'New' Naim DAC Strikes a Chord

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Now I always preferred the NDAC/555PS to the NDS.. although I think I was in the minority  I fact I loved my NDAC/555PS .. 

I'll join you in that minority, Simon.  

Mike  

Simon-in-Suffolk posted: 

However with the new NDAC firmware, do many others now also think the NDAC shadows the NDS?

The NDS and NDX had many FW updates since the last time I've heard them. But from where I left them, I would say that the nDAC with the new firmware is more on the NDS side now.

Also, am I the only one here seeing a good sign in all this good work on the sonic quality of nDAC is bringing us closer to the introduction of the Statement serie's source component? Named the DS-1 or something close to it, and hopefully soon! 

Bye.

Upgraded to latest firmware a few days ago and very very happy with it. I have an XPS2 (non DR) powering the nDAC, but am wondering what the conversion to DR on the XPS might bring.

Anybody able to offer a view ?

cheers, Paul 

I went from 555 to 555DR and it was a substantial improvement, especially in background noise, bass control and overall tightness.

But not as much as to win over my Linn KDS/1 which stays my main source until now.

Will upgrade the firmware too and see what it adds.

Probably move nDAC/555DR to the main  room for another Naim/USB vs Linn/NAS shootout. 

Like I have posted in other thread, the new FW update certainly brought a lot of sonic benefits to nDAC. At one point I was in dilemma whether to keep the nDac after home demoed a Chord Hugo. After extensive listening which included a blind test with few friends, we decided to downplay it to the type of music both Dac excel. But with this improved sound quality and more accurate tones, the choice between nDac and Hugo is now a history. Not wishing to sound over-exaggerated, I still got to say the improvement on my system is not subtle but a significant one.

Again, a BIG thank you Naim for an early BIG Christmas present.

I am curious, and I will see if I can borrow a NDAC again... to me the NDACs strength was/is? it's organic type presentation .. Not necessarily totally resolving or clean, but a kind of attractive slightly coloured but attractivesound.. To me this was favourable to the cleaner more resolving sound of the NDS for just about all music types rather than choral... It's a shame I don't have my NDAC to see if this attractive coloured organic sound is still prevalent...

The Hugo bridged the gap between the two.. But did something else on top that I just never heard on the NDS, and only heard once on a good LP12 setup.. It was a kind of spacing and feel to some tracks that just made my literally cry on certain works.. perhaps its reconstruction resonates with how I hear sound..

I still do miss my old NDAC sound on certain heavy blues and rock albums, but with my 252DR I get quite close to it with my native CDX2 mk1 .. 

Simon

I have a bare NDX so would be interested to know what the nDac would bring - should i look for the XPS before the nDac, or the dac first ? the thinking from Naim was that the PS is the upgrade for the NDX (when i asked them) but this update may have changed that thinking. 

it is good to see the re-birth of the NDAC and DAC V1, and to my ears the DAC V1 sounds quite different to how it was before. I still need to spend some time with it though to understand what has changed

it would be nice of Naim to disclose how exactly they have improved the sound, as the it was said the previous coding of the DSP was run on 4 lines only to avoid the DSP chip drawing more current 

Hi, all we know is the timing and code optimisation has taken place within the DSP processor. We know electrical noise from executing noise can have quite a marked effect.. Some of us have heard in other firmware in development for the network streamer's similar timing optimisations have taken place with the network code, and again this has brought about a positive listening experience.

It could even get to the point that there is no difference between FLAC and WAV playback in the future.

Simon

didn't know there was any significant difference between Flac and Wav playback!

The V1 processor usage has changed marginally when playing a DSD128 file to 26% (before the DSD firmware update, a PCM 192 file would draw 19-20%).

Yet the SQ on the V1 with the new firmware is significantly better in my sys and to my ears.

Jude 

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Hi, all we know is the timing and code optimisation has taken place within the DSP processor. We know electrical noise from executing noise can have quite a marked effect.. Some of us have heard in other firmware in development for the network streamer's similar timing optimisations have taken place with the network code, and again this has brought about a positive listening experience.

It could even get to the point that there is no difference between FLAC and WAV playback in the future.

Simon

They've optimised from 4 lines of code to 3 by taking a no op out? 

I'm now wondering whether they've applied lessons learnt with NDS/NDX etc to the nDAC or whether this is new research which will filter up to the streamer range?

Upgraded firmware yesterday on bare nDAC only after a day of listening. Initially thought improvements were down to system warmth. Listening again this morning and am very happy.

I think it sounds more analogue. This is a lovely upgrade. This is good enough to be named the nDac 2!!

Just applied update. Everything sounds more focused with instrument clarity much improved especially cymbals, drums and wind instruments.

Also sounds warmer and more like an analogue system too.

Makes me think do I really need to get a 552/500? Might be better to pay off the mortgage 8-)

Thanks so much Naim!

S

Graham Clarke posted:

They've optimised from 4 lines of code to 3 by taking a no op out? 

I'm now wondering whether they've applied lessons learnt with NDS/NDX etc to the nDAC or whether this is new research which will filter up to the streamer range?

 I think there is more to programming and assembley routine optimisation of the SHARC processor than the execution loop for an oversampling filter or low pass filter..

The understanding I have is the optimisation learning from the streamers was finally applied to the DACs as well introducing the DSD code.

Simon

The 'Design Brief' back in 2010  - 2011 from the White Papers was for products "sonically comparable to a hi-end CD player".  The ~ 5 years since have revealed just how much musical information is encapsulated in the humble 16/44 CD when state-of-the-art over sampling techniques are applied to the digital reconstruction filtering.

I suspect we're also experiencing a more musically optimised filter design (== 'more taps' and finessed coefficients), consolidating industry progress over recent years. This would be made possible by optimising the algorithms, coding and memory usage in the DSP to make best use of the available SHARC processing cycles.  Current practice may see different trade-offs as producing optimum outcomes than 5 years ago...... design is always about trade offs.

It may be that musical differences are less about FPGA vs DSP technologies, but just as much how they are used?

Indeed, however it is about power. there is typically a trade off between FIR and IIR reconstruction filters.. FIR filters are always a compromise, but requires lesser processing resources.. However new technology has allowed a larger sample window to be used (taps) through the use of new low power parallel processing DSP devices such as FPGAs thereby reducing the difference between FIr and IIR reconstruction filters to some extent. More traditional DSP processors tend to be more bound by processing power and electrical noise produced, thereby increasing the noise level above the level of the increased accuracy reconstruction, therefore smaller filter windows are used.. 

Down at this level it is a hardware bound world...

i do look forward to the DAC2 with increased FIR Windows (taps) and low power dissipation DSP possibly using new FPGA technology.. It should be something very special.. Perhaps a Statement DAC??

Simon

Similar to your 'bake off', I've had a 'fry off' using the new updated Naim DAC and a shop borrowed silver Hugo TT plus a 2Qute already in my system.  Of course the following will be what I'm hearing and taking in to account a quite humble system, results may vary.

It  might be possible that the Hugo was being benchmarked for the Naim new firmware remit, but only on the element of detail retrieval?  Because the new Naim DAC is now up there with unearthing more of what the recorded content contains.  But it certainly it is not by imitation, (of the Chord DACs) because the Naim DAC is taking the recording and coming up with a very different interpretation.  So for the same levels of information and detail - vocals, guitars, percussion, electronic instruments and various sound layers, the emphasis and elucidation of these sounds become quite different.  This all leads to the final musical expressions. Neither seem wrong, or better than another, just different characters.

Only in other areas one DAC will excel over the other.  So the Chord Hugo TT has a enormous scale which extends out of the speakers, the breadth and depth of field with quite hefty and well delivered bass and clean treble.  It works best when being further away from the speakers.  This sort of grandeur will work very well for classical music and also some world music styles, some contemporary stuff or if you like singsong power ballads.  It will serve those crescendos and exhilarating highs particularly well.  The Hugo TT is giving its best performance as a computer -> USB DAC setup playing WAV files.  I'm not keeping the Hugo TT as I've got the 2Qute for use as just computer -> USB DAC setup.  

However there is a point when it will all go out of the frying pan and in to the fire. Only the Naim DAC has sufficient firepower under the hood to give more satisfaction with rock - that classic Naim sound with all its bombastic swagger especially modern rock which gets very busy and has multiple instruments and layers of sound.  Additionally with electronic music with faster beats and swirly effects and dynamics.  When the music goes  faster and there are quick ascents and descents in tempo, around 130, 160 and 190 beats per minute, the Naim DAC has the agility and rapid fire reaction-times to cope with this better and also keeps the forward momentum going in the music.  The musical flow remains solid and integrated, so more thrilling when you need to rock out.

In identical circumstances the Chord DACs are slower to react and when there are dynamic shifts, the forward momentum of the music is being diminished and gets staggered.  This has a negative impact on the final musical delivery especially for rock music.

There is a nagging issue of a digital haze or background electrical distortion coming through to the speakers when using the Naim DAC.  It could be down to the original Naim DIN-DIN interconnect still being used.  Having had success with Tellurium Q Black speaker cables instead of NAC A5, the Tellurium Q DIN-DIN interconnect could work in removing this unwanted sound issue.  Tellurium Q Black speaker cables definitely had some cleansing effect but without compromising on the Naim sound or diminishing the speed and impact.

Its hard to pick a definitive winner right this instant and anyhow several people are now just settling being a Two DACS person,  for different occasions having both types of sound, when the mood and music benefits from one particular source and device.

great thread title!!! interesting reading.

enjoy

ken

Nice write-up, once again DH. Oh, and I highly recommend TQ Black DIN-DIN, I use one in my setup. I should try them against NACA5 also. 

Thanks Patu and yes I remember that you mentioned about using TQ Black DIN interconnect to replace Hi-Line, there were a couple of others as well so it might gain some more popularity, unless saving up for Super Lumina

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

i do look forward to the DAC2 with increased FIR Windows (taps) and low power dissipation DSP possibly using new FPGA technology.. It should be something very special.. Perhaps a Statement DAC??

Simon

Yess! Except not yet Statement or even 5-series DAC... just a new "DAC2" or "DACX" will do, so us regular people can afford it, please!

An interesting read. Would have loved to know how it would have raised the bar in my original scenario with a ndac / xps. And it proofs a point I made before, just wait and see what Naim is doing in the next upgrade or spent your money on in between steps with the competition, like a lot on the forum did with the Chord Hugo. Not saying those people have been wrong, they made the right choices at time when they heard a better alternative.

interesting times for Naim owners.

Excellent write-up DH. I'm in the process of swapping my naim DC1 BNC-RCA to the DC1 BNC-BNC and my Terrulium Q Black RCA-RCA to the 5 pin din version.

I use TQB speaker cable and 'clarity' is the major advance over NACA5 in my view.

I imagine these final tweaks will eek the last drops of improved performance from the 'new' NDAC.

G

Bert Schurink posted:

An interesting read. Would have loved to know how it would have raised the bar in my original scenario with a ndac / xps. And it proofs a point I made before, just wait and see what Naim is doing in the next upgrade or spent your money on in between steps with the competition, like a lot on the forum did with the Chord Hugo. Not saying those people have been wrong, they made the right choices at time when they heard a better alternative.

 

interesting times for Naim owners.

Very interesting indeed. I would be keen to hear!

The thing for me though is the price differential; The level of performance per pound is still off the scale with the Hugo/2Qute in my opinion. For some people to compare it to the NDS is unbelievable as I could only dream of a source of such high quality. I would say even nDAC/XPS is out of my league for now. Still, it's great to see the competition so hot!