ND5 XS update to 4.3 (4.03.003)

Hi Huge, happy you found the improved SQ,  my problem is I can't A/B/A it, & I am not confident with "I have a feeling its better  ..... "

Re "The USB system of Windows (7) recognised the type of USB controller chip in the ND5 and identified that it needed a specific driver to communicate with it.  Windows Update identified, downloaded and installed the required driver (and reported that the driver had installed itself on COM3*)".

This USB driver package link is included in the firmware update installation instructions.  http://www.silabs.com/products...ridgeVCPDrivers.aspx

Does this mean you didn't follow the instructions  ??  

I'm just going to get a beer, then sit myself down and see how this thread develops 

Nor was I confident about that...

"Difficult to be certain, but there is possibly a small improvement.

If I did detect a real improvement..."

Windows update automatically downloads and installs that same driver (I checked!).

TN-0029 just says you have to have that driver and gives a link to find it - it doesn't say that you have to obtain it through the link and do a manual install.  So yes, I did follow the instructions .

And technically it's not a USB driver, it's a COM driver that uses the USB infrastructure.

I have upgraded the ND5XS to 4.3

Hurray, the ALAC 96 KHz files are now playing, without freezing the ND5XS which let to a spontaneous reboot. What I noticed though is that the soundstage is different from what it used to be, a little less depth. The bitrate of the playing files, as reported by the Naim App is also much lower than it was.

I cannot hear the difference with Flac before or after, but with ALAC it seems to be quite distinct. Still, my personal preference is Alac over Flac for playback. Budapest Festival Orchestra, Mahler 9. The intro of the Andante Comodo in the Alac playback literally made the hairs on my arms stand up.

I have downloaded the sampler from Channel Classics, a Vivaldi concerto (two violins, celli and spinet as far as I can hear). It has a 44.1Khz, 96Khz, 192Khz and DSD version of the same file, like the choice that you can make in their download store.

Once again, I can hear a distinct difference between the 44.1 and the 96, but between the 96 and the 192 I am unable to hear differences. Sometimes I think I do, but most of the time I'm sure I'm trying to convince myself I do hear a difference.

Then on to the DSD. That is quite different, really different even.

I'm not sure if I do prefer the DSD version. It sounds very natural, but also a bit reserved. If I would have to make an analogy: where the 96 and 192 Flac have attack and you feel like your on top of the player, the DSD makes them sound like an ensemble playing quietly in the corner at some kind of fancy reception.

Most notable: the cello sounds a bit muffled and the spinet is less discernible. But on the other hand, there is a feeling of space. Much more space around the players. Less uptight and nervous and much more relaxed. I would almost dare to say 'more natural'.

As a music player myself, I have the feeling that the FLAC/ALAC gives me more what I will hear when I play myself, while the DSD gives me what I hear when I'm further down in the concert hall. Less detail, but more room for the acoustics. It is a very strange thing to experience, given that Channel Classics records and mixes in DSD.

I wonder what it does to the Mahler 9 recording when the orchestra goes full out in their dynamics. My guess would be that the DSD can handle far more dynamics with ease than a FLAC or WAV or ALAC version can. I'm tempted to buy it, just to settle my curiosity.

I'm very glad though with this 4.3 upgrade. It looks like they have made the NAIM far more stable and reliable whatever you throw at it and we have the option of DSD now.

Quiet (lower volume level)  is the first thing I noticed ....... but after some analysis with both my Mk-II ears & MusicScope tool,  I have concluded that all the DSD recordings I have are set to a low level but the dynamic peaks on the album will go up to or near to 0dB (max).   It seems the lack of compression with DSD is somehow doing this, & its different from PCM,  however I don't know enough of the techie details to explain it - yet.

I have some DSD albums with tracks that have very short peaks at overload up to +3dB in fact. Playing one track with volume set to normally hear the singers level at realistic levels in the room,  which is a low soft voice & gives a real nice relaxed spacial ambience;  but when he picks (rather than strums) his acoustic guitar strings - these are the overloads -  these really give you a shock.  I have never heard the same dynamics with any of the many PCM acoustic guitar albums I have.

I have other DSD albums from another recording studio that appear to have set the volume even lower to avoid getting close to overload,  very very nice  but be careful if the next album in the play list is a PCM as you will be rushing for the volume control.    

100% agree ...... more space around the players. Less uptight and nervous and much more relaxed. I would almost dare to say 'more natural'.  

Mike,

IF a recording is made directly using DSD, it's exceptionally difficult to post process without significant loss of quality as DSD (PWM encoding) can't really be manipulated directly .  PCM encoding can be edited and manipulated directly using DSPs.  This means the sound production engineers can compress PCM recordings for the mass market (MP3) and 'squash' the sound.

I believe that the difference isn't in the encoding (actually PCM 24/192 can encode a wider range of sound above the noise floor than can DSD64 - in amplitude, frequency and phase relationships) it's not the technology it's the production engineering that's the significant difference.

I am quite curious to know what they have done with ALAC playback. The reported byte stream in the Naim app is much lower, about 50% I would say. 

Is it really lower? Or is the streamer now reporting the correct figure? The sound stage is really different, or is that psychobabble ? I cannot A/B test for obvious reasons

Huge, MP3 encoders work best if the audio is not too compressed.. It allows a better data compression and the MP3 coding will slightly dynamically compress the sound to some extent itself. The comparsion of PCM with DSD playback is interesting as DSD64 is less dynamic than 24 bit PCM.. There could be differences in the mastering, and if the PCM is derived from DSD initially, a lossy process, the audio sample data  will have been manipulated to some extent which perhaps could change the dynamic feel to the audio.

Certainly I have very dynamic PCM and DSD files alike.. however most of my few DSD recordings do feel different from my typical PCM recording... 

Hi Huge,  yes agreed re post recording processing,  I am getting into the why's & wherefores of DSD .....  not sure where it goes - yet

It seems that many recordings are edited in PCM before going (or going back) to DSD.   All my DSD recordings so far are "native" & that (for me) goes someway to explain why the extremes of low level volume & up to & over 0dB peaks.   I've also picked up that whilst DSD dynamic range is less than 144dB as is possible with 24 bit,  DSD is a little less precise & although theoretically its 120dB there appears to a problem making correlations between the two w.r.t. actual played volumes.  

Its interesting,  but as always its the end result that matters & whilst I don't care if it be DSD PCM or tin cans & a piece of string,  so far in my limited DSD journey, DSD is a length or two ahead.

The longer I listen to music I know inside out, the more convinced I get the 4.3 update has brought a slight change in the way music is reproduced. It is all a bit more reserved and distanced than it was, but clearer, cleaner and more detailed.

If you play music and doing some other stuff at the same time you probably would not notice, but I was just listening and selecting pieces to listen to.

Next week I have probably forgotten the difference and will I be used to how it sounds, it is not that dramatic a change.

I felt that 4.3 gave a very obvious improvement on my SuperUniti - hard to say exactly how, so the bland 'better' will have to do. 

Likewise to the NDX. A significant increase in transparency ime.

G

I was listening this morning to Peter Gabriels rendition of "Mirrorball" (Scratch My Back album).

It's got quite a busy string section at some points, but the clarity of it all without the system ever "flinching" and keeping Gabriels voice floating on top of it all is baffling. I don't think the term "separation" does cover it, it is more than that. All at once, it is like the ND5XS has been upgraded to something far more better. "Control" might be a better word for it, the system has more grip somehow.

It is great 

jmtennapel

Yes 'Mirrorball' is quite layered isn't it.  What you observe sounds similar to my observations:  I found I was more able to cleanly distinguish the separate parts making up a piece, even when, for instance, the same vocalist is singing more than one part and hence the vocal timbre is the same on each part.

I have also found it easier to distinguish two quite similar voices against the orchestration even when they sing in unison (e.g. Summer Bowman and Dru Allen in Mirabilis, when singing in their lower range and tuning their voices to sound close).