HDX owners club
Posted by: John R. on 20 September 2008
Due to the recent threads about the HDX it seems to me that for some strange reasons it is more respected by some strange forum members to criticize a product than to appreciate this. Regarding the HDX is seems to be rather brave to like it these days. Do those people think we are deaf when we like the HDX or that we are Naim sheeps? I demoed the HDX quite a lot before spending that amount of money, but in the end I did, since to me ears the HDX is worth the money. It is a great product and I appreciate that Naim invested so much money and entered completly new territory with the HDX. I heard high level PC based solutions with Krell DAC befor buying my HDX, too. This was not bad at all, but simply not the Naim sound at all. I demoed the Linn Akurate DS in a full Naim system (even the Akurate DS on Fraim) and again this was not the sound I am looking for. The Linn sounded boring and uninvolving for my taste. The dealer who demoed the Linn has a lot of experience with multi room solution and I am sure that everything was correct with the Linn. By the way I find it strange that Linn advocates FLAC since after reading an article where Reference Recording (they invented HDCD by the way) said that they feel their high resolution files (24bit and 176,4 kHz)sounded differnt from the digital master after using FLAC to decode them. This made my curious and with the help of my HDX and my PC I could easily hear a difference when a file was FLAC decoded, but well, Linn seems not to hear a difference.
In my humble setup (282,200, Hi Line) the HDX is great and I enjoy every minute with me ripped CDs or a few high resolution downloads. Although I still have got my CDX 2 I do not miss it a minute. I simply prefer the ultra precise and neutral way the HDX presents the music from bass to treble. There are so many tiny new details to discover, so many informations about the recording room. Every tone arises from a black and calm background and decays so natural. This black back ground makes the HDX sound so dynamic regarding macro and micro dynamics. The natural flow of the music is amazing.
One last thing about all this MAC/Lavry or whatever DAC thing: Funny thing is that none of their users experienced problems with HF garbage from the MACs power supply. Funny thing,too, that the MAC seems to use such a great DVD drive for ripping. Well, when I played around with PC based solutions I tried different power supplies and different CD/DVD drives for ripping. And all sounded totally different. For example a high price CD only Plextor Premium 2 was so much ahead of the high price combined DVD/CD drives. Even a Plextor DVD/CD drive was not as good for ripping as its CD only brother. Ripped CDs using my PC, Exact Audio Copy with the "right" settings and Plextor Premium 2 and then put on a USB memory stick sounded as good as a rip the HDX made on its own. This again shows how well engineered/designed the HDX is. Then every soundcard, even semi professinal ones (RME, LYNX) sounds differnent. There are endless variables when it comes to PC based audio solution. Even the speed of the chip has got an influence. And the software used for playing the files has got a huge influence, too. I tried a hole bunch of different software players and only two sounded good. The rest was like listening to MP 3. As you can see I played around a lot with PC based audio before I got my HDX.
I can only laugh at people saying that a MAC is a MAC and it sounds so good and that a MAC can not be compared to a PC using ASIO drivers. A MAC is Intel based such as any other PC and its switch mode power supply causes as many problems as every other PC power supply, but those ignorants are not willing to hear it. And there are quite a few differences from MAC to MAC. And guess what: It is totally OK for me. A system that satisfies its user is a good system no matter if it would satisfy another user.
Well, thanks to my HDX I do not have to care about all these variables/problems and can enjoy my ripped music and can read probably a hole bunch of answers saying I am deaf, stupid, ... but turning on my HDX will only make me smile at those answers.
Posted on: 20 September 2008 by gary1 (US)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by munch:
I thought i was going to find a nice thread for owners of the HDX to post how happy they are with there HDX's on.QUOTE]
John, I agree. When I saw the title of the thread I was expecting just an update of your HDX experience which you've posted throughout the forum. I hope that others who have gone to the HDX would add their comments here as well. This should be a positive thread.
It is clear that there is alot of differing opinions regarding computer/DAC playback and your comments above, along with Ferenc's and mine clearly show this to be the case. I also agree that there are many more variables involved from how and what you use to get the information in, to how its processed, and what it plays through. Your comments echo my own experience thus far and I'm a relative newbie to digital playback. I've been lucky to have resources that have allowed me to experience quite a number, but obviously not all solutions.
Bottomline IMHO, the HDX does it for you and you should stand by that opinion. I hope to be able to comment on my experience with the Mac/Lavry and HDX soon. Even with your opinion or others its always best to keep the tone positive even when you disagree otherwise as seen elsewhere recently we get into a pissing match which helps nobody.
Posted on: 20 September 2008 by HTK
I hope this thread will develop into a useful repository of user experience, both good and maybe not so good – let’s have it all. From a selfish POV it’s nice to get a fix on the ups and downs without taking the plunge and I look forward to seeing how longer term experiences pan out. Our impressions of a prototype HDX at the summer road show were positive. I think Naim were being rather conservative about where the HDX sat in the hierarchy and we will at some point have one home for a proper listen.
I am unconvinced at this stage but interested enough to look further into it when the time comes. The Lovely Hell is less ambiguous. Notwithstanding the fact that we have yet to hear it at home, she is of the opinion that the voicing is preferable to our CDX2/XPS2. We will see. I know you can get similar results (putting to one side all the variables you highlight) for less money. But I’ve been doing some passive research on this and TBH I don’t think I can be arsed. That is not to say the HDX will win by default, but it will get the first shot at the title. We’re in no hurry and in the mean time I will watch this with interest.
Congratulations on your new toy. I hope you have big fun – please come back from time to time with running reports and let’s have it all, good and bad.
Cheers
Posted on: 20 September 2008 by John R.
@ HTK: Make sure you try the HDX with your XPS2. It takes the HDX to a completly new level and this is about as good as it gets with digital playback. And although most of our software is 16bit 44,1 kHz, try to download some free highresolution files to see what the HDX is capable of. I really enjoyed the
www.highdeftapetransfers.com and
www.2l.no free downloads. The latter offers some free files in different formats - interesting to compare.
@Steve S1: Why do you think I am not happy with my recent purchase? I would always buy the HDX again and that is 110% sure.
Posted on: 20 September 2008 by David Dever
You could extend this "club" to those of us using NS-series NaimNet servers (of which there are now a few) in the context of a Naim system.
Don't feel as if you have to justify your purchase–its performance speaks for itself (just as I realize that the HDX outperforms the NS01 I use in some aspects, I am perfectly satisfied in the system I use it in at home).
Next step–archiving all of those CDs. (And buying more records too!)
(But I have to admit I lust after a front-panel touchscreen, though.)
Posted on: 20 September 2008 by james n
quote:
I do not have to care about all these variables/problems and can enjoy my ripped music
Same here - enjoy your HDX - it's a nice bit of kit
James
Posted on: 20 September 2008 by Erik
From my humble point of view, you got a very special bit of kit. I sold my tripple5 when I first heard the HDX.
/Erik
Posted on: 21 September 2008 by John R.
@ Erik:
Do you have a HDX now? Then you should have kept your PS 555
@ David Dever: Of course NS-series users are welcome, too. The touchscreen is really nice. Regarding a "remote control" for my HDX I hope that the i pod touch will work with FLASH real soon. I heard that they are working on it. Otherwise I will buy a Nokia.
Posted on: 21 September 2008 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
they invented HDCD by the way
Not sure who the 'they' is, but I think you were implying Linn - Linn has done many great things but they did not invent HDCD. HDCD technology was developed between 1986 and 1991 by Keith Johnson and Michael Pflaumer. Unfortunately, their company Pacific Microsonics was subsumed by the evil empire in 2000 - so every time you buy HDCD then you are feathering the nest of Mr Gates (or has he gone now).
BTW I've not heard the HDX, MacLavry or Linn Majik DS so I've no idea which I'd prefer sonically. Technically, I like the Linn approach, but that is because I detest hard disks and see it as more future proof when solid-state storage takes over. Also, I have never knowingly bought anything that contains Microsoft developed software for my own personal use and that would make the HDX a very hard purchase for me.
ATB Rotf
Posted on: 21 September 2008 by PMR
John R.
Best not to comment on something you don't understand. Enjoy your HDX!
Posted on: 21 September 2008 by John R.
@ ROTF: I meant Reference Recording.
@ PMR: Good thing you seem to understand everything...
Posted on: 21 September 2008 by Adam Meredith
quote:
Originally posted by ROTF:
quote:
they invented HDCD by the way
Not sure who the 'they' is, but I think you were implying Linn ...
"where
Reference Recording (they invented HDCD by the way)... "
"We at
RR believe that how a recording sounds is as important as the music itself. "Prof." Keith O. Johnson, our chief engineer and Technical Director, is a true audio legend, having designed and patented many innovative products in the professional and consumer fields. The RR Sound comes from his singular methods and equipment, hand-built or extensively modified by him. Microphone techniques range from single-point Blumlein to spaced omnis to complex studio mixes, depending on the musical forces and the performing space involved. Our goal is to recreate the sound of real musicians making music in real space.
"Prof." Keith Johnson has spent over 30 years developing a reputation for innovative thinking, technical achievement and musicianship which has elevated him to a position in the audio industry occupied by only a handful of visionaries. His intensive investigation of electronic behavior and acoustic perception have led most recently to his development (with digital engineer Michael Pflaumer) of the revolutionary
High Definition Compatible Digital encoding process, produced and marketed by Pacific Microsonics (recently acquired by Microsoft). HDCD is widely considered to be the most accurate recording process ever invented."
Posted on: 21 September 2008 by Adam Meredith
quote:
Originally posted by PMR:
John R.
Best not to comment on something you don't understand. Enjoy your HDX!
How entirely true - do (continue to) apply to your own comments.
If you are finding this difficult - I will help.
quote:
Posted Thu 18 September 2008 15:34
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Meredith:
"PMR - could you strive to limit your comments to being positive about computer audio - rather than being tempted to be constantly negative about its established alternatives?"
Sorry, but you won't find anyone more positive about computer audio than me since I have driving systems this way for nearly 10 years.
I’ll work on the critique and not the criticism in future.
Posted on: 21 September 2008 by Claus-Thoegersen
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ROTF:
BTW I've not heard the HDX, MacLavry or Linn Majik DS so I've no idea which I'd prefer sonically. Technically, I like the Linn approach, but that is because I detest hard disks and see it as more future proof when solid-state storage takes over. Also, I have never knowingly bought anything that contains Microsoft developed software for my own personal use and that would make the HDX a very hard purchase for me.
As I understand it you can still write an application if you really want to since the underlying protocols of the UPNPAV or whatever the standard is called is open. I can be very rong here but I doubt it.
A Linn DS needs a hard disk or a nas drive, and from what I saw this need of using a network disk made it slow to updage the player with ew ripped cds, and the Linn DS did not like more than one pc running the client at the same time, on the HDX this is not at all a problem.
Sometimes all the happy open source evangilists should consider how open open source really is, or is in certain situations. The current software for the Linn DS models is for sure Open source, but the Linn application is totally unusable for a blind person! Many open source approaches may exclude some users, wich makes all the hype of openness and anti MS talk annoying for some of us, when both Apple and MS and now Naim among others actually can deliver software that works!
Claus
Posted on: 21 September 2008 by David Dever
quote:
Also, I have never knowingly bought anything that contains Microsoft developed software for my own personal use and that would make the HDX a very hard purchase for me.
Do not confuse embedded OSes with desktop OSes–they are chalk and cheese, and the availability of developer resources (in tandem with sensible licensing schemes) trounces partisan bickering when it comes to manufacturing actual, shipping products that work (and must be supported after the fact with updates and troubleshooting).
For example–Apple provides fantastic developer resources on the desktop application side, but offers no embedded versions of the OS outside the iPhone/iPod touch, which is tied to proprietary hardware. Embedded developer support is a sore spot, and there are some major Mac-centric developers that have migrated to embedded PC hardware (using embedded Win XP or Linux distributions) when they realized that they would not be able to rely upon Apple for developer support resources on non-Apple hardware-based appliances. (Ironically, every time this happens, the rumor mills churn out stories of developers abandoning the Mac as a platform, even though the source code for most of the OS is widely available as "Darwin", and given the Mach / FreeBSD foundations of the OS....)
Also–most importantly–you turn on only the services you require, as embedded systems have typically far fewer processor / I/O resources to enable USB image capture devices, modems, etc. that might not ever be required (but support for which must be included by default in the desktop OS versions).
With the success of the iPhone, I think Apple will get better about addressing these concerns–but given the fact that we STILL do not have Adobe's Flash on the iPhone yet, methinks they still haven't gotten the message. In spite of your opinions of Microsoft, on the other hand, they have taken this seriously for quite some time.
Posted on: 21 September 2008 by Erik
quote:
Originally posted by John R.:
@ Erik:
Do you have a HDX now? Then you should have kept your PS 555
Not yet but I did keep the 555PS
