HDX- "ripping to a NAS"

quote:

Am I right in thinking that the HDX can only store 600 CDs' worth of music? Not that I was thinking of buying one, but that alone would rule it out for me.

The internal storage is sufficient to get started, but anyone could tell you that no amount of internal storage is enough. The music store management in the latest release is really easy to configure, and will well handle a variety of storage volume options (selections of which are being qualified as I type, using a supplied tool).

As for the CDS2 - well, I sold mine around the time I found out that the servers were coming - so an increase in performance is, on wild balance, an easy bet (especially in the U.S. where Compact Disc pressings are generally of poorer quality than those in the U.K., such that in many cases playback of the ripped-to-drive files exceed real-time playback performance on a CD player by a wide margin).

quote:

Originally posted by David Dever:
(especially in the U.S. where Compact Disc pressings are generally of poorer quality than those in the U.K.,

Not as easy I'm afraid, original CDs whether they are UK or US are in demand because the remasters are usually dire.

But there are very many US first and early editions that top the Euro equivalents. Anyone wanting the best CD copy of favourite music up to the early 90s, could usefully research it on the web. The differences are often better than a kit upgrade.

Joe

quote:

Originally posted by Joe Bibb:

quote:

Originally posted by David Dever:
(especially in the U.S. where Compact Disc pressings are generally of poorer quality than those in the U.K.,

Not as easy I'm afraid, original CDs whether they are UK or US are in demand because the remasters are usually dire.

But there are very many US first and early editions that top the Euro equivalents. Anyone wanting the best CD copy of favourite music up to the early 90s, could usefully research it on the web. The differences are often better than a kit upgrade.

Again - separating the data from the manufacturing quality - I've seen this with discs that were made in the dawn of CD, where the HDX does a much better job than a current CD player on some older pressings that are otherwise poor (even on a top-flight Naim CD player) when played in real time. It will be interesting to see how this changes with the arrival of the DAC and its de-jittering capabilities.

On the HDX, they are honestly different discs. Seriously-and to my benefit, really-these older discs are not nearly as bad as I had imagined, because the disc-ripping process is effectively removing the effects of poorly-formed pits in the disc surface, and their temporal effects.

I've got a limited-edition copy of Peter Murphy's Deep from 1989 that sound as if someone has turned on the two least-significant bits–or upgraded my tweeters.

Arguably, there are some re-masters that are better pressings (from a manufacturing perspective) but are poorly transferred (from a data perspective - soft DACs, poorly-stored master tapes, over-zealous de-clicking/de-noising).

quote:

Originally posted by jon honeyball:

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Abela:
The HDX is XP-based so how is this relevant?

See my comment about posix file system.

Jon,

Although the POSIX file system driver might allow it, there are a myriad ways the application layer would screw this up. In fact, it's more likely that this is where the true problem lies. I'm not saying it's Naim's software incidentally, but the intervening file addressing.

I'd also be very surprised if the storage scheme was silly enough not to auto-convert file and directory names on the fly. That would be ludicrous, since there are all sorts of band and title names which would not be interpretable in the normal sense, particularly bands in the far East.

Graham55,
Your question is OK. IMO, it was just not the right place to ask it, in the middle of a technical topic, that has nothing to do with your question...
And by the way do not look for my store, you won't find it: I don't have one.
I didn't want to be offending, only sarcastic...

I think the topic answers the question. Ripping to a NAS overcomes any drive limitation but if you enjoy playing discs, there's no need. That CDS2 is close in overall goodness to a CDX2 with supply.

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
if I were to buy a new piece of kit, I'd be looking for an increase in performance, not a decrease.

Maybe you should redefine "performance". It could be seen that a high performance kit is one that brings you closer to the music. See George on his new replay set in DA. I don't think he is perceiving his move to be a decrease in anything other than boxes.

My point is....Perhaps the HDX does not equal the CDS3, but it might possibly bring more pleasure to you than any CDP could. It is a completely different way of experiencing the music that might erase any discrepancies in "fineness" of replay. At seriously, at the level of the HDX or CDS3, are the difference really that apparent? At that point isn't it more about the method?

This is very similar to what CDPs brought to the party when they came on to the scene. The ability to play random, repeat, instant queuing of tracks etc...

Obviously the first CDs and CDPs did not stand up to a first class analog kit. Sure the CDPs didn't convert every vinyl enthusiast right off the bat. But I am going to guess vinyl only rigs are few and far between.

It is simply a move to a different medium, not necessarily a move "up or down". If I had a nice CDP, i wouldn't sell it when I buy the DAC. Just as people didn't sell their LP12s the minute they bought a CDS2.

2cents
-p

Manu, I wasn't aware that any questions were off limits, however technical the topic under discussion may have been. It didn't seem terribly technical to me.

I'm still under the impression that an HDX is slightly worse than Naim's upfront CDPs, yet no-one has said otherwise. And I don't know if an HDX takes a vinyl input or, for that matter, a CD input.

For that, I'd go to a Naim dealer.

But I shan't be seeking your advice in the future, whatever "trade member" may mean.

Be as sarcastic as you like. I don't give a duck.

Graham

Graham,

~533 CDs would be the HDX capacity if every CD was full to the brim with music. Given the varying length of albums it might be better to see the HDX as holding about 40,000 minutes of WAV files.

If you thought a CD is more like 40 minutes on average, you could put 1000 CDs onto an HDX internal hard drive.

And no there is no way at present to use the HDX to digitize vinyl.

Regarding the HDX vs CDS3,CDX2 etc... See my post above. Or look at it this way: The HDX is "slightly worse" than a CDS3, but in the same way making 2.9 Million a year is worse than making 3.1

Both are pretty good salaries/jobs and you wouldn't let that be the deciding factor of one over another.

-patrick

Patrick, many thanks for your informative reply.

It does rule out the HDX (as presently constituted) for me, as I have thousands of CDs and hundreds of LPs. Not that I'm unhappy with the CDS II or the LP12.

Thanks.

Graham

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
Patrick, many thanks for your informative reply.

It does rule out the HDX (as presently constituted) for me, as I have thousands of CDs and hundreds of LPs. Not that I'm unhappy with the CDS II or the LP12.

Thanks.

Graham

Graham, sure.... buy a PC or Mac and the new Naim DAC. HDX not needed. At that point though maybe an HDX to rip all of your discs would be beneficial. It will take a long time to rip all of those. HDX plus, NAS, plus Naim DAC would be a formidable combination. Best of all worlds.

IN the final analysis, perhaps you should demo an HDX with 555ps and Naim DAC, against your CDS2. It would be interesting to hear your impressions.

I cannot personally imagine wanting/needing anything better than a HDX/555 even without any additional external DAC. It is so good.

You do know that you can add external storage right? In fact once rip-to-NAS capabilites are implemented, I cant see many people using the internal drives anyway.

I can already see mods for those who want it to remove/disable the internal drives of the HDX.

Patrick, I'm way out of my depth here. I understand, and grew up with, two-channel, but digital audio has crept up on me and left me far behind.

I've just moved into a new home. I have an Apple G5 in my living room, and I'm about to install an AV system for my Sony 46" wall-mounted TV, using an n-Vi (still in its box), plus an NAP (yet to determine which) and a pair of souped up Quad ESLs (being built for me in Germany).

The CDS II and LP12 are in a quite separate music room three floors above. So any direct comparison wouldn't be possible.

BUT... Am I to understand that, by incorporating the DAC in the living room system, I'd have something approaching the 'big' system upstairs for sound reproduction?

Many thanks in advance.

Graham

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:

BUT... Am I to understand that, by incorporating the DAC in the living room system, I'd have something approaching the 'big' system upstairs for sound reproduction?

Oh yes!!! Indeed.

PC, this is the same process that you encounter with VBR recording of compressed MP3 files. There is no difference in the playback algorithm. I find VBR to be clearly less musical than a similar overall bit rate in CBR, even on my portable. The theory is great but something's going on. I haven't played with FLAC encoders for comparisons so I have no observation here but I certainly wouldn't disregard anothers experiences off hand based on theory as I fully understand that I have just enough knowledge to be dangerous.