NAD C298 Stereo Amplifier Review

[Julf]

Among other things, you can read about the differences to off-the-shelf modules here: Link

All I can find is the claim "We channel-match the Left and Right modules to be as close as possible". That could mean pretty much anything. No other confirmation of your claims. Vendor claims are not evidence anyway.

 

[pogo]

The input circuit has also been adapted.
...they manufacture the Class D module and don’t simply just buy it directly from PuriFi. This allows them some leeway with regards to matching with their custom designed input stage.

 

[BDWoody]

Yes, this has been described independently in several tests, including here: Link

Any with more than anecdotal claims?

 

[Julf]

The input circuit has also been adapted.
...they manufacture the Class D module and don’t simply just buy it directly from PuriFi. This allows them some leeway with regards to matching with their custom designed input stage.

Again, "matching" might mean pretty much anything - like adding or changing one resistor or even just a suitable cable or connector.

 

[ahofer]

Yes, this has been described independently in several tests, including here: Link

This is just the usual sighted blather. I said “hear” not “see”.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The layout is identical, but they are within tighter tolerances and are matched. This is a prerequisite for a well-functioning bridge-mode.

Yup but not all the NADs are suitable.

 

[Fa11en.Universe]

I've got NAD 375Bee and I like how it sounds.
I'm wondering, will I have overall sound improvement, I mean, more bass and low volume quality sound, If I use my 375Bee as pre amp and C298 power amp?
It should power Canton Ergo RC/L floorstadning speakers, 4 Ohm, 89db sensitivity.
NAD 375BEE:

• Continuous power (at distortion factor) - 4/8 Ohm: 2 x 150 Watt
• Peak power: 2 x 250 / 410 / 600 W IHF at 8 / 4 / 2 Ω.

NAD C298:

• 185W x 2 Rated Output Power into 8 Ohms
• 340W x 2 Rated Output Power into 4 Ohms
• Stereo Dynamic Power 260/490/570W @ 8/4/2 Ohms

 

[Julf]

The NAD C298 is known for offering a bit of a dulled bass response.

Known by whom? Known how? Does "dulled" perhaps mean neutral and accurate instead of emphasized?

 

[JeremyFife]

The NAD C298 is known for offering a bit of a dulled bass response. I wouldn't expect it to sound much different. If you are looking for more impactful bass I would try the RME ADI-2 DAC FS "Loudness" control. It offers custom bass EQ and the ability to taper EQ as volume rises. It's the one tool I found that works great for making music sound just the way you want it.

You connect a notebook to the ADI-2 via USB to initially dial in the exact sound you are looking for while playing your favorite music. This is done using the ADI-2 Remote software. Once settings are adjusted you can turn the "Loudness" feature On/Off with the remote to easily hear the difference.

You won't get this type of sound control by adding an amp. People try to change hardware to enhance their sound quite often but they're much better served with a tool like ADI-Remote which is designed to do the job and offers unequaled customization. Want more bass? You decide where while hearing the change as it's made. Want to make the treble sound more forward? That's an option too. Decisive control and the ability to change preferences at any time. Different speakers can use different settings to enhance the sound to meet your parameters. Once you try it, you get hooked on the vast options provided by this tool.

View attachment 411679

That NAD is flat across the frequency range with no issues in the lower frequencies ... where does 'dull' come from?

NAD C298 Stereo Amplifier Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of NAD C298 stereo class D power amplifier based on Purifi Eigentakt modules. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $2,399. The unit is quite heavy for a class D amplifier. The front is plain as most power amps are. I was not a fan of the...

audiosciencereview.com

 

[nick-v]

 

[Fa11en.Universe]

The NAD C298 is known for offering a bit of a dulled bass response. I wouldn't expect it to sound much different. If you are looking for more impactful bass I would try the RME ADI-2 DAC FS "Loudness" control. It offers custom bass EQ and the ability to taper EQ as volume rises. It's the one tool I found that works great for making music sound just the way you want it.

You connect a notebook to the ADI-2 via USB to initially dial in the exact sound you are looking for while playing your favorite music. This is done using the ADI-2 Remote software. Once settings are adjusted you can turn the "Loudness" feature On/Off with the remote to easily hear the difference.

You won't get this type of sound control by adding an amp. People try to change hardware to enhance their sound quite often but they're much better served with a tool like ADI-Remote which is designed to do the job and offers unequaled customization. Want more bass? You decide where while hearing the change as it's made. Want to make the treble sound more forward? That's an option too. Decisive control and the ability to change preferences at any time. Different speakers can use different settings to enhance the sound to meet your parameters. Once you try it, you get hooked on the vast options provided by this tool.

View attachment 411679

Thx for this information, but my music source are vinyl, CD and streaming. Moreover, I already have Wiim Ultra, where I can adjust EQ parameters.
However, I'm curious, will it be a step-up in overall sound quality from my class A/B NAD 375BEE to preamp+power amp NAD C298, class D.
I also have different several pairs of floorstanding speakers, Canton, Elac, where matched require power is 200-350 Watt per channel, so I guess, there will no problem to power them up with C298.

 

[NHL99]

Thx for this information, but my music source are vinyl, CD and streaming. Moreover, I already have Wiim Ultra, where I can adjust EQ parameters.
However, I'm curious, will it be a step-up in overall sound quality from my class A/B NAD 375BEE to preamp+power amp NAD C298, class D.
I also have different several pairs of floorstanding speakers, Canton, Elac, where matched require power is 200-350 Watt per channel, so I guess, there will no problem to power them up with C298.

Go for an audition! You will not listen to diagrams.

 

[Fa11en.Universe]

Go for an audition! You will not listen to diagrams.

If I could - I will. But in my country, there is no possible way to listen to it, unfortunately

 

[Julf]

Go for an audition! You will not listen to diagrams.

Sounds like a typical audiophile article of faith. This is not an audiophile forum, there is actually the word "Science" in the name. Diagrams probably tell you much more than any sighted, uncontrolled listening.

 

[roog]

RME "Loudness" feature can give you the same dynamic bass thump and excitement at normal volume levels as when playing loudly.

Absolutely, its not like the 'loudness button' on amps of old, I was initially skeptical, but was quickly won over, its is very effective.

 

[mike70]

Go for an audition! You will not listen to diagrams.

no, you listen to sound pressure levels at different frequencies generated by the speakers (higher distortion component in the audio chain), heavily modified by the room acoustics.
the "diagrams" shows you the REAL performance of the amplifier, without any modification as mentioned earlier ... so you can use your ears or the "diagrams" to understand the behaviour of the amplifier.

if you use the scientific, rational method, to talk about the amplifier, you use the diagrams.
using your ears is a lottery (generally aka "sinergy"), when the audio components in series with the room sounds "as you want".

i prefer the scientific method to choose the components and the use of acoustics / EQ to adjust the performance to "what i want".
you can take your decision, as you see, in the end both methods use the ears .. the difference is "how" to use the ears ... spending thousands searching for a saint grial or using knowledge directed to your goals.

 

[NHL99]

no, you listen to sound pressure levels at different frequencies generated by the speakers (higher distortion component in the audio chain), heavily modified by the room acoustics.
the "diagrams" shows you the REAL performance of the amplifier, without any modification as mentioned earlier ... so you can use your ears or the "diagrams" to understand the behaviour of the amplifier.

if you use the scientific, rational method, to talk about the amplifier, you use the diagrams.
using your ears is a lottery (generally aka "sinergy"), when the audio components in series with the room sounds "as you want".

i prefer the scientific method to choose the components and the use of acoustics / EQ to adjust the performance to "what i want".
you can take your decision, as you see, in the end both methods use the ears .. the difference is "how" to use the ears ... spending thousands searching for a saint grial or using knowledge directed to your goals.

Real science evolve over time. The point is not that the current diagrams are being measured incorrectly, but that ---additional--- measurements might be needed to reflect the device characteristics.

 

[Julf]

Real science evolve over time. The point is not that the current diagrams are being measured incorrectly, but that ---additional--- measurements might be needed to reflect the device characteristics.

"Might". Audio science is not rocket science. If there are some things that normal measurements don't show, they should at least show up in proper double-blind ABX listening tests. Based on a lot of research into human hearing, and *lots* of double-blind tests, we know pretty well what is audible (and how to measure it) and what isn't.

Anyway, measurements, even when incomplete, are probably orders of magnitude more reliable than sighted listening.

Remember Richard Feynman's famous quote,

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”​

 

[NHL99]

"Might". Audio science is not rocket science. If there are some things that normal measurements don't show, they should at least show up in proper double-blind ABX listening tests. Based on a lot of research into human hearing, and *lots* of double-blind tests, we know pretty well what is audible (and how to measure it) and what isn't.

Anyway, measurements, even when incomplete, are probably orders of magnitude more reliable than sighted listening.

Remember Richard Feynman's famous quote,

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”​

And then it continues

• "Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain."
• "Permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure."
• "Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, 'Is it reasonable?'"
  ...

 

[Julf]

And then it continues

• "Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain."
• "Permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure."
• "Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, 'Is it reasonable?'"
  ...

Sure. Agree with all of those.

It is just funny how audio woo believers (as well as flat earthers, UFO fanatics and anti-vaxxers) misinterpret those to mean "just because science doesn't know everything, dragons (or whatever I believe in) can exist", so probably the most important rule is

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"​