NDX->NDAC/555PS vs NDS/555PS(2x Burndy)
Posted by: Simon-in-Suffolk on 13 October 2012
Well I have fianlly decided to audtion the NDS vas the NDX./NDAC combo. The reults are are quite interesting with pros and cons either side. I expect to provide a fuller report close of play Sunday.
On the last point I do find myself leaning the same way as you. I don't find it all that engaging either although I can see why many like Cyrus.
Naim amplification came late to this household. Always loved their sources at their respective price points but could not get on with the amps (or combinations thereof) until we heard a 252/300. Apparently this makes me elitist - although I blame my ears. What I can say - purely from a personal perspective of course - is that the difference in presentation between the two sources under consideration should be easily identifiable regardless. And when it comes to sources, at least in my ears, something that times well for example,will stamp this characteristic on a comparatively "lazy" amp. Yes, for the full effect you'll likely be better off with a sympathetic amp but if a source only really gives its best with a particular amp or amps, I think there is justification to think it flawed in some way. I think the NDS/555PS will shine through anything although the whole system will contribute to precisely what kind of enjoyment comes out the end.
I disagree. Having owned both Naim and Cyrus, I find they share much more in common than they differ. Both excel on PRaT and detail and are rather musical. Both can also be slightly too revealing of poorer recordings (IMO of course) which is why I'm about to sell on my own Naim gear (having sold my Cyrus gear years ago)... Horses for courses, but I have found Cyrus to be every bit the equal of Naim, is my point.
Hi James, indeed I share your point, . .. my point i was trying to make is that IME the better the amplification the more the differences in terms of my preference between the NDS/555PS and the NDX->NDAC/555PS shine through. Admittedly when I have listened on a 500/552 system it was with a NDX/555PS->nDAC/555PS which isn't really that practical....
But as Harry has said its great we have choices to suit our preferences...
But I can't lie, I wish Naim had the NDX->NDAC/555PS sound / performance in a two box solution and that is why i was so disappointed it wasn't to be with the NDS.
Perhaps as I get older my sound preferences will change but it just doesn't float my boat currently.
I made a different compromise - staring at 3 boxes for source just made me feel stupid. The nDac got sold off. I decided to run the NDX/XPS-DR. I regretted selling it for the first few weeks, but don't miss it anymore. I'm leaning towards the 282/HiCapDR/200 myself to go with the NDX/XPSDR. Staring at that rack also makes me feel silly, but oh well, I'll learn to live with that.
I made a different compromise - staring at 3 boxes for source just made me feel stupid. The nDac got sold off. I decided to run the NDX/XPS-DR. I regretted selling it for the first few weeks, but don't miss it anymore. I'm leaning towards the 282/HiCapDR/200 myself to go with the NDX/XPSDR. Staring at that rack also makes me feel silly, but oh well, I'll learn to live with that.
I am with you in that box count IS an issue for me. I am looking to do 'the most with the least' as an approach. (I did cheat some, moving the UnitiServe to another part of the house. That reduced the box count on the hi fi rack but not in the total system!) One integrated amp, one ps for it, one source (NDS), one ps for it. One redundant cd player that I will sell. That's it. So far I have stuck to that. A compromise, but it has worked for me and I like what I hear.
I am happier seeing a modest hi fi rack than I would be seeing 2 x 5-shelf Fraims in my room, and it has nothing to do with the money.
@Simon,
interesting that you use ATC passive speakers Nd not active.
Aren't they experts especially in active once?
R
Hi Ragman, I have only ever listened to passive ATCs in my hifi system. I understand their actives are superb, especially the larger models with several drivers. Looking at their marketing blurb it would appear the actives are very much targeted at the professional market where I assume high power/SPL and accuracy is required.
I have tried a few other makes over the years and each time have ended up going back to ATCs. Their bespoke mid bass driver in their sealed cabinets (SCM19 for example ) seem to deliver a phenomenal performance. From what I understand with greater than two drivers the challenges and compromises of crossovers especially with higher power can become prominent and going active can provide many benefits, but its not an area I have dabbled with.
Simon
Hi Ragman, I have only ever listened to passive ATCs in my hifi system. I understand their actives are superb, especially the larger models with several drivers. Looking at their marketing blurb it would appear the actives are very much targeted at the professional market where I assume high power/SPL and accuracy is required.
I have tried a few other makes over the years and each time have ended up going back to ATCs. Their bespoke mid bass driver in their sealed cabinets (SCM19 for example ) seem to deliver a phenomenal performance. From what I understand with greater than two drivers the challenges and compromises of crossovers especially with higher power can become prominent and going active can provide many benefits, but its not an area I have dabbled with.
Simon
Yes,
at least with more than two Drives it is difficult to realize Good passive solutions die the technical Point of view.