new HDX with SD

Maybe but then it would still be 2 boxes and a really tight fit. Those CDPs both still need an outboard PS, less versatile DACs and just one drive. Would also be a different price point.

JS

Think you missed interpreted my point.

At present - IMO to be credible the HDX is 3 boxes! A two box solution - one being the power supply would be much better.

If you're not decoding audio within the box, there shouldn't be a need to go crazy with outboard power supplies, provided that the SPDIF digital stream is clear of any significant ground plane noise and jitter.

quote:

Originally posted by paremus:
AHT

So you are telling me that you can do a single box for a CDS player - i.e. the CDS3 or 555, but not an HDX equivalent?

You've just proved my point. Neither the 555 nor the CDS3 are single box players. Each has an external power supply. A noisy power supply is the biggest obstacle to high-end performance, so it should be physically isolated. No matter how much you upgrade the DAC section in the HDX, this problem will remain.

At the same time, a bare HDX is a very capable machine. I have used one for over a year, with excellent results (and I also have a 555 for comparison).

First, despite differing opinions, it is amazing how far the bar has been moved in terms of the quality of digital replay for the consumer has been moved by Naim since the release of the HDX 18 months ago. I don't think anyone expected such improvement over such a short period of time. I say consumer, since I've been hearing what Ken has done with his transfer and rip with the Nagra VI, but this has really no user friendly interface, etc.. that would be useful for the consumer.

I could not believe that with an HDX/DAC/555 PS that what I thought was initially an analog A2D 24/96 transfer turned out to be just a ripped 16 bit file played back through the above.

Having said that it is clear that Naim is addressing all ranges of the consumer with their product offerings and future developments. I think it very reasonable to expect that anyone would be able to find a suitable solution for their playback needs within this family of products within a short time frame.

I think that in the development of individual solutions and boxes it is more clear where Naim is heading, but not entirely. The Unitiserve does show an intent to separate the ripping/storage/computer from the DAC stage. Certainly I could envision a larger case Unitiserve, but with only the ripping mechanism and SSD drive (all storage to a NAS) as the brains of the operation with an improved player/digital out section over what the HDX has which is then sent to a "reference level DAC" My thoughts, could be way off the mark, but it seems as if they started with the Integrated solution and are now breaking down its functions into separate parts which will provide options and various levels of replay.

Why this strategy, only they know. Perhaps the need to get a product to market to start with, or perhaps lessons learned along the way that allowed for better individual development after the integrated solution.

quote:

Originally posted by paremus:
JS

Think you missed interpreted my point.

At present - IMO to be credible the HDX is 3 boxes! A two box solution - one being the power supply would be much better.

But we don't share that 3 box opinion. There's credible and there's best.

JS,

Are you saying that in a probably reference case that the entirety of the DAC/Power supply could be realistically incorporated and then have the ripping/pc/ (+/- storage) in the other case for a 2 box solution?

No just that the HDX is fine without DAC and better with. 2 box vs three box, overall similar to a CDX2 type of arrangement from stand alone to 3 boxes but overall best when 3 boxed.