Naim vs Benchmark

quote:

It is also fair game to expose the typical anti-Naim sentiment (expressed here and elsewhere) that seeks to displace any piece of Naim equipment with a less expensive (and subsequently better performing) alternative.

This works both ways. It has got to the point where even the mere suggestion that a Mac/DAC (for example) can match or better a Naim CDP makes many a Naim fan (or Trade Member, it would appear) come over all hyper defensive. My god, a string of insults directed at your family would probably cause less offence.

Going back to your earlier comment that the DAC-1 is "bright";

Having gone from a late model CDX, then CDX/CDPS to the Mac/DAC-1 the first impression I got of the DAC-1 was that it was LESS 'bright' sounding than the Naim CDP, yet still more informative. So, it would appear that it is a case of brightness being perfectly OK so long as it is Naim brightness

Mr Tibbs

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Tibbs:

quote:

It is also fair game to expose the typical anti-Naim sentiment (expressed here and elsewhere) that seeks to displace any piece of Naim equipment with a less expensive (and subsequently better performing) alternative.

This works both ways. It has got to the point where even the mere suggestion that a Mac/DAC (for example) can match or better a Naim CDP makes many a Naim fan (or Trade Member, it would appear) come over all hyper defensive. My god, a string of insults directed at your family would probably cause less offence.

Going back to your earlier comment that the DAC-1 is "bright";

Having gone from a late model CDX, then CDX/CDPS to the Mac/DAC-1 the first impression I got of the DAC-1 was that it was LESS 'bright' sounding than the Naim CDP, yet still more informative. So, it would appear that it is a case of brightness being perfectly OK so long as it is Naim brightness

Mr Tibbs

It's not like I don't mention other products I think good. A $600 DAC and couple of Nagra's in just this thread. Called the Weiss good. They don't happen to be the same ones that you like so you've apparently chosen to assign ulterior motive because we disagree. We disagree. It's really that simple. By the way, how can I not sound somewhat defensive when constantly fending off attacks at my credibility?

quote:

They don't happen to be the same ones that you like so you've apparently chosen to assign ulterior motive because we disagree.

It was mainly DDs comments I took issue with, not yours. I thought that was clear enough - possibly you're proving my point by being over-defensive yet again.

quote:

By the way, how can I not sound somewhat defensive when constantly fending off attacks at my credibility?

For very obvious reasons, you should expect your opinion to be more closely vetted than would be the case for the rest of us. Grow a thicker skin or stay away from debates like this.

BTW - regarding DDs "fair game to expose the typical anti-Naim sentiment"; I'd like to point out that I've got no less than three Naim amp setups in my home, and have no plans to change that.

Mr Tibbs

I also thought that line a bit strong.
After the earlier posts I perhaps did become somewhat more defensive and fully retract the ulterior motive comment. My apologies.
I do know that Dave does truely feel this way about the DAC-1 as we had discussed it long before the DAC Wars began here. I do understand that my posts are to be more closely vetted but there's been a bit more than that going on though as you correctly pointed out, not by you.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Tibbs:

quote:

It is also fair game to expose the typical anti-Naim sentiment (expressed here and elsewhere) that seeks to displace any piece of Naim equipment with a less expensive (and subsequently better performing) alternative.

This works both ways. It has got to the point where even the mere suggestion that a Mac/DAC (for example) can match or better a Naim CDP makes many a Naim fan (or Trade Member, it would appear) come over all hyper defensive. My god, a string of insults directed at your family would probably cause less offence.

Going back to your earlier comment that the DAC-1 is "bright";

Having gone from a late model CDX, then CDX/CDPS to the Mac/DAC-1 the first impression I got of the DAC-1 was that it was LESS 'bright' sounding than the Naim CDP, yet still more informative. So, it would appear that it is a case of brightness being perfectly OK so long as it is Naim brightness

Mr Tibbs

IMHO it can't and it doesn't-and I was trying this long before anyone here. My standards for performance are likely different than yours, and that's fair.

I've also had the luxury of working in both the hi-fi and pro audio trade, which is pretty informative and full of odd anecdotes about product design!

...the Mac, that is–the basic optical digital out is loaded with jitter, and, in spite of responses from the peanut gallery, neither the Lavry nor the DAC1 resolve this fundamental problem without some sort of compromise in performance.

So you're left with FireWire-based solutions such as the TC Konnekt8 (whose basic, iterative technology would not have been so affordable or feasible ten years ago from a silicon perspective), or, alternately, a re-gutted Mac Pro with custom power supply and a tweaked PCI card–not cheap, but significantly better.

Dig further into these issues, and there must be a better way than the USB- or Toslink-based solutions that have dominated the market, while keeping latency low enough to make the pro audio crowd happy.

In its defense, the Lavry has pretty low latency and sounds passible for technical work–but I wouldn't want to listen to it after a day in the studio, seriously. (Likewise, though the SUPERNAIT's built-in DAC sounds great for what it is, the latency with an interposing audio interface on even the fastest machines is still a bit too long for virtual instruments.)

I have my own issues with Compact Disc, for which I'm attending anger management meetings.

I would very much like to have kept with Naim in the DAC field, but none existed.

I got a Lavry which in my view is entirely listenable over very long periods.

It is musically detailed, and informative and does not suffer from any annoying eccentricities in its presentation - such as undue softeness or brightness of tone [etc].

I am sure it is not that last words but is an awful lot better than most CD players out there if probably not better than most Naim CD players.

Now Naim are bringing out a DAC, let me at least hope that this is a product that is affordable for me, and as time allows I shall investigate it.

On the other hand I will state without hesitation that the results of using a Lavry are superb for this musician even if they may make the occasional electronics pundit or two wince.

I sincerely hope that Naim can better what the Lavry does as then we shall no longer have this situation here - of reading too much into things and occasional defensiveness that appears from the outside much like paranoia ...

ATB from George

LOL...in my estimation, Naim has nothing to worry about after comparing a certain DAC against my CD3.5.

...a wayward asteroid hitting our planet maybe...but not DACs

regards,

dave

quote:

Originally posted by David Dever:
IMHO it can't and it doesn't-and I was trying this long before anyone here. My standards for performance are likely different than yours, and that's fair.

I've also had the luxury of working in both the hi-fi and pro audio trade, which is pretty informative and full of odd anecdotes about product design!

Well, this where I disagree. IMHO it can and it does without breaking sweat. I started the comparison about 6 years ago with the rackmount DAC1, and it bettered with agreement from a sigificant Naim dealer in London both the Naim CDS3/XPS and Mark Levinson 390S via Active ATC, Bryston/PMC and the Naim 252/300. I sill remember them trying to criple my DAC1 with a custom powerlead until I pointed it out and advised how it should be connected. Mind you, I did use the Levinson as transport.

So there's no point speaking to the educated amongst us, just pitch your product to the less well informed since trade posting is pretty bad form IMO. We like Naim, so lets keep it that way.

quote:

My standards for performance are likely different than yours, and that's fair.

Indeed and I accept that, given that my standards of what makes for good Hi-Fi may well be higher than yours.

quote:

After the earlier posts I perhaps did become somewhat more defensive and fully retract the ulterior motive comment. My apologies.

No problem. I mostly find your views fairly balanced and interesting.


The DAC-1, the Lavry (and now the Mac!) take a lot of stick from the 'high end' audio community, but IME (and those of many, many others) there could be nothing further from the truth. If Hi-Fi is about anything it's about getting to the 'truth', yet ironically, those that protest the loudest about these pro-audio DACs arguably have no interest in hearing accurate reproduction. Some even boast about it!

quote:

LOL...in my estimation, Naim has nothing to worry about after comparing a certain DAC against my CD3.5.

No offence to the CD3.5 -- but, I rest my case

I'm not broke, I didn't need to sell my CDX/CDPS to raise cash. I bought the DAC-1 fully intending to return it at the end of 7 days, having proved to myself it was rubbish after all. Instead, it showed enough promise that I decided to keep it a while longer and experiment with better digital sources. Pretty soon it was singing its little head off to the point where any further comparisons with the Naim CDP were simply irrelevant. My system (despite my crappy 102/hicap/250) has never sounded better and I'm listening to more music than before. A win-win situation!

Mr Tibbs

Win, win for sure and in a far from crappy system. That it works for you is all that should matter for you and listening more is a great barometer. That it doesn't for me, well, same thing. I have to disagree with closer to the truth because for me it doesn't do that with music I know really well. It's not a High End thing either as I feel another cheaper DAC better but to each his own and specifics don't need to be revisited. Lots of Kit available and people choose what they choose for obvious reasons. I'm reasonably sure that at some point most of us will find common ground as streaming matures.

My CD 3.5 replies no offence taken, Mr. Tibbs. He's used to far worse insults from pissed Krell owners for example;-)

best,

dave

quote:

I started the comparison about 6 years ago with the rackmount DAC1, and it bettered with agreement from a sigificant Naim dealer in London both the Naim CDS3/XPS and Mark Levinson 390S via Active ATC, Bryston/PMC and the Naim 252/300. I sill remember them trying to criple my DAC1 with a custom powerlead until I pointed it out and advised how it should be connected. Mind you, I did use the Levinson as transport.

I would imagine that a purpose-built transport such as the Mark Levinson unit would have still sounded better than straight-up Mac via Toslink into the same DAC–and far less likely to hash up the mains as well.

Dave, It's been a while but I think it reclocks everything coming in. Good for MACs but probably not so much for the Levinson. May end up sounding similar.

Strangely enough, I can't hear any difference between the sound when the Mac is running from the mains and when it is powered from its internal battery. I suppose 552/250.2/Kudos C20s is not a sufficiently revealing setup. And I do know that the Lavry reclocks the incoming signal, in Crystal mode at least.

May not be the amplification. I actually prefer my PC powered via the AC which I know has no basis in theory as even the sound card is outboard so no, I can't explain it and need to find a linear supply to try with it. I wasn't kidding about the phonosophy supply when I told Pat to try it there. Dave, If you guys don't want to experiment, I'd be happy to.

quote:

Originally posted by js:
Dave, It's been a while but I think it reclocks everything coming in. Good for MACs but probably not so much for the Levinson. May end up sounding similar.

Yes, re-clocks everything–but not immune to variances in souce jitter; some sources do perform better than others, even with the DAC1.

As for external supplies–I met a vendor at AES who had developed linear supplies for Mac Pro / Mac mini / MacBook Pro, and the differences in the A/B comparison between the performance of the factory-supplied supply and the aftermarket supply was substantial.

Unfortunately the product never made it to market as he couldn't afford the CE and UL certification required to sell the units.

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:
Strangely enough, I can't hear any difference between the sound when the Mac is running from the mains and when it is powered from its internal battery. I suppose 552/250.2/Kudos C20s is not a sufficiently revealing setup. And I do know that the Lavry reclocks the incoming signal, in Crystal mode at least.

You won't–the PMMU IC is still running. As the Mac mini has no battery, this might be a better performer with an aftermarket supply.

As in the post above, I remember that there has been some substantial changes to the way in which the PMMU circuit in a MacBook Pro works.

quote:

Originally posted by David Dever:
You won't–the PMMU IC is still running.

I'd be very surprised if this would continue to affect the mains even when the MacBook is disconnected from it (which is what I was saying above). If yes, does this mean that I (and all who run hifi systems at home) should remove all computers from the home environment (not just unplug them from the mains) when I want to listen to music?


How does the HDX circumvent this problem, or does it not have a paged memory management unit?

quote:

Originally posted by David Dever:
I would imagine that a purpose-built transport such as the Mark Levinson unit would have still sounded better than straight-up Mac via Toslink into the same DAC–and far less likely to hash up the mains as well.

Very possibly, though there should be no difference if the signal is bit transparent and bit perfect. This is the whole argument and thoughtfully tested position of Benchmark Media. I will say however, that my Denon 3900 DVD Player has a slightly different sound compared to Mac/Toslink, though identical to the Meridian 500 and cheap Pioneer DVD565 once I have changed the DSP menu settings.

This means that the MAC could be slightly effecting or processing the sound even if the Audio Setup is 16bit 44 KHz, though I do tend to run Audio Setup on 24bit as recommended primarily from our friends at Benchmark Media again. USB on the other hand is clearly not as good on the Lavry DA11, the DAC1 no problem.

All this to one side since these differences are tiny, I have noticed and indeed recorded the differences mains cables can make. The Naim Powerline is better than standard cables IMO. Though I did have some custom (multi-weaved) cables made which did wonders for the DAC1, though these differences are still very small by all accounts. Friends with the best ears will think you have lost it!

I would be good to see a Naim DAC, but my thoughts have always been with Naim adding toslink, coaxial, firewire etc, to their high-end CD players. Why not add to the CDS3, 555??

I still own and enjoy playing CD more than ever.

I did wonder a while back about playing with a different power supply on the Mini - i had a spare linear supply knocking around in the lab but never got the time to try it. As i'm now on a Firewire interface and the Weiss is controlling clocking i take it that this is now redundant ?

quote:

Originally posted by David Dever:

quote:

Originally posted by js:
Dave, It's been a while but I think it reclocks everything coming in. Good for MACs but probably not so much for the Levinson. May end up sounding similar.

Yes, re-clocks everything–but not immune to variances in souce jitter; some sources do perform better than others, even with the DAC1.

As for external supplies–I met a vendor at AES who had developed linear supplies for Mac Pro / Mac mini / MacBook Pro, and the differences in the A/B comparison between the performance of the factory-supplied supply and the aftermarket supply was substantial.

Unfortunately the product never made it to market as he couldn't afford the CE and UL certification required to sell the units.

I'm aware of that but reclocking tends to average up or down depending on source jitter. Differences still exsist but do become smaller. More similar but not the same. Yet to hear reclocking that I prefer with a good low jitter source but do tend to prefer it with most standard computer outs. Would be nice if we could have it both ways. At least on a Lavry, you can choose narrow or a SN chooses based on signal quality. I clearly preferred the Lavry in narrow when using a TC as I suspect you would too.

Does the amp really sound best on the bottom?

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:
Makes a lot of sense to me - whatever one might think of the general quality of contemporary music (and I'm no fan of much of it myself) there's no getting around the fact that, more often than not, the musicians who produce the music (and who are best acquainted with the musical message they are trying to convey) and the recording engineers who actually hear the original performance are the most demanding audience it is possible to have. This is likely the reason for the huge gap that appears to exist between the pro audio and audiophile worlds where the price to performance ratio is concerned.

But WHAT are they demanding? Generally, dynamic-range compression so their cd sounds as loud as the competition, and eq meant to kill small animals, screaming LISTEN TO ME--ME, ME, OVER HERE LISTEN TO ME.

quote:

There’s no doubting Abbey Road, which is clearly a definitive and modern studio in which it produces superb recordings using top notch – bar none equipment.
Then again, they are obviously deaf from years of engineering

So I guess if I listen to stuff made before 1974 I'm remiss if I don't use JBL 4412/4411 (or their home equivalent L100) fed by Crown amps or Altec 604s fed by McIntosh tubes, despite their very colored sound? Or maybe, just maybe, engineers listen to their monitoring system as a particular lens to which they are sensitive rather than as a privileged version of the truth and we don't need their equipment to climb Mt. Olympus.

And for the record, some of the very worst sounding cds I own were mastered at Abbey Road by Peter Mew. Come to think of it his cds sound like the way people describe the Benchmark--dry, grainy, bright, etched, hard to listen to, lifeless. [Note for the record that my current view is that the Benchmark has a noticeable but slight tendency in this direction but is overall quite good--if not as good as my Naim digital overall.]