• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

NAD C 399 HybridDigital DAC Amplifier

I know this may seem like a crazy comparison but how would something like a Aiyima a70 compare to this?, I was recommended one to use with the LS50 Meta (near-field) and I don't know which route to take, £169 vs £1399 is a big difference if you don't need the extra features of the NAD (which I don't), would you be able to tell the difference in a blind test?
 
On a c399 without Dirac and playing at lower volumes, I think it will be very tough to tell.

Ive ordered a Fosi BT20 Pro for a secondary system, Im very curious to find out how it will power some Dali 3003 speakers. If im impressed I will try the amp on my main Kef R3's

Side note, why didn't you buy the LS50 Wireless?
 
Esque said:
On a c399 without Dirac and playing at lower volumes, I think it will be very tough to tell.

Ive ordered a Fosi BT20 Pro for a secondary system, Im very curious to find out how it will power some Dali 3003 speakers. If im impressed I will try the amp on my main Kef R3's

Side note, why didn't you buy the LS50 Wireless?
Click to expand...

I wanted at least RCA input on LS50 W II, ideally XLR, I want to be able to use my own DAC and Pre-Amp, I'm not happy using AUX jack, that is a downgrade, on the LS50 W II they dropped the RCA and USB!, I just don't understand why they did that, two of the most important inputs and they ditch them, it's like they just want the LS50 W II used as a TV/Entertainment speaker rather than a PC nearfield speaker monitor, but then I guess that appeals more to the mainstream.
 
There's no point in using your own DAC. The LS50W will convert it to digital, to analog again anyway.

A usb interface with coax output will set you back 30 bucks, not really an issue either.

I too would prefer RCA's and a USB input. However I'd still go with the wireless instead of using DACs, Pre's, power amps, etc. Especially for a desktop setup.
 
Esque said:
There's no point in using your own DAC. The LS50W will convert it to digital, to analog again anyway.

A usb interface with coax output will set you back 30 bucks, not really an issue either.

I too would prefer RCA's and a USB input. However I'd still go with the wireless instead of using DACs, Pre's, power amps, etc. Especially for a desktop setup.
Click to expand...

I understand that but I already have a nice DAC I'd like to use (Chord Qutest and Violectric V550 preamp), I'm not happy with Kef dropping the USB and RCA so they are not getting my money on that product, the pre-amp is a headphone amp also so it's not taking up any extra room.

I'll just grab an A70 and see how it fairs.
 
Another one to add to the list of issues. When sending a 192khz signal to de NAD c399, the unit switches its input to Blu-OS. And fails to play any sound through its digital inputs. Has to power cycle before operating normal again.
 
Good morning.

I need to buy a new amplifier.

I am interested in the Nad 399 but I read that it has several problems..... I already had one a few years ago, it had a good sound and good dynamics/power, but I remember the audio connection via HDMI never worked (I don't know if they have solved it now).

As an alternative I am evaluating the new Audiolab 9000P and 9000Q system.

Do you think that these new Audiolab products can be compared in quality to the 399?

I am not interested in Diract, it would be very marginal for my use.
Thank you very much.
 
Hi Alexx, I was considering the C399 and decided against it because of the issues I read about and due to the quality of the phono stage. Instead I put a system together with the Node Icon, Fosi X5, and Buckeye Purifi. You could save ~$500 USD by replacing the Purifi with the Hypex 252 (same amp that's in the C399). Another option I considered was the Cambridge Evo150 (but decided against because it's a little more expensive, and I did want Dirac).

I have no experience with Audiolab. Hope that helps.
 
@sapphari

Thank you very much for your reply.

In fact I don't understand why "Nad" several years after the marketing of this product has not yet solved well-known problems reported by many owners ... another oddity is the double speaker output that is actually always active on both outputs -:)

Otherwise it would have been a perfect machine, Power, Dynamics, Neutral sound tone etc. (all qualities that I look for).

The options could become infinite, Audiolab for my needs could have everything, in particular the possibility in the future of being able to add another final stage to make it become a dual mono doubling the power.

I have sold many electrics, even Evo 150 is within the budget but I have no idea if in terms of quality it can be compared to the 399.
I'll think about it a bit and let you know.
Thank you very much.
 
Alexx said:
another oddity is the double speaker output that is actually always active on both outputs
Click to expand...
Additional speaker switching increases the output impedance of the amplifier!
Bi-Wiring optimized ;)
 
I just looked at the Audiolab options and realized you also don't want streaming capability. That was another requirement for me (and hence why I was looking at the Evo150). The Evo150 has a nice phono stage if that's something you'll use. I've heard it and was impressed.
 
Thanks guys.

The only problem is the double speaker output that is not separated and if you use two pairs of speakers and you want to exclude one when necessary.

The streamer must absolutely have a display for this reason I could use wiim ultra combined with Audiolab.

The Nad 399 has a display that is too small and difficult to read.

Having an "All in One" device would certainly be more practical and I agree with your choice of the Cambridge Evo 150, this device has practically everything you need!

It would be interesting to make a direct comparison between the Evo 150 and the Nad C399, if they are comparable in terms of performance and quality the Cambridge would be a 100% winner (even on Audiolab).

Has any user had the opportunity to compare them?
Thank you very much.
 
@sapphari
Thank you so much for the link.

Very technical review (too much for me) but it seems to me that the Nad 399 is decidedly superior to the Cambridge 150, right?

If they could fix those little problems it has with a software update, that would be great!
Thanks again.
 
One of the major differences I recall was that the phono stage in the Evo150 is notably better. I don't remember any of the other specs differing significantly between the two, but it's been a while since I've looked closely.
 
I’m trying to find out which DAC is actually used in the NAD C399. Everywhere I look, it says it features the ESS Sabre ES9028. However, according to esstech.com, there are only two versions: the ES9028Q2M and the ES9028PRO. Does anyone know which one is actually inside the C399?

Additionally, is newer always better? How does the DAC in the C399 compare to the ESS ES9039Q2M SABRE used in the new Bluesound Node (N132)? I’d like to understand which one performs better and whether I should go for the Node or the BluOS module for the C399.

Edit: Based on the ESS datasheet stating “32-bit / 384 kHz ESS,” I assume it is the ES9028Q2M. Right?
 
xnyzer said:
I’m trying to find out which DAC is actually used in the NAD C399. Everywhere I look, it says it features the ESS Sabre ES9028. However, according to esstech.com, there are only two versions: the ES9028Q2M and the ES9028PRO. Does anyone know which one is actually inside the C399?

Additionally, is newer always better? How does the DAC in the C399 compare to the ESS ES9039Q2M SABRE used in the new Bluesound Node (N132)? I’d like to understand which one performs better and whether I should go for the Node or the BluOS module for the C399.

Edit: Based on the ESS datasheet stating “32-bit / 384 kHz ESS,” I assume it is the ES9028Q2M. Right?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter which chip it uses. There will be no difference in the sound

www.audiosciencereview.com

Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?

I know there are people out there that think cables affect sound, which is much worse, but there really is no response to something like that, but just to smile and nod. But what about people who talk about DACS as if they were headphone drivers or speakers, and talk about the SOUNDSTAGE...
www.audiosciencereview.com www.audiosciencereview.com
 
Il Nad 3050 potrebbe essere anche lontanamente paragonabile al Nad 399?

È sicuramente più nuovo, ma ha meno potenza.
Grazie.
 
Alexx said:
Il Nad 3050 potrebbe essere anche lontanamente paragonabile al Nad 399?

È sicuramente più nuovo, ma ha meno potenza.
Grazie.
Click to expand...
Please repost in English . Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
NAD C 389 residual noise and first experience
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Randolf
R
amirm
  • Poll
NAD C 3050 Integrated Amplifier Review
6 7 8
Replies
148
Views
26K
westsail42
W
K
NAD CI Series Announced
Replies
2
Views
607
nick-v
nick-v
X
Upgrading AVR with good stereo sound and music streaming
Replies
2
Views
1K
ZCD
ZCD
amirm
  • Poll
NAD C 316BEE V2 Integrated Amplifier Review
6 7 8
Replies
159
Views
71K
neilbardsley
N
Back
Top Bottom