HDX magazine review.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve S1:
Hi Ferenc,

The system one interests me. We did pretty much the same comparison except the speakers were also Naim (SL2), and there were two active 500s and the CD player was the 555.

When did you try it? Did you use a current Intel Mac? Also what configuration was the Audience AU24 cable to the 552?

Our results were different as I'm sure you have read.

Regards,

Steve

Hi Steve,

I used a roughly one year old black Macbook 2 GHZ and my son's very latest few weeks old MacBookPro with 2.4 GHz CPU. Heard no difference. The balanced output of the Lavry was set internally to unbalanced, and I was using a custom made XLR to DIN Audience cable to connect the DAC to the 552. By the way the 552 is connected to the 500 using a custom made Audience XLR cable as well, I do not use the original Naim cable at this point. All the mains cables were Audience as well. The Lavry clock was set to Narrow mode.

On the other hand I think it is meaningless to search the reason of our experience on this level. The difference was much more essential.

Let me find few reasons.

1. Our perception could be very different. Every music listener has her/his own "internal" "reference" so we are all different.

2. My room, where the system 1 is, a really well sound proofed, very dry as I am using an adjustable diffusor and bass trap system built on the walls. The ProAc Response 4s with the NAP500 show real life weight of the instruments and the space of the recording ( if it has one and I have lots of original stereo live recordings as I mentioned earlier). I do not talk about the so called "3D SPACE" artificially generated by all sorts of electronics while the post-production is done. The sound of the NAP500/Resp 4s is very balanced in this room, you can not hear any part of the reproduced spectrum screaming for special attention. The weight is deeply woven in the texture of the instruments and the space of the live event, not an artificial upper bass coloration. In this environment the Lavry exaggarated the upper bass a little bit more than I liked. It required an attention, you could think: well very nice rounded bass, how smooth it is..., and I do not like this kind of extra attention requiring feature. If you know what I mean. It just made the notes a little bit blurred, smoother, but little bit blurred and took the spectrum a bit apart, lost the coherency a little bit I got from the CDS3 as a source. Please note, I am talking about very small difference.

3. There is a chance that a system with an active SL2, depending on the installation of the SL2 would welcome a bit more weight, even if this weight is a bit artificial (For ME, YMMV!!). If the Lavry can give you this, you can find it better this way. I can understand if you like it, in my environment I do not need it.

I do not have a problem if you like the Lavry in your Naim system. Good for you. But please accept other's view and experience easily can be different.

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:

In this environment the Lavry exaggarated the upper bass a little bit more than I liked. It required an attention, you could think: well very nice rounded bass, how smooth it is..., and I do not like this kind of extra attention requiring feature. If you know what I mean. It just made the notes a little bit blurred, smoother, but little bit blurred and took the spectrum a bit apart, lost the coherency a little bit I got from the CDS3 as a source. Please note, I am talking about very small difference.

There is a chance that a system with an active SL2, depending on the installation of the SL2 would welcome a bit more weight, even if this weight is a bit artificial (For ME, YMMV!!). If the Lavry can give you this, you can find it better this way. I can understand if you like it, in my environment I do not need it.

I do not have a problem if you like the Lavry in your Naim system. Good for you. But please accept other's view and experience easily can be different.

Hi Ferenc,

I have no problem accepting other's views.

I got the impression you thought the differences were much larger, now you have explained more fully - it seems we are getting into quite small differences after all - not bad for £600 v £7000 eh?

Probably explains other people seeing it differently. Thank you for explaining. FWIW I use crystal lock, not narrow - the brochure seems to indicate it shouldn't make a difference but I might try it. I did find the Mac setting of 24/44 to be better than the others.

Best regards,

Steve

Well this has been an interseting 18 hours since I last logged on. Aside from personal musical interpretation, there is alot going on with all of the separate components (Computer,DAC, ripping software,music playback software,connection cables) and the latest if you read the Linn forum--differences of musical presentation depending on external NAS used!!! Seems like too many variables to obtain consistent results and I'm not even throwing in room acoustics as Ferenc points out.

I do agree with Ferenc that that little Konnekt8 ($300US)with firewire is a gem and produced excellent results with both ripped CDs using professional software and playback of 24/96 A/D recorded vinyl recordings. You should have heard it with a HC2 attached--really impressive.

It appears that this will continue to be a hotly debated subject. One thing for certain as opposed to Naim CD playback which from forum threads produces considerable agreement and consesus among forum reviewers(not all) with respect to quality as you go up the ladder, this issue with digital playback surprisingly seems to be all over the place. That is readily apparent in the short time that the DA Forum was started.

Interesting thread.

I heard the HDX at a Naim Summer Sounds show. It was only really impressive when it had an XPS2 attached.

I read the Hi Fi Choice review a couple of days ago. Malcolm Steward certainly loved the HDX.

I have been using a Mac, AE, and a Beresford DAC into my Naim system for a year. It sounds as good as my CD5.

I'll upgrade to a better DAC, and NAS set-up, that I can control via an iPhone or iTouch.

Whether this will be as good as a CD5x, CDX2 or CDS3 is kind of irrelevant. Either way I know it will sound excellent. Plus it will cost me a lot less and store more than an HDX.

If Naim release a standalone DAC, I'd buy it in an instant. I'd rather keep my system Naim instead of giving the money to Benchmark or Lavry.

Jack

Jack

I don't suppose you have tried connecting the Mac directly to the Beresford have you ( ie missing out the AE) ?

Just wondering.....

quote:

Originally posted by Steve S1:

I got the impression you thought the differences were much larger, now you have explained more fully - it seems we are getting into quite small differences after all - not bad for £600 v £7000 eh?
...

Best regards,

Steve

Actually the price difference is a bit misleading.

Soundwise the difference was small, but I could not live with the Lavry for long. If I would have to spend roughly 600 GBP, I would buy an Altmann Attraction DAC with the JISCO option or for a balanced XLR system a stereo Mytek 96DAC, depending on the surrounding equipments or a Konnekt 8 if I have a PC only source. Something which has a bit tighter bass and lot better jitter reduction mechanism than the Lavry, mainly if I would be forced to use the Toslink. But these are different solutions not substitutions for the CDS3 level CD source.

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:
But these are different solutions not substitutions for the CDS3 level CD source.

That's where we differ, the CDS3 I had was not better, given the huge difference in price it would be the minimum I would expect. It will be interesting to see what others think as they try different options.

Best regards,

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by John R.:
The German magazine STEREO tested the Lavry Black Series DA 10 in its november 2006 issue. They characterized the Lavry as beeing very emotional sounding with groove, but not not playing as exactly as some other DACs. They wrote that the DA 10 exaggerates a little bit in the bass region in comparison to a MBL 1531 CD player. Furthermore they tried the DACs in the test with different CD transporters as a source for the digital data and came to the conclusion that a rather cheap Harman/Kardon HD 970 was not as good sounding as a Teac Esoteric X-01. And they compared XLR and coaxial digital cables in the DAC test and liked XLR the best. Unfortunately they did not test toslink.

To me this might indicates that the Lavry is not immune to jitter.

It's not clear to me why the above would indicate the possible presence of jitter but I would agree that, when fed directly by the MacBook, the Lavry DA10 brings out the emotional content of the music very well indeed. I would also agree that it is a little fuller in the bass than the CDS3 and that has also added to my enjoyment of its presentation.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by paremus:
Previous comments are correct. Theoretically - rips should always be better.

Always?

Not a chance. There always would be variables just as not all CDs sound the same.

One thing I have noticed with the files is that they have a tendency to smooth things over and that's prefer by some because it does not sound bright.

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.