Why is the nDAC so cheap?

Posted by: Andy S on 04 May 2010

Serious question.

Have Naim scored an own goal? Using a cheap PC and optical to DAC on it's own is such a massive boost over my old CDS1 it just isn't funny and a mate is selling his CDS3 head end as the PC/DAC/XPS is as close as you could get to a CDS3. Not only that, I can connect up a number of sources and get benefit - the TV sounds SO much better through it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining since I've just bought one (the demo only lasted 5 minutes in all honesty - the distance was that big), just curious...
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by rich46
quote:
Originally posted by gav111n:
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.


addition work in r d.for the dac would not be great. i bet naim recovered that by now. 2k is still expensive. the profit in the 555 must be extremely high.
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by pcstockton
quote:
Originally posted by rich46:
the profit in the 555 must be extremely high.


R&D aside... I am guessing they make their smallest margins on the 555. Sure it may be among the biggest gross profit pieces, but only due to its sell price.

They dont sell many, and they are almost entirely constructed by hand/built to order. I bet their cost of keeping this CDP around are very high.

Even if assuming they make the same GP on the 555 as the 5i, they would have to sell 555s 10:1 over the 5i to have it be more profitable. I doubt they sell this many.
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by JYOW
quote:
Originally posted by gav111n:
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’.

My impression is the CD555 goes into great length to ensure the very physical transport and servo mechanism is fully isolated from the DAC section and the power supply.

With the Naim DAC, there is no mechanical components and all that space age rocket science is NOT NEEDED. That is also why I was disappointed that Naim put a CD drive AND 2 hard discs into the HDX, a lot of expenses was gone into the quieting of those components when they do not need to do it if they don't put it there in the first place

See that is a possible example of the perception of price=performance. Naim puts draconian efforts and hence expenses to ensure that the CD555's mechanical components is properly isolated. With the Naim DAC all that is not needed, and I dare to say that Naim could conceivably make the Naim DAC perform as well as the CD555 at a fraction of the cost.

Why does $$$$ have to equate to performance? The equipments themselves do not know that they are made of solid gold. People do.
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by JYOW
One more thing, similar to Formula One racing and the auto industry, all that R&D effort associated with the CD555 is sunk cost. ANd the knowledge gained from the CD555 could be applied to future transports / DACs
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by Richard Dane
I'm not sure about "fraction of the cost". The extreme mechanical engineering used in the CD555 is very expensive in parts and build. If you apply that to the nDAC as is (and you would need to house it in a bigger box, so you're talking Reference case as well) then you could easily see the bill of materials rocket. I'd reckon on it at least doubling the cost of the DAC, probably more. Would it improve it? Yes, undoubtedly mounting the analog and digital sections on their own independent sprung and mass-loaded suspension systems should do that, judging by Naim's past experience here. By how much? I don't honestly know. I guess we'll have to wait and see whether a 500 series DAC surfaces in the future to find out....
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by Richard Dane
quote:
Originally posted by JYOW:
The equipments themselves do not know that they are made of solid gold. People do.


It reminds me of a tour I gave some years back where I was showing the visitors the brass mass-loading plates that are used in the NAC552, CD555 and Superline. They were new and shiny and of course are surprisingly heavy. I overheard one of the group muttering that no wonder the NAC552 and CD555 were so expensive if Naim were fitting them with gold bars!!
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by SC
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Dane:
... if Naim were fitting them with gold bars!!

How to sell in China...! Winker
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by fatcat
quote:
Originally posted by Andy S:
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...).



It doesn’t really matter that YOU are not sure why Naim CD players running custom controller software sound better than those running Philips pre written software. The fact is. Naim’s Technical Director says it does.

If he’s telling the truth and not fibbing. It follows that a Naim transport (CD5 XS and CDX2-2) running custom software will sound better than a Rotel player/transport for example running Philips software.

Other high end Hifi manufactures stress the importance of custom written software with regards to sound quality. You can’t put it all down to geekdom.
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by Andy S
quote:
Originally posted by fatcat:
It doesn’t really matter that YOU are not sure why Naim CD players running custom controller software sound better than those running Philips pre written software. The fact is. Naim’s Technical Director says it does.

If he’s telling the truth and not fibbing. It follows that a Naim transport (CD5 XS and CDX2-2) running custom software will sound better than a Rotel player/transport for example running Philips software.

Other high end Hifi manufactures stress the importance of custom written software with regards to sound quality. You can’t put it all down to geekdom.
Knowing a little about software and digital replay Winker, I'd wager that the rewritten software doesn't "sound better" (after all, you are extracting bits off a disc) it just probably does it more reliably as you're building the software for the drive explicitly. Given the quote a page or two back that even the cheapo CD player is bit accurate, I'd wager (again) that it doesn't really matter in 99% of real world cases, but will do better on those scratched CDs than unoptimised software would.... But it's a cool marketing claim Smile
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by Andy S
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Dane:
no wonder the NAC552 and CD555 were so expensive if Naim were fitting them with gold bars!!
Aha! Now we find the real truth. Naim are in fact international smugglers and money launderers... Winker No wonder the DBLs cost so much, it's that custom fit "brass" damping weights on all the metal sections... <cough> Big Grin
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by Andy S
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Dane:
I'd reckon on it at least doubling the cost of the DAC, probably more.
I'd want it hand crafted by naked virgins (female - just in case anyone asks) - with a signed photo of them doing it if it cost an extra £2k for a sexy case! Come on, it doesn't cost that much (and I know how much it costs to produce a remote - for example Winker). There are some things I'm willing to pay for (a DAC for instance) but I'm not a mug........ (or a teapot for that matter) Razz Big Grin
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by Andy S
quote:
Originally posted by gav111n:
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.
The way I read the response from Naim was that if they placed the terminated coax inside the box it makes a difference. I can go with that, but in a real system, it doesn't. That's like saying "if I inject nitrous oxide into my carburettor, my car becomes a super car". Well, yes, but it doesn't really happen in real life (well, not around here anyway Smile)

Also, perhaps they've left themselves enough room to bring out a DAC555 Winker
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by Andy S
Just thougfht of another interesting point.....

Naim say they didn't put a USB slave interface on the DAC (so you can stream direct from a PC) due to the fact they didn't want to deal with the noisy environment of a PC... OK... but they have coax on it which can be used to interface to a PC and would (I would expect) have the same noise issue. The added advantage of a USB interface would be that you could put USB2 on and stream at 480Mbits/sec. High enough for any sample rate the DAC could manage directly out of the back of a computer. Perhaps an isolated USB interface (a la interface between DSP/DAC) could have been used...
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by pcstockton
quote:
Originally posted by Andy S:
Perhaps an isolated USB interface could have been used...


Like an M-Audio Transit or Hiface? Winker
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by Andy S
quote:
Originally posted by pcstockton:
quote:
Originally posted by Andy S:
Perhaps an isolated USB interface could have been used...


Like an M-Audio Transit or Hiface? Winker
No, I meant USB socket on the back of the DAC with all signal connections isolated through transformers...
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by pcstockton
It gives them the opportunity to sell an $800 NAPSC powered USB-to-Digital converter.
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by JYOW
quote:
Originally posted by pcstockton:
It gives them the opportunity to sell an $800 NAPSC powered USB-to-Digital converter.

Yes I for one would be very interested in such a product. Although I would prefer Firewire connectivity.

Before getting the Hiface, I was seriously considering the Weiss INT202 which I struggled to understand how a match box size gadget like that costs $1500, with wall wart power supply and remote control optional.
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by pcstockton
quote:
Originally posted by JYOW:
Although I would prefer Firewire connectivity.


Why? Doesn't your Mac have USB?
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by JYOW
quote:
Originally posted by pcstockton:
quote:
Originally posted by JYOW:
Although I would prefer Firewire connectivity.


Why? Doesn't your Mac have USB?

Just a personal preference from my layman understanding of Firewire Vs USB. Firewire seems to a more mature interface for audio applications with wider application in recording studios.

Up till quite recently most USB DACs support only up to 16/44.1 and 24/48 at best. And most DACs with USB do not sound as good as their SPDIF interface.

Firewire DACs like Weiss and Metric Halo supports Async and 24/192 and produce excellent.

Of course with the recent development of Wavelength/Ayre/Empirical Audio/Hiface async USB the game is changing.

Like I said, just my very limited understanding
Posted on: 13 May 2010 by pcstockton
There is nothing "recent" about async usb. I would consider a Weiss product if not for the Firewire love.

We will not know what Firewire is in a few years. Guaranteed.
Posted on: 14 May 2010 by AMA
quote:
Come on, it doesn't cost that much (and I know how much it costs to produce a remote - for example Winker).

Andy, many engineers in our company think the same way. They believe that they make up a cheap product which company sales for a high cost. And they never ask of where a company takes money for salaries, taxes, office rent and all that stuff. This is business. We produce digital tools which cost dozens of thousands dollars. Say, a small 1 meter long tool costs more than Mercedes or a full 555 system. It does not mean that it's more complicated than Mercedes or 555. It could be much simpler in design -- but it can do what Mercedes and 555 can not do Smile

If there had been a market demand to increase our production output at 10 times -- the cost per unit would go down almost the same 10 times.

I do understand why exclusive and rare items cost that much.
Posted on: 14 May 2010 by SC
quote:
Originally posted by pcstockton:
We will not know what Firewire is in a few years. Guaranteed.

So it seems. I had a email from LaCie the other day advertising their latest range of portable HD, all with USB3 (I knew it was coming, but didn't realise it was being adopted yet!)....Quoted transfer rates relegate Firewire800 to snail pace, and all backwards compatible to USB2.
Posted on: 14 May 2010 by Andy S
quote:
Originally posted by JYOW:
And most DACs with USB do not sound as good as their SPDIF interface.
Except the nDAC is supposed to reclock the data so avoiding the jitter related problems (see 10 pages of stuff above!)
Posted on: 14 May 2010 by JYOW
quote:
Originally posted by pcstockton:
There is nothing "recent" about async usb.

Well it seems there is a plethora of async USB solutions in the recent 6 months which 6 months ago I do not recall any except for Wavelength and Empirical Audio.

Do you know of any other async USB solution other than the two, say, 1 year ago?

I believe dCS' U-Clock is also quite recent.
Posted on: 14 May 2010 by Andy S
quote:
Originally posted by JYOW:
Do you know of any other async USB solution other than the two, say, 1 year ago?
Cambridge audio DACmagic?