Why is the nDAC so cheap?

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
We will not know what Firewire is in a few years. Guaranteed.

Can't really argue with that. Even Mac dropped Firewire from most of their Macbooks a couple of years back, but somehow made a U turn and include Firewire in almost all their Macbook last year.

My Thinkpad also has Firewire. But you are right, Firewire has very limited application. But then again, it is kind of a positive thing that the Firewire bus will be dedicated to audio with all the other peripherals compete ting for the USB bus.

quote:

Originally posted 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?

DACMagic's USB solution is garden variety, is not async, and is limited to 16/44.1 and 48 kHZ

quote:

Originally posted 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!)

Andy,

Have you tried CDT in the same DAC input on the as PC or Mac with HiFace or Firewire interface?

All three sound different to me, although all measure as bit perfect.

Joe

quote:

Originally posted by Joe Bibb:
Have you tried CDT in the same DAC input on the as PC or Mac with HiFace or Firewire interface?

All three sound different to me, although all measure as bit perfect.

Joe

I've tried htpc via coax and optical (only 2 options I have as these are on the motherboard), cheap CDT via coax and USB. All sound the same to me.... (although I am going to have another try over the weekend if I get some time).

When you say "measure bit perfect" have you captured the streams to make sure that is the case (I'm considering buying an M-audio transit just to check this point and see what is coming out of the back of these things...)

Try a sonos streamer for a cheap interface. I still prefer it to the vast majority of computer setups and those that may compete cost more to bring near sonos level than just buying a sonos. Still prefer purpose designed streamers and they do vary as all things. Naim, which you would expect to be a good choice, will also soon have units at more moderate price points. Biggest issue with Sonos is no HiDef. There's the SB touch but I haven't heard it.

quote:

Originally posted by Andy S:

When you say "measure bit perfect" have you captured the streams to make sure that is the case (I'm considering buying an M-audio transit just to check this point and see what is coming out of the back of these things...)

Yes I can see the quality of the output. As I say, all three measure as bit perfect.

Joe

Naim R&D guys and galls, could you please put us out of our misery.

PLEASE, PLEASE; I can't take it anymore

quote:

Originally posted by Aleg:
Naim R&D guys and galls, could you please put us out of our misery.

PLEASE, PLEASE; I can't take it anymore

Seconded !!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Aleg:
Naim R&D guys and galls, could you please put us out of our misery.

PLEASE, PLEASE; I can't take it anymore

What are you asking of Naim's Research and Development? I must be missing something.

Nowhere in the white paper do they even hint that all sources will sound identical. In fact they say things much to the contrary. The paper uses words like "limits", "reduces", "mitigates" possible sources of sound degradation etc... There is no mention of completely solving these issues.

Are you looking for them to come in and say "yes we believe we told the truth in the white paper, whether you are capable of understanding the concepts, technology and engineering or not."

I think the "R&D" guys, as well as anyone else from Naim, will simply tell you to take the Pepsi challenge and listen for yourself. I doubt they would take either extreme stance of telling you the "Naim sources sound best", or that "sources dont matter".

Why is everyone wanting someone to tell them what they should hear.

Some in this thread/forum are obsessed with saving people from themselves. They think just because they cannot hear a difference in sources, no one should ever buy an expensive transport.

Just leave it up to your ears. Both of the possible outcomes offer benefits. Those who cannot hear a difference can spend their money on hilines and powerlines. The others can buy better sources.

-Patrick

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:

quote:

Originally posted by Aleg:
Naim R&D guys and galls, could you please put us out of our misery.

PLEASE, PLEASE; I can't take it anymore

What are you asking of Naim's Research and Development? I must be missing something.

Nowhere in the white paper do they even hint that all sources will sound identical. In fact they say things much to the contrary. The paper uses words like "limits", "reduces", "mitigates" possible sources of sound degradation etc... There is no mention of completely solving these issues.

Are you looking for them to come in and say "yes we believe we told the truth in the white paper, whether you are capable of understanding the concepts, technology and engineering or not."

I think the "R&D" guys, as well as anyone else from Naim, will simply tell you to take the Pepsi challenge and listen for yourself. I doubt they would take either extreme stance of telling you the "Naim sources sound best", or that "sources dont matter".

Why is everyone wanting someone to tell them what they should hear.

Some in this thread/forum are obsessed with saving people from themselves. They think just because they cannot hear a difference in sources, no one should ever buy an expensive transport.

Just leave it up to your ears. Both of the possible outcomes offer benefits. Those who cannot hear a difference can spend their money on hilines and powerlines. The others can buy better sources.

-Patrick

Patrick

In the context of this forum and this Audio company, I think they are the only ones capable of giving a technicaly satisfying answer of why and how different digital sources can still sound differently through their nDAC.

If it is just a repetition of the White Paper talk than that will of course not be sufficient to explain the causes to us Naim DAC users.

Given the fact that we are already 10 pages in this thread and we are not a step closer to resolving this issue of WHY and HOW. And I don't think we will get there without outside help. (And though I would like to know, I'm beginning to get fed up with these fruitless discussions of points-of-views that can neither be proven nor be falsified.

-
aleg

Why?

Which bits of "minimising" Spdif induced kitter rather than eliminating ALL jitter and that it's not the only factor to consider sonically is unclear?

I think you will wait a long time for an R&D definitive statement that will satisfy you on so many variables. Far easier to listen for yourself, then it won't matter what others think or claim.

Joe

quote:

Originally posted by Aleg:
I think they are the only ones capable of giving a technicaly satisfying answer of why and how different digital sources can still sound differently through their nDAC.

Given the fact that we are already 10 pages in this thread and we are not a step closer to resolving this issue of WHY and HOW.

I think they do clearly state that in the white paper. They state the limitations of the technologies involved and what they have done to help mitigate (NOT eliminate) these issues.

There is nothing they say about sources sounding the same. And how could they possibly comment on that without trying everything themselves.

It is up to us to make the decision. Especially when you consider we are all coming up with different results.

Some people prefer a Flatcap to a Hicap on a CD5x. I dont remember people requiring official word from Naim on who is "right".

Beauty is in the ear of the DAC-holder.

There is no other way of bearing this out except through demos and listening yourself.

How could anyone, let alone Naim's R&D department comment on what you are hearing?

Lastly, just because you find these discussion fruitless and frustrating doesn't mean Naim can offer an answer to an impossible question.

Use your ears. Period.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
...
Lastly, just because you find these discussion fruitless and frustrating doesn't mean Naim can offer an answer to an impossible question.

Use your ears. Period.

Nothing wrong with my ears,... I hear the difference quite clearly.

Some people however want to know the why and how of these differences and seem to go on forever with these fruitless discussions.

I could just ignore these threads, but I'm too much of a want-to-know to do so

It's just I don't see these kind of discussions lead to anything and thought well maybe they (R&D) do know and could give an answer to maybe a not-so impossible question.

If not, hey, I might just stop reading this thread.

-
aleg

I tried many sources on the nDAC.

Ipod, Harman Kardon DVD 37, CD5XS, CDX2.2, USB-sticks...

ALL sounded DIFFERENT!!!!

To say that all sources sound the same is nonsense. Period.

Why all are different?
Honestly, I don´t care!

Aleg,

Other than the price tags, why dont you want to know why the 555ps sounds better than the XPS, or the same for a HC vs SC?

Why are you fixated on the DAC?

-Patrick

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
Aleg,

Other than the price tags, why dont you want to know why the 555ps sounds better than the XPS, or the same for a HC vs SC?

Why are you fixated on the DAC?

-Patrick

I can't speak for Aleg, or anyone else here, but personally I'm particularly interested in the "why?" question regarding the DAC and various sources for 3 reasons:

1. In general, bits being bits and all that, I haven't yet heard a satisfactory explanation of why, after taking jitter out of the equation, there could be a difference in what we hear. In contrast, when discussing the sound of analogue components, there are any number of scientifically plausible explanations for differences in sound quality.

2. More specifically, Naim, while stopping short of claiming that DAC makes all sources sound the same, do more than imply that the DAC is designed as a great leveler of sources, and have published a quite detailed white paper to back this up.

3. And more practically, my own next upgrade is likely to be in this area of my system.

I would have thought, that given the amount of money we all spend on this stuff, most of us would be interested in this discussion, although those who are not are quite free to ignore this thread. I don't mean to be rude, but some of the "it's different, I know it is, and we shouldn't even attempt to find out why" kind of posts could be seen to betray insecurity.

quote:

2. More specifically, Naim, while stopping short of claiming that DAC makes all sources sound the same, do more than imply that the DAC is designed as a great leveler of sources, and have published a quite detailed white paper to back this up.

If Naim really believed that what feeds the Naim DAC was entirely independent of the resulting quality, they certainly would not offer two CD players at different prices that can feed it with SPIDF.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

quote:

2. More specifically, Naim, while stopping short of claiming that DAC makes all sources sound the same, do more than imply that the DAC is designed as a great leveler of sources, and have published a quite detailed white paper to back this up.

If Naim really believed that what feeds the Naim DAC was entirely independent of the resulting quality, they certainly would not offer two CD players at different prices that can feed it with SPIDF.

ATB from George

They might, if only to make the upgrade to the DAC available from different starting points. More cynically, no company ever prospered by ignoring demand, and in hi-fi, as in everything other industry, there are many reasons other than the the core ones (in hi-fi's case sound quality) for purchasing decisions.

Naim are obviously a company passionate about making world class hi-fi components, but they will also be very interested in making money.

The company would long since have disappeared if it were not making money!

I think their approach to blending profit and providing great pieces at even [especially perhaps] the entry level pieces as well the completely remarkable level of their 552 Pre-amp for example is as an approach that is more or less unique!

A fine long term strategy!

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by DarrellK:

I can't speak for Aleg, or anyone else here, but personally I'm particularly interested in the "why?" question regarding the DAC and various sources for 3 reasons:

1. In general, bits being bits and all that, I haven't yet heard a satisfactory explanation of why, after taking jitter out of the equation, there could be a difference in what we hear. In contrast, when discussing the sound of analogue components, there are any number of scientifically plausible explanations for differences in sound quality.

2. More specifically, Naim, while stopping short of claiming that DAC makes all sources sound the same, do more than imply that the DAC is designed as a great leveler of sources, and have published a quite detailed white paper to back this up.

3. And more practically, my own next upgrade is likely to be in this area of my system.

1) The reasons have been stated. You are just not getting the answer you want it seems. RFI, dirty mains, ground loops, lack of bit perfection, physical vibrations, eg, the same things that make Fraim's worthwhile, why hilines are better, etc.... Sure you might not add jitter but as we all know there is far more going an than that.

2) Where in the white paper do they imply that?

3) Then demo different sources with the DAC and accept the outcome. If something is better, get it. If not, don't.


I dont know why or how a Powerline sounds so much better than a Tibia. And not knowing how or why it works doesn't diminish its effects at all.

You are not being rude but that exact reasoning you are hating on is used EVERYWHERE else throughout the Forum and across the entire product range.

Do you know why the BMR sounds better than a Beryllium dome tweeter?

Can you explain how Supercap improves on a Hicap on a SNAXO?

How about the why the 282 sounds better than my 102?

-p

The DAC is a leveler but can only do so much. Poor sources sound better than I've ever heard them and great ones that much more great. The difference is smaller in a way but it's revealing enough to maintain a significant gap. In the past reclockers which this is but not the same way often brought up the poor sources while limiting the best ones a bit to make everything more equal. This is why I found a familiar dac better when not reclocking and others here didn't hear a dif or found reclocking better. My sources were better at that time. With the Naim DAC, the gap is maintained by the higher level result of a really good source.

quote:

Some people prefer a Flatcap to a Hicap on a CD5x. I dont remember people requiring official word from Naim on who is "right".

I don't think Naim R&D will have a time/will to play these games with customers. But -- in this particular case (various transports on nDAC) there is a quite easy MEASURABLE point (unlike external PS and all) -- digital engineers can save the bitstream after nDAC's memory buffer and compare it to the source data file. If they are bit-identical regardless of what transport feeds the bitstream -- this is the end of story.
Thank you very much.

quote:

Originally posted by AMA:
If they are bit-identical regardless of what transport feeds the bitstream -- this is the end of story.

I wish it were that easy. Or you do for that matter.

If this was true EVERYTHING would sound the same.

Both iTunes and Amarra are bit perfect right? But sound different, right?

the Weiss int202 apparently does a finer job than an M-Audio Transit. Both bit perfect.

CMP2 and hiface, both bit perfect, sound different...

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:

quote:

Originally posted by AMA:
If they are bit-identical regardless of what transport feeds the bitstream -- this is the end of story.

...
Both iTunes and Amarra are bit perfect right? But sound different, right?
...

Patrick

I think in this arena of computer based replay it is very difficult to put the outcome of comparisons of different people side by side.
One cannot ever know for certain that each has exactly the same settings on all things that can influence sound reproduction. And since we can't easily measure if the digital output is bit-perfect even though we think it is, who knows what we are feeding the DAC with?
Do you know for sure e.g. if the presence of foobar plugins won't influence the bitstream even though you are not actualy using them, or that a volume level set to 0 indeed doesn't change any bit at all? My guess would be it doesn't but I cannot be quite sure, since I cannot easily compare the bits coming out of the SPDIF output with the actual file I fed into the program.


In your example given above, how on an otherwise exactly the same machine and in same circumstances (so no other variables changed), could your list of causes

quote:

RFI, dirty mains, ground loops, lack of bit perfection, physical vibrations, eg, the same things that make Fraim's worthwhile, why hilines are better, etc....

explain the sound differences of just a different software audioplayer (which as you state are both bit-perfect)?


My original remark about R&D input was a bit of a jest. Because I think these discusisons are not going to be resolved by us on this forum.

And why do I focus on the DAC? Because I find it intriguing that given the fact that the sound is all in digital bits, two devices can both playback bit-perfect and the DAC is capturing all the bits and is reclocking them, there still remains a sound difference.

The reason for the difference between an XPS2 and a 555PS is clear to me and much easier to grasp in the context of analogue sound processing than the differences in the digital playback.

My cry-out was also one from frustration that these discussions go on and on, while maybe in the R&D there is someone who could shed a light on this.
Maybe the differences don't arise in the digital section of the DAC but in the analogue section of the DAC? Maybe the use of a USB stick creates a different electro-magnetic field than a coax SPDIF that is being used? I couldn't say, maybe they can?

But as I stated before, I can always stop reading these threads if it gets too much for me (but probably won't )

-
aleg

Yawn.