HDX magazine review.

quote:

My MacBook/Lavry is not only voiced very closely to the CDS3 it replaced, I actually prefer it and it's very, very close to the CD555 on direct comparison.

Steve,

There is an aftermarket mod to the Lavry.

A moded Lavry might beat the CD555.

quote:

Originally posted by David Dever:
and, most importantly, the HDX playback (sans power supply) was compared to a CD555.

...and with a 555PS.

quote:

Originally posted by David Dever:

(Methinks I hear the sounds of axes grinding.)

???

Gregg

quote:

Originally posted by kuma:

There is an aftermarket mod to the Lavry.

Out of curiosity what does it do?

Gregg

Wouldn't it be nice if this thread was discussing our new Naim DACS???!?!?!

I think I have found the replacement for my Beresford... I am going to pick up a Lavry asap. Just for fun.

Maybe I wont have to pine for a Naim DAC afterall.

quote:

Originally posted by paremus:
David
Sorry this thread has lost me. Are you saying that with this CD - the ripped sounded better or worse than the CD on the HDX.

Previous comments are correct. Theoretically - rips should always be better.

On a personal note I would require that rips always be better - that would be "my" only impetus for supplementing/moving away from my CDS3 - otherwise I already have the best playback device (well - not counting my LP12 )

quote:

Originally posted by glevethan:

On a personal note I would require that rips always be better - that would be "my" only impetus for supplementing/moving away from my CDS3 - otherwise I already have the best playback device (well - not counting my LP12 )

Gregg,

Get your mits on some 24/96 recordings. This is where the FLAC-DAC really shine and will beat your CDS3 every single time.

For standard redbook replay, I am sure the $15,000 to $30,000 CDPs out there will outperform most PC/DAC combos.

But their inability to handle 24/96 is where the CDPs fall short.

I would venture a guess that 24/96 through a $200 Beresford DAC will beat the pants off of most CDPs.

I dont have a TT right now and would rather spend money in other areas. But I DO have a nice collection of vinyl. Doing 24/96 transfers of all of my vinyl was the most eye-opening experience I've had with music replay.

24/96 from good vinyl played on a nice kit is jaw droppingly yummy.

quote:

Wouldn't it be nice if this thread was discussing our new Naim DACs

Yes, but I'm patient and I'll wait.

I've got 30 or so Zappa albums I can play on the LP12 so waiting is no great hardship.

quote:

Originally posted by ROTF:
I've got 30 or so Zappa albums I can play on the LP12 so waiting is no great hardship.

Now THAT is source first. Pure genius.

Kuma,

So up front - I don't have a 555 - or a DAC at present.

I find the following troubling from a consistency / logical viewpoint.

Unlike the vast majority of CD Players, every HD storage device must recover 100% of the stored data all the time (unless the disk is broken). Assuming a good ripping process is followed - 100% accurate data copy of the CD should be on the hard disk. Reasons for for continued superiority of a CD solution - relative to the ripped data can only be down to:

a) Higher noise level injected by HD driver relative to CD drive
b) Burst data output from drive being a cause of jitter
c) Inadequacies in DAC and analog stages of HD solution
d) The listener prefers listening to the error correction algorithms of the CD player
e) ??

a) b) & c) will, if not already, be addressed by good engineering in time. BTW - just guessing / hypothesizing.

So, a general question to those people lucky enough to own 555's. Did any of you try the Bedini clarifiers? If so, did you notice any effect - good or bad? Surely, if the 555 consistent reads all data from CD, then there should be no effect at all. If there is an effect - this can only be through data loss.

So what am I missing here? Genuine question.

BTW - I don't think the analogy of analog v.s. digital holds. Digits really are digits.


Cheers

Richard

Richard,

I don't read much technical data.
And yes, on paper, the rip should be always better especially on a high-res. and I have a high hope for that since my past 2-channel hi resolution experience were either: didn't sound that good to me ( SACD ) or, the music I want to listen to isn't widely available in the format even tho it sounded pretty good. ( DVD-A )

There are many things I have tried and been told before and after that it was not suppose to make any difference ( good or bad, mind you ), yet my experiences differ from what it's supposed to be.

I have no idea what's at work, but all your hypothesis sound good to me.

quote:

Did any of you try the Bedini clarifiers? If so, did you notice any effect - good or bad?

Yes. I have owned one of those machine. And yes it did make a difference but I found the effect does not last long enough in that the *ritual* too cumbersome so I eventually stop using it.

Unlike cleaning LPs, which is a huge PITA yet can be tremendously rewarding at times. I suppose, the difference made by Bedini was not worth it for me to bother with it.

Note that I did not try it with a CD555 ( this was my pre-Naim days ).

Conversely, I am not certain if my ripping method recovered all the data from CDs either. Some of my friend's files which sounded better or worse depending on the settings, I am not certain if the data was recovered 100%, either.

I also do not pay much attention to published jitter figures.
In the past, so-called low jitter digital device actually sounded worse than others with higher figures. I think there are a lot more at work to make up the overall performance of any kit.

It's sort of like the power rating war of '70s. Manufactures only show the figures that they want you to see for marketing purpose.

quote:

So what am I missing here?

Go listen to an HDX, CD555 and a DAC/mac of choice with your bestest rip and report back.

quote:

I don't think the analogy of analog v.s. digital holds. Digits really are digits.

So, what do you think of a vinyl made from a digital recording?

quote:

Originally posted by kuma:

quote:

Did any of you try the Bedini clarifiers? If so, did you notice any effect - good or bad?

Yes. I have owned one of those machine. And yes it did make a difference but I found the effect does not last long enough in that the *ritual* too cumbersome so I eventually stop using it.

So I guess I'm implying this demonstrates the frailty of the Red Book CD medium. Even when used in the highest quality players - for some reason - information retrieval is environmental dependent. More so than LP!?

quote:

Conversely, I am not certain if my ripping method recovered all the data from CDs either.

But a number of routes are available to guarantee 100% data ripping for undamaged CD's. So unlike playing a CD which may or may not, with the right tools ripping can be 100% accurate.

quote:

I also do not pay much attention to published jitter figures.
In the past, so-called low jitter digital device actually sounded worse than others with higher figures. I think there are a lot more at work to make up the overall performance of any kit.

Agreed. Reminds me of the Tolstoy quote - "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way"

As replay system must address all issues - not just Jitter, not just...

quote:

quote:

So what am I missing here?

Go listen to an HDX, CD555 and a DAC/mac of choice with your bestest rip and report back.

I've heard the CD555 - very taken with it. The problem is hearing all these things together - I don't have GFFJ's musical memory - so I suspect I'll have to purchase the DAC up front and drag it along to a HDX CD555 type demos.

Don't get me started on how one might go about properly demo competing Turntable options. Mmmm, I'd like to see how the Raven, DPS, Roksan and new Well Tempered turntables compare to my Linn and potential Linn upgrades (Keel, Sole, Funk) before I decide next steps Think I'll buy the DAC...

quote:

So, what do you think of a vinyl made from a digital recording?

Depends

Cheers

Richard

Yes! I got the "quotes" indentation right

quote:

Don't get me started on how one might go about properly demo competing Turntable options. Mmmm, I'd like to see how the Raven, DPS, Roksan and new Well Tempered turntables compare to my Linn and potential Linn upgrades (Keel, Sole, Funk) before I decide next steps

I think I see it differently - I would just demo the LP12SE and see if I preferred to the LP12 which I already think is fantastic (I have heard and do think the keel is a worthwhile upgrade when funds permit) - I wouldn't bother with the rest. I'm not saying one of the other options is not better (only heard the funk and not impressed), but I don't care - I'm enjoying the LP12 so that's enough.

I would see a distributed audio solution in the same way - sooner or later Naim or possibly Linn or Rega will have a solution that is right for me and complements my existing rig.

What I moved away from is comparative demo with lots of manufacturers kit and shopping around. I prefer to buy from as few vendors as possible through a trusted dealer - this strategy has brought me the best results I have heard at home.

Yes I do hear other kit on occasions and some of it is outstanding, but I'm happy enough not to be a product evaluator.

So why not just demo the LP12SE and decide if it is better than what you have. If it is go for it, if not then be happy you have a very good system.

ATB Rotf

When people say, "theoretically", you need to understand what you mean. Please explain, why is a ripped file better than a CD when both are error corrected?

Look at the mechanism, how does the hard disk outperform CD, why does it? If they both use Reed Solomon Error Correction? Surely this error correction method is adequate for the human ear. I.e. could you hear CD being interleaved? Does an audio CD suffer from real-time playback more than a data music file de-encrypted in real-time? Surely an encrypted file would suffer jitter artefacts?

These are difficult questions to answer. I don't know. More important things in life and sound distortion due to speakers.

In practise, I don’t have a master recording or an accurate reference to make informed decisions about whether a DAC1, Lavry or Naim 555 is more accurate. What is clear, is that if you prefer the sound, then you have to make-up your mind whether it’s worth the investment. The Lavry DA10 did extremely well in the context of a Naim system, where the CDS3 or 555 should have been clearly much better. In fact, should have slaughtered given the months of Naim R&D.

How does a Lavry compare to a DAC1/555 in the context of an ATC System?

The DAC1 bettered all CD players, including the Naim CDS3/XPS, Mark Levinson 390S using 252 and reference ML pre when I last did the comparison.

In the end, Naim could very easily provide a digital toslink or coaxial input with their CD players, I think it would be a great idea! Then you can decide whether their expensive CD Transport makes any difference compared to a £100 DVD or hard disk device. Would they need to develop their own jitter reduction circuit and would this have an effect on the final resulting sound? If you can master red-book with no correction by incorporation good engineering, is the upside a better sound, because you do not need a negative sounding jitter reduction circuit?

If I want to hear what is on the recording, I’d still use a DAC1. I agree with some comments on the Lavry performance, magazine review etc., it does make sense what they are saying. An accurate sound is certainly not always the best sound.

You make your choice!

Peter

quote:

Originally posted by PMR:

If you can master red-book with no correction by incorporation good engineering, is the upside a better sound, because you do not need a negative sounding jitter reduction circuit?

Somwhere along the line you need a DAC, and the DAC needs an accurate clock or else jitter will result. "Jitter reduction" is really "don't cause the jitter in the first place" ! Most dacs in most cdp's are poor when it comes to the clocking signal, resulting in high jitter and a reconstructed analogue signal that is all over the place in real time.

At this high level of performance I do not find it necessary to pit rips versus cds. Great CD replay is stunning as we all know. Lossless to a decent DAC is also very engaging.

We all keep reading reviews stating how "close" it is to their CDX2 or 5x, or even 555!!

I am sure the differences in quality are minimal. This makes the presentation and process the areas to place value.

Some people prefer to actually pull out the disc and peruse the liner notes while enjoying. Others like to flip the record over, gently lower the arm, and truly become a part of the experience.
Others like to double click on John Zorn and have over 100 albums instantly collect into a playlist that will play randomly all night long.

It only need be understood that at a high level of quality and performance, all three major sources for music replay are musical, engaging, and worthwhile.

quote:

If I want to hear what is on the recording, I’d still use a DAC1.

I guess I can't handle the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:


I am sure the differences in quality are minimal. This makes the presentation and process the areas to place value.

I agree Patrick.

Small movements in speaker position have made far more obvious differences, than worrying about tiny differences in digital source presentation.

Kuma,

Bit of a selective quote there, Pete then immediately says "an accurate sound is not always the best sound". It's like analogue all over again.

No amount of anyone telling me the DAC1 is accurate, makes it work for me either.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by Steve S1:
Bit of a selective quote there, Pete then immediately says "an accurate sound is not always the best sound". It's like analogue all over again.

Or valve!
Valve + analogue= what accuracy?

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
At this high level of performance I do not find it necessary to pit rips versus cds. Great CD replay is stunning as we all know. Lossless to a decent DAC is also very engaging.

We all keep reading reviews stating how "close" it is to their CDX2 or 5x, or even 555!!

I am sure the differences in quality are minimal. This makes the presentation and process the areas to place value.

Some people prefer to actually pull out the disc and peruse the liner notes while enjoying. Others like to flip the record over, gently lower the arm, and truly become a part of the experience.
Others like to double click on John Zorn and have over 100 albums instantly collect into a playlist that will play randomly all night long.

It only need be understood that at a high level of quality and performance, all three major sources for music replay are musical, engaging, and worthwhile.

Quite so, pcstockton!

I know this is a bit late in the day, but having just got around to reading the HFC review of the HDX I felt I had to express my astonishment. It is just about the most worthless review of any piece of hi-hi that I've ever seen printed. Aside from the factual points, which are easily obtainable from Naim, it tells us nothing useful whatsoever. One might reasonably expect it to have been compared to currently produced CD players (Naim and otherwise) and perhaps the likes of a Macbook/DAC combination. All in the context of a modern (Naim) system. Instead we learn that, used in a mostly obsolete Naim system, it is better in several ways than a 20yr old long since obsolete Naim CD player! Very useful indeed.

Peter

CDS1 is *not* "obsolete". It plays CDs just as well as the day it was released.

Jon, perhaps my choice of words was inappropriate. The CDS was/is a great player. My point is that comparing the HDX to it is not useful for most people since it is no longer available to buy new, and things have advanced significantly in CD replay since then. Most people will want to know how the HDX compares to a CDX2/CDS3 etc. ie. currently manufactured gear.

Peter

Second! I absolutely agree with you...

Regards,
Michel

quote:

Originally posted by pjl:
Jon, perhaps my choice of words was inappropriate. The CDS was/is a great player. My point is that comparing the HDX to it is not useful for most people since it is no longer available to buy new, and things have advanced significantly in CD replay since then. Most people will want to know how the HDX compares to a CDX2/CDS3 etc. ie. currently manufactured gear.

Peter