# Talk:NAD 3020

Properly performing amplifiers do not sound like anything, they reproduce what was recorded accurately.  Most solid state amps did that so well, they cannot be distinguished in double blind testing (i.e., they sound the same).  Amps also cannot be said to have musicality as they are not musical instruments and should not add anything to the recorded sound.  The NAD amp was designed to work with real speaker loads, which means they would perform better (in terms of not clipping or not having greatly increased distortion) when driving challenging speaker loads. This will mean the amp could sound better than another similarly rated amp when driving difficult speakers.  If the load presented no challenge to other amps, they would sound the same as the NAD. Robotczar (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This needs a section on the choice of output transistors, the 2N3055/2N2955 complementary pair.
These transistors were some of the most commonly used high power transistors of the day. However they weren't an audio transistor. This was the go-to DC switching transistor of the time. Opinions on the 3020 were thus split: was this a good choice or not?  Those (who I admit, included my teenage self) considered that such a design must be made by accountants penny-pinching and so it was beneath consideration (at a time when discrete+op-amp Hi-Fi was further up its own abstract backside than at any time before or since). Those who actually plugged them in and listened found that they were rather good, and for the price surprisingly good.  The quality was hard to tell from a Linsley-Hood design with six times the parts count and there really was little else out there to compare for the same pricetag (the early Maplin 80W MOSFET brick, when well set up, being about the only one).
The reason for this was not that the 3020 was a particularly accurate amp in reproduction, but that it was remarkably stable at doing so. This amp would drive unpleasant speaker loads and not bat an eyelid. It must have been the only amp for anything like this price that could handle Linn Isobariks. It was also (as many student parties found) a stalwart of driving stage PA speakers when turned up to 11, without either responding weirdly to a stage crossover and driver at half the designed impedance, killing your precious hi-fi speakers (which were very probably Mission 700s) or simply self-destructing their own output stage. An output stage that could, if killed, be restored to health for tuppence and a couple of beers to any electronic engineering student.
This behaviour was down to the output transistors. Transistors that anyway had an impressive spec sheet, for current if not frequency range, but were very well known for being 'unburstable' when driven beyond this. The transistor's internal and inherent stability, when passing currents far in excess of anything that belonged in the back of a "20W" amp kept their response stable and kept them from runaway deaths.  Andy Dingley (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall in all that detail. Most of the review of that era never made it online. Can you help? If you have still have some old hard copy Popular Hi-fi, Hi-fi Answers, or HFN etc from those days, it would help me supplement the sources to be used for the Linn Sondek, Roksan Xerxes, Rega Planar 3, and other articles I have created or trying to create. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Can we get something in about the standard issue hi-fi for British students in the early 80s: Dual CS-505 turntable, NAD 3020, and a pair of Mission 700s (I forget the favoured cartridge, but mine was a Grado). This setup was so popular as the starter hi-fi that many of the dealers offered it as a bundle, and even as a student bundle. One of them in Manchester sold it to students and offered free delivery to the halls of residence on arrival, to save you carrying it in the parent's Volvo!  The hi-fi mags of the period ought to be able to source this.  Andy Dingley (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Haha, I've been meaning to thank you for all your little tweaks, wondering how deep your interest lay. Now all is revealed! A few of my contemporaries had that setup too, obtained from Billy Vee and Richer Sounds. I threw out all my hi-fi mags eons ago, unfortunately... -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:NAD 3020/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: B137 (talk · contribs) 19:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

References: The article relies heavily upon a few sources. Several of these sources are of questionable reliability, and at least one is published by NAD themselves, which generally should appear as an external link if at all. Sources that were originally or primarily print should be added in a proper "Further reading" section. A better reference should be added for the most popular statistic. Also a date for that should be given (as of). I believe the current source was published in 1998.
It was undoubtedly and universally hailed by the press during its lifetime, which explained why it sold as well as it did. Unfortunately, please bear in mind that the press at the time was wholly in printed magazines, and few of the reviews ever survived the internet era, and I do not have access to those magazines to cite them. The NAD website was used sparingly, and is used to cite manufacturer's claims. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Prose: The article read a bit rough so I did some of my own copyediting; however, it should still be improved.
COI: I edited this article before rather than after starting the review, which may disqualify my reviewer credibility. Whatever.
Breadth: The article is broad enough in coverage given the subject matter; however, concerning
Neutrality: Other than the brief line criticizing the external appearance, the article is almost a puff piece.
Notability: More should be added about how this unit was a standard issue for certain educational institutions. It would be a breath of fresh air from the rote statistics.
Conclusion: I would like to pass it, regardless of it being written somewhat like an advertisement, as much of it is referenced (albeit by dubious sources). Mostly just waiting to see if my own contributions disqualify me and give it an automatic failure.
Status: On-hold, possibly for improvements, as well as input regarding the uncertainty of my pertinent authority.
B137 (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Just thought I'd drop by with some sources! Highbeam had next to nothing on reviews, though.

"ONE of the first true hi-fi amplifiers I ever bought was a NAD 3020, a best-buy budget component that is still going strong despite being subjected to much battery and abuse for over 18 years.That should tell you something about the durability and reliability of the products manufactured by NAD, a 25-year-old company which is now Canadian-owned. Not only that, NAD was also one of the first audio companies to offer products that combined such qualities as performance, value and simplicity at prices that most people could afford."[1]
"Of course NAD is venerated for the Model 3020 integrated amplifier..."[2]
One last comment, but you should be able to read the relevant part without a login.[3]
Google books snippet has a bit that is readable on its marketing.[4]
Stereo Review had an article on it in July 1979 if anyone can get their hands on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional source.
Update: The fact that I edited the article I don't really think matters, what would be a turnkey addition is a reliable source for it's use in schools, as I stated before. Walmart sells one million of a lot of things, but that doesn't make them noteworthy. For example, GV toilet paper. GV toilet paper you could say probably does get used a lot commercially such as in schools, but they are not schools of toilet paper. However, this amplifier being used as a standard issue in institutions of electrical engineering or even more specifically "hi-fi audio" would, however, further substantiate it's notability. A good solid source for this and I would pass it certainly.
Some small tweaks to the article may be appropriate; for example, the section header "Philosophy" may be inappropriate, where philosophy is an extension of math and science when math and science alone do not suffice, and while this unit was heralded I don't believe anyone suggested that it worked any miracles. B137 (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I've copyedit the article some more and I've added some sources, including the above. However, I'm a bit at a loss about the "standard issue for certain educational institutions". There is nothing in the article about it, nor is that fact mentioned in any of the sources or magazines I have read about same anywhere. Perhaps you could enlighten me? -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm referring to Talk:NAD 3020#Standard issue to students; although maybe this purportion is being taken a little too far, consult the user to inquire as to perhaps the names of said institutions. B137 (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Notability is not part of the GA criteria for obvious reasons, but N and GNG basically boil down to "Can we write an article without original research that can be backed up and verified by credible sources?" Many things are notable, and exist in everyday life, but being able to write an article about and on them that is informative is quite different. My Chester Rock Light article contains basically all that was ever known and found in all my sources (and I dug up all that I can) yet it made less of an impact than the original NAD 3020. For my article, Wikipedia is the BEST in terms of coverage that exists - it compiles everything ever known and makes it accessible and its entirely verifiable. Ohconfucious has done the same with the NAD3020 - while he is missing some of the period reviews it simply does not matter in the grand scheme of things. Why? Because he has already shown that people care, its legacy is still known decades later and is the subject of comparison and new models. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
OIC. I don't believe any educational institutions actually supplied these to students in any shape or form. I don't think it would make any financial sense for them to do so. My understanding – and I was around at the time – is that it was "standard issue" in the sense that some retailers (including Billy Vee in South London), targeting the university student market, would advertise packages that included the Dual, NAD and a pair of Missions, and would perhaps throw in a pair of good quality speaker cables or other accessories for free. Many freshmen would turn up in their digs with these items, thus "standard". -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's a clipped ad: [5] - Note this is Indiana Gazette (Indiana, Pennsylvania) from December 29, 1979 - For some reason Newspapers.com has this paper tagged incorrectly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Did some digging with different parameters.
1987 newspaper claiming the 3020 is "legendary" and about 8 years old (as in article)[6]
1989 Calling it the largest selling (highest number sold) and a good market buy a decade after its debut and noted it was "much copied".[7]
The Milwaukee Sentinel - Aug 20, 1981 using BOTH magazine and actually quoting from the text to back it up. I am certain that the quotes are genuine and help that "Notability" matter.[8]
Amp of the year[9] if you ignore the ad and of course -
Found a small trove.[10][11] From this website.[12] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ebay to the rescue.[13] There is your review. Here another document. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Conflicting data: Just a couple more tweaks, as I stated before the source that calls it "best selling" is from 1998, so perhaps it should say as of 1998. Also, the source itself states best selling hi-fi [high-end] audio amplifier. I don't have sales data in front of me but I'd be willing to bet many low end audio devices have sold over one million units as well. Furthermore, the article goes on to state (NAD_3020#Spin-offs_and_legacy) that the NAD 3020A was "even more popular" than [the 3020], and that one of the two, it's ambiguous, sold over half a million units in it's first three years. Clean this up and I think we'll call it a pass; however, it would be so nice if it could say, when referring to it's popularity, "including it's use as standard issue reference audio equipment in educational institutions such as..." B137 (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I have amended the article to address the points raised. As there does not seem to be any sources re education (see my comment on this above), I'm obliged to omit such mention. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Little note, "more popular" does not translate into "more sales" - it just defines the interest in the product and/or its reception. Though I do agree that this article certainly meets the Good Article criteria. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)