ND5&NDAC/NDX/N272 Streaming System Experiences

In my experience Mac Mini running Audirvana gives better sound quality as renderer (transport is an incorrect term!) than ND5XS. Into NDAC if that is your preferred DAC I believe you'd need a usb-spdif converter, such as the Gustard U12 which also effectively isolares any electrical noise from a computer source (same is needed into Hugo that I use, because H doesn't have adequate isolation on its own). Richard Dane is presently testing the Gustard with NDAC (you'll find if you search the forum).

As well as being able to run the excellent Audirvana rendering software, Mac Mini has advantage of being able to have built in music store, or if overflow is needed, attached direct, with no need for the music files to be transferred across network, removing one variable that some say affects SQ, and yet MM is virtually silent, unlike many NAS drives. If serving on a network to other players is desired UPnP server software can do that (I have used the free Serviio software, which worked well with an ND5XS, before I replaced latter with Audirvana on the MM).

Actually the term transport above is entirely the correct term. The renderer, or more officially the SAR converts a streamed encoded audio into an audio output. Therefore a transport plus a DAC together is the SAR or renderer. In the OP example the ND5XS is providing the transport stream of SPDIF frames to the DAC and therefore it is correct to refer to it as a transport or digital transport.

If you type 'best three' into the search, you will find a thread I started last year which may be helpful. 

You will find very little difference between ND5XS and NDX feeding nDAC. I did hear a difference, hence my choice of NDX + nDAC + XPS.

However - in terms of future upgrade options, sheer amp quality it's difficult to fault your option 3.  You may actually find that N272 + XPS / 555PS + NAP 250 is all the system you may want / need. If I was buying my boxes today, that would me my path.

Adam

I have tried various transports for my NDAC.

NDX,UQ2,laptop Hiface, Mac Mini optical cable, Audiobyte Hydra and usb stic.

To my ears NDX was a clear winner.

charnik posted:

I have tried various transports for my NDAC.

NDX,UQ2,laptop Hiface, Mac Mini optical cable, Audiobyte Hydra and usb stic.

To my ears NDX was a clear winner.

So did I. When I did my set up N272 was not yet available. I like my nDAC so much, that I actually have CDX2.2 connected to it as well. It acted as my reference point when optimising my streaming network set up. Continued tweaking the network untill NDX sounded as good as CDX2

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Actually the term transport above is entirely the correct term. The renderer, or more officially the SAR converts a streamed encoded audio into an audio output. Therefore a transport plus a DAC together is the SAR or renderer. In the OP example the ND5XS is providing the transport stream of SPDIF frames to the DAC and therefore it is correct to refer to it as a transport or digital transport.

 

Interesting, because the term renderer as I expressed it, being effectively the first half of a 'streamer' (like the Naim units) before the DAC is the terminology I picked out as most definitive when originally researching the subject, though. But my argument against 'transport ' had less basis, purely being that it seems to be more confusing, and more a throwback to mechanical devices (both analog and digital). 

But I didn't seek out whether there was any formal naming convention.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Actually the term transport above is entirely the correct term. The renderer, or more officially the SAR converts a streamed encoded audio into an audio output. Therefore a transport plus a DAC together is the SAR or renderer. In the OP example the ND5XS is providing the transport stream of SPDIF frames to the DAC and therefore it is correct to refer to it as a transport or digital transport.

 

Simon, thanks for the clarification. What does SAR stand for? Do you know a place where one can look up these notions? I have asked myself a number of times what the precise notions of transport, renderer, streamer, player, etc. are. As IB, I was under the impression that "renderer" was a correct denotation for a process that interacts both with a control point and with a server. This is perhaps because of the nomenclature used in http://www.lesbonscomptes.com/upmpdcli/index.html where upmpdcli is called a renderer. According to your explanation it should be called a transport, I understand. Thanks, nbpf 

I have spent the last couple of months trying to find the 'best' solution for my needs.

Having compared the ND5 XS to the NDX to the nDAC with XPS my favoured Naim based solution is the nDAC. There is something very special about it that the ND5 and the NDX just cannot match (to my ears and with my favoured music).

I have used the nDAC with USB stick plugged in direct, playing Tidal from my iPhone (this was surprisingly good), and with the Mac Mini running Audirvana with both the Optical connection and via a USB/SPDIF converter (Gustard U12).

The latter is the very best Naim option in my view. It is also the one that my musical children and my hifi-agnostic partner prefer.

The other option  am seriously considering is the Hugo.

I also seriously considered the Hugo, but eventually I could not get on with the look of it so the Naim Dac won.

Beautiful - beats a plain black box any day! Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there's no accounting for taste, as they say - though from another point of view, Hugo so small that it need not be seen if not wanted... To me, if it makes a beautiful sound, it starts to look beautiful - so Tannoy Westminster Royal is a thing of beauty (albeit unable to fit anywhere smaller than a mansion!), however Often there are other domestic partners whose views are influenced less by the acoustics...

nbpf posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Actually the term transport above is entirely the correct term. The renderer, or more officially the SAR converts a streamed encoded audio into an audio output. Therefore a transport plus a DAC together is the SAR or renderer. In the OP example the ND5XS is providing the transport stream of SPDIF frames to the DAC and therefore it is correct to refer to it as a transport or digital transport.

 

Simon, thanks for the clarification. What does SAR stand for? Do you know a place where one can look up these notions? I have asked myself a number of times what the precise notions of transport, renderer, streamer, player, etc. are. As IB, I was under the impression that "renderer" was a correct denotation for a process that interacts both with a control point and with a server. This is perhaps because of the nomenclature used in http://www.lesbonscomptes.com/upmpdcli/index.html where upmpdcli is called a renderer. According to your explanation it should be called a transport, I understand. Thanks, nbpf 

Hi, SAR stands for Streaming Audio Renderer.. 

I use the latest Microsoft UPnP architectural documents and presentations to get upto speed with the latest terminology.

Simon

You might find this helpful.. It's a top level DLNA guide. The audio renderer that offers control capabilities in addition to its rendering capability is referred to as a DMP (Digital Media Player). A renderer that simply acts as a sink of the media is called a DMR (Digital Media Renderer) .. If I am honest a SAR is a term used more in UPnP programming.

https://www.slideshare.net/mob...bbu/dlna-for-dummies

Got demo for system 1 & 2 this Saturday, am excited

Thanks for the gude

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

You might find this helpful.. It's a top level DLNA guide. The audio renderer that offers control capabilities in addition to its rendering capability is referred to as a DMP (Digital Media Player). A renderer that simply acts as a sink of the media is called a DMR (Digital Media Renderer) .. If I am honest a SAR is a term used more in UPnP programming.

https://www.slideshare.net/mob...bbu/dlna-for-dummies

Thanks Simon! Best, nbpf