Streamer Improvements

Posted by: Elbow on 26 August 2011

I think that it's fair to say that many (most) of the improvements in Vinyl and CD replay have come about as a result of improvements in mechanical engineering. The latest LP12 upgrades and the 'built like a tank' integrity of the 555 are examples of this. But in the streaming age, does this still apply to anything like the same degree? There are no moving bits inside an NDX (to my knowledge), so why wouldn't it be the case that most of the possible improvements that Naim can make to an NDX will come about through downloadable (and retrofittable) software updates rather than improvements in the hardware? 

I'm no expert, so maybe I win this year's dumb question award.

 

Thanks

Posted on: 26 August 2011 by Richard Dane

Elbow,  I reckon there are plenty of improvements that Naim can make on the mechanical side.  Just look at the effect that the mass loaded and suspended boards have on the analog and digital cicuitry of the CDS3 and CD555.  Trouble is, such extreme mechanical measures come at a hefty cost, hence it's only seen at the top end of the range, the lower end using similar principles but much simplified, often with just decoupling mounts used instead.

 

I reckon that taking an NDX and re-engineering it so all the critical boards are mass loaded and suspended would bring big gains.  If you don't believe me, just try listening to a CDS3 or CD555 with the floating board transit bolts done up tight against floating.  The difference is far from subtle.

Posted on: 26 August 2011 by Elbow
Originally Posted by Richard Dane:

Elbow,  I reckon there are plenty of improvements that Naim can make on the mechanical side.  Just look at the effect that the mass loaded and suspended boards have on the analog and digital cicuitry of the CDS3 and CD555.  Trouble is, such extreme mechanical measures come at a hefty cost, hence it's only seen at the top end of the range, the lower end using similar principles but much simplified, often with just decoupling mounts used instead.

 

I reckon that taking an NDX and re-engineering it so all the critical boards are mass loaded and suspended would bring big gains.  If you don't believe me, just try listening to a CDS3 or CD555 with the floating board transit bolts done up tight against floating.  The difference is far from subtle.

Thanks Richard. I previously owned a Superline and own a 552, so can certainly see your point. I'm at the point of considering my options on the streaming side, so if there is the likelihood of a streaming solution coming from Naim that improves upon the NDX, I think I'm going to wait it out a little longer

Posted on: 26 August 2011 by AMA
Originally Posted by Richard Dane:

, just try listening to a CDS3 or CD555 with the floating board transit bolts done up tight against floating.  The difference is far from subtle.

Richard, this is a VERY interesting part.

Can you characterize the difference?

Does it become brighter and edgy?

Posted on: 26 August 2011 by stevepaul
Originally Posted by Elbow:
Originally Posted by Richard Dane:

Elbow,  I reckon there are plenty of improvements that Naim can make on the mechanical side.  Just look at the effect that the mass loaded and suspended boards have on the analog and digital cicuitry of the CDS3 and CD555.  Trouble is, such extreme mechanical measures come at a hefty cost, hence it's only seen at the top end of the range, the lower end using similar principles but much simplified, often with just decoupling mounts used instead.

 

I reckon that taking an NDX and re-engineering it so all the critical boards are mass loaded and suspended would bring big gains.  If you don't believe me, just try listening to a CDS3 or CD555 with the floating board transit bolts done up tight against floating.  The difference is far from subtle.

Thanks Richard. I previously owned a Superline and own a 552, so can certainly see your point. I'm at the point of considering my options on the streaming side, so if there is the likelihood of a streaming solution coming from Naim that improves upon the NDX, I think I'm going to wait it out a little longer


You can achieve similar result by isolating the board from external vibration by adding an additional platform on you Naim Fraim. I tried this and the difference was far from subtle. 

Posted on: 26 August 2011 by stevepaul
Originally Posted by Elbow:
Originally Posted by Richard Dane:

Elbow,  I reckon there are plenty of improvements that Naim can make on the mechanical side.  Just look at the effect that the mass loaded and suspended boards have on the analog and digital cicuitry of the CDS3 and CD555.  Trouble is, such extreme mechanical measures come at a hefty cost, hence it's only seen at the top end of the range, the lower end using similar principles but much simplified, often with just decoupling mounts used instead.

 

I reckon that taking an NDX and re-engineering it so all the critical boards are mass loaded and suspended would bring big gains.  If you don't believe me, just try listening to a CDS3 or CD555 with the floating board transit bolts done up tight against floating.  The difference is far from subtle.

Thanks Richard. I previously owned a Superline and own a 552, so can certainly see your point. I'm at the point of considering my options on the streaming side, so if there is the likelihood of a streaming solution coming from Naim that improves upon the NDX, I think I'm going to wait it out a little longer


You can improve your sound even further by using a light yet very stiff board under you equipemt I guarantee you it would improve the overal sound quality.

Posted on: 26 August 2011 by Richard Dane

Elbow,

 

I decided to get an NDX in order to immerse myself in the streaming way, but ultimately should an NDS appear in the future (and I can't see why not, but question is, when??) I'll probably move up to that.

 

AMA, the sense of ease and flow goes, air and space shrink, and things get a bit edgier with shortened decays.  I'd say try it, but I know Naim strongly recommend against running the players with bolts still done up as there's always the slightest possibility of component damage. 

 

I recall visiting a dealer overseas (I won't mention any Names) because they had been doing some NAC552 demos and while they appreciated its resolution and speed, they said that their customers felt it lacked air, space, and sounded a bit edgy.  So I went to check things out and found they hadn't removed the transit bolts from beneath the pre-amp.  Once done, the system was totally transformed.

Posted on: 27 August 2011 by Simon-in-Suffolk
Richard, I seem to remember reading that Naim have gone to some lengths on the NDX and NDAC to mechanically dampen the boards and mount the boards free of resonance. With the  latter, although there is no spinning CDP motor, there is the vibration through microphony and the power supply.
When I played the CDS3 with some bots still in ( as an experiment ) it sounded lifeless, dull and shut in. However I can totally understand why mechanical suspension is so critical on CDPs as I could sometimes hear on my very revealing CDS3 slight sonic differences between the start and end of a CD I assume based on differing speed of disc rotation. Those very subtle differences weren't evident once ripped.

Elbow, I think you'll find physical design is at least important with digital audio products. It's the difference between a product that has been engineered and tuned as opposed to one that has been put together on a sim.
Software models are great, but they are only that. Of course in digital audio certain function have to be done in the analogue domain like antialiasing filter. Also DSP micro controllers and the like are going to produce side effects such as earth loops and jitter induced load interference on clocks. These are all things that are hard to model with any degree of accuracy.
One advantage of software however is that it is a variable in the product that can be used for remedial fault fixing, software extension  or tuning of an established design. but when it comes to SQ which is that all important reconstruction function, then it's software, hardware and trial and error (change one and others can go out of balance) - and with Naim that is what we are paying for, rather than a cookie cutter design out of China.
For me cookie cutters are fine in the kitchen, but not in the living room ;-)
Simon
Posted on: 29 August 2011 by Richard Dane

Simon, yes, although this is in line with similar measures taken across the range.  The mass loaded suspension systems though take this much further.  I mention the NAC552 as an example mainly because here as a good example (along with the Superline and upcoming "Super SNAXO") where there's no noisy resonant mechansim to contend with but the results are just as marked.

Posted on: 29 August 2011 by james n
From comments on this forum (and in some of the magazine reviews too) S/PDIF from the Naim server boxes seems to be superior to the Ethernet UPnP connection. I'd like to see this addressed in future Naim solutions. Playing files from a Memory stick should not be the way to achieve the best replay performance either.

James
Posted on: 29 August 2011 by likesmusic

I agree. A good DAC should sound the same across all sources - optical/coax spdif, ethernet, wireless, FLAC/WAV/ALAC - shouldn't make any difference. The same data should make the same sound.

Posted on: 29 August 2011 by Simon-in-Suffolk
James, perhaps but with Naim the best is Ethernet into the NDX ( WAV)  driving the NDAC/555ps closely followed, if not equaled  by HDX file reading into the NDAC/555ps..ok these are three box solutions, but the sound they make is worth it.
Simon
Posted on: 29 August 2011 by DavidDever
Originally Posted by james n:
From comments on this forum (and in some of the magazine reviews too) S/PDIF from the Naim server boxes seems to be superior to the Ethernet UPnP connection. I'd like to see this addressed in future Naim solutions.

James

??

 

I find this to be the other way around–the NDX, to my ears, is significantly better streamed via UPnP from the HDX than the server directly connected via SPDIF.

 

Those solutions are here now–and even feature into products such as the UnitiQute.

Posted on: 29 August 2011 by james n

Hi Simon,

 

That's good if Ethernet is leading here. My worry was that with all the progress made in making the music accessible (ripped to a server, browse and control via iPad) the best replay solution (digitally) was via a memory stick.

 

I'll review progress from the sidelines

 

James

Posted on: 29 August 2011 by Simon-in-Suffolk
James, a very fair concern. It took me 8 months of auditioning on and off for me to move from my beloved CDS3 to the NDX->NDAC / 555PS. I can tell you if it was not for the amazing performance synergy of those three components I was staying with the CDS3.
Simon
Posted on: 29 August 2011 by Salmon Dave

If I'd just bought an NDX - and I was tempted a couple of months ago - I'd be very concerned that Naim have already brought out another streaming device with 24/192 streaming (according to their description), and, not that anyone's noticed, a larger screen size....

Posted on: 29 August 2011 by DavidDever
Originally Posted by Salmon Dave:

If I'd just bought an NDX - and I was tempted a couple of months ago - I'd be very concerned that Naim have already brought out another streaming device with 24/192 streaming (according to their description), and, not that anyone's noticed, a larger screen size....

The bezel is a different size, but the screen size is pretty much the same–look closely.

 

 

 

Posted on: 29 August 2011 by aysil
Originally Posted by Simon-in-Suffolk:
James, perhaps but with Naim the best is Ethernet into the NDX ( WAV)  driving the NDAC/555ps closely followed, if not equaled  by HDX file reading into the NDAC/555ps..ok these are three box solutions, but the sound they make is worth it.
Simon

James, perhaps but with Naim the best is HDX file reading (through Ethernet) into the NDAC/555ps closely followed, if not equaled by Ethernet into the NDX (WAV) driving the NDAC/555ps ..ok these are three box solutions, but the sound they make is worth it.

Aysil

Posted on: 29 August 2011 by aysil
Originally Posted by DavidDever:
...–the NDX, to my ears, is significantly better streamed via UPnP from the HDX than the server directly connected via SPDIF.

...

I agree. The UPnP input of NDX sounds, also to my ears, more elaborately tuned than its dig-in and its SPDIF receivers are probably not up to the same level as those of nDAC.

Posted on: 30 August 2011 by Salmon Dave
Originally Posted by DavidDever:
Originally Posted by Salmon Dave:

If I'd just bought an NDX - and I was tempted a couple of months ago - I'd be very concerned that Naim have already brought out another streaming device with 24/192 streaming (according to their description), and, not that anyone's noticed, a larger screen size....

The bezel is a different size, but the screen size is pretty much the same–look closely.

 

I did notice that - I'm quite observant (as has been observed)! Now why would they increase the size of the 'bezel' ?....

Looks good, though - I'm guessing it's a Qute married to a Supernait in sound.

Posted on: 30 August 2011 by connon price

'Bezel' increase.  It does look a little like a letter boxed movie on a 4:3 screen.  Perhaps just a cosmetic choice to make the bezel the same height as the three rows of buttons.  

 

hmmmm.