Equipment Recommendations - The Home For New System and Upgrade Advice

Recap on my amp is finished. I expected it to be a much bigger challenge than it was. Finished in about 5 hours. All upgraded capacitors and the difference is night and day. Not only did it fix the occasional drop I was having on my right channel, but it sounds like a completely different amp. Only wish I would have rallied the courage to do it months ago.
 
Hemotep said:
Recap on my amp is finished. I expected it to be a much bigger challenge than it was. Finished in about 5 hours. All upgraded capacitors and the difference is night and day. Not only did it fix the occasional drop I was having on my right channel, but it sounds like a completely different amp. Only wish I would have rallied the courage to do it months ago.
Click to expand...
Glad you were able to source the right capacitors. That was a problem for me a couple of years ago given supply chain issues.
 
Hemotep said:
Recap on my amp is finished. I expected it to be a much bigger challenge than it was. Finished in about 5 hours. All upgraded capacitors and the difference is night and day. Not only did it fix the occasional drop I was having on my right channel, but it sounds like a completely different amp. Only wish I would have rallied the courage to do it months ago.
Click to expand...
I discovered this morning that if I opened up the volume a little bit higher than I normally would the sound went all buzzy. I did a little research and figured it had to be the internal grounding wire. So I opened it back up this morning and saw that was held on with just a little hot glue and I think one of the wires must have come a bit loose when I was removing a capacitor near it. I cleaned it up and thank God I was able to get the short little lead of the wire through the holes on the circuit board, enough to solder them. My worry was that I couldn't quite tell which was the positive and which was the negative wires... So I guessed based in the way the wire wanted to twist. Put it all back together, set the system back up, and cranked that shit to nine for a few seconds and it thundered perfectly. Back down to my listening level of a comfortable two so as not to piss off the neighbors and I've saved me from needing to buy a new amp...till the itch becomes unbearable at least.

It's fun to have a vintage amp that I'm comfortable learning this stuff on. I wouldn't want to do it on a newer one. Especially because I wasn't sure how accurate the guy in Poland was when he said you could upgrade all the capacitors on this NAD with ones that were double the voltage. But sure enough, it works and smokes what it was before. Kind of in disbelief that I pulled this off without ever having tried anything like it before. It felt kind of addictive. I get why some of the old audiophile farts I've met do this as a hobby in their basements.
 
Last edited:
So what do we think about a spec comparison between the NAD 326BEE and 3050?

Looks like I'd be getting more power, better aesthetics, possible expansion with the BluOS card and Dirac. All the other stats are beyond me at the moment unless someone can simply explain signal to noise ratio and frequency response and if I'd even be able to differentiate between the two stated numbers.
 
folsom_lives said:
So what do we think about a spec comparison between the NAD 326BEE and 3050?

Looks like I'd be getting more power, better aesthetics, possible expansion with the BluOS card and Dirac. All the other stats are beyond me at the moment unless someone can simply explain signal to noise ratio and frequency response and if I'd even be able to differentiate between the two stated numbers.
Click to expand...
Signal to noise is about the function of the amplifier and it's supporting circuitry and filtering of external interference. With the amplifier running with no music being input (signal) there's a base amount of non-silence being generated by the electrical characteristics of the components, their connections, and any electromagnetic waves that have some non negligible effect on said components and connections (noise). The amplifier amplifies the non-silence just the same as the musical input. Thus, signal to noise is about designing the circuitry in such a way to minimize the non silence and is largely a function of component placement, selection, and shielding but can also be mitigated with circuitry designed to actively filter the specific waveforms and/or frequencies where noise typically occurs.

At the simplest level, if one were to take the amplified output as shown on an oscilloscope with no musical input and then compare it to the output with musical input and ratio that difference expressed in dB you now have the signal to noise ratio.

Frequency response is a graph of the sound pressure levels created at any given frequency. The variation therein is a function of the circuitry that processes the musical input (signal) (e.g EQ) and especially the electromechanical drives (speakers) since the surface of the material used resonates and responds differently to various frequencies. A frequency response curve can be created by taking well controlled sound pressure readings while applying pure sine wave frequencies at discrete intervals and plotting that and then interpolating the curves that those points create.
 
folsom_lives said:
So what do we think about a spec comparison between the NAD 326BEE and 3050?

Looks like I'd be getting more power, better aesthetics, possible expansion with the BluOS card and Dirac. All the other stats are beyond me at the moment unless someone can simply explain signal to noise ratio and frequency response and if I'd even be able to differentiate between the two stated numbers.
Click to expand...
The amplifier section of the 316BEE has better signal to noise ratio.

The headphone section of the 316BEEE has better to signal to noise ratio.

The phono section of the 316BEE is more sensitive and good with cartridges 2.95 mV output or above.

The 3050 offers more power.

The phono section of the 3050 offers better signal to noise ratio.

The lower sensitivity of the 3050 phono stage means full power output may not be possible with cartridges less than 5.5 mV. This is also why the SNR is better than the 316BEE- lower gain. All things being equal (the 316BBEE with a 5.5 mV output cartridge) I’d expect equal measurements or possibly a bit better with the 316BEE. The lower gain means the volume will have to be turned up farther on the 3050 vs the 316BEE to achieve the same listening level.

Although the 316BEE offers slightly better signal to ratio measurements generally, the two are so close that I doubt the difference would be audible, and if it were it’s only just barely.
 
HiFi Guy said:
The amplifier section of the 316BEE has better signal to noise ratio.

The headphone section of the 316BEEE has better to signal to noise ratio.

The phono section of the 316BEE is more sensitive and good with cartridges 2.95 mV output or above.

The 3050 offers more power.

The phono section of the 3050 offers better signal to noise ratio.

The lower sensitivity of the 3050 phono stage means full power output may not be possible with cartridges less than 5.5 mV. This is also why the SNR is better than the 316BEE- lower gain. All things being equal (the 316BBEE with a 5.5 mV output cartridge) I’d expect equal measurements or possibly a bit better with the 316BEE. The lower gain means the volume will have to be turned up farther on the 3050 vs the 316BEE to achieve the same listening level.

Although the 316BEE offers slightly better signal to ratio measurements generally, the two are so close that I doubt the difference would be audible, and if it were it’s only just barely.
Click to expand...
Don’t know if it makes a difference but I have the discontinued 326BEE and I’d be using with the Sutherland Insight so phono is not critical.
 
having the 3050, it is dead silent in my listening so far. like no noise. There was always a slight hiss on the sony, especially at higher volumes. Nothing from the 3050. I don't particularly ever blast it, but no noise at all. If i gave it a criticism, I would say on things that aren't bass heavy, it seems a little lean in the low end. Should you play something that thumps though, it thumps, so that may just be me coming off of something that was clearly coloring my music more than I thought it was.

I only have experience with those two amps though, so can't really comment on what it sounds like compared to others. It was completely worth the money for me.
 
Lee Newman said:
having the 3050, it is dead silent in my listening so far. like no noise. There was always a slight hiss on the sony, especially at higher volumes. Nothing from the 3050. I don't particularly ever blast it, but no noise at all. If i gave it a criticism, I would say on things that aren't bass heavy, it seems a little lean in the low end. Should you play something that thumps though, it thumps, so that may just be me coming off of something that was clearly coloring my music more than I thought it was.

I only have experience with those two amps though, so can't really comment on what it sounds like compared to others. It was completely worth the money for me.
Click to expand...

I think that’s probably not the amp but the fact that the Sony was artificially boosting it and that you’re using bookshelves that can’t dig as deep as larger standmounts/floorstanders.
 
Joe Mac said:
I think that’s probably not the amp but the fact that the Sony was artificially boosting it and that you’re using bookshelves that can’t dig as deep as larger standmounts/floorstanders.
Click to expand...
That is my feeling too. I haven't played with eq because it doesn't even really bother me, just an adjustment. I'm fairly certain I'm listening to music more like those that recorded it intended it now.
 
Lee Newman said:
reminds me, @Mather did your buddy's friend's cousin's stepbrother ever figure out their 3050?
Click to expand...
Haha actually yes, you all were correct that it was something very dumb, but I'm still not exactly certain what it was. I kinda went over what to plug into what but it seems he had something going to the Pre's, which I pointed out a few days ago to avoid so I'm still not sure what exactly happened but yes, he's got it sorted. Next step is I'm going to go over there and setup his DIRAC which should be interesting as I've only ever done multiple speaker systems. So I'm curious what it can do for a simple stereo setup.
 
Mather said:
Haha actually yes, you all were correct that it was something very dumb, but I'm still not exactly certain what it was. I kinda went over what to plug into what but it seems he had something going to the Pre's, which I pointed out a few days ago to avoid so I'm still not sure what exactly happened but yes, he's got it sorted. Next step is I'm going to go over there and setup his DIRAC which should be interesting as I've only ever done multiple speaker systems. So I'm curious what it can do for a simple stereo setup.
Click to expand...
I expect a full report out on this.
 
Mather said:
Another friend stereo setup question.
Buddy has the forum approved Onkyo TX 8020. Just got an external phono stage, assuming he just goes into a different input with it instead of phono correct? That Onkyo internal stage can't be disabled or bypassed or wherever I assume, just go into different input?
Click to expand...

Different input for sure. The phono input will be physically wired into a PCB with the phono stage on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top