HDX as a CD player.

Thanks Paul and Phil, I appreciate the response.

According to your explanation
Phil there should be no difference in "audio playback quality" between the HDX as a "CD player" or the HDX playing "ripped or downloaded files" (assuming it is not 24/96). If you could respond then to the comments whereby the poster comments according to Mark Raggett of Naim with respect to replay:

Bare HDX as pure CD Player – somewhere between CD5i/CD5x.
Bare HDX playing a rip – somewhere between CD5x/CDX2, but more toward the CDX2.

According to your explanation the two should be equal. Are Mark's reported comments not accurate? I'm confused!!

Longer buffer for rips?

quote:

Originally posted by gary1:
Thanks Paul and Phil, I appreciate the response.

According to your explanation
Phil there should be no difference in "audio playback quality" between the HDX as a "CD player" or the HDX playing "ripped or downloaded files" (assuming it is not 24/96). If you could respond then to the comments whereby the poster comments according to Mark Raggett of Naim with respect to replay:

Bare HDX as pure CD Player – somewhere between CD5i/CD5x.
Bare HDX playing a rip – somewhere between CD5x/CDX2, but more toward the CDX2.

According to your explanation the two should be equal. Are Mark's reported comments not accurate? I'm confused!!

It's not unknown for rips to be better. Don't forget that with perfect rip, any necessary error correction has been done. With CD replay, the error correction is done as it plays.

Otherwise, a rip and the CD it was taken from, should sound the same.

FWIW I have always found the rip to be as good and only sometimes is it better. I have assumed the error correction is responsible in those cases (i.e. the disc contains a lot).

Steve

Gary-our cd players have some advantages, our own custom mech support/enclosure over the hdx tray, low mass clamp system etc this is perhaps more in Marks mind.

quote:

I have assumed the error correction is responsible in those cases (i.e. the disc contains a lot).

Or the pressing of the CD itself is of poor quality–"error-free" in the CD universe does not mean that it is wholly impervious to sound-quality issues caused by poor definition of pit/tracks on the disc.

Having owned a CDX2 for 6 years and an XPS2 for 5 I have heard the HDX and cannot see that a comparison with a CDX2 is valid at all. Don't get me wrong. This sort of product is clearly one way to the future but, to my ears (plus those of two separate dealers with whom I have had recent conversations) it is currently (at best) CD5x level. Effectively it is a very expensive prototype.

My view at present is that HDX is £4,500 for a £1,500 sound. I'd like to think that HDX2 could equal that up a bit.

Having said that, it'd be nice to see some of those features on the CD players.

Mike

With fairly extensive experience using the NS01 (analogue output) at home, as well as having heard quite a few CD5x units, I'd be quite pleased if production HDX units sounded as good as a CD5x–after all, the fundamental differences between a CD5x and a (current production) CDX2 lies in the power supply arrangement, analogue output filter stage, and mechanical elements of the chassis (same mainboard and transport mech in both).

Given that, any delta in performance between the NS01 and the HDX lies in, you guessed it, power supply upgradability and audio output stage, both digital and analog. These two areas are, as I understand it, are the extra bit of engineering that differentiates the HDX from the rest of the NS-series NaimNet servers.

It is even more interesting, considering the potential for radiated noise within the unit itself, that this level of performance is possible in a fully self-contained unit (given the attention paid to radiated noise from microprocessors, cable looms, etc. in the days before the introduction of the CDS, or even the NAC52).

Based on listening tests done with known "poor" CD pressings played in real-time on existing CD players in the range, I'd have to say that, on the whole, there will be some interesting comparisons to be made with production HDX units–minus the obvious fact that playback of hi-res files is a feature unavailable to the CDX2 or CD5x...let alone the storage of multiple CDs, or other file types at various sample rates and bit depths.

quote:

Originally posted by gary1:
According to your explanation
Phil there should be no difference in "audio playback quality" between the HDX as a "CD player" or the HDX playing "ripped or downloaded files" (assuming it is not 24/96). If you could respond then to the comments whereby the poster comments according to Mark Raggett of Naim with respect to replay:

Bare HDX as pure CD Player – somewhere between CD5i/CD5x.
Bare HDX playing a rip – somewhere between CD5x/CDX2, but more toward the CDX2.

According to your explanation the two should be equal. Are Mark's reported comments not accurate? I'm confused!!

Although the actual data being retrieved from the disc "live" is being taken through the same ripping and error detection / correction processes there are also mechanical issues involved too and these can never be completely eliminated from the equation - the simple fact is that when playing "live" you have an optical drive spinning in addition to the rest of the unit and when playing from internal storage that drive is in a quiescent state ... Some of the guys here think that makes quite a difference.

Phil

I heard the HDX at Audio-T in Oxford this week.
I raised the question of what the design goal was, with regard to current CD players. (I hadn't seen this thread). The answer given was in playback mode, CDX2 and playing a rip, around CD5x. The guy from Naim (sorry can't remmber his name) was kind enough to demonstrate playback mode. It was significantly better than ripped. We didn't have a CDX2 to compare to so can't comment on whether they reached their goal. I and the rest of the guests attending were very impressed with the HDX even when playing from ripped files.
I for one will consider a purchase when my CDI finally gives up. It is expensive, but the flexibility of a music server combined with the ability to still be a good CD player in its own right is very attractive.

quote:

Originally posted by SB:
I heard the HDX at Audio-T in Oxford this week.
I raised the question of what the design goal was, with regard to current CD players. (I hadn't seen this thread). The answer given was in playback mode, CDX2 and playing a rip, around CD5x. The guy from Naim (sorry can't remmber his name) was kind enough to demonstrate playback mode. It was significantly better than ripped. We didn't have a CDX2 to compare to so can't comment on whether they reached their goal. I and the rest of the guests attending were very impressed with the HDX even when playing from ripped files.
I for one will consider a purchase when my CDI finally gives up. It is expensive, but the flexibility of a music server combined with the ability to still be a good CD player in its own right is very attractive.

I was at the same dem and was similarly impressed. With a CD collection of 2,000+ I'm not really in the market until hi-res downloads are the norm and more convenient than buying red-book on line or in the high street. I also think I'd need more hard disc space than is currently available but I like the functionality particularly the overnight back up.

Fender (Strat)