DAC Stuff

It would be concerning if the NDX did make the TV sound different to going straight into the DAC.

But what I don't understand is why you are bothering with an external DAC at all. Why don't you connect the NDX (with the latest firmware preferably) directly to the NAC 282, using the DAC in the NDX as Naim intended, and dispense with the external DAC completely?

best

David

David:

I did .. and the external DAC sounds better to my ears than the DAC in the NDX.  

The digital input on the NDX is going to bypass the streamer and go straight to the DAC, I presume. And you are bypassing the DAC by using an external one. So 'no discernible difference whatsoever' is pretty much what you'd expect, isn't it?

John Willmott posted:

David:

I did .. and the external DAC sounds better to my ears than the DAC in the NDX.  

 

Well that is a good reason!

Have you got the latest firmware on your NDX? The reason I ask is that there is quite wide agreement that the changes introduced to the streamers with the SHARC DSP with the 4.3 update (and the improvement was retained with the 4.4 update) improved sound quality significantly over earlier firmware.

best

David

Hi, I route my AppleTV optical into my NDX which in turn feeds a third part DAC.

The NDX uses the SHARC DSP sub system to reclock (and probably rebuild) the incoming SPDIF transport frames before it then sends the new reclocked stream to the NDX SPDIF out.

David:  

All my equipment is on the latest levels of firmware .. and I agree there was an improvement with 4.4, however I stand by my statement that the external DAC gives me more of what I'm looking for in music reproduction than the DAC in the NDX.  That's not to say the DAC in the NDX is "bad", I have just found one that suits me better.

Chrissu:

You wrote .. "The digital input on the NDX is going to bypass the streamer and go straight to the DAC, I presume."

.. I wrote .. "Is it just a digital pass through to the DAC with no staging etc ?"

I presumed what you presumed .. if we both presumed correctly then we have the answer to my question (presumably).

Simon:

Thanks for your comment.  Do you route the signal through the NDX because of the reclocking or for some other reason ?

John - no mainly for the switching control

S

There should be no real difference in your set up, when a TV is connected.

I would connect everything to NDX just for the ease of control and switching.

Adam/Simon  .. that's the way I have it and that's the way I'm leaving it .. thanks for your input.

I must say I am a bit baffled by the many articles between NDS, NDAC and Mac based audio files.  I am struggling to understand why more people are not using the NDAC, what doe the NDS really add in this setup (audio files stored on a MAC)? (suspended audio boards)

At the moment, streaming is only a small part of my setup and for convenience I use the Arcam IRDAC (it supports AirPlay and my files are only AAC 320).  

It looks like both the NDS and the NDAC would need the MAC providing some streaming support (UPNP?).

Gavin:

It would appear that you have wandered into the wrong neighborhood.

Gavin L posted:

I must say I am a bit baffled by the many articles between NDS, NDAC and Mac based audio files.  I am struggling to understand why more people are not using the NDAC, what doe the NDS really add in this setup (audio files stored on a MAC)? (suspended audio boards)

At the moment, streaming is only a small part of my setup and for convenience I use the Arcam IRDAC (it supports AirPlay and my files are only AAC 320).  

It looks like both the NDS and the NDAC would need the MAC providing some streaming support (UPNP?).

If your source is a Mac, then the NDS adds little in terms of functionality. In fact it's probably more restrictive.

The point of the NDS is to use it without a standalone computer running things, instead having the NDS do the streaming etc, be it from a NAS or from internet services. That is to say, no, the NDS doesn't need the Mac. It will need local files to be stored somewhere, but that could be a NAS or other storage device. If you don't use the streaming facilities of the NDS then it will essentially just be working as a DAC.

The idea is that using the NDS with 'just' a storage device will sound better than the alternatives. Whether that's what you'd find is down to you. Though with 320kbps files, the NDS would be hamstrung to some extent.

Hi Dave, appreciate you taking the time to reply.  

I think it is becoming clearer now.  It seems to boil down to whether the NDS can serve up reliable/timely data to the DAC or whether an external PC based solution can.  I can see that the PC could easily be distracted by other tasks (user or system scheduled) and even then I guess the route the data takes may be less direct to the DAC than in the NDS solution.

Would thin 320 bps would make little impact either way.  But at higher resolution as a CD replacement it might make all the difference.

Well, that's a possible usage case. The NDS has a (very good) DAC in it. You can just plug it directly into a preamp input. So I would expect that most people who use an NDS would be either using its internal DAC, or if they do use an external DAC with it, one a fair notch above the Naim DAC. The respective prices of the units point in that direction, at least.

It's true that many people think that when using a standalone DAC, the device which feeds the digital signal to it can make a difference to SQ. For example I've read people saying things like an NDX into e.g. a Hugo DAC sounds better than a Unitiqute into the same DAC. But within the Naim range, I would expect the hierarchy would be something like NDS on its own betters NDX + Naim DAC, which in turn betters lesser streamers + Naim DAC.

I would also expect the NDS to output just about the best digital signal you'll find, and therefore be better into any given DAC than a PC is likely to be.

That's my intuition at least, not having heard the models in question. I'm sure someone on the forum will have tried NDX vs NDS into Naim DAC & can comment.