ndx vs. hdx SSD

"Keeping the renderer/playback device and server separate seems perfectly sensible and frees the user from being locked in to one manufacturer."

Not everybody is interested in mix and match. Particularly where it adds no performance benefit and dilutes the responsibility for making it all work together properly across several vendors.

"The box count argument doesn't really hold water when a server or NAS can be hidden away."

And the ripper? Where is that conveniently located? 

"The HDX is constrained by its storage and the need for expensive upgrades."

No version of the HDX is constrained by it's storage. And these would these be the same expensive upgrades as the NDX - i.e. nDAC and XP2 right?

"If your server is fast enough N-Stream is perfectly serviceable and improving."

But not as good at this point in time.

I'm open to opinion that the stand alone NDX has a SQ edge over the HDX but I just can't get my head around all this continuing mis-information from some quarters about the HDX. 

That's exactly what interests me, the sound quality difference between NDX and HDX as standalone (or powered) players/renderers.

I for one prefer the NDX (with XPS2) without the DAC in the mix - no matter which combo.

Murkku,

If you say you fell in love with NDX, there is no way you would be satisfied with HDX alone! The dac+analogue section of HDX is far below the level of NDX. We communicated in my "NDX with and without nDAC" thread, and your descriptions were very similar to mine. I also have the HDX; I can clearly say that HDX alone sounds a bit coarse in the high frequencies, apart from being more on the lean side in comparison. Yes, the overall balance is fine and you can really enjoy the sound for years without big complaints, but an external dac (like nDAC) is a significant upgrade to its sonics. NDX on the other hand did not call for an external dac, as you also experienced yourself.

Yes, HDX has a 'file share' feature, which allows you to playback files on your network (NAS or computer); in that respect it is similar to NDX. The only advantage of NDX in this respect is the employment of UPnP communication, which allows you to use different UI and control software options.*

The biggest advantage of HDX is that it incorporates a very good ripping solution on board - maybe the best. This makes the decision a bit more difficult. If Naim would improve its dac section we would all be more keen in recommending it.

* As you may have read, Allen brought to our attention in his latest post, that different "renderers" of network music may introduce different sound characteristics merely in their digital signal processing stage (irrespective of their dac section). I have not yet compared NDX vs HDX in this respect both with an external dac. So, my remarks above about the sound refers to dac+analogue sections.

I demoed bare NDX and HDX-SSD now for three week and I still have to say that I clearly prefer the HDX. IMO it has the more 'grown-up' and 'Naimish' sound, very dry and fast with tight bass and natural voices. As Frank Abela says the NDX is really fun at first, with more (upper) bass, warmer mids and better resolution. But personally I find it somewhat boring in time. Every music tends to sound similar with this kind of warm voicing. Reminds me of the typical continental European Hifi sound which I was happy to get rid of when changing to Naim. So I'm really astonished how much users here prefer the NDX. Sorry, absolutely no offence meant, just to bring a different view into this interesting discussion.

Ollix2,

Different views are welcome and they are usually very illuminating as they bring about different aspects, as these devices are never perfect. I have never perceived the sweet tones of NDX as warmer-than-life (I have heard such devices); I perceived them as indicators of its tonal differentiation. I will take your remark seriously and look more into this. I have some questions:

- In your earlier post on this issue, you state that nDAC is a clear upgrade to HDX. However, you don't mention how and if nDAC contributes to NDX. Could you clarify in what ways in your opinion nDAC modifies the sound on NDX?

- I have a problem with your describing NDX as having more (upper) bass. This contradicts my observation. I would describe NDX as having a more recessed bass, especially in comparison with nDAC. Obviously our systems are reacting differently in this (upper) bass region. According to my experience, systems vary a lot in their rendering of upper bass. This shows how system synergy is important. What was the system used at your dealer?

- You are right, HDX has a very neutral tonal balance. If only the treble could be a bit more smooth!

- You describe HDX as dry and fast, and NDX as having higher resolution. Can you explain this a little bit, to make sure we are talking of the same things?

Sorry, I didn't test the constellation NDX/nDAC at my dealer. We only demoed bare HDX, HDX/nDAC and HDX/NDX (via UPNP and SPDIF).

My dealer's system was 282/SC/NapSC/250/Ovator 400. My demo system at home is 282/NapSC/200/Allae. I totally agree with you that different systems (and rooms) have a major influence on bass quality and quantity. My comment on the upper bass referred to the comparison of bare HDX vs. bare NDX. I perceived the HDX to be leaner and more refined.  Regarding nDAC I can only tell you my memories of the dealer's demo where the nDAC indeed added more bass to the HDX but the bass still sounded clean and structured whereas the NDX put an extra bit of upper bass on the music that gave every song a slightly warm note.

Agreed. The HDX has a slightly coarse and mechanical sounding top end. Do you know if this gets better with XPS / 555PS?

Yes, I'll try. IMO the NDX brings out a bit more details which leads - in conjunction with the warmer bass and mids - to a somewhat sweeter presentation. For example when hearing 'The Colour of Spring" by Talk Talk, the HDX conveys the melancholic mood and partly experimental character of the songs more realistic. Short and hard drum and piano beats remain short and hard, that's what I mean by fast and dry. The music keeps its natural tension whereas the NDX presents them a bit more like fluid pop songs. Hard to describe especially as English is not my mother tongue. In German I would say the HDX sounds more 'nüchtern', but the direct translation 'sober' surely isn't right here.    I just want to say that the HDX abstains from Hifi effects and lets the natural character of the music pass through.

Oliver

 It's the NDX that needs the fans - it gets bloomin warm!

Anyone know why (apart from swooning from the high temperature music it produces)?

Do you use WiFi, Dave? I noticed that the NDX gets even warmer when using WiFi.

Mine also gets bleeding hot - and I believe I have wifi disconnected.

Your fault for choosing "bleedin edge" kit

Tog

Tog,

I hadn't realised you had rubbed the UnitServe fans up as well!

Look, I don't think that there is any conspiracy against the HDX just that some of the opinions raised on this forum from time to time seem to lack some fact or logic.

I do have an HDX-SSD but I did not rush out and buy it before spending a couple of years learning what is and what is not important in this new world of networked audio.

I started off with iTunes and Airport Express, progressed to Sonos fed by rips from my Macbook, tried streaming UPnP via Plug Player from various servers, ran Twonky on a ReadyNAS, tried various ripping programmes native to the Mac, ended up using DBPoweramp via VMware on the Mac etc...

What I learnt was this:

(1) An accurate rip, with correct metadata (and conveniently made) is the most important thing.

Whatever way the technology goes over the coming years if the rip isn't of the highest integrity one really is going down a cul-de-sac. Sure you don't need Naim equipment to do this - Naim have always been open about this in their White Papers on the HDX, however the user has to be confident that the drive is well matched to the task and the software correctly configured. Naim simply provide a validated solution to this. I can tell you from experience that rips made on my Macbook were no where near as convenient, speedy or reliably executed (often the last track on a difficult disk would not rip for some reason). To date I have ripped 530 CD's and not had a single failure. I have about another 1000 to go though!

If in the future file formats change then I would trust Naim to help us migrate the files across. Ripping should be as painless as possible because it is pretty inconvenient in itself when starting out. You only want to do it once.

(2) Convenience and stability is more important than small differences in sound quality.

I ordered my HDX in the full knowledge of the NDX. I always anticipated that the NDX would probably sound better than the HDX on account of it's half-way approach to the nDAC (i.e. employing the digital filtering - albeit simplified - from the nDAC). But I very much doubt it is night and day. I wasn't going to hear a troupe of drummers where before I heard a single drum.

The Sonos is so damn good at being convenient and stable. Months on end and not a single wobble. And easy to use as well. I know that it doesn't do hi-res but so what?

I see the HDX as very much like the Sonos in that the NAS drive or computer doesn't have to be running any third party software (Twonky, Asset etc..) but just scans the share and builds its database. I consider this to be a major plus and one of the reasons why the Sonos [and HDX] is so consistent in its stability over a long period of time.

Incidentally, in both cases my NAS automatically powers down in the night (apart from Sunday nights when it automatically backs up to a USB hard drive). No problems with this on either the Sonos or HDX.

(3) With large and varied collections powerful but simple search tools are required.

A weakness of the Sonos was that it had relatively limited searching abilities. Probably more suitable to typical mainstream collections. The HDX introduced 'Performer' and 'Conductor' which greatly improved searching across Jazz and Classical files that in a CD collection would normally be stored in a different place in the rack [to Rock for example].

Of course there are ways around this by configuring the ripping software in a way that works for you - but ultimately it's a fudge and that was not acceptable to me as a long term archiving strategy.

I am sure that the NDX is an excellent machine as are the Linn equivalents. But going down this route does import some additional pitfalls and these are all to apparent reading the threads on this and Linn's forums. There are plenty of people not having an easy ride with UPnP devices. Newcomers to this forum looking to this forum for advice should be aware of this and the options open to them rather than having one particular route trumpeted and another discredited on the basis of opinion alone.

£750

In situations where the S-400 is on the end of the system this may be advantageous. In our room/system we found them to be lacking in upper bass weight - although the detail was fine. In some situations it may be a case of adding back in what the speaker has not fully delivered. 

Bloody subjective I grant you. But what isn't?