nd5 v. Dac v-1
Posted by: Lawrence1127 on 21 October 2015
I would appreciate views about putting together a secondary system.
My question concerns a digital streaming source - nd5 or dac v-1. What are the considerations should I take into account in deciding between these sources? I guess I don't really understand what the doc v-1 is or what its use is compared to a streamer like the nd5. Can the dac v-1 be used as a streaming source? Which would be a higher quality?
Whichever source on which I decide will be combined with amplification and speakers I already have: either a nait 2/hicap/rega bookshelf speakers or a nap 140/nac 62/highcap with same rega bookshelf speakers. I have a NAS full of music.
Thanks in advance for your views.
Hi Lawrence,
V1 is just a DAC and needs a streamer/source, eg:-
- computer
- sonos
- squeezebox
etc
ND5 is itself a streamer (including DAC), so has everything you need. Given that you've got a NAS already it seems the more obvious choice unless one of the solutions above holds particular appeal.
you can use the computer with the NAS as well for the DAC-V1.
actually the ND5 has the computer part built in. and makes up the task of sending to it's internal DAC the digital data streamed from the NAS... this task you can do with a computer, and take advantega of the asynchronous USB input of the DAC-V1...
while the solution with built in streamer is more elegant and with no fuss, the other one, with computer and asynchronous USB input is the one that actually makes for tunnable sound, as the software for replay, or the coputer settings can seriously affect the spund.
Thank you very much for explanations and thoughts. Catalin, I was not quite able to follow what you said about the computer/NAS/dac v-1 being "tunnable." Do you mean that this option, as opposed to nd5, has the better ability to yield the best sound because one is able to optimize the variables concerning the use of the computer and NAS that you mentioned?
In addition to the amplification, speakers and NAS, I have a laptop computer and a tablet that can, of course, access the same home network that the NAS is on. Is it hard to configure the computer and tablet to get the sound files to the dac v-1?
And, now that you are helping me to think this through, my TV system has a untiserve drive and 272, a combined preamp and streamer, accessing the same home network. Does the existence of the untiserve and 272 on the same network somehow affect the need for a streamer and allow me to us the dac v-1 for everything on the NAS and then plug sticks, ipods, etc. For local playback on the dac v-1 as well?
I do not have any preference going into this between nd5 or dac v-1. And if I need a streamer in this system, or the system is far easier to operate with the streamer, so be it. I guess I do have a preference for buying as little as possible (having bought ao much over the years) and use what I have. And I will confess that, if it is feasible snd useable, I like the idea of th0is system consisting of only half-size boxes. But far more important is ease of use and sound quality. Thanks again.
Lawrence 1127
Why not try the Uniti Qute2, its half size box with streamer and amp together, hook it up to your network and let the Unitiserve feed it.
Karl
Hi Lawrence,
Sounds like the system for which you raise the original question is a 2nd (or even 3rd) system in another room ?
Maybe that changes things a little bit, allied to the fact you have a laptop (which it appears you could be happy to use and keep switched on for music replay ?). Using the latter as a player/streamer is an easy solution, no great tweaking required. Some folks use iTunes or one of its "hifi" add-ons like Audirvana, I use JRiver and find it truly excellent. There are plenty of good options. Whichever software player you choose can be "pointed" at your Unitiserve library, though a LAN cable will tend to give better results than wifi esp for hi-res. Web streaming services (eg Tidal, Qobuz) and internet radio can easily be dialled up on a laptop. Connection to the V1 would be via USB cable, and best to get a half way decent one like Belkin or Lindy rather than cheap n nasty, if not a "hifi" version like Supra or Furutech.
Having said all of that, if you're using a 272 elsewhere, then an ND5 would be so similiar and familiar you may still prefer it. I like both methods, and its horses for courses really.....
PS Forgot to mention, use of plug in sticks and ipods etc in lieu of network connection is possible with ND5, but maybe not with V1 (?).... You could always keep a library copy or subset on the laptop.
Thank you for your responses.
Karl, I have thought about a qute 2, but have been impressed with my impression of the higher sound quality of the nd5 and I have already all of the amplification to drive it. Also, I cannot get over the irony of Naim offering receivers now. Being a decades-long customer of Naim, I vividly recall Naim inveying against the concept, not to mention the execution by Japanese companies, of putting the source in the same box as the amplication. Now, here we are with Naim with a full line of receivers. Now I know the argument is that digital is different and that may well be true. It is also the case that different people can have different visions, and it is not surprising that the company would change with Paul at the helm after Julian's death. But the uniti is ironic to me. Nonetheless, I may get a Qute2 or even a muso for the bedroom.
Karlos, this system we are discussing is for family use in a room that is separate from the tv system's location. This other room is where family members congregate when they do not wish to experience what is going on with the tv (e.g. adults needing to escape the 13-year-old's xboxing, or the 13 year old and/or friends needing to escape adults). One of this escape room's central characteristics is that it is tv and screen free: aside from the possibility we are discussing of a computer as music controller, no screens are allowed. People must read, interact with each other, think, listen to music or all of the above there. It is also very important that this system be user friendly since I want my 13-year-old and fiance to want and like to use it. Which is why I would like a high quality playback on this system within the parameters of the equipment I already have and a reasonable (no NDS in here) and flexible digital source.
From your comments, it seems clear that if I go the computer/dac v-1 route, the computer must be connected hard wire, not wirelessly, and obviously, the computer must be available to do its job whenever anyone wants to use the system. So the family computer used for all of purposes, such as work, homework, Web searches by all, won't work. One needs a computer dedicated to the system, or at least readily available to whomever uses the system for the entirety of the time the system is used. A tablet wont work will it since you need a USB with dac v-1, correct? I assume a computer or tablet does not have to be terribly robust to serve the purpose of controlling this system. Is that the case? If that is the case, is there any reason not to grab a $300 computer insteaf of paying the cost differential (about $1500 US) for the nd5 over the dac v-1?
Thanks again to all for their help.
Actually Lawrence, and at risk of being controversial on this forum, the computer need not be dedicated. Most computer audio users on here do go that route, eg a Mac Mini perhaps with no screen/headless, but a modern computer is imo perfectly capable of multi tasking alongside audio (which is not processor intensive). For example JRiver comes with a nice remote app (Gizmo) which allows easy control of the player from a tablet or smart phone, even if someone else is sat using the computer for whatever other purpose - except audio (there can be only one audio output, not two).
That said, a dedicated machine avoids any such compromises. Either way, I don't think complexity is part of the deal in any sense (at least for someone who is comfy to use a computer), and as for kids its part of a useful learning process anyway. Whilst on the overall cost equation, you're quite right a V1 saves considerable bucks vs ND5. Sound quality wise, each approach will have its advocates but I don't envisage a significant difference between V1 and ND5, both will be capable of an excellent result for the money.....
From your comments, it seems clear that if I go the computer/dac v-1 route, the computer must be connected hard wire, not wirelessly, and obviously, the computer must be available to do its job whenever anyone wants to use the system. So the family computer used for all of purposes, such as work, homework, Web searches by all, won't work. One needs a computer dedicated to the system, or at least readily available to whomever uses the system for the entirety of the time the system is used. A tablet wont work will it since you need a USB with dac v-1, correct? I assume a computer or tablet does not have to be terribly robust to serve the purpose of controlling this system. Is that the case? If that is the case, is there any reason not to grab a $300 computer insteaf of paying the cost differential (about $1500 US) for the nd5 over the dac v-1?
Thanks again to all for their help.
A small and not too expensive PC hardwired and in permanent residence with the system would be my recommendation, and something I did with my main system, And I wouldn't be without it now. There seems to be few who take this approach, a mixture of expectations of computer unreliability, possibly objections over redundancy, i.e who needs a whole PC to just play music, and often worries about them being unsightly, or noisy. But here's the thing, whether overkill or not, a PC delivers the most versatile and one of the most cost effective streaming solutions out there; a fraction of the cost for most hifi components mentioned around here. Also, the more dedicated, or even optimized for a particular task the computer is, then the more reliable it tends to be. And as for unsightly, I'm not sure what's wrong with the visual system among audiophile types, but hifi in general is pretty unsightly, and even those with three racks of the stuff feel that adding a small PC, or MAC mini, is just a step too far. Strange beings.
The DAC-V1 is extremely capable and in my experience seems to deliver best with the computer as the source. This could be down to the quality of my other digital components, now merely a blu-ray player and TV, but regardless a computer + DAC-V1 is capable of delivering sound quality that is unlikely to leave you wanting.
Karl's and song stream, thank you very much for your thoughtful and insightful comments. They are very helpful, and I appreciate it.
+1 Seems like the obvious solution to me. Especially if you already have a Unitiserve, which will feed both streamers, both controlled from the same app, with multiroom playback if you want it.
The 'bothering with a computer' comment is a bit coy as both streaming from a NAS and a computer-to-DAC set up involve use of computers (A NAS is a type of computer afterall), cables, and remote control software.
However, the key point for your setup and aims, is that the DAC V1 needs to have a direct connection with a computer and it will not access the music files from your NAS or Unitiserve via your home network as it does not use networking technology to access files (it uses asynchronous USB). You could, if relevant to your set up, connect the Unitiserve via SPDIF to the DAC V1.
So, a streamer is the simplest/most elegant way forward (as mentioned by HH and Chris SU). A Uniti Qute, for example, is pretty versatile as is a system in a box (streamer, pre and, power amp, and headphone amp?), small and a similar price to a DAC V1 (which is a DAC, headphone amp and Pre only).
If at all possible get to a dealer and get hands on with a DAC V1 and the range of Naim streaming options.
Good luck
Jude
It is probably key to understand that neither approach makes what you already have redundant.
An ND5 would access your NAS library directly (by ethernet or wifi). V1 would do so indirectly, or more precisely the computer would do so (by ethernet or wifi). Nor is it "fiddly" to make it do so, as its a one-off selection of library location - nothing more than that. Unitiserve would continue to rip etc just as it does now.
The main downside of the V1 route as I see it is that its a different user/control experience to the one you're used to with the 272, no Naim app etc. Some folks see the need for the computer to be on (in order to play music) as a major drawback, but I find that a non issue to be honest. In many households the computer(s) is/are on all the time.
Anyhow, as Jude said above, if its possible then a demo is always best to help you get a feel for what can work for you, and which solution offers the best value for money.
One other thought - a 172 used with the 140. Like a 272, but smaller.
Not yo get too off point, why does the dac v 1 have the feel of a classic?
And HH, why didn't I mention a 172 with the 140? Because that would be too easy. More seriously, that suggestion is, of course, sensible. I was focused on already having two amps and preamps available (the integrated nait 2 and the 140/62), as well as 2 highcaps to improve both, and was focused on a flexible source to feed these existing alternatives. Forum discussions unanimously and greatly prefer the sound quality of the nd5 (and, I think, the dac v 1 too) to that of the 172, so I did not think of that road. And I do really enjoy both the nait2/ hicap and 140/62/hicap, all of which have been recapped and sound great. So I guess the answer is that for personal, idiosyncratic reasons, I would prefer to stick to a source, recognizing that the dac v 1 is not a full source and also has more features beyond being a source as well.
Very, very helpful responses, and I appreciate it.
Not yo get too off point, why does the dac v 1 have the feel of a classic?
And HH, why didn't I mention a 172 with the 140? Because that would be too easy. More seriously, that suggestion is, of course, sensible. I was focused on already having two amps and preamps available (the integrated nait 2 and the 140/62), as well as 2 highcaps to improve both, and was focused on a flexible source to feed these existing alternatives. Forum discussions unanimously and greatly prefer the sound quality of the nd5 (and, I think, the dac v 1 too) to that of the 172, so I did not think of that road. And I do really enjoy both the nait2/ hicap and 140/62/hicap, all of which have been recapped and sound great. So I guess the answer is that for personal, idiosyncratic reasons, I would prefer to stick to a source, recognizing that the dac v 1 is not a full source and also has more features beyond being a source as well.
Very, very helpful responses, and I appreciate it.
To your para 1 Lawrence, I'd say in a nutshell you said it exactly as it is.
The V1 (and myriad other DACs on the mkt today) are either totally, primarily, or at least partially/potentially aimed at taking a computer (or similar) from what would otherwise be a pretty humdrum source and turning it into proper hifi. Not everyone on this forum believes that can be done (or done well), but I certainly do, as do many others. DACs are also versatile because they can be used as an upgrade with any digital source that has a digital output.
V1 looks like a Naim Classic range product because, technically, it is ;-) Despite the half-width "form factor".....
Your second para alludes to the potential redundancy of functionality in the product you buy, given what you have already to connect it to. I suppose therefore it should be noted that the V1 is also a pre-amp as well as a DAC (albeit the volume can be 'locked') so even there a certain level of redundancy exists. ND5 is the only product mentioned thus far which totally eliminates that, although its easy to get hung up on redundancy, when usability and sound quality arguably matter more.
Re the 172, you make an interesting point about about its reputation, which it may (possibly) have acquired unfairly. For sure its never been an overly popular product and whilst I don't have any sales data, I'd guess its shifted fewer units than anything else in the XS or Uniti ranges. However the arrival of the 272 may have caused something of a reappraisal, or at least some fresh thinking about it conceptually. But again, the redundancy does exist from your particular perspective.....