This is a thought I have had for some time now. I use an ns01 into ndac +555 ps. I Also have a Bluesound node first generation. This is connected to ndac through a optical cable 50 pound so ok cable. I have also connected the node using an old flatline cable to my 252.

Streaming from tidal hifi or my own cd rips or 24 bit downloads,  I can hear a difference when I switch from analogue to digital on the node, but it is not massive. So either the 252 is very good even with a 350 pound streamer like the node, and cannot be bettered by ndac+555, so the Ndac is more a way to get digital sources connected not a massive sq  improvement, or something is wrong with my setup my  ears, or both.

This could suggest that a really good dac/pre is the way to go if this is possible. Even with dac plus power plus pre plus power there is the redundancy of power supplies and analogue stages  that it is so hard to avoid in the current Naim line up  of  products.

Claus

Detail is certainly a significant part of the sonic picture.

There is however a reason that Neneh Cherry sings the line " the clarity of headphones".  Take the room and a more complicated signal path out of the equation and detail is easier to discern.

Then take into account what is feeding your DAC.  i have a XPS2 DR on my Naim DAC but the DAC sits on Titanium sort cones and i ensure the cables hang freely so they work optimally.  I run a Macbook but it has a Paul hynes power supply, a Weiss INT 202 buffers the computer and the MAC is all SSD, max RAM and the latest Audirvana runs the show.  A lot of attention was paid  to feeding the DAC and everything passed an audition confirming sonic benefits.

The detail delivered by my Vivid B1s is not forced and driven by high frequencies, in fact recently i had started to wonder if i had tweeter issues ( i didn't). The detail is revealed in the tone of guitars, in the hollowness of drums ( because the are), and the complex harmonics of sounds that were vanilla in earlier systems. Its the ease in the music and the way it still engages and gets the feet tapping.  I don't run Naim amps ( CJ tube amp) but the DAC feeds the system and provides some of the character.

So, to my mind just saying "detail" is maybe a bit simplistic.  What would be interesting would be to compare what i get from my NDAC vs your 555 powered device. Only thing i would guarantee is that the would sound be different. Without the refinements i would not put money on the 555 powered DAC sounding better than mine running the more modest supply.   On the other hand it could be a diferent outcome if you have paid similar attention to the details ....pun intended.

As mentioned before detail is definitely one of the aspects, but it's also more aspects. It's about the level in which instruments are true to their normal timbre, is sound stage, balance in the overall sound..... It's like with all hifi, the better the less you think about the technology and the more you think about the music.

This question is a quagmire of complexity.

DAC systems (as opposed to DAC chips like the TI PCM1791A or the ESS Sabre ES9018) all react very differently to external influences like jitter, RFI, galvanic isolation, type of input used.  They also have very different input subsystems, digital filters, power supply designs and analogue output structures.

If the DAC Chip circuit is implemented well, then all the top chips themselves are fairly similar in performance.  However

1  the digital source circuitry will introduce differing amounts of jitter (even buffer read circuits have some jitter) and RFI (emitted and also to the power rails).

2  The digital filter vary in implementation and algorithmically causing differences

3  The following analogue electronics are in effect a preamplifier, and are as variable as any other preamp - compare a NAC 152 to a NAC 552 and you get the idea.

4  There may well be other differences I haven't considered in quickly writing this.

So yes, DACs do result in differences.
But the balance of differences is an engineering compromise, so what is considered 'better' will vary from one person to another.

A couple of years ago I compared the ND5XS+XP5XS with the bare ND5XS as renderer only through Chord Hugo DAC. The latter sounded distinctly better. Then recently I had an opportunity to compare the Hugo with Hugo TT and Dave. There was added clarity with the TT compared to Hugo. Then Dave gave a real wow-factor increase in clarity over TT: literally, as my son let out an audible 'wow' after just the first few bars.

So yes, very definitely, the DAC can make a difference to clarity, and thus detail heard, and the difference can be very substantial.

However, other factors can cloud things - e.g if the renderer is electrically noisy (likely to include virtually all computer-based renderers, and not necessarily limited to them) then unless the DAC has very good isolation/filtering on its input an isolator would be needed before the DAC for best performance (but I've no idea how susceptible the nDAC is).

But it seems it is not only the DAC that has an effect: there is much on these forums indicating that some renderers (aka transports) are better than others, as I found myself.

Does a better DAC reveal more detail?

Short answer: yes! :-)

I tested cambridge, naim (ndac, ndx, nds), playback design (3series) and msb analog dac ,devialet, further  mcintosh MC2500 dac (in the pre-amp build in, same as their ds1000 series). You'll hear -depending on the vendor- more details or more punch or more 3D stage etc...personal taste of course!

But I learned that the "stupid digital frontend" is very important too! If you wonder why there's a hype about microrendu: it'll show you exactly this parameter. And  never thought that I'll never hear the difference btw. USB-cable...how I was wrong!

So my advice: get first the best digital frontend, than dac, than cable...

T38.45 posted:

 

...

So my advice: get first the best digital frontend, than dac, than cable...

Sadly it's not that simple.

That may have been the case for the components you used, however it depends on the particular components concerned and how they react to external influences such as RFI, jitter, what interfaces you use, protocols used, frame send delays etc.

Interesting question from the OP. I'd say a better DAC doesn't necessarily offer more detail, but it offers more correct detail. Although with digital the info is there or not, the process of converting digital to analogue is ultimately lossy and inexact. The better a DAC and its filtering in the digital and analogue domain  is the more accurate the analogue reconstruction will be. There is also the analogue output stage circuitry where better and more linear circuitry provides a more exact analogue signal from the DAC converter which you can resolve as more  detail that is meaningful to you. Finally noise, cross and intermodulation are all real world traits with electronic circuitry.. which can rob the created  analogue signal of accuracy and add distortions or noise.. albeit at very low details, but it can interfere with the auditory processing of the brain making a sound appear artificial or tiring, and a better DAC better mitigates this or reduces this to minuscule levels

Yes - it makes the digital to analogue conversion less 'awful' 

Adam Zielinski posted:

Yes - it makes the digital to analogue conversion less 'awful' 

Makes me wonder: what DACs are/have been used in the professional mastering of LPs from the original digital recording that I believe has been the norm for most recordings for quite a while now? Usually pro equipment is top notch, and with a price to match, and hopefully as DACs have improved the recording industry will have adopted newer technology, though I wonder if they've yet cottoned on to the newer FPGA technology that has been pioneered in the Hifi world.

Vinyl from the earliest days of digital recording will have the deficiencies/artefacts preserved in the records unless subsequently remastered, whereas CDs from the same period improve with improving DACs at home.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Vinyl from the earliest days of digital recording will have the deficiencies/artefacts preserved in the records unless subsequently remastered, whereas CDs from the same period improve with improving DACs at home.

Recording and/or mastering deficiencies will manifest themselves in any replay format, more so with a more resolving source.

But maybe I misread your point?

joerand posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Vinyl from the earliest days of digital recording will have the deficiencies/artefacts preserved in the records unless subsequently remastered, whereas CDs from the same period improve with improving DACs at home.

Recording and/or mastering deficiencies will manifest themselves in any replay format, more so with a more resolving source.

But maybe I misread your point?

I was referring specifically to DACs -there are none in the recording path for CDs, but they are necessary for vinyl produced from digital master recordings that have been the industry norm for many years now.

I have spent a few weeks now switching between my Oppo 105D (ESS Sabre 9018) and my far more expensive Bel Canto 3.5vb (via Gustard U12) both being fed by a microRendu. Leaving aside the mR ability to pass on detail of the two DACs the one I prefer listening to is the Bel Canto, however the Oppo has greater dynamics and resolves more detail. The Bel Canto simply renders things as music, the Oppo sounds more highlighted, for want of a better way of expressing it. That said if Oppo had enabled the Sabres filters then my opinion may have been different.

M

The other inaccuracies, distortions and increased noise floor in the vinyl replay are so great that they dominate and largely mask the errors in the DACs used from the late 70's on.

Take a well recorded CD, record it to tape and replay it - it then sounds more 'analogue' than the CD!

Mr Underhill posted:

... Leaving aside the mR ability to pass on detail ...

M

The all digital sources passes on the same amount of detail - that's the only part of the 'bits are bits' argument that is correct.

However they also pass on differing amounts of RFI and differing degrees and forms of timing errors - and these are why different digital sources make the subsequent DACs sound different.  So long as a digital source is bit perfect it doesn't have any 'sound'; sound only arises in the DAC.

Mr Underhill posted:

I have spent a few weeks now switching between my Oppo 105D (ESS Sabre 9018) and my far more expensive Bel Canto 3.5vb (via Gustard U12) both being fed by a microRendu. Leaving aside the mR ability to pass on detail of the two DACs the one I prefer listening to is the Bel Canto, however the Oppo has greater dynamics and resolves more detail. The Bel Canto simply renders things as music, the Oppo sounds more highlighted, for want of a better way of expressing it. That said if Oppo had enabled the Sabres filters then my opinion may have been different.

M

I had a similar experience with DAVE in comparison with my trusty old QBD76HDSD. The former was more detailed and more "3-D" but lost out in the musical and timing stakes- PRaT if you like.

Briz Vegas posted:

Detail is certainly a significant part of the sonic picture.

There is however a reason that Neneh Cherry sings the line " the clarity of headphones".  Take the room and a more complicated signal path out of the equation and detail is easier to discern.

Then take into account what is feeding your DAC.  i have a XPS2 DR on my Naim DAC but the DAC sits on Titanium sort cones and i ensure the cables hang freely so they work optimally.  I run a Macbook but it has a Paul hynes power supply, a Weiss INT 202 buffers the computer and the MAC is all SSD, max RAM and the latest Audirvana runs the show.  A lot of attention was paid  to feeding the DAC and everything passed an audition confirming sonic benefits.

The detail delivered by my Vivid B1s is not forced and driven by high frequencies, in fact recently i had started to wonder if i had tweeter issues ( i didn't). The detail is revealed in the tone of guitars, in the hollowness of drums ( because the are), and the complex harmonics of sounds that were vanilla in earlier systems. Its the ease in the music and the way it still engages and gets the feet tapping.  I don't run Naim amps ( CJ tube amp) but the DAC feeds the system and provides some of the character.

So, to my mind just saying "detail" is maybe a bit simplistic.  What would be interesting would be to compare what i get from my NDAC vs your 555 powered device. Only thing i would guarantee is that the would sound be different. Without the refinements i would not put money on the 555 powered DAC sounding better than mine running the more modest supply.   On the other hand it could be a diferent outcome if you have paid similar attention to the details ....pun intended.

I have My ndac on fraim with 252 on top then one empty shelf and on the buttom shelf ns01. The ps 555 is placed in another rack with my power amps, cable dressing is fine and there is a powerline on the ndac.

The interesting observation is that the ns01 is better than the Node both connected to the ndac, ns01 has more of the Naim sound. What really surprised me still is how good the analogue out is from the Node.

Claus  

Hi Huge,

Quoting yourself?

I only observe that detail that the NS01 & Oppo 105D didn't deliver is present when listening to the same music via the mR when using the same DAC.

Hi Tony,

I just went back and connected the Oppo via the 'ideal' route before re-connecting and listening to the Bel Canto. I listened to both Rock/Blues then Classical. With the former my comment is as above, with classical the difference was even more pronounced. The Bel Canto does bass superbly well, and the resonance around a kettle / bass drum is electrifying, some of the new detail. These comparisons were done via a Gustard U12 USB/SPDIF convertor.

In my case I will stick with my BC for the foreseeable future; what I am listening to is very good.

M

Tidal to r2r is more enjoyable than any digital source I've got

audio1946 posted:

Tidal to r2r is more enjoyable than any digital source I've got

And what sources would those be?

audio1946 posted:

Tidal to r2r is more enjoyable than any digital source I've got

 

 

What is your R2R DAC?

and what in between Tidal and your R2R?

Innocent Bystander posted:

Adam Zielinski posted:

Yes - it makes the digital to analogue conversion less 'awful' 

Makes me wonder: what DACs are/have been used in the professional mastering of LPs from the original digital recording that I believe has been the norm for most recordings for quite a while now? Usually pro equipment is top notch, and with a price to match, and hopefully as DACs have improved the recording industry will have adopted newer technology, though I wonder if they've yet cottoned on to the newer FPGA technology that has been pioneered in the Hifi world.

Vinyl from the earliest days of digital recording will have the deficiencies/artefacts preserved in the records unless subsequently remastered, whereas CDs from the same period improve with improving DACs at home.

FPGA technology is certainly not new, it has been around for years (approx mid 1980 in its earlier forms), and of course Naim has been using  an FPGA SHARC DSP processor in its top end DACs for many years now. What is newer is the very low power / performance ratio which allows greater processing power with less  side effects and cost... which is great for consumer audio replay as it has allowed costs to significantly be reduced for a given performance level.

i would suggest most higher end DACs in the pro world will have been using FPGAs for DSP filtering to provide a degree    of  vendor differentiation over using standard chip manufacturer ASIC DSP devices for years...

Simon

where does these "details" end?  i wonder

In your brain hopefully!