NDX v UQ

The NDX is designed for a network based system.

The DAC is designed to handle S/PDIF signals in the "traditional" digital system where individual components do not use network protocol to exchange data.

To me, combining NDX with DAC represents some sort of logical contradiction.  A mix of two different approaches, of which one is the future and the other is quickly going into obsolescence.

Not sure it's about out and out performance. The NDX 555 sounded different to the Qute/Dac/555 but for some reason I far preferred the synergy of the NDX and 555. Maybe it was the simplicity of the two units, maybe it sounded, gasp...a little more analogue but whatever happened I will be getting the NDX. Doesn't make sense on paper I guess but ears are weird. Looking forward to reading all the Qute/Dac/555 are better posts.

"the NDX is designed for a network based system.

The DAC is designed to handle S/PDIF signals in the "traditional" digital system where individual components do not use network protocol to exchange data.

To me, combining NDX with DAC represents some sort of logical contradiction.  A mix of two different approaches, of which one is the future and the other is quickly going into obsolescence."

What an odd thing to say - a DAC is a DAC - it makes perfect sense to use one with a streamer with as short a path from source to the DAC as possible.

Tog

I agree with the shortest possible path, this is why I come to a different conclusion.

With UPnP streamers, the shortest possible path to DAC is not in a separate box, but integrated with the streamer.

On the other hand, if the system is going to use a separate DAC connected with S/PDIF, then what would be the point of using a streamer? In this case, the shortest path to the source is to connect the DAC directly to the music server component (HDX, Mac, PC, UnitiServe...)

You may want to do both - in which case I think the possibility of a slight compromise might be worth having - if you could hear it . Unless like Croesus you can afford a DAC for every eventuality.



Tog

It's quite reasonable to expect both network and s/pdif connectivity in a DAC - as in the NDX for example. Same as pre-amps of yore had RIAA and line-level inputs. Though Naim must still see some advantages in s/pdif and an external DAC even for streaming audio, because the nDAC is still listed as an upgrade for the NDX.

Regarding the convenience of having various input/output on a given machine, I fully agree, but this is not the point here.

Just to clarify: I am challenging the logic of using s/pdif AFTER using network connections when the purpose is to achieve highest possible sound quality.

Again, if the DAC is so much better, then why have a Nas, a router and a streamer between the source file and the DAC? Simply connect the DAC directly to the music server box (Pc, Mac, Hdx, Serve).

Feeding DAC from NDX does not logically make sense at this point, even if it is written on the company web site.  To me, it is either one or the other, but not both in the same system.

I reserve the right to change my mind after listening to a demo, or getting more explanations.

Alamanka and AllenB - I agree with you absolutely - an NDX feeding an nDAC is absurd to me. 

But evidently not to Naim.

And evidently not to David Dever, since if you look earlier in this thread you will see his opinion that a Unitiserve feeding an NDX feeding an nDAC sounds "generally better than theUnitiServe feeding the DAC directly". 

I've been quite close to buying into the Naim streaming approach, but statements like that have made me keep my money in my pocket.

The ability to accept an external DAC to upgrade performance does NOT imply that a Naim DAC (or any other manufacturer's DAC) is necessary to get excellent performance out of the NDX–it is perfectly capable on its own, and was designed as a standalone source component.

In fact, there may be some people who prefer the voicing of the monolithic op-amp output stage to the surface-mount, fully discrete output stage of the DAC, especially if they are moving from a Naim CD player such as the CDX2 (which utilizes a similar output topology but lacks the DSP processing).

I should further point out that there are other manufacturers whose streaming music players offer digital outs–so there is no absurd conspiracy to "force" people to purchase an additional DAC; in fact, I'd hazard a guess that there are more streamers out there with digital outs than not.

I think you're looking for a controversy that doesn't exist–UnitiServe + NDX is a fine solution on its own.

Ok, I'm a nDac owner with a 122x + 150x and sonos is my current streaming solution. An obvious move would to add a qute (replace sonos)but this seems wasteful as amp is instantly redundant. So option 1is add qute or option 2 is sell nDac and buy ndx. Cost is similar but what about sq?

NDX will sound better, though you can certainly utilize the preamp section of the Qute and bypass that of the NAC 122x (using the AV bypass facility on the preamp). The NDX can control the volume on the NAC 122x, as well.

As for "wasteful", I believe that too many people get needlessly or obsessively hung up on features that they don't THINK they'll use, in the belief that the relative parts costs difference between an UnitiQute with and without an amplifier section is substantial. In fact, that's not the case (you still need a toroidal transformer, chassis, front panel, etc., which make up the bulk of the cost anyway)–the UnitiQute wouldn't be any cheaper if you stripped out the power amp.

This perception of false economy would, if implemented, otherwise limit the versatility of the product–there is no "waste" or dip in performance by using the preamp section but not the power amp section. In fact, the amplifier section can be turned off by setting the speaker size to "None".

And–if you decide at a later point to re-deploy the UnitiQute to a different zone (either as a digital source feeding a DAC, or as a streaming integrated amplifier), you have a complete all-in-one solution: win, win & win.

Let me throw in my 2 cents. If you read the white paper, you can see that almost the entire section of the ndac was copied to the ndx white paper. So it seems ndx contains the ndac within it's chasis. I think Ndx is a classic series of the "Qute", only that at this level, bring your own preamp and amp! Probably from 202/200 up to really make sense of it. So I guess when you ask if you should get NDX after getting a Qute is similar to asking if you should get a CDS3 when you already have CD5i. It doesn't make sense if you think in terms of function but only in SQ. Since ndac is listed as upgrade for ndx, so probably if you have Qute + ndac, you probably don't have too much incentive to switch the Qute for ndx. In a even grander scheme of things, the Qute + ndac, serve + a SN, and a Ndx + 202/200 can co-exist. One in bed room, one in study and the other one in the living room! The serve will rip and distribute so you can access anything in your house. So far I seems to see the picture of the products. The only remaining question I do want to know is, how much better is a ndx + ndac is going to be against ndx alone which has essentially the same dac design?

@ihau
The nDAC and NDX do NOT have essentially the same DAC design although I can understand people thinking that from a quick read of the respective white papers as it is indeed true that sections of the NDX white paper are copied and pasted from that of the nDAC. A careful reading shows that they both have similar and probably identical digital filtering and jitter removal. However, after that things are very different:

nDAC	NDX
Two mono DAC chips	One stereo DAC chip
White paper describes high quality clock circuitry with crystal	White paper makes little mention of clock circuitry
Discrete audio stages	Audio stages made from total of six op-amp chips
White paper describes use of numerous power regulators for audio	No mention of power regulation to audio stages

The internal photographs in Naim publicity material and website show the layout of the two DACs to be very different with little in common apart from the digital filtering stage; for example, the main power regulation is on a separate circuit board in the nDAC but on the same board as the DAC circuitry in the NDX.

@DavidDever
If as you say the bulk of the cost is in the case, front panel and toroidal transformer then it is a shame Naim did not spend the 'little' extra that would be needed to put the nDAC circuitry in the NDX.

it sounds like fishing for more and more... 

yeah comments like this also put me off. i am also still with some money in my pocket as well. and that´s already for more then 2 years.


"""I think you're looking for a controversy that doesn't exist–UnitiServe + NDX is a fine solution on its own."""

that sounds not very convincing i must say. "a fine solution " man for that money it should be perfect or is serve/ ndx / 555 / dac /555 good enough ? the ndx is hardly on the market and is already connected to 5 other boxes to deliver a stunning performance. else its just " fine "... ridiculous really.

Surely it is David Dever that is being controversial.

He has said, earlier in this thread, that a UnitiServe feeding an NDX feeding an nDAC is better than the Serve feeding the nDAC directly.  

Does that mean the s/pdif output of the Serve isn't as good as the s/pdif output of the NDX?

Why?

All of you who've bought a Serve/nDAC can now buy an NDX to upgrade it.

One power supply or two Sir?

IMHO, the NDX will succeed or fail as a standalone component.  If the NDX can deliver sound quality that rivals the DAC, but perhaps with a different voicing, then it should be another successful Naim product.  If, on the other hand, the NDX requires the DAC "upgrade" to produce an acceptably high level of sound quality, then it may not be successful.

And while there will be some well-to-do Naim aficionados that have the room to deploy the full monty (NDX/555PS/DAC/555PS), I think it will be very difficult for a configuration this large and cumbersome to compete (especially outside of all-Naim systems) in the reference streamer/dac space.

I do wish that streamer functionality had been added to base Naim DAC platform.  Or, alternatively, it would have been nice to see a basic streamer in a XS case to partner with the DAC.  Maybe someday one or both of those things will still happen.   But it has been posted (by someone like Richard or Dave) that Naim did look at building the full DAC functionality into the NDX, but they decided the price would be too high, so they chose to use the HDX dac instead.   Perhaps this will turn out to be a bad decision, but until we have more folks demo the NDX and report what they hear, aren't we all just guessing?

It will be interesting to see how this all works out over the next six months to a year.  I seriously doubt that we have seen the last streaming audio product from Naim.  The current product line may not be ideal for everyone,  but I still think it is pretty impressive how much new technology Naim has managed to get out the door over the last year.

Hook

I have got mine last week but not had a chance to unbox it yet do to other commitments such as the wedding anniversary etc.

I also have a nDac/XPS currently in my system so I will try and post my intial thoughts over the next few days.

Thanks adymcd.

I am looking forward to your findings.

Best wishes,
Peter

I'm really looking forward to your findings as well.



Scot

???