior to finding the d3020 I was only considering various active systems. The little amp sparked my interest in separates that I was excluding due to a fear of bulky systems.
I was disappointed by the way they market the d7050 which has the better amp tech but is not more powerful.
Great amp - love it to bits. plays nice with digital files, no crackles pops, hum or hiss.
i would consider upgrading to a powerfull amp when they are more like this one in terms of usability and features.
From the hifi choice review ;
"NAD’s specifications for the D 3020’s power output are slightly wayward, but the ‘real world’ 60W/8ohm and 65W/4ohm (increasing to 140W/4ohm under dynamic conditions) still mark the amp out as more capable than its ‘30W’ rating might suggest"
"NAD’s specifications for the D 3020’s power output are slightly wayward, but the ‘real world’ 60W/8ohm and 65W/4ohm (increasing to 140W/4ohm under dynamic conditions) still mark the amp out as more capable than its ‘30W’ rating might suggest"
This thread is throwing up some interesting points but people are not drawing the obvious conclusions.
It is simply that while accurate power specifications can tell you a lot about an amplifier, the specifications given by individual manufacturers are simply not to be compared and in some cases not trusted at all.
We have all seen, for example, A/V receivers that boast 5 x 100wpc, all channels driven, from a 200va power supply and magical 'all in ones' that deliver 2 x 60 watts (rms) from a 50va supply and seem to take them at face value, despite the obvious absurdities. That is before you start thinking about power bandwiths, distortion levels and the ability of an amplifier to deliver it's rated power into real world loads.
With hands on experience it is pretty obvious that some amplifiers deliver rather better performance than others with a comparable written spec, it is this that leads to confusion. The calls for WHF to do simple measurements would be of huge benefit here.
A simple measurement, using a scope or a distortion analyser, of an amplifier driving a standard ( but real world load ) over, say, a sustained 15 minute period would give us a benchmark for comparison that would be far more meaningfull than the guff written by the manufacturers in their own spec sheets.
It is simply that while accurate power specifications can tell you a lot about an amplifier, the specifications given by individual manufacturers are simply not to be compared and in some cases not trusted at all.
We have all seen, for example, A/V receivers that boast 5 x 100wpc, all channels driven, from a 200va power supply and magical 'all in ones' that deliver 2 x 60 watts (rms) from a 50va supply and seem to take them at face value, despite the obvious absurdities. That is before you start thinking about power bandwiths, distortion levels and the ability of an amplifier to deliver it's rated power into real world loads.
With hands on experience it is pretty obvious that some amplifiers deliver rather better performance than others with a comparable written spec, it is this that leads to confusion. The calls for WHF to do simple measurements would be of huge benefit here.
A simple measurement, using a scope or a distortion analyser, of an amplifier driving a standard ( but real world load ) over, say, a sustained 15 minute period would give us a benchmark for comparison that would be far more meaningfull than the guff written by the manufacturers in their own spec sheets.
It will be for no benefit of WHF.
Without measurements of any kind, they could tell every story they want and praise everything how they sponsors want. They even don't need to hear the equipment they are recommending in their reviews.
With measures, you will see the gaps in the reproduction of speakers, you will see the inability to reach low impedances and you will see some very hugly jitter attacks sometimes.
But, a thing is, and I'm talking from experience ; Nobody will force them to do their mesurements "right". So even with measures, they woul be able to put it in the form they want. Only instructed readers will be able to see through the methodology problems around them.
Although, I really don't belive that the "standard whathifi reader" will care about mesurements.
Without measurements of any kind, they could tell every story they want and praise everything how they sponsors want. They even don't need to hear the equipment they are recommending in their reviews.
With measures, you will see the gaps in the reproduction of speakers, you will see the inability to reach low impedances and you will see some very hugly jitter attacks sometimes.
But, a thing is, and I'm talking from experience ; Nobody will force them to do their mesurements "right". So even with measures, they woul be able to put it in the form they want. Only instructed readers will be able to see through the methodology problems around them.
Although, I really don't belive that the "standard whathifi reader" will care about mesurements.
It's terrible that Nad don't even use like for like comparisons for their own products when giving us the specs. Just shows how much some honest and useful data is needed when buying such products.
As for the product being discussed, I think it's connections are lacking. For a 'modern' product it doesn't have AirPlay, Spotify or HDMI. Not ideal for he modern music consumer.
As for the product being discussed, I think it's connections are lacking. For a 'modern' product it doesn't have AirPlay, Spotify or HDMI. Not ideal for he modern music consumer.
NSA_watch_my_toilet said:
Agreed, though with a little less cynicism.
Really just pointing out that the specs given by manufacturers bare so little resemblance to how the products perform in real world situations as to be pretty useless.
A standard test, such as a load that mimics a moderately difficult (not an ampbreaker) loudspeaker and a few basic measurements applied consistently across all amplifiers would be a start, not difficult once set up, but as has been said, no benefit to WHF whatsoever.
I don't for one minute think the guys at WHF 'hype' product to order but they do buy into the whole, 'this months product is better than last months product' philosophy and given that their job depends on it, it is obvious why.
unsleepable said:
Canadian here to defend one of my country's best audio companies.
I don't think there is any indication that NAD is lying about watts or being dishonest. If I may, have you ever considered that RMS ratings are equivalent, i.e. 30wpc in both instances, regardless of 8ohm or 4ohm, with 4ohm simply having more dynamic power?
The D3020 White Paper on their website states that the special UcD Class D Amplifier they use has the following characteristics:
• Load invariance, meaning itdoesn’t change sound withdifferent speaker impedances• Unaffected by very lowimpedances• Loop gain is constant over thefull audio frequency range leadingto low distortion even at highfrequencies. • Ability to be constructed with alldiscrete parts (no expensivecontrol ICs) • Excellent EMC performance• Low, flat output impedance forgood bass control• Flat response in all loads • Distortion that is extremely loweven into low impedance at thehighest frequencies I don't claim to be an expert, but this might explain it...
bemurda said:
My limited experience of this amplifier does suggest that is rather different to the normal budget amplifier, and in quite a positive way. It remains clear and very clean as the volume is increased, unusual at this price. Does not go particularly loud, but then it doesn't sound like it is working very hard either. I rather like it.
Amps that go 'loud' without sounding loud probably will deliver better power than similar specified kit that does 'sound' loud - real world.
Another reason all this faith in paper specs makes no real sense.
Another reason all this faith in paper specs makes no real sense.
It doesn't matter what topology class an amplifier is, power is power. If an amplifier sounds more powerfull than it really is, there is always foul play under the hood. You effectively spend money on fake watts via EQ and loudness effects rather than real ones. If you can resist pushing the Bass EQ button, you are a better man than I am. I wouldn't resist.
When I was a kid we all had cheap mini systems or boomboxes with barely 25W on tap. The loudness button had to be always pushed ON and the bass knob all the way up to get any decent sound out of them. It seems that trick is still used even in 'hi-fi' territory.
Well, as long as it's innovative... *biggrin*
The same ad copy with the marketing speak button turned off. Just like turning off the laugh track on sitcoms.
Cypher said:
Exactly, and at an affordable price too.
As I am no longer in the business I do not get 'hands on' with equipment everyday as used to be the case so my listening is no different to any 'punter's', limited to the occasional dem and what ever the shop has playing.
The difference in 'presentational style from the D3020 seems pretty obvious to me, it just sounds 'different' to the usual £300 suspects, and in a very nice, clean way. Apart from it's inability to go really loud, it sounds like a much more expensive amplifier.
In all fairness, I never said that these amps were any bad—or any good, for that matter. All that I said is that the marketing b******t surrounding the Nad D series is tremendous, and probably misleading people into thinking of them as something different than what they really are, small desktop amps. But it seems there is some agreement here about the power limitations of the D 3020 and 7050, and their own form factor already suggests how they are intended to be used.
My point is that half the information that Nad provides about them is meaningless, and the other half, misleading, while they don't publish much of the data that would be useful to make a right judgement about what these products really offer.
My point is that half the information that Nad provides about them is meaningless, and the other half, misleading, while they don't publish much of the data that would be useful to make a right judgement about what these products really offer.
What does this mean Vlad.....seriously?
I mean you have an amp it sounds great, does not distort and delivers your music.
So the paper specs say it's power is low - but if in the real world it delivers a satisfying performance, were exactly is the problem?
I struggle with your logic at times and fail to understand the meaning of the advise you give too.
Not familiar with this amp but it sounds like a good piece of kit I genuinely cannot workout the point you're trying to make.
I mean you have an amp it sounds great, does not distort and delivers your music.
So the paper specs say it's power is low - but if in the real world it delivers a satisfying performance, were exactly is the problem?
I struggle with your logic at times and fail to understand the meaning of the advise you give too.
Not familiar with this amp but it sounds like a good piece of kit I genuinely cannot workout the point you're trying to make.
Vladimir said:
And that's why the common response is 'audition' whenever these types of threads appear not the blah blah blah misleading stuff you love to post......
Vladimir said:
Thompsonuxb said:
You're not the only one. I have a feeling Vladimir himself doesn't even know what he is talking about
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram