Naim DAC vs Transporter

Now I have finished the first bunch of tests over Naim DAC.

The setup was Logitech Transporter/DigitalCable/DAC/XPS/282/2*HC/250.2/ProAc D28.
Digital Cable was Klotz RAC coaxial and VDH Optocoupler optical.
Klotz was a tad better than optical. Better clarity -- very small effect.
I'm not sure this was because of the cable difference or
because of the difference between Transporter RCA/TOS output
or because of the difference between DAC RCA/TOS input.
The rest of the listening was performed with coaxial.

Brief summary of contenders.

I will not go deep into A/B test against CD5X because TP->DAC combo was WAY ahead of it in all aspects.
The actual test was against Logitech Transporter through analogue output and TP->PS Audio DLIII. Both used 2*RCA->DIN cable.

Logitech Transporter is one of the best sounding sources I have ever tried -- in Red Book it comes very close to KDS -- although the KDS owners will consider the gap as HUGE and put TP to ADS level or even lower
In terms jitter this is one of the best digital transports on the market. I'm not sure if further reduction of jitter on Red Book can be audible.
TP shows fantastic resolution and 3D imaging.
The problem is that I don't like TP analogue output. It's a bit slow and lean and analytical -- it lacks a PRAT of Naim CDPs (like CD5X).
I recall that I liked KDS more than TP just because KDS was more energetic. KDS is also smoother than TP - I think because of the transformer coupled outputs.

PS Audio DLIII is a very good DAC -- same league as Lavry and TP but owns idiosyncratic sound presentation.
Not as neutral as TP and a bit forward (human voices fire up a bit "in your face"). But very soft and energetic -- closer to Naim.
It does not use re-clocking and needs a low jitter input to show it's best. When pairing with TP you get a very good resolution.

After several months of continuous trials I have found myself of listening TP->DLIII almost all the time which means that I belong to those of us who can compromise (with a deep sorrow of course) with a sound resolution in favor of tuneful sound presentation.

Both TP and DLIII were the benchmarks for Naim DAC in different aspects: high resolution and imaging of TP and energy of DLIII.

I was the first user of the long-awaited demo piece and had a chance to unpack the new box.
Honestly -- after those shipment delays and poor explanations and gossips around for almost 6 months I expected from Naim to pacify customers frustration with a bonus bottle of whisky in the box

I would avoid a tedious description of the first days of auditioning -- I only mention that sound was kept changing for all 4 days while DAC stayed with me.

I started tests with a bare DAC, original IC and stock power cord and Red Book CDs ripped on a NAS drive.
Many of the test records were XRCD and XRCD24 which offer a superior dynamic range and very low jitter.

First of all -- it betters TP-> DLIII in resolution and on par with TP through analogue.
I was prepared to hear a vast superiority of Naim DAC in resolution due to re-clocking circuitry -- but it didn't happen.
Possibly because TP as a digital transport suggests a very low jitter bitstream so that there is no space for improvement.
Possibly because the DAC was not fully burnt-in.
Second -- DAC soundstage is very deep and wide and the imaging is holographic -- better than TP and DLIII (not much).
Third -- it's a very typical Naim sound. Very neutral, very fast and very euphonic. Transients are crystal clear.
The downside is that DAC is a bit edgy -- more aggressive than CD5X, closer to CDX2.
Overall it was definitely far from the culture shock after the first listening session of CDS3...

Adding a PL and HilIne was more audible than when you hook them on CD5X. HiLine brought much more than PL.
The sound became more open and detailed -- but improvement revealed more edginess.

The last step was adding XPS. I didn't hear much of the changes in resolution. But the analogue section suffered a serious transformation -- it smoothed the sound substantially.
The background became blackish like TP. Bass became even tighter. Very analogue-like. This was much better than CDX2/XPS and much better than both TP and DLIII.
PL on XPS is more audible than on DAC.
The TP/DAC/XPS/PL/HL setup is definitely close to the best sources I have ever tried: CDS3, ARC CD5 and Klimax DS -- would be interesting to do A/B test.
It's also interesting to test TP through BNC against CDX2-2 and HDX through BNC. I will not be surprised to see TP to be a winner, but there is only way to know it for sure ...

I have some difficult tracks where an instrument or a voice stands out "in your face" or dominates over the rest of the mix.
Sometimes, for example, Roger Waters or Mike Oldfield solo guitar is so harsh-- just unbearable.
But KDS and ARC CD5 manage to smooth it down -- just in the same way as Naim DAC/XPS did.

Well-done Naim!

Unfortunately the demo piece was taken away for other hungry users and I was promised to get my own box in the next shipment.
I have added another PL and DC1 to the order (one PL will got on DAC and one on XPS). TP has transformer coupled BNC which I can use with DL1 and switch ground to Chassis.
Next time I shall come back after one week of burn-in and also elaborate more on hi-res tests. I hope it will happen next month.

It's still amusing to see how a 2$K TP designed in 2006 by an amateur audiophile from Silicon Valley keeps competing with 2010 top products from venerable hi-end manufacturers.
While giving up by a small margin in analogue section it still proves it's strength as a digital transport.

Bravo Sean!