|
Bronze Member Username: ArgentoPost Number: 36 Registered: Apr-04 | In next days I will listen to a NAD 3020 to analyze if I incorporate it to my audio equipment to improve their stereo sound. The Stereophile magazine chose it among the most outstanding products in last century. Do you believe that it has existed or do exist a better integrated in this price level? |
|
Bronze Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 72 Registered: Mar-04 | The 3020 was a sensational amp when introduced and was the first real 'budget' audiophile integrated. Nad sold tons of the things. You'll be hard-pressed to find one in A1 perfect working condition now but if you do it'll still be a good amp. Times have changed though and it's no longer the all-conquering purchase it once was. You can still do a lot worse though! Great if you want a phono stage as it has a really nice one but if you want power then it's sorely lacking nowadays. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ArgentoPost Number: 41 Registered: Apr-04 | Is the 3020 a good option to use it as pre-amp? |
|
Bronze Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 83 Registered: Mar-04 | Depends what your budget is and what the rest of your kit is. It's certainly a possibility but what power amp would you be using? |
|
Bronze Member Username: ArgentoPost Number: 43 Registered: Apr-04 | Sun King: I have to buy a power amp too. I'm seeing options. The models that more interest me are: NAD 208, NAD 216 or Arcam 290. And may be some Rotel. What do you think about these options and their combination with the NAD 3020? |
|
Bronze Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 86 Registered: Mar-04 | Well, I've got to ask why you want to pair such reasonably expensive power amps like the Nads you specify with an old, budget integrated that you then wish to use as a pre-amp? Have you perhaps read an article which says the 3020 is in the hall of fame for all-time best integrated amplifiers? These articles take into account the impression the amp made on the hifi-buying public at the time it was introduced. It's the same as saying the Austin Mini is one of the greatest cars ever produced. It IS but then again a current car would murder it if it were to be tested in direct competition. The 3020 was a brilliant amp, head and shoulders above the rest when it was introduced. Nad saw an opening in the market for a no-frills, great sounding budget amplifier. Since then every manufacturer now makes such an amp in their range. You would be doing yourself a favour if you bought a modern/current amp - integrated would be fine but if you want a pre & power then go for it. How about the Nad C160/C270? You can pick these-up for decent money these days and they will do everything you want and more, plus they'll have years of life left in them. Rotel & Arcam make brilliant kit too. Where were you thinking of picking-up your gear - ebay? |
|
Bronze Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 87 Registered: Mar-04 | A modern Nad integrated, such as the C350/ C370 will sound as good as you're hoping for, I'm sure - plus plenty of power. I'm not saying your suggestions won't either but there are cheaper ways of achieving hifi nirvana and with more longetivity to boot. Why buy thrashed old kit when you can get newer and better sounding equipment for decent money? |
|
Bronze Member Username: ArgentoPost Number: 45 Registered: Apr-04 | The issue is that in my country (Argentina) there isn't variety of HiFi equipment and the only interesting market is in the used products, this is the reason that strange combinations arise. As alternative to the 3020 have seen other models (more expensive), as the NAD 1000 or the AMC AV81. Now I'm trying to obtain information on some Marantz, maybe you know something about them: Amp MA 22 and Pre SC 22. All that I know is that it's a Gold Reference line from the 90s. I'll thank all information. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 92 Registered: Mar-04 | Alejandro, I understand. You can have some fun buying classic secondhand hi-fi equipment and you don't take as much of a hit if you wish to sell it on afterwards. I can't help you with your Marantz queries as I haven't heard that particular line. |
|
xx Unregistered guest | Why don't you buy the C320bee, it's the 'tweaked' version of that amp, everybody knows that I think. It's one of the best buys in audio today. Very good amplifiers: Nad c320bee €400 Marantz PM7200 €500 Marantz PM7200KI €700 (€=$) It's a hard choice i know |
|
Bronze Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 97 Registered: Mar-04 | Yes, too many good amps out there! I do think the C320BEE is worth a listen though....and it's just about the cheapest going. Can't go wrong really. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ArgentoPost Number: 47 Registered: Apr-04 | Sun King: Yes, that's the idea. Thanks for yours replies. XX: There isn't any new NAD equipment in my country. :-( |
|
Bronze Member Username: ArgentoPost Number: 49 Registered: Apr-04 | Sun King: Which is your opinion about the Arcam 290 Delta integrated amp? Is it an interesting option? |
|
Silver Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 109 Registered: Mar-04 | Yes, certainly interesting. Lots of people say it's the nicest sounding Arcam amp ever! I've heard of eight & nine year old models needing service though. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ArgentoPost Number: 50 Registered: Apr-04 | Sun King, thanks, I'll try to test this unit. |
|
asal73 Unregistered guest | Arcam 290 was a wonderful amplifier.. it was the predecessor to the Alpha 9... Test it out.. |
|
Quadstar Unregistered guest | Sun King, Would the NAD C370 sounds much better than the NAD C320BEE (apart from being more powerful)? If yes, could you please let me know what the differences are and would it be mostly noticeable? Thanks for your answer. |
|
Silver Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 132 Registered: Mar-04 | Quadstar, The C320BEE and the C370 are very different sounding amps but both are wonderfully warm and untiring. If you were to compare the C370's replacement - the C372 - with the BEE then the difference is smaller. They sound very similar except the C372 has a deeper, fuller sound with a tad more detail. The tonal characteristics are very similar though. Now to the C370. This is a wonderful amp, very detailed and has an 'airy' feel about it compared to the C320BEE. There is a much more noticeable distance between the instruments and the bass also extends much deeper and it is tighter & more tuneful. The C320 is quoted as 2x50w into 8 ohms whilst the C370 is 2x120w. The tremendous power of the C370 allows it to drive ANY speaker you could throw at it whilst really making them sing. So if it were my choice, the C370 would be going home with me without a shadow of doubt. That isn't to say the C320BEE is a bad amp - FAR from it. It's just outclassed and outmuscled by the C370. The retail price when new of the C370 was double that of the C320BEE so you'd expect a difference in quality. As to which sound you prefer, that's up to you Sir - try and listen to them both. The newer C372 is more of a match to the BEE tonally as I said earlier but still offers the detail and extra finesse that the C370 does - and the power! If you've got the chance of a used C370 for roughly the same money as a new C320BEE then I'd say you'd get way more value for money with the used unit. |
|
Quadstar Unregistered guest | Very detailed answer... thanks!!! One more question, with most NAD integrated amps, many people said that replacing the stocked jumpers (pre-to-main) boosts their performance. What do you think of that and have you experienced with replacing the jumpers to the decent interconnect cable from the likes of VDH, tara labs, nordost or others? |
|
Silver Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 134 Registered: Mar-04 | Quadstar, Changing the jumpers CAN make a difference although it depends on the cable. I made some DIY jumpers using 99.9% ofc copper cable (very thick speaker wire) and soldered it to some gold rca plugs WITHOUT using a grounding. The results were superb, obviously subtle but there nonetheless. At the end of the day it's still the same amp so it isn't going to sound a whole lot different but over time you will notice that certain tracks seem to have deeper bass and you'll hear the odd bit of detail here & there that you didn't before. The copper makes the bass better and you also lose a little harshness on the highs with certain recordings. Before I made my DIY jumpers I did however try various expensive interconnects and these made NO difference at all. I think the fact normal hifi interconnects have grounding affects the sound as you'll notice the small factory jumpers just plug inside the rca sockets, they don't also clip onto the outside grounding portion of the socket. I've not tried Tara Labs but I've heard that these are made specifically for the job so they should do the trick. Again, it's a matter of experimentation. My DIY jumpers cost me around 12$ to make and they sound superb, beating a set of 100$ interconnects! |
|
Bronze Member Username: AsimoPost Number: 14 Registered: Apr-04 | Quadstar Sun King I am with NAD amplifiers for quite a long time. I have now NAD C350 and NAD 7000 Monitor receiver both with pre-out power-in jumpers. I did many experiments to replace the jumpers with different cables and came to a definite conclusion that it is all superstitions nonsense and mythos. There is not any improvement or benefits that you can hear after replacing the jumpers. The original jumpers are the larger cross section available I also consulted NAD support and they believe that their jumpers are better than any interconnections. The NAD jumper legend is not the only superstition in the Hi-Fi world, there many more mainly in the cables area. What can you say if somebody claims that he hears better with cable "X " than cable " Y" |
|
Silver Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 137 Registered: Mar-04 | Asimo, Yes I too tried various expensive interconnects to replace the stock jumpers and found no difference, possibly even that they were worse. I did however strike gold with a short run of extremely thick copper speaker wire soldered onto gold plugs. This DID improve the sound over the stock jumpers. |
|
New member Username: QuadstarPost Number: 1 Registered: Jul-04 | Just for fun, I have tried replacing the jumpers with a cheap interconnect cable and to my ears, there are no differences not all or maybe so subtle that I wouldn't bother to take notice of. Sun King, you have a PM!! |
|
Unregistered guest | Just saw this thread... and if you still have not made your decision about your amplifier ... Try the Audio Analogue Puccini amplifier. Here's my story of how i stumbled upon this masterpiece of an amplifier. I had read a lot of the British Hi-fi press going crazy about the NAD C320 BEE... was so brainwashed by them, that i went to audition them. Here was my first impression - Adequately detailed, good punch ... but they sounded hard and very uninvolving. i got tired of listening to the NAD after 15 mins. I was desperately trying to convince myself that they cannot be so bad ! ... Then the shop owner asked me to listen to the Audio Analogue Puccini. I had heard about it ... but since it cost more than twice the NAD... i never considered it. When i heard it for the first few minutes.. i immediately knew that i am listening to something special ! .. I listened to it for almost 2 hrs. The puccini is an amplifier that really loves the music that is being payed on it. The soundstage is fantastic... it takes a grip on the music... If u like scotch .. the experience was like sipping the best Single malt scotch, sitting in the scottish highlands! You ought to try it - The sound is as close as it can get to a tube amplifier - luscious yet not overly sweetening the music. The bass is very tight and true - not bloated. The best part is the midrange - very pure. I went back and listened to it three times ... and eventually bought the Puccini remote vesion ! - which is even more expensive. I had to break the bank - almost a 1000 USD ( which is 600 USD over my original budet !! ) - but i have never enjoyed listening to music more. Strongly recommend u try it... and let me know if u are not hooked to it ! |
|
Unregistered guest | Just saw this thread... and if you still have not made your decision about your amplifier ... Try the Audio Analogue Puccini amplifier. Here's my story of how i stumbled upon this masterpiece of an amplifier. I had read a lot of the British Hi-fi press going crazy about the NAD C320 BEE... was so brainwashed by them, that i went to audition them. Here was my first impression - Adequately detailed, good punch ... but they sounded hard and very uninvolving. i got tired of listening to the NAD after 15 mins. I was desperately trying to convince myself that they cannot be so bad ! ... Then the shop owner asked me to listen to the Audio Analogue Puccini. I had heard about it ... but since it cost more than twice the NAD... i never considered it. When i heard it for the first few minutes.. i immediately knew that i am listening to something special ! .. I listened to it for almost 2 hrs. The puccini is an amplifier that really loves the music that is being payed on it. The soundstage is fantastic... it takes a grip on the music... If u like scotch .. the experience was like sipping the best Single malt scotch, sitting in the scottish highlands! You ought to try it - The sound is as close as it can get to a tube amplifier - luscious yet not overly sweetening the music. The bass is very tight and true - not bloated. The best part is the midrange - very pure. I went back and listened to it three times ... and eventually bought the Puccini remote vesion ! - which is even more expensive. I had to break the bank - almost a 1000 USD ( which is 600 USD over my original budet !! ) - but i have never enjoyed listening to music more. Strongly recommend u try it... and let me know if u are not hooked to it ! |
|
Anonymous | nad c320 bee and audio analogue puccini not admitance comparison, because both are absolutly different products. nad is the best at that price, and audio analogue puccini is, obviously much better, but 3 times more expensive. |
|
Silver Member Username: EdisonGlendale, CA US Post Number: 501 Registered: Dec-03 | Is 3020 better than 3020a? |
|
Silver Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 172 Registered: Mar-04 | To purists it is and it should also fetch more money! |
|
Unregistered guest | Hello Sun King, I am new to this forum. Can you shed some light on a NAD 3030 Amplifier. It is the one with 2 VU meters. Thanks and regards John L |
|
Silver Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 176 Registered: Mar-04 | Sorry John, not familiar with that particular unit. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 45 Registered: Mar-04 | Hey sunking, slightly off topic but how is the c162/272 combo doin for ya.... Has it sound changed as you have used it (i know breakin won't radically alter sound but....).... Also I have noticed that you mentioned you own several nad pieces which I find intriguing.... Have you ever owned tube amplification? I will someday enter the tube realm but for now intend to stick with solid state..... Some have said adding a pre-tube to nad amp garners good results but I for one feel the nad combo is a safe and excellent option, what say you??? |
|
Silver Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 177 Registered: Mar-04 | Yep, it's still sounding great! Haven't noticed any burning-in to be honest. Never had any tube stuff either, the look of it does nothing for me and I feel I'd be unhappy with the low fequencies. |
|
New member Username: BryfieroPost Number: 1 Registered: Sep-04 | Hello, I would like to make a comment regarding replacing factory pre-amp jumpers. I've just done it and have noticed quite an improvement. I managed to pick up two pairs of 1m Atlas Voyager interconnects on E-bay and figured it couldn't hurt to try. These are very good cables (rrp £110/m) and I would recommend them to anyone thinking of upgrading their interconnets. Surely these must be a better means of carrying an audio signal than the jumpers supplied with the C350. And I think most would agree a C160/C270 combo which requires an interconnect such as the Voyager to link them, in most cases sounds better than a C350/370. Are those that don't think there is an improvement suggesting that a factory NAD jumper (a big daddy one) placed between a true pre/power amp set up like a C160/270 would sound the same as using a top range interconnect?? Isn't this the same thing I am doing by replacing the C350's jumpers? Maybe there is something I am missing here and integrated amps are the exception to the rule, but I would have thought there wouldn't be a market for high quality interconnects if this was the case. I suppose at the end of the day I like the difference I hear (and isn't that really what counts?) and to me it seems logical as to why. I hope to hear more opinons from others who have tried this. By the way, I see Russ Andrews now sells shortend interconnects as jumpers. And I've never actually used any of their products, but they do claim to only sell items that really work to improve.?? :) |
|
New member Username: Keyser_sosePost Number: 1 Registered: Nov-04 | "Is 3020 better than 3020a?" I have a "never used" NAD 3020A w/ manual, no box. I Think I bought in the late 70's. Anyone interested in buying it. I'm in the SF Bay Area. |
|
KC Unregistered guest | I have a Marantz CD63 SE CD player, and a pair of TDL RTL 2 floor standing speakers. Is there any budget NAD (or other) amps that will match them sonically? My choice of music is vocal, jazz, classical, and accasionally some pop. |
|
Unregistered guest | John Laughlin! About NAD 3030.The 3030 has 30W output and NAD 3020 has 20W output, but I think that Nad 3020 is stronger an has a bether sound! |
|
Unregistered guest | I have had the SC-22 for 10 years now. Had it since new. Very nice unit....well made and very transparent sound. I am actually looking to sell mine. Anyone want a shot? Greg |
|
tyke Unregistered guest | 3020 sounds sooo much better than the c320bee.. i have both and believe me.. the 3020 just gets in the music and really makes it magic.. the bee is flat and boring, laid back and slow.. it is sorely uninvolving i cannot believe that nad can't make a modern amp sound as good as a 20 y/o one! |
|
Bronze Member Username: AsimoPost Number: 58 Registered: Apr-04 | I have a new NAD C350 amplifier and also " old" NAD 7020e receiver (3020 + tuner and NAD Monitor 7000 receiver It is very sad to find that the old NAD's are more musical than the new ones. I bought the new NAD C350 amplifier because I expected upgrade and improvement in the sound but to my big surprise I still prefer the "old" NAD's I did not sell the old NAD 7020e because it has no real price and I decided to keep it for backing or for some future use. I did many comparisons and found the NAD C350 to have more bass and some more details but a little cold and technical. The NAD 7000 Monitor receiver is more warm and more musical. The NAD 7020e is even more warm and more involving but it has no remote and its tuner is a little inferior compared to NAD 7000 Monitor. Otherwise I was still using it. It's a peaty that not many audiophiles or music lovers had noticed the musical superiority of the old NAD amplifiers over the new ones or may be the musical taste of the new listeners has changed. |
|
Silver Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 195 Registered: Mar-04 | Yes, there is still a lot to be said for the older Nad amplifiers - particularly the 3020 and 3130. I do like the very recent Nad amps but there was a long period inbetween when they were very average in my opinion. |
|
New member Username: VisiblehandsCalgary, Alberta, Canada Post Number: 6 Registered: Mar-05 | I have a 370 and I'm selling it. Not because it is a bad amp, but I fall in love with tubes. However, I must admit that the 370 is the best integrated amp money can buy at this range. |
|
New member Username: MusicluvrPost Number: 1 Registered: Apr-05 | Hello, I'm new to this forum, but I've been lurking on and off for a while though. I'm glad to see a lot of commentary on NAD amplifiers here and this forum partly inspired me to upgrade my admittedly dated system. Asimo's comments about the old 7020 and the C350 are particularly interesting though, because I've had a similar experience with a NAD 3125 that I have owned for more than 20 years and a C372 purchased last year Now, I'm extremely happy with the C372, and I'm pretty sure I'll be happy with it for a long time. I find the "New NAD" sound is more detailed, has sharper focus, and seems to be much more in control. On the other hand, there is something about the "Old NAD" sound that withstands the test of time. Pretty amazing given that the 3125 is 20+ years old and rated at only 25wpc compared to the C370 at 150wpc (6X the power rating!). To me, the "Old NAD" 3125 sounds a bit more raw, exciting, and well, musical on some material. I could see how some might find it preferable. Could it be that the older amp is being driven more within its optimal range? The C370 rarely goes above 10 o'clock on the volume control whereas the 3125 needs at least 12 o'clock high to reach the same level. Both amplifiers still have the NAD signiture sound with a warm presence that I like. |
|
Silver Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 233 Registered: Mar-04 | You can make your C372 run further up its operating range by moving the connectors from between pre-out and power amp1 to between pre-out and power amp2 inputs. Then you can use the small volume control on the rear of the amp to adjust the signal, thus giving you more operating range with the volume pot on the front of the amp. You can then crank the amp and the added bonus of this is much more control over the volume with the remote control. No longer will you have such dramatic shifts in volume with just one tap of the controller. As to whether it actually affects the sound quality, give it a try and let us know! I find that the older Nad amps are warmer and 'thicker' sounding. I have a 3130 in my second system which I absolutely adore. I also have a mint condition 3020 in its original box which I don't use any more, I'm just keeping it as a hifi relic which will maybe be worth something in a couple of decades' time! |
|
New member Username: MusicluvrPost Number: 2 Registered: Apr-05 | Thanks for the suggestion Sun King. I didn't even think of the possibility that was sitting right there staring me in the face. I haven't used that part of the preamp-amp link at all in the year or so since I bought the C372. I switched the jumpers and gave it a try. After a few minutes of listening and playing with various settings on the little gain control on the back I realized that it just wasn't right. It's harsh and the focus is muddled. It needs to be burned in. It's not anywhere near as bad as when the amp was new, but definitely not settled. Switching back to my normal setting confirmed it. When I first got the amp I had to run it constantly for about a week before it sounded its best. I would say that it sounds about half way there in the new configuration, so I'll come back and give a report when it sounds like it is ready. |
|
NADMAN Unregistered guest | I think the 3020 is the GREATEST budget integrated amp of all time, not the BEST. There is a difference between the two. Most believe (myself included) the 3020 is the amp that started it all. It was far cheaper and sounded better than 99% of the stuff out at the time. At the time, you either owned McIntosh (or comparable) or mass market Japanese. NAD brought high end sound to those of us who couldn't afford the high end price tag, but could spend a few more bucks than the mass market junk. As far as the best, I own both the 3020 and C320BEE. A few say the 3020 sounds better, I have to whole heartedly disagree. The 3020 cannot make my PSB Image t55's do what my C320BEE can. Forget about all of the "audiophile" jargon. The 3020 still sounds great, some 20 years old, but I think all of the technical improvements in the last 20 years have equated to improved sound quality. Furthermore, relatively speaking, the C320BEE is more affordable today than the 3020 was 20 years ago. In my opinoin, the better sound, better build quality (i think, but the BEE isn't 20 years old yet) and more affordable price make the C320BEE a better amp all around, but it will never be as GREAT as the 3020... Without the 3020, where would the budget Hi-Fi world be today... While I love my C320BEE, I don't think everyone and their brother will be as passionate about it 20 years from now as they are with the 3020 Just my opinion... |
|
Bronze Member Username: AsimoPost Number: 60 Registered: Apr-04 | In my last message I did not mean that the Nad 3020 is better than NAD C320BEE or C350. I was very surprised to find the NAD 3020 or the NAD 7020 Receiver has very musical sound and power to handle various speakers and rooms. Last week I got a real proof for that statement. I belong to an opera club where we listen to operas on DVD's. We have about 40 members and we run the sessions in a big room about 100 Sqm an hall size. We have a DVD Player, front projector, big screen, stereo amplifier and Tannoy Saturn S8 big floor standing speakers. Last session we needed a temporary replacement for the club amplifier and I brought my forgotten NAD 7020 receiver. We discovered that the small NAD 7020 filled easily the big room with excellent sound including piercing and solid bass. Some of the club members found the NAD 7020 to be better from other bigger and stronger stereo amplifiers we had in the past. |
|
Unregistered guest | To all in this list, my opinion is that the 3020 is a myth. It may have been good in the past, even the best one (i dont know since im just 22) but I dont think it can be considered so good now. In my opinion, transistored amps are good but only in the high end market, there is no good low cost transistored amp. The nad killed my ears only after 10 minutes of a bit loud music. I have A-B compared the 3020 with a 1965 12wpc tube amp and it killed the nad in every aspect... Only the nad had a bit stronger bass, but just a thiny bit. Alejandro, Im from argentina too, if you want give me a call and maybe I can be of help with old amps. my phone is 4375 1849 Pepo |
|
Silver Member Username: EdisonGlendale, CA US Post Number: 688 Registered: Dec-03 | Alejandro, If you don't mind used, sellers in www.audiogon.com will ship them to you. Buying used gets you more quality for the same money + it opens up the world of audio not availiable near. |
|
Unregistered guest | A very newbie question, as I'm a musician who just happened on a Creek P-42 preamp years ago (from an audiophile phriend who wanted to get me away from consumer gear) and I've used and enjoyed it without even having a power amp for it. (Actually I have a monster Mitsubishi 100W another friend gave me, but no room or desire for it.) Now the Creek has a channel out, and while trying to find somebody to repair it, I found an Arcam Delta 290 for sale and thought I might buy it to use in the interim. Then I wondered: After the P-42 is fixed, what would happen if I hooked the two together and use the integrated as a power source and also a way to have a few more inputs, which my system could use (DAT deck, 7" reel deck, cassettes, etc.)? Is this totally crazy or maybe an OK idea? Many thanks. |
|
luegotelodigo Unregistered guest | Hombre Pepo, ten en cuenta la calidad/precio!! I mean that a 3020 is very cheap, and a tube amp is not so, even Fisher X100 is nore expensive and has a very coloured sound (but a good pre stage). Regards |
|
dean w Unregistered guest | I have a NAD 3020 that I bought in 1984. It's still going strong after 22 years of regular use with no problems. |
|
New member Username: Testtube1Post Number: 1 Registered: Mar-06 | I bought a 3030 when it came out in 1977/8. There was nothing which came close even at three times the price back then. It has been pounding out everything from Bach to Black Label Society and Mozart to Manson almost daily for 28.5 years and can still take my breath away with its transparent clarity and abundance of power way beyond the spec. The pots are becoming crackly and the on/off won't turn off but I'm loathe to part with it until I hear something better AND affordable. (Also needs to have a phono input and run 2 pairs of speakers). This amp was daddy to the 3020 and, as impressive as the 3020 was, it never (in my biased opinion) quite filled its fathers shoes! |
|
Silver Member Username: Sun_kingLeeds, West Yorkshire UK Post Number: 348 Registered: Mar-04 | David, why don't you take your amp for service? Get those crackly pots and the power switch sorted! Shouldn't cost much at all and if you like the sound of the amp it will be a good investment towards years' more listening enjoyment. |
|
New member Username: Testtube1Post Number: 2 Registered: Mar-06 | Thanks Sun King. I've just begun the process of information gathering and sourcing the appropriate parts this week. That's how I found this forum! Recommendations welcomed!(UK sources preffered) |
|
Bronze Member Username: FatelvisPost Number: 17 Registered: Feb-06 | 3020's are cool. I had one for a few months in late '03. It was fun to own and look at. Then the caps popped and I had it serviced, only to sell it at a slight loss later. It was mated to some beat Polk Monitor 5s I found at a garage sale... good match. Not sure why the same people that use words like "detailed" and "transparent" in judging audio gear would bother. Its a nice sounding amp. I'm sure plenty of kids in the 70's listened to Dark Side with a 3020 though crappy speakers and the loudness circuit engaged... probabaly was the best thng going in an era when "hi-fi" actually meant something. It's definitely warm. It sounds great and is the basis for the famous NAD house sound. It was a bargain at the time. But it can't hold up to a more discriminating 21st century digital ear. Hook it up in the garage and enjoy yourself... it's best with cheap digital source components or vinyl. And of course, Floyd. Smoke a few if you are into that. Imagine that the Internet doesn't exist that Carter is the president elect. And think about how f'n great the 3020 must have sounded back then. |
|
New member Username: SandyrothmanPost Number: 1 Registered: Jun-06 | Any opinions on NAD 3140? Thanks. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 2958 Registered: Dec-04 | David, spec the caps and replace them at the same time, another 28.5 coming up! |
|
New member Username: Testtube1Post Number: 3 Registered: Mar-06 | Hi Nuck, Thanks for the advice. I managed to talk to one of NAD's senior service engineers who advised cleaning the pots out with electrolube and if that doesn't work, he could source replacements.... It worked; as he said, the pots should last 'forever'. All they usually need is a clean. Jeff, interesting comments. I was refering to a 3030 (i know its a 3020 forum). It was an older (and I think better) beast - The "more discriminating 21st century digital ear" you refer to is questionable! MP3 and ipod, clipped highs and sterile silences between notes??? Digital music sounds great, but it doesn't sound real. CD is a compressed format too and doesn't come close to the sound created by the engineer in a studio. SACD with its high sample rate pretty much sounds like vinyl to me (without the scratches!). I think the 'old school' ears are as discriminating as the digital ones, they just have different prefferences. |
|
New member Username: Seb_the_newbiePost Number: 1 Registered: Nov-06 | So what actually is the difference between the 3020 and 3020a? |