NAD C 3050 Integrated Amplifier Review

[DanielT]

Thanks for the test Amir.
Like many I suspect, I started out with a NAD 3020 amplifier, and have fond memories.
The recommendation seems quite generous though.
I expected better things from NAD, this is worse than an AVR, and that's saying something.
"Not terrible"

A trip down memory lane perhaps:

Amplifier NAD 3020 measurements from Stereo Review: 1979

Due to the discussion about NAD 3020 in this thread: https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/does-the-amplifier-amplify-the-noise.30106/page-2 .., I thought it would fit with a separate thread. If you had a NAD 3020 then what did you think of that amplifier? The NAD 3020 is a...

audiosciencereview.com

For 1600$ ? Nothing to write home about.

I was just going to say, but TNT has already said:

But it got meters

//

Plus various nice features.

By the way, my vintage 70 watt Luxor amp has dual VU meters. If it's going to be vintage, it has to be real vintage.
(Vintage, which may be in need of re-cap, service and general care., Plus maybe not top notch modern performance and so on but I'll leave that aside.)
Not mine in the picture, but that model:

_____
Thanks for the test Amir.

 

[DanielT]

There are not that many stereo amplifiers that include a viable room-correction system, so I can understand that for people who are in the market for a traditional integrated amp this is an interesting option. Combined with the '70s esthetics (add some Wharfdale Lintons) you end up with (kind of) SotA technology and hip vintage looks. I can see the attraction.

It is very likely that the combination you mention is what creates the appeal of the NAD C 3050.

You mention Wharfedale. There, the NAD C 3050 will compete with the retro-vintage-looking amp Leak 230. You can even see that the wooden frame of the speakers and amplifier look the same. They are also part of the same group, International Audio Group (IAG), so it is likely that there is a design mindset that is common between the brands.


https://iaggroup.com/

Leak Stereo 230 integrated amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com

Sidebar 3: Measurements I measured a different sample of the Leak Stereo 230, serial number LH000805CFD1195, than the one RS had auditioned. I performed the measurements using my Audio Precision SYS2722 system. I preconditioned the Stereo 230 by following the CEA's recommendation of running it...

www.stereophile.com

___
Sorry for the OT, back to NAD C 3050.

 

[Koeitje]

It's rather disappointing that NAD can't beat their own budget integrated amplifier from 20 years ago:

View attachment 442609

I know it's not an entirely apple to apples comparison, this newer amp has a fair few additional features, but none the less.

THE C320BEE is the reason I consider ~90dB SINAD (with other measurements being up to par) the minimum for any amplifier. Because it was an entry level amplifier that even I could afford on a student budget. 80dB SINAD with the analog input, which gets digitized for some reason, is just not good enough.

 

[Fleuch]

Less NAD, more NAH, or "no way, not for me" at that price - and likely having to pay for extras like the Blue-OS board.

 

[daniboun]

We're not going to lie, for $1600, the Hypex UCDs are outdated....

 

[JeremyFife]

Many thanks for the review Amirm. This is an attractive (in a retro style) amp from a mainstream manufacturer and I was expecting good things.

It's a bit underwhelming especially, as has been said, that it drops power in the low frequencies. Well featured and if you add the optional Dirac that will probably make a big difference. Ultimately, struggling to see the value.

 

[DoctorRobert]

It is very likely that the combination you mention is what creates the appeal of the NAD C 3050.

You mention Wharfedale. There, the NAD C 3050 will compete with the retro-vintage-looking amp Leak 230. You can even see that the wooden frame of the speakers and amplifier look the same. They are also part of the same group, International Audio Group (IAG), so it is likely that there is a design mindset that is common between the brands.
View attachment 442641View attachment 442642View attachment 442643

https://iaggroup.com/

Leak Stereo 230 integrated amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com

Sidebar 3: Measurements I measured a different sample of the Leak Stereo 230, serial number LH000805CFD1195, than the one RS had auditioned. I performed the measurements using my Audio Precision SYS2722 system. I preconditioned the Stereo 230 by following the CEA's recommendation of running it...

www.stereophile.com

___
Sorry for the OT, back to NAD C 3050.

I agree that for looks the Leak is a good (and cheaper from the top of my head) option. My point was more that the combination of vintage esthetics and room correction is kind of rare. Personally, I would trade room-correction easily for 20dB SINAD; I know I can tell room-correction, as for the difference between 90 and 70dB I am not so sure.

But as always YMMV.

 

[DanielT]

We're not going to lie, for $1600, the Hypex UCDs are outdated....

In that case, perhaps NAD should have gone more the classic route and instead chosen a class AB solution, like this one, C320BEE (not as much power though):
(or a better class D solution would have been possible to choose/design the amp on)

THE C320BEE is the reason I consider ~90dB SINAD (with other measurements being up to par) the minimum for any amplifier. Because it was an entry level amplifier that even I could afford on a student budget. 80dB SINAD with the analog input, which gets digitized for some reason, is just not good enough.

Sounds like a reasonable way to look at amplifiers.

 

[diddley]

Well i am dissapointed really hoped for a great review but it is not delivering.
Thanks Amir for your time and effort, highly appreciated!

 

[roog]

Hypex, it's stated in the review:

So it does, my bad on my speed skim through!

 

[aschen]

Really fantastic and uncommon feature set here. I think it really appeals to audio enthusiast trying to make a second or low form factor system with full functionality. Wish the Execution was a bit better but probably good enough.

I tried to figure out if there is a high pass filter available when using the SW out. couldent find anything in the marketing material. Why is this such a rare thing in 2.1 receivers, seems almost mandatory to run subs?

 

[Vuki]

Frequency power sweeps show what I stated before regarding more or less constant distortion+noise:
View attachment 442604

Have we seen this with UCd amps before?

IIRC all Ucds are like that up to ca. 3/4 full power.

 

[mhardy6647]

The top and surrounds have a vinyl wrap which looks decent from far but has a real plasticky feel which is a major departure from the vintage look they are going after.

As an old guy, I feel compelled to note that the vinyl ('Contact Paper' -- for my generation ) cladding is very period-authentic!

The big-name Japanese brands of the mid to late 70s excelled at foisting pretty respectable looking faux wood finishes on their customers. I didn't know for decades that my much-beloved (still) Yamaha CA-610II had vinyl frosting and not actual veneer!



This scan of a not-terribly-good 1979 35 mm film photo of the aforementioned Yamaha doesn't do justice to its Ersatzwalnut cladding.

One had to get into pretty straospherically-priced "midfi" components from the big-name brands to get actual veneer (e.g., the Pioneer SX-1050 seen below). I think that the pretty much as-expensive (EDIT: actually, probably even more expensive) Yamaha CR-2020 next to is vinyl'd!




The vinyl on the midlevel Japanese components of that era went to pretty great lengths to look plausibly lignified, so to speak. The Yamahas, e.g., have little pseudo-random 'striations' in the surface texture resembling an actual piece of actual wood. The stuff even looks presentable 50 years on -- unlike the truly chintzy Contact Paper-grade vinyl that was de rigieurer on the myriad cheap (and some not-so-cheap) American-made monkey coffin loudspeakers of the same era! That stuff has, mostly, developed an icky, sticky patina after the passage of a half-century that is hard to remove but also hard to ignore.

 

[JDS]

No go for me because I would get better performance setting up a non-integrated chain of DAC/pre/power amp by Fosi at roughly half the price. It is too early in the morning to be more specific w Fosi chain. Interconnects between each, ASR show, do not need to be expensive anymore…Thank you Amir for this impeccable review!

Agreed, which is kind of amusing because one of the traditional arguments in favor of integrated amps/receivers was the cost efficiencies from putting multiple functions in a single box.

 

[mhardy6647]

For 1600$ ? Nothing to write home about.

I see what you're gettin' at -- but to look at the price from a different perspective.
Let's compare the "original" NAD integrated amplifiers (all analog, linear P/S, etc.) in terms of price.
Because I am lazy I just used the US BLS CPI inflation calculator backwards to the year 1975 (realizing that the NAD amplifiers that inspired this model came a few years later, and inflation was rampant in those days*).

As a comparator (from my own hifi shopping history): In 1978, an Onkyo A-5 integrated amplifier (45 wpc) was $270, and the aforementioned Yamaha CA-610II (45 wpc @ 0.05% THD, 20 - 20kHz per "FTC '74") was $290. As my previous post strongly implies -- I bought one of the latter.

In other words, this NAD doesn't seem outrageously priced in 2025 CE as assessed by this one, only slightly arbitrary metric.

 

[ZolaIII]

@mhardy6647 do the same comparation today with Yamaha R-N 1000A and you will see how this NAD is bad. If you really, really want VU meter get a Fosi one and tie it to stage B output.

 

[billou5767]

Agreed. I would have considered an NAD C 3050 if the retro aesthetic was accomplished with a veneer of wood instead of plastic.

metal paint

 

[mhardy6647]

The funny thing is, most of the NADs I remember from those days had painted metal cabinets. They were (in general) low-ish priced, high-ish value products in those days!
The reliability of the 1970s and 80s NADs -- and this is wholly empirical (nay, anecdotal!) -- was kind of iffy, and perhaps not coincidentally.


EDIT: as long as I am at the bleeding edge of on-topic posts to this review -- some days I kinda, sorta wish I'd have hung on to the NAD 7155 I picked up from the 'swap pile at the good ol' Harvard, MA "transfer station" (= dump... more or less) many years back. Nothing was wrong with it but dirty controls (one of the very few NAD pieces I ever found that worked as found), but, boy howdy, was disassembly to get at those controls a pain.

 

[billou5767]

We're not going to lie, for $1600, the Hypex UCDs are outdated....

its 1100E in france sometime

 

[billou5767]

THE C320BEE is the reason I consider ~90dB SINAD (with other measurements being up to par) the minimum for any amplifier. Because it was an entry level amplifier that even I could afford on a student budget. 80dB SINAD with the analog input, which gets digitized for some reason, is just not good enough.

yamaha 202D = 230 e new sometimes