NAD C390DD Direct Digital DAC/Amplifier

[Julf]

Well, given the quote you have in your signature, I'm guessing you may be implying that since there may be no "measurable" difference between different binding posts, there's no difference in sound.

 

Not necessarily implying there is no difference in sound - but I do see a lot of "tweaks" done based on old wives tales and audiophile superstition, without verifying that there is an actual improvement. Part of it is the "custom" culture, where people feel the system has to have some unique edge over what anybody can buy at their local hi-fi store. I have nothing against true, verified improvements, or experimentation for experimentation's sake.

[BruceD7575]

Not necessarily implying there is no difference in sound - but I do see a lot of "tweaks" done based on old wives tales and audiophile superstition, without verifying that there is an actual improvement. Part of it is the "custom" culture, where people feel the system has to have some unique edge over what anybody can buy at their local hi-fi store. I have nothing against true, verified improvements, or experimentation for experimentation's sake.

 

I actually feel the same way, so I guess I jumped to my initial conclusion too soon. Bill's friend says the Eichmann's are the only ones worth trying. My friend says that, while the Eichmann interconnects are great, the Eichmann pods are not good at all. And, meanwhile, I'm just going to bypass them completely because I know I like the difference it's made in my previous systems. I wouldn't say "less is more" is always better, but probably most of the time. Which is part of what I like about the concept of the C390DD.

[bhobba]

Bill, what are you feeding the MPD-3 with again?

 

Mac Mini or Off-Ramp using Audirvana or Bit Perfect.

 

Thanks

Bill

[bhobba]

I have nothing against true, verified improvements, or experimentation for experimentation's sake.

 

Trouble is what people count as true and verified varies. Some only give credit to double blind tests, others single blind, still others like me trust their ears and the ears of others they know have a lot of experience - I am in the latter.

 

I will however not get into a discussion on this as it basically goes nowhere.

 

Thanks

Bill

[pawsman]

Bob Harley reviews the NAD C390DD in the July August TAS; he's very complimentary of the design and performance, calling the bass dynamics and weight "Krell-like"(!!). This piece weighs in at an awesome 17 lbs., but performs like a heavyweight, with tremendous dynamics, according to Bob. The jitter has been reduced compared to it's larger brother the M2, and the upper mids and highs are very smooth, detailed, and non-fatiguing. The unit lacked the characteristic sound of many switching Amplifiers, with an organic and natural sound free of the chalky coloration of some Class D amplifiers. The background is dead quiet due to the high S/N ratio. This unit is upgradable, with replaceable digital interface boards and upgradable software. And to top it off, it has a built in room equalizer, bass management and six adjustable filters below 240 hz to adjust the bass. This piece eliminates the DAC, Preamp, Amplifier and all interconnect cabling. The NAD C390DD is at the top of my upgrade list-

 

pawsman

[santiago]

I've had the c390dd for well over a month now, and continue to be more than impressed by its performance.

It cost about the same $ as my previous dac-preamp-amp setup, but it bests it in every way by a HUGE margin. Larger, deeper soundstage, better instrument separation, tighter and punchier bass... every track in my music collection is more enjoyable now.

 

Also moved from mac/puremusic to pc/jriver and like the results so far.

[DanRubin]

Also moved from mac/puremusic to pc/jriver and like the results so far.

Did you make the Mac to PC switch at the same time as the move to the NAD, or are you able to isolate that change independently? I'm very curious what sort of sonic differences you hear between Mac/Pure Music and PC/Jriver.

[santiago]

Did you make the Mac to PC switch at the same time as the move to the NAD, or are you able to isolate that change independently? I'm very curious what sort of sonic differences you hear between Mac/Pure Music and PC/Jriver.

 

I used MacBookPro/PM with the C390dd for a week before switching to PC/JRiver.

To my ears, I don't think one is better than the other, but they certainly have different sonic signatures.

 

I would characterize Mac/PM as being more forward, in your face, intense, front row center.

On the other hand, PC/JRiver is relaxed, effortless. It puts you in row 3, but offers more soundstage depth.

IMO it's a matter of preference and equipment pairing between the two, both are very good solutions.

[kbkaran]

Got both the analog and HDMI inputs. The HDMI is superb for home theatre and pretty good for audio - ..

 

Not many of us can afford a separate TV/Home Theater and Audio setup. This could be a great win for NAD. I am using a Panasonic Digital Amplifier Receiver just for this reason, after having packed up my TACT S2150, as my family got sick of switching the inputs in the HDMI switcher and audio inputs and then the receiver. The Panasonic is impressive for its price. The TACT is better in bass and probably in the high treble region (smoothness). Otherwise, you get the same transparent/dynamic sound with both. I am tempted to try the NAD, as I plan to get a bigger Magnepan (running MC1s now).

[harmonica2]

This could be a great win for NAD.

 

As CA regular Eloise pointed out in another thread, not very many companies can afford the license to include HDMI in their equipment. It seems that the 390DD will be a uniquely attractive item for a good while.

[PeterV]

Dear readers,

 

Over the last 8 Months I have enjoyed every strong aspect of this new DAC/amplifying technology.

 

The NAD C390DD has fully revived my 20 year old’watt-puppy 5.0 loudspeakers and MIT 750MH LS cables and Marantz / Tjoeb reference CD player. The speed and ‘grip’ on the woofers is astonishing compared to my former amplifier ( krell 300i ) as well as the liquidity in mid- and high-range. Soundstaging has improved in all aspects as well as dynamics, pace & rhythm. Both articulation and placing of voices and instruments are rock-solid, stable and tangible. The NAD C390DD achieves very impressive musical reproduction and totally distortion-free.

 

The bass-management EQ works also excellent. With help of this DSP functionality, I have been able to neutralize the typical ‘ bump’ around 200 Hz in my room. So playing drum & bass guitar solo’s are now a great pleasure! The huge damping factor ( > 800) which this amplifier offers, totally controlls the low-range drivers of my speakers and the ‘slam’ factor experience is very much life-like and with such ease and speed, as if I am listening to 2 x 500W monoblocks (no kidding)

 

I agree that listening to USB with the NAD C390DD is not as impressive as with S/PDIF. I was also disappointed to find out that the applied USB is type 1.1 and not 2.0 Maybe NAD will come later with a MDC upgrade to USB 2.0 so playing HDtracks (24/192) will be possible as well.

 

But there is a very interesting improvement I would like to advise all C390DD and M2 users: Purchase and try a CANARE 110-75 ohm Digital Audio Impedance Transformer (BCJ-XP-TRB) ( S/PDIF to AES/EBU) It only cost around 25,- USD. Do not ask me why, but the improvement in digital playback is HUGE !! Much more than any other tweak I have tried over the last years…!

 

The C390DD and M2 seem to be very responsive to power cable quality as well. Some experienced users experienced a decrease in response when using power conditioners. I will do some test myself later on this year.

 

Due to the clear and present advantages of listening to digital material via the AES/EBU input, I have become interested to purchase a CD transport with ultra low jitter and AES/EBU output. Best would be a Olive like combination of a CD transport and network player, but they are too expensive. So hopefully NAD will come out with such a tool sooner or later..!

 

Warm regards form The Netherlands,

 

Peter V.

[Julf]

The C390DD and M2 seem to be very responsive to power cable quality as well. Some experienced users experienced a decrease in response when using power conditioners.

 

It does seem that many power conditioners restrict the peak power/current capability and that class D amps (that usually have a much lower internal impedance than analog amps) are more sensitive to this.

 

Warm regards form The Netherlands,

 

Indeed, very warm - I think today was declared "tropical".

[reverendo]

Hi there,

have just read the thread and am interested in some comparison, if possible.

Can anyone here who has heard the 390DD compare it to the M2 and the Lyngdorf TDAI2200? If so, could they compare their subjective differences?

Thanks a lot in advance

Best regards

André

[moophone]

Ive heard the NAD C390DD on a pair of monitor audio speakers and liked what I heard. Not as good as my old PSB Stratus Gold-i and NAD C272 combo (with a lesser DAC) but still nice (and takes up less space)

[DanRubin]

Hi there,

Can anyone here who has heard the 390DD compare it to the M2 and the Lyngdorf TDAI2200? If so, could they compare their subjective differences?

Robert Hartley's review in TAS addresses the 390DD vs. M2 comparison in a very thorough and credible way, with a sidebar dedicated solely to comparing the two.

[Audio_ELF]

Robert Hartley's review in TAS addresses the 390DD vs. M2 comparison in a very thorough and credible way, with a sidebar dedicated solely to comparing the two.

If you want to read Bob Hartley's review and the comparison it's here - http://media.avguide.com/BG_Digital_Source_Components_2012.pdf

 

Or the relevant sidebar is...

The $6000 M2 vs. the $2600 C 390DD

Although the M2 and C 390DD share the same technology platform, there are a number of differences between the units. For starters, the C 390DD’s output stage is exactly half that of the M2. The M2 featured a bridged output stage employing four FETs; the C 390DD uses two FETs without the bridging topology. This change is reflected in the two amplifiers’ rated output powers: 250Wpc vs. 150Wpc.

 

This lower output power not only puts less demand on the power supply, but also reduces the need for shielding. The M2 chassis was highly compartmentalized, with extensive electromagnetic shielding between sub-sections. The C 390DD’s shielding is more modest, but shielding is less crucial because the C 390DD’s output stage radiates half the switching noise of the M2. Speaking of the chassis, while the M2 was housed in lavish (for NAD) Masters Series casework, the C 390DD is pure traditional NAD in which the chassis is a functional rather than an aesthetic statement.

 

The M2’s DSP that performed the PCM-to-PWM conversion was a general purpose field-programmable gate array. In fact, the FPGA was the technology’s development platform. The C 390DD now supports a dedicated integrated circuit that is more efficient. The chip has additional DSP power that is put to good use with bass and treble controls, room equalization, subwoofer output, and other features.

 

Where the M2 included an integral A/D converter, the C 390DD’s A/D is on an optional board. Similarly, the M2 doesn’t benefit from the C 390DD’s Modular Design Construction that puts the digital-interface electronics on removable boards to accommodate technology evolution.

 

In addition to these large differences, it’s natural that in the more than two years between the M2 and C390DD, the designers would find a number of small ways to improve the performance. This is particularly true with such a new technology. Among these small benefits (small technically, not necessarily small sonically) are improved jitter rejection in the C 390DD.

[santiago]

Just got an Audiophilleo2 but cannot play files above 96/24 in the NAD.

Tried lots of 192/24 files, but the c390dd reads 96khz.

Using a windows 7 pc with the audiophilleo192/24 driver installed and jriver.

What am I doing wrong?

[One and a half]

Just got an Audiophilleo2 but cannot play files above 96/24 in the NAD.

Tried lots of 192/24 files, but the c390dd reads 96khz.

Using a windows 7 pc with the audiophilleo192/24 driver installed and jriver.

What am I doing wrong?

 

Hmm. The Audiophilleo is capable of transmitting 192/24 on PC (with supplied driver) or MAC, can confirm to that.

 

Peter V advises So the NAD coaxial input is limited to 96/24. Either you let JRMC resample to 96/24, or you let Windows do the conversion (better let JRMC do it).

 

The A2 is also capable of passing through DSD dop1 code through to a DSD capable DAC. FYI.

[santiago]

But, according to the NAD website and manual:

C 390DD Audio Resolution chart.

 

USB Type A - 24 bit/48 kHz

USB Type B - 24 bit/96 kHz

Optical - 24 bit/192 kHz

Digital Coax - 24 bit/192 kHz

Optional HDMI DD HDMI-1 - 24 bit/192 kHz

 

Coax should handle 24/192 perfectly, why wouldn't it?

[Audio_ELF]

But, according to the NAD website and manual:

C 390DD Audio Resolution chart.

 

USB Type A - 24 bit/48 kHz

USB Type B - 24 bit/96 kHz

Optical - 24 bit/192 kHz

Digital Coax - 24 bit/192 kHz

Optional HDMI DD HDMI-1 - 24 bit/192 kHz

 

Coax should handle 24/192 perfectly, why wouldn't it?

Do you have any other 24/192 source you can try?

Do you have another DAC which accepts 24/192 you can try?

Can you try the Audiophilleo2 with another computer?

 

It doesn't sound like you are doing anything wrong.

 

It may be that either your NAD or your Audiophilleo2 is faulty, or there may be an incompatibility between the two devices... Can't you go back to your retailer for help diagnosing the issue?

 

I guess what you were hoping for was a "I use the NAD with Audiophilleo2 perfectly for 24/192" which would give some indication that you had something wrong; or a "the Audiophilleo2 doesn't work for me with the NAD either" which would give some indication of a compatibility issue.

 

Eloise

[santiago]

Many nad c390dd owners have reported using it with an ap1 or ap2 with great success.

Hasn't anyone tried 24/192 files?

 

The NAD is my only DAC, but I will try using my MacBook Pro with Pure Music tonight to see if anything changes.

[Paul R]

I have a loaner from a friend I am evaluating, and I have no issues at all driving it to 24/192K from a Coaxial input, using a Lindemann USB DDC 192. I can also send 24/192K to it via HDMI, which sounds really good.

 

I have to got to get me one of these.

 

I have not tried from a PC, but I would start looking at the special drivers you have to use on a PC to get 24/192K. Perhaps something is misconfigured with them.

 

-Paul

 

 

But, according to the NAD website and manual:

C 390DD Audio Resolution chart.

 

USB Type A - 24 bit/48 kHz

USB Type B - 24 bit/96 kHz

Optical - 24 bit/192 kHz

Digital Coax - 24 bit/192 kHz

Optional HDMI DD HDMI-1 - 24 bit/192 kHz

 

Coax should handle 24/192 perfectly, why wouldn't it?

[santiago]

Well, this really helps.

Now we can confirm the NAD accepts 24/192 files via coaxial.

 

Then it could be something with the setup of the PC driver or JRiver (will check later with my mac)

Or some incompatibility issue between NAD and AP2. (Maybe someone that has used them together can help answer this one)

 

I have a loaner from a friend I am evaluating, and I have no issues at all driving it to 24/192K from a Coaxial input, using a Lindemann USB DDC 192. I can also send 24/192K to it via HDMI, which sounds really good.

 

I have to got to get me one of these.

 

I have not tried from a PC, but I would start looking at the special drivers you have to use on a PC to get 24/192K. Perhaps something is misconfigured with them.

 

-Paul

[DanRubin]

I can also send 24/192K to it via HDMI, which sounds really good.

 

 

-Paul

 

Paul, what are you feeding the HDMI from?

[Paul R]

Mac Mini mostly, along with a Macbook and Macbook Pro. Works astonishingly well.

 

Also tried a NAD T577, Oppo 95, Apple TV3, WD Live, and the output from a new iPad. Not all those worked out quite so well... (grin)

 

-Paul