NAD C 3050 Integrated Amplifier Review

[tomtoo]

But it got meters

//

uhh i lost

 

[Old_School_Brad]

Hey all, I'm the user that let Amir borrow the amp for testing. A newcomer to the hobby, I was looking for a more elegant (ie, consolidated) solution to listen to vinyl and streaming than what I currently have:

-Two Fosi V3 monoblocks
-Fosi P4 pre-amp
-Cambridge Alva Duo
-Fosi DS2 DAC
-Klipsch Heresy III pair

I've seen some comments on here that talk about how easy it would be to go for a Fosi stack for half the price of the NAD, but it's maddening that half of their gear doesn't come with trigger connections. For someone who geeks out on stuff and is willing to go through a certain amount of trouble if there is a reasonable return, I can deal. But I also need ease-of-use so that the rest of my family can easily enjoy the stereo.

All-in-all, I kind of guessed this is about how the amp would score. Integrated's never seem to test amazing, and I might have guessed that NAD would be counting on the looks of the amp to be the thing that moves these units. But on the flip-side of the coin, it kind of does it all, and does it well enough. BlueSound is a fine solution for wireless streaming to different areas of the house, especially with SONOS shitting the bed and Yamaha kind of flubbing MusicCast. All that being said, I do have a Yamaha R-N800 on the way to test out in-home before I make my final solution (and saving a few hundred bucks ain't so bad either).

I think I'd be happy with either of those amplifiers, but if anyone has another recommendation that has phono, a DAC, can stream via AirPlay, has sub-out, HDMI e-Arc and has whole-home streaming ecosystem available, while testing better than the C3050, I'm all ears. Being easy on the eyes doesn't hurt either (though that's all a matter of personal taste).

Cheers,

Gabe

And it does exactly what it’s meant to -flawlessly. All in one sleek box, with everything built in, just like an integrated amplifier was originally meant to do: to bring all your gear together.

-It doesn’t top the SINAD charts -oh well, that doesn't really matter anyway.
-It’s not a powerhouse in terms of raw wattage -but if you don’t need that, it’s a non-issue.

I completely understand why people go for this NAD amplifier.
Happy listening, and thanks for sending it in!

 

[amirm]

However, I'm confused by your recommendation as your site is dedicated to uncovering products that exhibit great engineering at an affordable price.

I have two levels of recommendation: good enough and great. This is the former. Objective performance beats the average of all amplifiers tested and has nice feature set. Hard for me to say "pass."

 

[Yersinia Bestmate]

Old Nad C320BEE measures better, albeit it has less power and other features. Bypassing the preamp and feeding the power amp section separately gave SINAD of 95dB and 90dB with the preamp section in the signal path.

I kind of expected better from 3050 but then again I think this is in line with the performance of Hypex UcD amps.

 

[amirm]

With mass market products, our only hope sadly is that they do slightly better than average. With some rare exceptions, this is as good as they are going to do until they wake up and see the competition that is developing around them.

 

[pma]

Strange product, just oriented to retro design.

 

[DanielT]

Strange product, just oriented to retro design.

Or you could say strange demand.

Retro koko craze or "HiFi was so much more beautiful in the past. Because of that, let's now create a retro" craze. Koko or beautiful (maybe both)?
That is a matter of taste. But this retro vintage craze exists, so of course, Hifi manufacturers will do their best to satisfy that demand.

 

[solderdude]

@amirm.. Can you determine the output resistance from the headphone out.
It is never in the specs (also not in this case) and as is often the case with integrated 2CH gear the headphone out is just the speaker out with 1 or 2 resistors in its path.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

Or you could say strange demand.

Retro koko craze or "HiFi was so much more beautiful in the past. Because of that, let's now create a retro" craze. Koko or beautiful (maybe both)?
That is a matter of taste. But this retro vintage craze exists, so of course, Hifi manufacturers will do their best to satisfy that demand.

It's a budget piece wrapped in a sleek enclosure. It doesn’t do anything wrong or offend anyone, but it’s clearly designed to catch the eye of those with a soft spot for retro aesthetics.
NAD could’ve hit a powerful home run by simply dusting off the amplification section of the C375BEE and put it in the same box.

 

[shuppatsu]

I’d love to own this amp but I’d hate to pay for it. The measurements are fine for me for my non-discriminating ear. The price is crazy to me, as a Wiim amp owner. Oddly the streamer/dirac add on card seems like a comparative bargain at $500.

The styling doesn’t do it for me. The front plate looks fine, though I prefer Yamaha or Pioneer retro styling. The fake wood might be period-correct, but that’s only because nobody had any money in the 70s!

 

[DanielT]

It's a budget piece wrapped in a sleek enclosure. It doesn’t do anything wrong or offend anyone, but it’s clearly designed to catch the eye of those with a soft spot for retro aesthetics.
NAD could’ve hit a powerful home run by simply dusting off the amplification section of the C375BEE and put it in the same box.

Regarding NAD C375BEE. Then it would also have been retro on the inside since that was a class AB amplifier.

Nothing wrong with class D, quite the opposite, but why Hypex UCD? As others in the thread have pointed out, for example @daniboun in#25 We're not going to lie, for $1600, the Hypex UCDs are outdated.

 

[Scrivs]

Performance is "fine," however, as a total package, I can totally see the appeal. Quite a compelling device that should satisfy the vast majority of owners. I'd be happy with it. Happier if, say an 200AS2 took the place of the UCD board.
Does the $1500 include the middling add-on module?

 

[ZolaIII]

Performance is "fine," however, as a total package, I can totally see the appeal. Quite a compelling device that should satisfy the vast majority of owners. I'd be happy with it. Happier if, say an 200AS2 took the place of the UCD board.
Does the $1500 include the middling add-on module?

Yes you can catch amplifier alone for little more than 1000$ on discount.

 

[Randolf]

@amirm, thanks a lot for this review. Could you add a residual noise measurement / power on/off noise for the C3050. I have so many problems with my similar C 389 (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...89-residual-noise-and-first-experience.60161/) regarding this and still issues with its headphone amplifier. My assumption would be the C3050 is also a bad choice for high sensitivity speakers unfortunately. Especially the manufacturer "Signal-To-Noise Ratio >95db (A-weighted, 500mV input, ref 1W out in 8 ohms)" spec looks very suspicious to me (might be 8-10 db worse I guess).

 

[milosz]

All you need to do to increase the likelihood that Amir will recommend your amplifier is put meters on it. Very scientific!

 

[mags65]

I think I'd be happy with either of those amplifiers, but if anyone has another recommendation that has phono, a DAC, can stream via AirPlay, has sub-out, HDMI e-Arc and has whole-home streaming ecosystem available, while testing better than the C3050, I'm all ears. Being easy on the eyes doesn't hurt either (though that's all a matter of personal taste).

Cheers,

Gabe

If you can live without Airplay:

 

[telemike]

Wow, only 44.1/16 for the ADC conversion? My WiiM Ultra does 192/24 for the analog conversion.

 

[gwing]

Wow, only 44.1/16 for the ADC conversion? My WiiM Ultra does 192/24 for the analog conversion.

The question really is how good the ADC conversion is, and good ADC converters were expensive last time I looked.

The actual bitrate you convert to really isn't important and isn't how to judge things. Even 44.1/16 is likely to outperform your ADC.

 

[Ropeburn]

The question really is how good the ADC conversion is, and good ADC converters were expensive last time I looked.

The actual bitrate you convert to really isn't important and isn't how to judge things. Even 44.1/16 is likely to outperform your ADC.

Last time I checked, good 2496 ADCs were cheap 25 years ago, and still are. That's not it.

 

[gwing]

Last time I checked, good 2496 ADCs were cheap 25 years ago, and still are. That's not it.

2496 has nothing to do with the quality of an ADC. Not unless you are claiming you get 24 bits of actual resolution from the ADC?

The useful specification to look for here in an ADC is I think it's dynamic range. Then you know how many bits you need to represent its signal. Which is usually rather less than 24