HDX (+ XPS2,555PS)

Posted by: gary1 (US) on 27 September 2008

Well folks, I returned to the shop today a week after first hearing the HDX (+/- XPS2). A that time we were mightily impressed with the production unit of the HDX and felt that it was a terrific piece of kit. The addition of XPS2 really elevated the game to another level both with 16 bit ripped files and 24 bit was a complete knockout.

Today, Scott and I had the chance to compare the HDX (+/- XPS2, 555PSU). We did some A/B comparisons playing the same music for about 5 minutes before replaying the same piece with the other power supply and back again.

No matter what piece of music we played the results were reproducible in terms of the changes we heard with the different power supplies.

As terrific as the HDX was with the XPS2,we were bowled over by what the addition of the 555PS did and again it was immediately noticeable and not subtile. The 555PSU immediately quiets down the music and creates more focus and you really can hear much more detail in the recordings even with "basic CDs" as opposed to things you might only hear on the audiophile type recordings at 16 bit.

The gain in focus of the music and voicing was something that we all could hear right away. What was wonderful was all of the extra nuance which we could hear in the recordings. It really took things to another level indeed.

For general HDX use, both the desktop client and web browser were easy and so was the touch screen. My prefernce is for computer control as you have evrything right before you.

Again, in summary I think Naim has done a fantastic job with the HDX and I recommend anyone who has the opportunity to listen to one. I find it to produce great music and has an easy functionality to it. Give it a go. It's a must!!!
Posted on: 29 September 2008 by gary1 (US)
Gregg, I think alot of what people will do will depend upon their individual situation vis a vis how much music they own and need to transfer. For me 350 CD's is a no brainer and no vinyl. In fact I stopped buying music a while ago due to the storage issues, mixed up CDs and locating after placed in wrong spot.

For vinyl recordings you need to hear what can be done using the Wavelab/LP-12/Superline etc.. A2D via the Nagra. You would be mightily impressed. While the K8 does a nice job, this elevates the game.
Posted on: 29 September 2008 by glevethan
quote:
Originally posted by gary1:

For vinyl recordings you need to hear what can be done using the Wavelab/LP-12/Superline etc.. A2D via the Nagra. You would be mightily impressed. While the K8 does a nice job, this elevates the game.


Gary

I have no doubt about what sophisticated equipment can do in digitizing vinyl. Perhaps someone more technical (Ferenc or JS) can step in though and either confirm or correct me when I say that no matter what one does the "original" ie vinyl recording will ALWAYS have superior playback when compared to any digitized copy. I simply do not understand how the copy can be better. Much in the same way I do not understand when people speak about 24/96 copies - yes when making the copy the higher bit rate is employed - however is this to say that the copy will end up being better than the original vinyl source? - I do not think so (technically) however I would enjoy an explanation.

Gregg
Posted on: 29 September 2008 by gary1 (US)
quote:
Originally posted by glevethan:
quote:
Originally posted by gary1:

For vinyl recordings you need to hear what can be done using the Wavelab/LP-12/Superline etc.. A2D via the Nagra. You would be mightily impressed. While the K8 does a nice job, this elevates the game.


Gary

I have no doubt about what sophisticated equipment can do in digitizing vinyl. Perhaps someone more technical (Ferenc or JS) can step in though and either confirm or correct me when I say that no matter what one does the "original" ie vinyl recording will ALWAYS have superior playback when compared to any digitized copy. I simply do not understand how the copy can be better. Much in the same way I do not understand when people speak about 24/96 copies - yes when making the copy the higher bit rate is employed - however is this to say that the copy will end up being better than the original vinyl source? - I do not think so (technically) however I would enjoy an explanation.

Gregg


Will be interesting to hear if JS chimes in. Ken did tell me that he thought that the vinyl transfers he was doing with the "Superline" and Nagra were better than the vinyl playback of the LP 12 before the Superline.
Posted on: 29 September 2008 by glevethan
quote:
Originally posted by gary1:

Will be interesting to hear if JS chimes in. Ken did tell me that he thought that the vinyl transfers he was doing with the "Superline" and Nagra were better than the vinyl playback of the LP 12 before the Superline.


Thats because pre SuperLine things were not that good Big Grin

Seriously though I would like for a technical person to chime in here as I do not believe that the copy can be better than the original - when referring to digital transfers from vinyl.

Gregg
Posted on: 29 September 2008 by Don Atkinson
quote:
I do not believe that the copy can be better than the original - when referring to digital transfers from vinyl.

I am not the technical person you are looking for but....

30 years ago I used to copy LPs to tape (not cassette). Quite often the taped copy sounded better than the original LP.

First and foremost, it is necessary to accept "facts" as facts. Just becuse you can't come up with an explanation based on physics, doesn't mean the "facts" are false!!

My "explanation" was based on electro-mechanical feedback being far more problamatic in an LP system than in a tape-based system. I used to tape the copy without feeding the LP signal to the speakers. I considered the lack of acoustic feedback enabled a "good" tape copy. This tape copy, when played through the same amp/speaker system didn't have the LP feedback and the tape system's feedback might well have been far less influential during playback - the tape recorder being less sensitive to it.

The same might be true (in part) of LP v digital/ripped playback, especially if the ripping it done in silence.

Just an outside possibility........

Cheers

Don
Posted on: 29 September 2008 by winkyincanada
quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
quote:
I do not believe that the copy can be better than the original - when referring to digital transfers from vinyl.

I am not the technical person you are looking for but....

30 years ago I used to copy LPs to tape (not cassette). Quite often the taped copy sounded better than the original LP.

First and foremost, it is necessary to accept "facts" as facts. Just becuse you can't come up with an explanation based on physics, doesn't mean the "facts" are false!!

My "explanation" was based on electro-mechanical feedback being far more problamatic in an LP system than in a tape-based system. I used to tape the copy without feeding the LP signal to the speakers. I considered the lack of acoustic feedback enabled a "good" tape copy. This tape copy, when played through the same amp/speaker system didn't have the LP feedback and the tape system's feedback might well have been far less influential during playback - the tape recorder being less sensitive to it.

The same might be true (in part) of LP v digital/ripped playback, especially if the ripping it done in silence.

Just an outside possibility........

Cheers

Don


I'll buy this for vinyl. Seems to me that acoustic and mechanical feedback from loudspeakers could have a very large effect on LP replay quality. The effort put into getting just the right isolation/coupling support for TTs seems to support this. Not surprising that a high quality copy, taped in acoustic silence could be better than the feedback-polluted "live" LP.

I just have a hard time believing this is as significant with digital playback.