NAD D3020 DAC

[Riggers79]

Hi, does anybody know what Dac chip this amp uses. The product brochure says it's a cirrus logic 114db 8 channel IC but does not mention the exact model number. Also, I do not hear any volume on my wharfedale 10.1 speakers with this amp until the volume reaches 30-40 percent. There is no sound when cranked up from 0-30 percent at all. Is this normal for class D amps? Appreciate any thoughts on the quality of the Dac. Thanks

 

[ChrisIRL]

Hi,

I don't know what model the DAC chip in the NAD D3020 is but as DACs go it's not a very good one I've found personally. It's ok but a bit dull and flat sounding overall, needs volume a bit higher than normal to bring out detail. Also when connecting digital devices to the amp which will be processed by the NAD's built in DAC there is definately a noticeable drop in volume output versus connecting equipment to the amps analogue input.

I have connected an Arcam irDac to the amp via analogue and more recently an Arcam rBlink. Sound is fantastic using either of these and there is an approx 10db sound boost. Well worth getting an rblink and connecting via analogue. It's bluetooth betters that of the NAD's in terms of reliability of connection and the DAC is really good, not a million miles away from the irdac to be honest.

You can actually connect the rblink to the NAD via analogue and coaxial simultaneously and then flick between the inputs on the amp to do a sound comparision. The rblink DAC improvements become very apparent then.

 

[Riggers79]

That's interesting. Nad promotes it as having an excellent dac. Have you done a comparison test between airplay using the amps built in dac vs bluetooth aptx streaming quality. Thanks.

 

[unsleepable]

It's actually very sad… The DAC is a feature that made this small integrated-amplifier so special.

 

[npoguy]

Please....do yourself a favor and listen to the NAD yourself before taking one person's view about the DAC. In my opinion, it is very good and equal to or better than others I've used. I've had it for 6 months and love the unit! If only they could fix the wonky volume control....

 

[ChrisIRL]

If I had never compared it with the Arcam irDac or rblink I'd probably think it was fine. I really like the D 3020 regardless, very nice sound quality overall and plenty of power for my listening levels. The amps size is the big seller for me. I'm sure the D 3020i or 2 or whatever they call the next version will have an improved dac!

 

[davedotco]

I am pretty sure the quality of the dac in the D3020 is fine.

For NAD to get it wrong to the point that inexpensive outboard dacs sound clearly better is virtually inconceivable.

Something else is going on and it is almost certainly volume related. See if you can get your hands on a digital multi-meter and match the levels at the speaker terminals. A level matched comparison will certainly tell you what is what.

 

[ChrisIRL]

Don't have airplay unfortunately.

 

[ChrisIRL]

I am pretty sure the quality of the dac in the D3020 is fine.

For NAD to get it wrong to the point that inexpensive outboard dacs sound clearly better is virtually inconceivable.

Something else is going on and it is almost certainly volume related. See if you can get your hands on a digital multi-meter and match the levels at the speaker terminals. A level matched comparison will certainly tell you what is what.

Inexpensive they may be but the irDac is the same price as the D 3020. I know DAC chips themselves are inexpensive but it's all about the implementation. I wouldn't say NAD got it wrong, the DAC is ok but they must have had some budget constraints to keep the amp price low.

 

[davedotco]

I am pretty sure the quality of the dac in the D3020 is fine.

For NAD to get it wrong to the point that inexpensive outboard dacs sound clearly better is virtually inconceivable.

Something else is going on and it is almost certainly volume related. See if you can get your hands on a digital multi-meter and match the levels at the speaker terminals. A level matched comparison will certainly tell you what is what.

Inexpensive they may be but the irDac is the same price as the D 3020. I know DAC chips themselves are inexpensive but it's all about the implementation. I wouldn't say NAD got it wrong, the DAC is ok but they must have had some budget constraints to keep the amp price low.

Doubt it. The material cost of both products is mostly casework and power supplies, and the 'implementation' as you put it is minimal, its all on the chip.

The Nad probably benefits from much larger production numbers.

I know it takes a bit of effort, but a blind, level matched comparison will tell you all you need to know. Louder always auditions as better, you need to take that out of the equation.

 

[ChrisIRL]

I am pretty sure the quality of the dac in the D3020 is fine.

For NAD to get it wrong to the point that inexpensive outboard dacs sound clearly better is virtually inconceivable.

Something else is going on and it is almost certainly volume related. See if you can get your hands on a digital multi-meter and match the levels at the speaker terminals. A level matched comparison will certainly tell you what is what.

Inexpensive they may be but the irDac is the same price as the D 3020. I know DAC chips themselves are inexpensive but it's all about the implementation. I wouldn't say NAD got it wrong, the DAC is ok but they must have had some budget constraints to keep the amp price low.

Doubt it. The material cost of both products is mostly casework and power supplies, and the 'implementation' as you put it is minimal, its all on the chip.

The Nad probably benefits from much larger production numbers.

I know it takes a bit of effort, but a blind, level matched comparison will tell you all you need to know. Louder always auditions as better, you need to take that out of the equation.

Would NAD have larger production numbers than Arcam, equal enough I'd imagine.

I've extensively compared the DACs in the NAD, irdac and rblink. I've heard and own all three so I don't really have a bias. If I could simplify my system I'd be all for it. Even increasing the volume for the NAD dac it falls short of the arcam gear. Mainly it's soundstage that suffers and there is less detail and clarity too. Just sounds a bit closed in and flat. Casework is a cost factor I agree but power supply is an important factor in dac performance so I believe. If some of the increased cost is due to better power supply this could lead to better sound quality.

 

[davedotco]

I am pretty sure the quality of the dac in the D3020 is fine.

For NAD to get it wrong to the point that inexpensive outboard dacs sound clearly better is virtually inconceivable.

Something else is going on and it is almost certainly volume related. See if you can get your hands on a digital multi-meter and match the levels at the speaker terminals. A level matched comparison will certainly tell you what is what.

Inexpensive they may be but the irDac is the same price as the D 3020. I know DAC chips themselves are inexpensive but it's all about the implementation. I wouldn't say NAD got it wrong, the DAC is ok but they must have had some budget constraints to keep the amp price low.

Doubt it. The material cost of both products is mostly casework and power supplies, and the 'implementation' as you put it is minimal, its all on the chip.

The Nad probably benefits from much larger production numbers.

I know it takes a bit of effort, but a blind, level matched comparison will tell you all you need to know. Louder always auditions as better, you need to take that out of the equation.

Would NAD have larger production numbers than Arcam, equal enough I'd imagine.

I've extensively compared the DACs in the NAD, irdac and rblink. I've heard and own all three so I don't really have a bias. If I could simplify my system I'd be all for it. Even increasing the volume for the NAD dac it falls short of the arcam gear. Mainly it's soundstage that suffers and there is less detail and clarity too. Just sounds a bit closed in and flat. Casework is a cost factor I agree but power supply is an important factor in dac performance so I believe. If some of the increased cost is due to better power supply this could lead to better sound quality.

I am sure you are hearing what you say but the subconcious is so powerful in circumstances like this, that it is very dificult to overcome. For example, I tried the rDac in my setup and it sounded less good than my £25 Fiio, probably because I 'like' the Fiio as a product.

I am not saying you are wrong on this but subjective evaluations of this type are notoriously difficult, especially when, as in this case, any real differences are pretty tiny and you are matching volume by ear. Modern dac chips are so good that they are, to all intents and purposes, 'audibly transparent', for NAD to get it so wrong in the 'implimentation' would be very surprising, but stranger things have happened in hi-fi.

 

[Riggers79]

The d3020 white paper on their website suggests that they put a lot of effort in to the dac. It says it's a cirrus 114db 8 channel ic mixed to 2 channels to lower distortion etc. Anybody know the Dac chip they are talking about, in order to look into it. I suspect it's the same chip in d1050 and d7050 as well. Also whathifi review thinks it's as good as any £200 dac.

http://nadelectronics.com/download.php?131108130203-NAD_D3020_DigitalWhitePaper.pdf|D%203020%20Hybrid%20Digital%20Amplifier%20-%20White%20Paper

 

[npoguy]

I am pretty sure the quality of the dac in the D3020 is fine.

For NAD to get it wrong to the point that inexpensive outboard dacs sound clearly better is virtually inconceivable.

Something else is going on and it is almost certainly volume related. See if you can get your hands on a digital multi-meter and match the levels at the speaker terminals. A level matched comparison will certainly tell you what is what.

+1!

Inexpensive they may be but the irDac is the same price as the D 3020. I know DAC chips themselves are inexpensive but it's all about the implementation. I wouldn't say NAD got it wrong, the DAC is ok but they must have had some budget constraints to keep the amp price low.

Doubt it. The material cost of both products is mostly casework and power supplies, and the 'implementation' as you put it is minimal, its all on the chip.

The Nad probably benefits from much larger production numbers.

I know it takes a bit of effort, but a blind, level matched comparison will tell you all you need to know. Louder always auditions as better, you need to take that out of the equation.

Would NAD have larger production numbers than Arcam, equal enough I'd imagine.

I've extensively compared the DACs in the NAD, irdac and rblink. I've heard and own all three so I don't really have a bias. If I could simplify my system I'd be all for it. Even increasing the volume for the NAD dac it falls short of the arcam gear. Mainly it's soundstage that suffers and there is less detail and clarity too. Just sounds a bit closed in and flat. Casework is a cost factor I agree but power supply is an important factor in dac performance so I believe. If some of the increased cost is due to better power supply this could lead to better sound quality.

I am sure you are hearing what you say but the subconcious is so powerful in circumstances like this, that it is very dificult to overcome. For example, I tried the rDac in my setup and it sounded less good than my £25 Fiio, probably because I 'like' the Fiio as a product.

I am not saying you are wrong on this but subjective evaluations of this type are notoriously difficult, especially when, as in this case, any real differences are pretty tiny and you are matching volume by ear. Modern dac chips are so good that they are, to all intents and purposes, 'audibly transparent', for NAD to get it so wrong in the 'implimentation' would be very surprising, but stranger things have happened in hi-fi.

 

[Riggers79]

Hi, anybody compared the dac in this amp with audioquest dragon fly dac? I am not sure any standalone dac under $200 is going to be significantly better than the one in the amp. Thanks

 

[BigH]

That's interesting. Nad promotes it as having an excellent dac.

No surprise there, they are not going to say its rubbish are they?

 

[unsleepable]

That's interesting. Nad promotes it as having an excellent dac.

No surprise there, they are not going to say its rubbish are they?

Maybe if the DAC is really not top-notch, they could have also advertised it as a handy accessory feature instead of as a main one. Other amplifiers also have DACs and I think that the expectations are not so high as have been with the D 3020.

 

[Riggers79]

How much does one have to spend to get a better Dac than the one in the Nad and any suggestions on which ones would sound better. Thanks

 

[MaxD]

Hi,

I don't know what model the DAC chip in the NAD D3020 is but as DACs go it's not a very good one I've found personally. It's ok but a bit dull and flat sounding overall, needs volume a bit higher than normal to bring out detail. Also when connecting digital devices to the amp which will be processed by the NAD's built in DAC there is definately a noticeable drop in volume output versus connecting equipment to the amps analogue input.

I have connected an Arcam irDac to the amp via analogue and more recently an Arcam rBlink. Sound is fantastic using either of these and there is an approx 10db sound boost. Well worth getting an rblink and connecting via analogue. It's bluetooth betters that of the NAD's in terms of reliability of connection and the DAC is really good, not a million miles away from the irdac to be honest.

You can actually connect the rblink to the NAD via analogue and coaxial simultaneously and then flick between the inputs on the amp to do a sound comparision. The rblink DAC improvements become very apparent then.

Hi, I can quote this post 100 per 100. I also own and I used to be pretty satisfy about the NAD D 3020 and his DAC. Then, for portable reasons (get hi-fi from my laptop and iPad) I bought a AudioQuest DragonFly 1.2 USB DAC. FANTASTIC little device, it has a ESS Sabre chip, many said it is the best DAC chip in the businness, and yes I can confirm it is very, very good myself.

Just for test purposes, I connected the DragonFly to one of the analog inputs of my NAD D 3020 via one of my USB ports on my desktop system, and, what a big surprise, this sound a lot strong, detailed and better compared to the internal NAD DAC chip.

Don't get me wrong: the NAD chip is ok, then the sound with the DragonFly is simply to another level, like 10db stronger, more detailed, more open.

It sound exactly (it means very good) like analog inputs of my NAD sounds when connected to CD with a good transport and DAC, or like when I listen my 10,000 pieces record collection using my Pro-Ject Debut Carbon via Pro-Ject Box phono preamp.

I can hear the difference in sound between the DragonFly and the NAD DAC clearly and, yes, now I do use the DragonFly all the time on my desktop system too, and my listening pleasure is a lot improved. Sadly cables from my desktop are now growing too, so I will really prefer to stick with integrated NAD DAC.

Example: buy the new high definition Led Zeppelin I II III from HDtracks.com and play them via integrated DAC and via DragonFly 1.2 DAC: there is no comparison, it is another level of quality, the output you can listen from the DragonFly is emoionally incomparable to the honest listen offered by NAD DAC.

So I hope too, NAD will rething the DAC chip for them next D 3020 revision or so.

 

[jonw1]

Can someone explain the significance of a DAC to me? For example I read in What HiFi's review that this NAD is a very versatile amp because it has a built in DAC that facilitates connection to a pc. Then I read comments from others saying they have a USB DAC etc etc. For years I have listened to music from my pc by simply connecting a cable with a 3.5mm stereo plug on one end and a pair of standard hifi connectors on the other end. Plug one end into the line out socket on your sound card and the other end into the aux in of any amplifier. No need for DAC, USB soundcard, network streamer or anything else.

I can barely hear the difference but if you want better sound quality simply load the original CD into your CD player of choice and away you go. Or am I missing something?

Thanks

 

[MaxD]

I can barely hear the difference but if you want better sound quality simply load the original CD into your CD player of choice and away you go. Or am I missing something?

I think it is OT here, then you missed a lot in sound quality. You can find many resources on the web related with the subject: basically a DAC is a better sound card compared to the one inside your pc offering, generally speaking, a really better sound quality from your high quality audio files.

If you buy a DAC and interface your pc with it using USB port (better asyncronous USB port) you could get cd quality from your audio files, even better if you get high resolution audio files (96K or even more).

Google is your friend for more.

 

[ID.]

Just for test purposes, I connected the DragonFly to one of the analog inputs of my NAD D 3020 via one of my USB ports on my desktop system, and, what a big surprise, this sound a lot strong, detailed and better compared to the internal NAD DAC chip.

Don't get me wrong: the NAD chip is ok, then the sound with the DragonFly is simply to another level, like 10db stronger, more detailed, more open.

I'm sure it is a good little DAC, but what the?

If this is in fact the difference, have you tried comparing the 2 DACs with the volume matched? The way humans perceive sound, more volume will always sound better. It will give the perception of more detail, bass, more open, etc., etc.

Not having heard either, I wouldn't venture to say which is better, although my guess would be the dragonfly. To be honest, I'm not sure the specific DAC chip used makes much of a difference, and the main differences are more likely to be down to the circuit design and analogue sections of the DAC. I would also like to put forward the Asahi Kasei AK4396 chip as a candidate for the "leading DAC chip" award

 

[MaxD]

Just for test purposes, I connected the DragonFly to one of the analog inputs of my NAD D 3020 via one of my USB ports on my desktop system, and, what a big surprise, this sound a lot strong, detailed and better compared to the internal NAD DAC chip.

Don't get me wrong: the NAD chip is ok, then the sound with the DragonFly is simply to another level, like 10db stronger, more detailed, more open.

I'm sure it is a good little DAC, but what the?

If this is in fact the difference, have you tried comparing the 2 DACs with the volume matched? The way humans perceive sound, more volume will always sound better. It will give the perception of more detail, bass, more open, etc., etc.

Not having heard either, I wouldn't venture to say which is better, although my guess would be the dragonfly. To be honest, I'm not sure the specific DAC chip used makes much of a difference, and the main differences are more likely to be down to the circuit design and analogue sections of the DAC. I would also like to put forward the Asahi Kasei AK4396 chip as a candidate for the "leading DAC chip" award

Yep same level of volume, DragonFly 1.2 sound like I said more open, more confident, more stronger in the sense of perceived music informations. And IMHO the chip is pretty much all, it has everything on board, when we speak about DACs. The rest are just interface and connections.

Then I agree with you, it is needed a volume level allowing you to perceive all the details to appreciate the difference between the two DACs, IMHO, BTW.

Then, NAD DAC is still pretty much fine for general speaking use. So the NAD D 3020 as an overall innovative product remain IMHO super fine piece of hardware.

 

[Marsbardark]

Most DAC chips cost about £10-15, but they always high quality and are always the main selling point in products costing anything from £25 to a grand or more.

 

[barcuri]

I agree completly. The sound of any input that passes through to the DAC sounds totaly flat .

I've even connected my source's digital out to my Vizio TV and used the cheap TV DAC to connect to the Analog input on the D3020... ..it sounds worlds better than the digital inputs. I can swap between optical and analog easily for comparison.

You're thinking that there's no way that the TV dac can sound that much better than the D3020 dac... but yes it does.

On the analog input the kick is way stonger (in a live way), the mids are so open, the highs are crisp.. the DAC muffles the sound and has a much lower volume. ( yes, I've leveled the volume for testing )

I can't underscore enough that there's a noticable difference. I've blind tested friends that are not audio saavy, and they easily notice.

Having said that... with anything connected to the analog input, the sound is fantastic. It's like the intruments are bursting from inside the speaker cabinets. I encourage anyone to try it... Get some Chuck Mangione and listen to the trumpets.

My speakers are Wharfedale 10.4