Why is the nDAC so cheap?

quote:

Originally posted by ghook2020:
Anyway, there is a song called "Fortune Teller". When played through my laptop, the bass sounds more one-note-ish, and the timing seems less crisp (harder to tell the begin/end of bass notes). When switching to my DIY PC, the bass became clearer and I noticed greater soundstage depth. Plant's voice and a drumstick tapping the drum's rim are both pretty much on the same plane when played through my laptop. On my DIY PC, Plant's voice comes forward and the rim tapping goes backward. Lastly, the rim tapping sounds more woody (less like electronic noise bursts) on the DIY PC.

Right, I have that CD and will try the track streamed vs USB stick...

quote:

PS - If you are interested, you can see the specs for the PC I built by google'ing computeraudiophile and CAPS server. I described it in detail in a thread I started a while back -- was really easy to do.

Nice

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
Maybe you could "pretend"/accept that there is in fact a difference between say a CDX2 and a $30 Best Buy DVD player (assuming both are bit perfect). Now using your impressive wealth of knowledge on the Naim DAC and D-A conversion in general to help figure out some reasons how and why?

That's the problem - I can't think what in the system would cause people to hear things differently.

quote:

Originally posted by Andy S:
If you're putting a $300 vibrating and buzzing PC on a rack, you've built the wrong PC

Winky smiley or not. I LOVE how you never address things that could actually explain what people are hearing.

Let me help you understand what I am talking about....

You could say something like this (using my example of stepping into someone else's framework):

"Maybe people are hearing different SQ from different sources because of EVERY other thing the player does wrong besides sending out a SPDIF signal. Although the SPDIF signal is bit perfect, and the Naim DAC is rejecting all jitter, there are obviously other things going on. Perhaps physical vibrations from the crappy DVD player's spinning transport are the culprit. The Naim CDP is a solid machined blah blah blah."

or

"You said your PC is not highly spec'd and is sited on your hifi rack? There are definitely some bad things going on with that. The vibrations alone from the PC case are enough to disturb the Naim DACs analog output stages."

I wish you would simply stop assuming that there is a mass conspiracy, group hallucinations, overly effective placebo, or outright lying going on.

Instead of being blinded by the theory maybe you could step in the framework of others and help suss out a cause for SQ deltas.

I will say again, which you seems to constantly dismiss, outside of the theory around spdif and the Naim DAC, ther are many other reasons different transports will vary in SQ.

In a laboratory with perfect conditions sure there will be little to no SQ deltas. But remember we are using this in the real world. The PC mains simply being on the same circuit as the DAC could affect SQ.

Yes, i know, know, you will say "that is avoidable". yes certainly. But that reasoning also goes a LONG LONG way towards explaining this conundrum of sources sounding different. And it also is the answer to your question as to why others are hearing differences.

You and I are hearing little to no difference between sources. That obviously means all of our sources are on par with each other, that we know for sure. Until we get a chance to see if other sources like a CDX2 bring an improvement we will not know at what level our seemingly similar sources are.

Does this make sense?
Patrick

quote:

Originally posted by Andy S:
Because the stacking has an effect due to analogue interactions such as vibration(at least that's my understanding...). Digital (until it's converted to analogue) either works or it doesn't.

Right. are you forgetting the DAC has analog outputs and whatnot? Just because the "shitty" source is outputting digital, cant its other detrimental features degrade the DAC's analog outputs?

We arent listening to the jitterless spdif stream. We are listening to a converted signal that could easily be affected by a substandard source close by.

Below is part of the technical overview of the CDS2 from an article by Roy George.

The Philips SAA7376 servo microprocessor converts eye pattern to error corrected digital data for the digital filter. It also provides the output signals to dive the laser focus, laser radial position, laser sledge position and the disc drive motor speed. This servo processor is basically a computer and nearly all aspects of its performance can be changed by downloading new software code to it. Although pre written software code is available for the chip we decided to learn the intricate operating details of the device and then write the many thousands of lines needed to make it function. Each software instruction describes such a minimal part of the functionality that pushing the “play” button on the player, for example, will run several hundred lines of code. By writing our own code we can we can optimise every aspect of the chips performance within the context of are hardware design so that the hardware and software combination works at it’s best, maximising sound quality.


I doubt Naim would go to so much trouble for no good reason.


I found another HiFi manufactures website, that goes into great detail as to why custom designed servo engine/software improve sound quality.


This may be of significance, it may not, but neither mention jitter.

The human mind is a wonderful, and badly-understood, thing. Sometimes, pPeople *really do* recover from illness when given a placebo. They don't just *think* they've got better.

This is not to say that all, or even any, differences heard using different sources with the DAC are placebo effects, but they *might* be, and the only way to know for sure is a proper, controlled, double blind, repeatable test. But, of course, it would also help if we could pin down the mechanisms by which differences might exist - that would add weight to the argument against placebo.

Those of us who are interested in what those mechanisms might be are discussing it in this thread. And remember it was Naim, through their white paper, who provoked the discussion in the first place - they could have chosen to promote the DAC on purely subjective grounds, but they chose instead to share some of the thinking that led to the DAC's design with us (and the world) (which is to be welcomed).

I don't understand why those who have heard a difference, but cannot explain it theoretically, are so defensive. To question the mechanisms is not the same as to deny the differences.

So, back to the discussion. Some of the possibilities discussed regarding RFI etc can be easily tested. For example, does connnecting and/or streaming from a HTPC connected to the DAC via the various inputs affect the sound quality of a USB source?

quote:

Originally posted by DarrellK:
The human mind is a wonderful, and badly-understood, thing. Sometimes, pPeople *really do* recover from illness when given a placebo. They don't just *think* they've got better.

Not only "sometimes", it is actually quite powerful. Often a "real" drug only outperforms placebo by 12-15% and they still rack up billions of dollars on the drug.... if I could only patent sugar pills.

Keep in mind what you are saying above. You are saying, ipso facto, that if the placebo actually works, then people get better, not just them thinking they are better. The same thing is applied to our source independence issue. Even if placebo, the music is then actually better/different.

Given the logic you purport, which I agree with, it renders the placebo a moot point. Also by envoking placebo you are conceding that there is any actual affect by using some other method which can be measured against the effects of placebo.

Maybe it would be best to describe this effect as "self delusion", or "self-fulfilling prophecy" (the latter is maybe one of the most powerful of human thoughts and an integral part of the placebo effect as a whole) rather than placebo.

-patrick

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
Keep in mind what you are saying above. You are saying, ipso facto, that if the placebo actually works, then people get better, not just them thinking they are better. The same thing is applied to our source independence issue. Even if placebo, the music is then actually better/different.

In the mind of the particular listener, yes. That was exactly the point I was trying to make, in order to lessen the defensiveness shown by some of those who have posted the subjectivist viewpoint here. On the other hand, if the engineers amongst us (I don't include myself as one) can debunk some of the bad science, some people might no longer hear a difference and save some money...

My own usual trick is to install a new component in my system, immediately hear an improvement (e.g. an instrument newly clear and easy to follow in the mix), go back to old component and still hear the difference, but "obviously" I now know the newly clear instrument is there, so of course I will hear it! Self-delusion? Quite possibly.

Dear Dave,

There is a good deal of truth in the fact that you can can hear what you know should be there even it is not apparent in the recording or replay!

I remember once pointing out a marvelous middle voice line in Bach's Saint Matthew Passion to the salesman at a Naim dealer once. I know the music by heart and was certainly hearing the music complete and well balanced, clearly in my head. The poor salesman could not hear it, because the live recording [one of four I used to have in those days] simply completely covered it up entirely in the balance. I re-listened in a Hifi rather than musical way simply to the sound of it, and the salesman was entirely correct - the line was completely AWOL. The result was that I parted with the recording and took a different one in the following week which perfectly presented the splendid line in the music! I learned more about my own istening method than anything else through that experience!

But there is no doubt that I was creating the line in my mind's ear because I knew it was there in the music, even if not apparent in the recording and replay of that recording!

This is not quite plecebo, but the mind's ear is a marvelous thing for creating a better sense of the music than sometimes emerges from the recording/replay chain.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:


This is not quite plecebo, but the mind's ear is a marvelous thing for creating a better sense of the music than sometimes emerges from the recording/replay chain.

ATB from George

Gestalt theory at its finest.

I'd better look that one up! I hope it's kind! I expect it is.

{:¬) George

quote:

Originally posted by fatcat:
I doubt Naim would go to so much trouble for no good reason.

Come on, the guys at Naim are out and out geeks. Hell, if I could rewrite something to make it more efficient, well, then I would. Not sure how it makes any difference to sound quality though (other than through marketing...).

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
We are listening to a converted signal that could easily be affected by a substandard source close by.

OK, so if you're hearing differences then why don't we suggest placing the source a long way away and connect it by optical. Might rule out the RFI issue.

PS. in case anyone is wondering - I love my nDAC. As I said originally - why is it so cheap

Perhaps they know this price point allows them to maximize profits.

Higher price = fewer sold.

Lower price = lower overall gross profit

This must be the magical compromise between the two.

Also, the DAC is only one part of a larger set. The DAC is worthless without something to feed it. It is not "standalone". A CDX2.2 and XPS is $10,600 A Naim DAC, XPS, allows for $2100 towards a source with this comparison.

Seems about right.

A unitiserve will be a little more than $2100 but offers alot more functionality for the delta.

An HDX breaks the bank given the comparison to a CDX2. Of course it brings even more to the table.

But seeing the DAC as being necessarily used with something else it doesn't seem so "cheap".

Even if used with a sole, lowly PC it easily gets quite close or even more than $2100. After all of the hard drives, Bluetooth Keyboards and Mice, soundcards/hifaces, Amarra, special cases, SSDs etc.... a "hifi pc/mac" gets quite pricey.

Anyway...... it is a great bit of kit. I am glad I can kind of afford it.

-patrick

But many people including myself in a sense automatically register price with what "class" of product it is in the Naim ladder. We are playing to the mouth of vendor's mouth.

I recall with the nDAC and the XS that some people are complaining why Naim did not put this in a "reference" case, for what? Bragging right? So they can charge more for the Naim "air" inside?

Sounds ridiculous but true. If a product can be made for $20 and produces perfect sound, people will simply not respect it.

Not meant to offend anyone, being here means we are all like that to different degrees,

quote:

f a product can be made for $20 and produces perfect sound

... but there is no such product ... or can you point me in the right direction .... I agree with your point though - if you make something too cheap then it won't sell.

quote:

Originally posted by Andy S:
OK, so if you're hearing differences then why don't we suggest placing the source a long way away and connect it by optical. Might rule out the RFI issue.

Mind you, optical is limited to 24/96 where coax isn't.

-
aleg

quote:

Originally posted by JYOW:
I recall with the nDAC and the XS that some people are complaining why Naim did not put this in a "reference" case, for what? Bragging right? So they can charge more for the Naim "air" inside?

I'm one of those people(re DAC). Though far from reasons of bragging or because it looks more expensive (there are far easier ways of doing that, really!). Quite simply, for me it was reasons of aesthetics and matching the equipment it would likely be paired with.....The DAC and the AV2 are the only two products at their price point that have been put in slim-line casework, yet are almost guaranteed to be paired with so called 'reference' series cases....Perhaps it's a minor point, but I do find it distracting....

Ever noticed Naim's product photography, involving systems ?....You won't find any 'mixed' casework going on there....!

I guess my eyes work harder than my ears !

Steve.

Yes, but you realize that once they put the DAC in the "reference" case, all the more reason to charge a "reference" price? And people would actually associate "reference" price with "reference" quality?

It is a sell fulfilling prophecy really.

Personally, I think it IS so called 'reference' price...! £2k is £2k.

What's a NAC202 - £1700 ?

quote:

Originally posted by SC:
Personally, I think it IS so called 'reference' price...! £2k is £2k.

What's a NAC202 - £1700 ?

Good point there. From my understanding there is not much inside a 202 case. I guess the main reason for the 202 to have such a tall case is to match the 200?

So I guess despite Naim's sensible packaging (e.g. 282 looks almost the same as a 252), they do put some consideration into aesthetics. And yes the 202 does look more expensive than the 152.

BTW, how do I tell a 252 from a 282?

quote:

Originally posted by JYOW:
BTW, how do I tell a 252 from a 282?

Your bank balance...?!

Hi Andy,

quote:

What no one has yet done is provide a credible explanation as to why different sources could sound different.

I am still not convinced that you have proven that the RF interference point is not the answer.

quote:

Having said that, I really can't see how a 1 bit signal being clocked in at the same sort of frequency as the DSP will have a significant impact on the RF characteristics.

This is your gut feel based on a lot of practical experience. I have zero experience in comparison to you, so I respect your instinct and I tend to believe your gut feel. However, the naim technical information for the nDAC and CD555 seem to talk a lot about RF interference. The response to Richard from naim talked about (even passive) connections into the nDAC affecting RFI and hence sound quality. They must see this as significant. From my standpoint, the naim guys know digital engineering as applied to high end hifi, so I am not so sure I should go with your gut feel.

quote:

If Naim really wanted to remove RF, they could put a metal box around the DSP and associated circuitry

On the specification for the CD555 they say this:

‘The CD555 Digital-to-Analogue Converters are mounted in a "quiet room". Apart from ensuring that all critical signals reaching the nDAC have immeasurably low jitter the chips are inside a shielded enclosure to keep their environment free of the varying electric and magnetic fields that inevitably occur in a CD player, so enabling the converters to do their work isolated from all external influences.’

You could say, well if it’s that important why don’t they do it in the nDAC. But they have not put all of the anti-vibration technology into the nDAC that was included in the CD555. Perhaps they have put just enough goodies into the nDAC to make it a fantastic product and also ‘cheap’.

Gavin.