NDX support for 24/192 via UPnP?

Hi Leonard -

Here is my comparison of the 400's to my old C7's. 

For everyone else - this is a long post, so please skip if you are not interested.

I have the 400's on a long-term home demo, and I wrote this post because 1) it forced me to try an organize my thoughts and, eventually, come to a decision about whether to purchase them and 2) Leonard C asked me to.  So if this and my other recent long posts have become tedious, all I can say is:  let's all blame Leonard.   :-)

Where to start?  Well, I think we all agree that judging speaker sound quality is a very personal process.  All of our tastes are different. There is no “best” speaker, only ones that are best for our ears, and in our room.   So everything I am about to say is IMHO, and IME.  YMMV, etc....OK?

Also, before listening to the 400's, I ran them continuously for a week using a couple of "burn-in" CD's (Ayre and Isotek).  I know that was not enough time to allow the 400's to completely settle down.  And, in fact, between night 1 and day 2 of listening, there was a temporary setback with the 400's turning a little  lean and thin in the middle.  That went away by midday of day 2, and today is day 4 of listening.

To back up, I've owned the Harbeth C7's for almost three years, and I have been evaluating Ovator 400's as potential replacements over the last few days.  While I have enjoyed the C7's very much, I have never been 100% satisfied with their bass extension and control, nor with the amount of detail they provide.   But they have met the three most important criteria I personally have for speakers:  1) they sound very natural to my ears, 2) they present a balanced tonal quality (lows, mids and highs all blended nicely together, and all in proper proportions), and 3) they are easy to listen to for long periods of time. 

But I have been wondering for a while if there was another speaker out there that met these criteria, and in addition, provided more information in the highs, and more authority in the lows.   And oh yeah, I did not want more detail if that results in listener fatigue.   And I don't want more bass extension if it will simply add boom to my room.   To date, each and every alternative speaker I've tried, in order to meet these additional criteria, did so by sacrificing mid-range smoothness (the rich, full-bodied sound of voices and instruments) that I heard in the C7's.  I've read how Harbeth has flirted a couple of times with making full range speakers (a demo floor-stander that never made it to production, and an "extender" box that sat underneath their stand mounts), but there does not seem to be any plans to put something into production.

Anyway, I became interested in trying the 400's because my dealer, as well as several other forum members, said they were small room friendly.  My listening room is only a bit larger than 9' x 11'.  To get good sound, I have had to treat the walls with absorption panels, and the corners with bass traps.  Turns out that my room is actually pretty friendly to very low bass notes, but has issues in the 120hz range.  This happens to be where the C7's apply a mild bass lift, and where the 400's are relatively flat.  As a result, it turns out that the 400's do a much better job of reproducing bass notes in my room, and the C7's, by comparison, now sound just a bit "honky".

Now confident that the 400's would work from a bass perspective, I went on to try and compare the two sets of speakers in as many areas I could think of.   I built a list of seven songs covering the different genres I like.  I then went through those songs several times for the C7's, and made a bunch of notes.  I then installed and leveled the 400's, and did the same thing.  I deliberately picked songs I had heard many times before.  My hope was that familiarity would allow me to stay more analytical, and not get caught up in the music itself.  Funny, once I started listening to the 400's, I was not entirely successful in doing that.  You know the old saying about how a new component or speakers can make you feel like you have a whole new music collection?   That is exactly how I felt...

And oh yeah, all of my listening was done using the setup in my profile, except that I am now using the NDX as my source for the DAC/555PS (more on that later).

One of the songs I used twas The Beatles "Carry That Weight" from Abbey Road.  The first time I heard the 400's play Ringo's drum solo, it was pretty shocking!  Capturing percussion is clearly one of the 400's strengths -- drum solos are very powerful, almost like gun shots going off in my room.   Cymbal attacks also sounded incredibly realistic.   I'm afraid that the C7's fell well short of the 400's in this area.

I started to get the feeling that while the C7's are great for sitting, relaxing and appreciating the beauty of music, it is the 400's that make me want to get up and dance (sorry, bad visual).  The 400's have such a strong grip on the bass notes -- so very tight and fast -- they deliver PRaT in spades, making it very hard to sit just still and just listen.

Both speakers do imaging very well.  Both allowed me to reach out and touch the various instruments in their own, well-defined space, and in neither case did the images seem to coalesce around the boxes.  In terms of soundstage, the 400's went wider, but then I do have them less toed-in than than C7s.  The C7 sound field went speaker to speaker, whereas the 400's went wall-to-wall, thus projecting a more enveloping sound.   The C7's may have a small advantage when it comes to soundstage depth, but to be honest, neither speaker really accels at this in my room.  I suspect it may have more to do with me listening near-field in a small room than anything else.   More importantly, both sets of speakers did a great job of disappearing.   I like to listen to digital music in the dark (with only a few green logos illuminating the room).  For vinyl, I also have a small red spotlight over my deck, but that's about it.   So for me to suspend my disbelief, and imagine that I am in a much bigger space, it is important that the music not appear to be coming from the speakers.   Surprisingly, the 400's equaled the C7's in this area.

Both speakers exhibited a beautiful, transparent mid-range.   And with both speakers, vocalists sounded like they were placed naturally among the other instruments.  The 400's did seem to place the vocalist a tiny bit more forward in the sound-stage, but it was not an exaggerated effect.

In the tradition of all BBC monitors, the C7 does really well with the human voice (that's what Alan Shaw uses to voice his speakers).  I expected the C7's to have an advantage over the 400's in this area, but to my ears, the 400's more than held their own.  I first listened to songs by a deep-voiced male baritone, Greg Brown.  With both speakers, he sounded very real -- smooth and natural -- and not fuzzy, thick or fat.  I then also listened to a high, clear female tenor, Alison Krauss.  Again, both speakers also made her sound smooth and natural, and neither exhibited any sibilance (exaggerated "s" and "t" sounds).   If you have ever heard her hit the high notes using cheap speakers, then you know how easily her voice can become sharp or shrill.   So, in the end, I could not pick a clear winner.  This was very surprising to me, as I expected this to be the C7's strongest area.

One thing that was clear from the start was that the 400's were throwing out a lot more "information" than the C7's.  Looking at my notes, I see many times where I wrote down my surprise at hearing some new element in an old familiar song.  It's not how I normally listen to music, but like I said earlier, I was trying to stay analytical.  One song I used was Porcupine Tree's "Lazurus" (from the Deadwing album).  It's a beautiful, complex rock ballad that starts very simply with strumming acoustic guitar and vocals, then builds in layers, adding hammered dulcimer, mellotron, electric guitar and so on.  Throughout the song is a beautiful, airy piano riff.  With the C7's, I found that the piano eventually became lost in the complexity.  With the 400's, I could follow the piano right through to the end of the song.  So, I give the nod to the 400's in terms of treble detail.  Fortunately, Naim seems to have found a way to deliver more detail in the high notes without the speakers sounding unnaturally loud or fatiguing.

The 400's were extremely impressive with rock music.  In particular, their reproduction of live rock concerts was a lot more impressive than the C7's.  Both speakers did well with guitar solos, and neither sounded shrill or sharp.  But the 400's were more effective in delivering that full "wall of sound" that made me feel like I was in the arena.

But that is not to say that the C7's are only for polite listening to jazz and classical!  I know this is how they have been stereotyped.  And they are great at making instruments sound right -- a sax sounds exactly like a sax, and a violin exactly like a violin.   So, while they can also do rock just as well, they simply cannot match the 400's in bass extension and drive, or in high frequency detail.

I played a couple of jazz tunes over and over:  Charlie Haden's live recording of "Farmer's Trust (Version II)" from Private Collections, and Bela Fleck and the Flecktones's "The Sinister Minister" from their self-titled album.  I also thought the C7's would better the 400's in this genre, but again, that was not what I heard.   Both speakers performed very well -- balanced and natural.  Both exhibited a wonderful, rich mid-range, and both delivered involving, emotionally-charged performances.  I could live happily ever after with either of speakers for playing only jazz.  But I did note how easier it was to follow Charlie's standing bass lines with the 400's.

Well, that's about it.  My thinking right now is that I can replace the C7's with the 400's, and gain a lot at the bottom and top end, and not really lose anything in the middle.  Have for some time now thought of myself as a "Harbeth guy", so it was surprising that the 400's could deliver a similar level of clarity and purity, and yet, also add in the dynamics and sonic scale I felt was missing from the C7's.

It has only been a few days now with the 400's, so as I said before, I want to make sure this is love, and not just infatuation.   But since I do not think my initial impressions of the 400's sonic character are going to change very much over the next couple of weeks, I felt comfortable going ahead with this post.  The 400's have met the specific criteria I was looking for, and the only thing left for me to do is to live with them for a couple of weeks and see if my feelings change.  I just want to make sure that I am not simply falling for some sonic fireworks, and I also want to make sure that the 400's allow me to feel that same lvel of emotional connection to the music that my C7's did. 

The 400's are off to an impressive start.  Right now, I am feeling really good about them.


Hook

PS - Just so you know my frame of reference, in the last 5 years or so, the other speakers I have demoed in my current room were: Rega RS7, Epos M22i, Mordaunt Short Performance 6, Gallo Ref 3.1, and Spendor A6.   The little Gallo's were probably the best of that bunch.  In dealer demo rooms not much bigger than my own, I also listened to Vandersteen 5a, Sonus Faber Liuto, Paradigm Monitor 7, and a few more that I cannot remember right now.  I have also listened to a number of "aspirational" speakers in dealer demo rooms that were much larger than mine:  Wilson, Magnepan, Martin Logan, and others...

Have decided that when it comes to digital sources, my order of preference is:

1) NDX -> DAC/555PS
2) NDX/555PS
3) NDX/555PS -> DAC

As in my previous post, all that follows is merely my opinion...

#1 was a really nice refinement on the already wonderful sound signature that I was used to from my PC server and its RME 9632 card.  For me, this configuration was the ultimate in clarity, accuracy and bass control.

#2 was a completely different sound signature to my ears:  punchy and fun.  Compared to #1, it was perhaps a bit smoother in the higher frequencies, and a bit less controlled in the bass (so less PRaT).  TBH, if I had heard this first, I may have stopped right here -- it was that good.  The music sounded very "cohesive" to my ears, but at the sacrifice of that final bit imaging, detail and drive that #1 provides.

#3, quite frankly, I didn't get at all.  I kept trying to convince myself that there was an improvement in the higher frequencies, but I was trying too hard.   I came to the conclusion that regardless of what you are feeding the DAC, its analog section needs the 555PS to be in top form.    My overall impression was that the sound became more lean throughout, it was almost as if the volume had been turned down, but the "loudness" button turned on.  I am probably being over-critical, and exaggerating to make a point, but for me, this config was clearly in 3rd place.

Bottom line is that I plan to purchase the NDX, and use it via an iPad running N-Stream as my principal source for the DAC/555PS.  Asset is working well for now as my UPnP server, but I will be looking at a new, dedicated NAS (QNAP or Synology) in the next month or two.  

I am still undecided whether I will add a second source to the DAC for purposes of playing Rhapsody or some other cloud service, but I can always for now surf for new music at my desktop.  We'll see.

Hook

Hook,

Good to see you like the NDX so much it will stay. That is quite an accolade from such a stearn sceptic such as yourself, Naim must have done something right!

I hope box reduction wasn't part of the original remit, now the the nDAC is staying

Enjoy your new NDX!

tp

A simple iPod Touch attached with the included USB cable into the back USB input makes one heck of an easy and surprisingly good little streaming source for Pandora, Rhapsody, etc.  Works wirelessly, flawlessly.

Hi TP -

Yeah, I was really hoping that the NDX/555PS was going to be right for me.  Was thinking about it some more, and it is possible that I did not give its analog output section long enough to burn-in.  I think I will run iRadio overnight through its DIN connection for 2-3 weeks, and give it another listen.

One interesting thing I noticed was that with the DAC out of the picture, so are 2 internal power supplies -- the DAC's and the NDX's.   We had a thunderstorm come through while I had the NDX/555PS set up, and it was nice having two less switches to have to turn off.

Anyway, thanks for your kind remarks -- much appreciated!   And you are right, I was a total skeptic...and that humble pie I had to eat tasted real good! 

Hook

Great write up Hook. 

Your findings match what I would have guessed - I fully expected the NDX/Naim DAC/555PS to be a winner. However, it is one thing my guessing and another to learn of your real-life experiences. 

I've now settled on a cheaper option discussed in another thread using a non-Naim streamer. However, none of that means I wasn't interested to read about the NDX and am delighted you find it does what you want. To me the NDX is the Rolls Royce of streamers so am glad to hear it delivers outstanding results.

Also interested to hear how much you enjoy the S400s - if I ever bought a pair I'd need to use them close to a wall and my understanding was they preferred to be further out - again not tried or auditioned them so I could be way off the mark. The only time I heard S400s was at a show and liked them a lot. S600s I heard at Naim and they too sounded wonderful. 

All the best, Guy 

Hook and Allen, thank you for your detailed evaluations.

I can understand why you prefer NDX together with nDAC. However, you also state that NDX internal dac is overall not way behind nDAC (and maybe better in some respects). What bothers me a little bit is that when you purchase NDX, you also pay for this very good internal dac, which you will not use. This makes me feel somewhat insecure about what I am paying for. This known characteristic of Naim upgrading strategy has been discussed many times in this forum, but still I want to comment, that I would prefer if Naim would also introduce "dacless" versions of NDX (and HDX) and of the future 500Series renderer, these versions being possibly with a bigger internal PS.

Hi Guy -

The Wyred 4 Sound ZP-90 mod looks very cool.  I hope it sounds great, and you get many years of enjoyment from it!

The only downside thus far to the NDX is a minor guilt trip.  Have been a cost conscious, DIY guy for many years, and this was definitely an extravagance!   But the feeling will pass soon...and I really am thoroghly enjoying it!

I don't think the 400's need a huge amount of rear wall clearance, but they do need some.  Right now, I have 20" from the back edge to the back wall, and 14" side edge to side wall.   This seems to give me some illusion of soundstage depth, and absolutely no booming or honking.

My guess is that if you can manage at least a foot of rear wall clearance, then they would be worth your time to audition. 

Best of luck!

Hook

Hi Aysil -

I understand your points completely.  Ever since the DAC was introduced, there has been two trains of thought:  1) where is DAC's "perfect partner", and 2) why not build the streaming logic directly into the DAC?

With regards to the second case, I think for many of us, the fact that the NDX's internal dac did not equal or surpass the one in the DAC itself was a disappointment.  Naim is on record, however, as saying they didn't do this because it would have dramatically increased the NDX's cost.  

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this hypothetical NDX+ would have cost as much as the NDX and the DAC combined.  Sure, it can be argued that one box is better than two.  But it could also be argued that being able to get to the same level of sound quality in two purchases, spread over time, makes it more affordable for a lot of us.   That was certainly the case for me!

And in the first case, while I do agree completely, I wonder if there isn't some reason why Naim hasn't already launched a basic streamer?  Could it be that they think they cannot compete on price with the Logitech's of the world?  Or, perhaps, when they tried stripping the dac and analog section from the NDX, and put the remains in an XS case, that the cost was still pretty high?   What would you be willing to pay for such a product?   What if they could only get the price down to, say, $2750 USD?

Oh well, all speculation on my part of course, but fun to think about.   The only thing for sure is that Naim has the building blocks to launch quite a few new products over the next year or so, and this should keep things pretty interesting here on the Streaming Audio forum! 

Hook

I would buy it at any price under a gerrrr.  That is, a Naim digi out in renderer form.  Qute without amps/pre.  Little networked shoebox digi out.

yum......

say $1000USD?  Maybe optionally powered by a NAPSC?

You possibly mean for Naim to develop a copy of SB Touch with lagging sw and triple price and Naim logo on it? 

Sounds the same as to beg Naim to design a dedicate control unit to replace iPad.

Is it technically possible? I think, yes. Commercially viable? I don't think so.

On the other hand with all due respect to Apple's engineering and unlimited investment opportunities it will take them ages to come close to any of Naim amps performance  

Yes, exactly; and I do think it would be viable! SB Touch is a very good device for the price, but does it sound as good as NDX? If it would, none of us would be purchasing NDX, especially to use with an external dac. I believe, if Naim offered a similar device not for triple but even ten times as expensive, it would still convince with its sound quality.

I thought Naim had a philosophy of not producing a product where they couldn't provide a significant amount of value-add over what already exists?  Digital streamers are commodity products and there is little scope for innovation that improves SQ.

Apparently, Naim does not agree on that. With NDX, Naim actually proved that there is still much scope for innovation that improves SQ of stream players.

But my contention is that the NDX value-add is in the DAC, not the digital streamer.

And the value-add of the UnitiServe is in packaging and ease of use, not SQ.

I agree NDX has a fantastic dac section, but given the remarks of members like Hook, Allen and others, who prefer using NDX with an external dac and are still full of sheer joy and enthusiasm about NDX, I conclude the digital stream player section makes a profound difference and is in fact the value-add.

There are Naim white papers about products like Ovator and nDAC which go in to a lot of detail about the technical innovation - but AFAIK none to do with the digital side of the NDX.  I'm not aware of any innovations that would differentiate this product against many others (but happy to hear about them if there are some).

well, some of us, including me, believe our ears, not white papers.

In digital audio there are two things that matter - data and timing.  Timing is not an issue because Naim DACs are asynch - so what you are saying in effect is that the NDX front end is producing a different data stream to other digital streamers.  I'm not sure I believe this.