Dear folks,
Is there anyone who will purchase a brand new CD555 now?
Thanks,
Patrick
Roberto - that is not really an issue in as much that the 552/500 came ahead of the CD 555 and the CDS3/XPS2 at he time was seen as perfectly fit for purpose.
rsch posted:Plus Naim does not have yet a source really at 500 series level, less so on pair with
One of Richard's tape recorders? Or a good NAT? :-))
I think a statement level (or 555 level) streamer is more of a marketing concept than an engineering one.
It may very well be that it is just a lot less costly to optimise steaming than vinyl an even to a lesser extent CD (given that you don't need to read and error correct in real time with streaming).
Lots of people here seem to put great store in choice of network switch and ethernet cables - may be that is where Naim should be spending research budget. Or perhaps they have some work to catch up with Chord on DACs? I don't know.
JEDT touches on a good point. Maybe streaming technology is overdue a stepwise development but DAC technology and design still has a way to go and has improved hugely over the last 10 years according to Rob Watts who is responsible for DAC development at Chord.
Rob gave a fascinating talk at the Audio East Show last week and he went through the three critical aspects of DAC design. He admitted that 10 years ago he would not have thought current state-of-the-art DAC design would be possible - e.g. a million taps. So it might be the development of DAC (and indeed ADC) technology that moves Naim towards a 555 (or Statement) level streamer. Others with more technical knowhow may of course disagree and nominate other stumbling blocks.
"The difficulty faced, I believe, is that current technology won't allow a large enough improvement in sound quality over what has so far been achieved to justify a suitably large premium required to ensure return on investment and ongoing profits".
An interesting point, Tony. Tidal type services are convenient and there are some good hi-res files available; but in the main, audiophiles with streaming rigs seem generally, to rip CD's to achieve the best sound quality. How much better can a streamer sound if it is effectively copying and replaying the data stream from a CD - particularly with a lot of the mastering of new popular music apparently being optimised for lo-fi replay?
One would expect the old DAC technology in something like the CD555 to be a performance compromising factor, but it doesn't sound like it to me. It still sounds superb and right as a designed entity. It's possible to shoehorn a V8 motor into a Mini but it doesn't go round corners very well.
John.
rsch posted:In my opinion if Patrick has a sustantial number of silver discs, it would be well worth considering a 2nd hand one.
For the price that Jonn has indicated it would me no brainer for me.
I swapped a CDX2-2/555ps DR in 2014 with a 2010 555 mech + lots of money. Then last year i 've been very lucky enough to find a barely used 2013 one at a bargain price
Performance apart the 555, even compared to Classic Series is built like a tank, The brushed aluminium case is so beautiful that is a real pleasure even for the eyes.
Regards
Roberto
This implies to me that at some point Naim changed the CD555's mechanism. Is that correct and how much of an upgrade was it? Is it an option for current owners? I've recently had my CD555 serviced by Naim and did the DR upgrade on the 555PS a while ago.
Allante93 posted:Allante93 posted:Valid Arguments, both sides!
But when it comes to serious listening, not lying in Bed, proper seating within System A.
Convenience is not the issue, it's SQ!
Albeit:
Master tape, on Reel to Reel!
Loaded LP 12, with an 3K cartridge.
CD555 with (2) 555PS
Or the less expensive NDS/(2) 555PS
Allante93!
PS. Those Master Tapes ain't Cheap!
Here's another take from a spillover thread:
"I used my HDX for my background music, when I do serious listening then CD555 were my only choice. I demo NDS and felt like it has similar character like HDX which are more digital, in other words more detail, resolution but the 'less soul' of the music."
If money grew on trees:
CD555
LP 12
NDS
By all means, all three.
But at the end of the Day, it really is personal.
Your Call, 2 out of Three!
Allante93!
PS. NDS555!!!! It's coming....
In the meantime, there is always the Linn KDS/3.
The Strat (Fender) posted:So then I conclude that in terms of absolute sound quality streaming technology is now as good as it can get, it now just needs to be made to work properly...............
I doubt that in absolute terms it is a good as it can get, but the Linn KDS/3 is pretty darn good (as good as I have heard) and works absolutely flawlessly and reliably.
Since this thread has partially morphed into a wish-list for any possible future 'ND555' product, then I'll ask for it to have the following:
Just some thoughts. If it ever happens - and I have my doubts - then I'm sure it will have a lot of takers.
If it sounds better than the CD555 - and operationally is easy to use and fuss-free then my own criteria have been met.
DB.
I have a 555 player bought about a year after its launch. It had a lid and software fix about 15 months ago. Just after that I had the existing PS DRd and added a second one. This feeds a 552DR and 500DR into B and W 802 Diamonds. I have too many CDs, ask my wife, but even when I can't find the one I REALLY want it gives me music in spades.
Used head units are a bargain as are Linn CD 12s. Plenty of Philips spare laser units in Salisbury.
If you have a "modest" library, define that word, of CDs then an NDS maybe the way to go. I think a 555NDS could be interesting to say the least but at a price possibly close to the outgoing 555.
J.N. posted:"The difficulty faced, I believe, is that current technology won't allow a large enough improvement in sound quality over what has so far been achieved to justify a suitably large premium required to ensure return on investment and ongoing profits".
An interesting point, Tony. Tidal type services are convenient and there are some good hi-res files available; but in the main, audiophiles with streaming rigs seem generally, to rip CD's to achieve the best sound quality. How much better can a streamer sound if it is effectively copying and replaying the data stream from a CD - particularly with a lot of the mastering of new popular music apparently being optimised for lo-fi replay?
One would expect the old DAC technology in something like the CD555 to be a performance compromising factor, but it doesn't sound like it to me. It still sounds superb and right as a designed entity. It's possible to shoehorn a V8 motor into a Mini but it doesn't go round corners very well.
John.
I have to hold my hands up and plead vast ignorance on the digital music side of things and I am curious if there is a general consensus that a ripped cd will sound as good or better than high resolution digital albums either downloaded from Qobuz or streamed from Qobuz using their Sublime + subscription service. I had assumed with the sheer size of the music files that they would be superior to a ripped cd. My digital replay is not sorted out properly on my stereo (hopefully to be addressed in 2018) hence I haven't felt able to A/B check, but I did think the high-res albums I downloaded from Qobuz sounded great on a portable sony player. I'd appreciate any thoughts on this.
Peter
Peter - I've found that the quality of how the original recording is transcribed/mastered to the media is a far more important factor in determining what is "better". For example, I've had hi-def downloads of albums that I've got on CD and still prefer the lower resolution CD version.
There isn’t a consensus that a ripped CD will be better than a download, whether high res or not. I will buy high res downloads wherever possible these days. A good high res is just more natural and real, but the key is that it’s well recorded and mastered. A lot of the ECM and classical stuff I buy is recorded in high res and sounds great. I’ll only buy a CD if a high res download isn’t available and where the CD is significantly cheaper than a CD res download.
MDS posted:Peter - I've found that the quality of how the original recording is transcribed/mastered to the media is a far more important factor in determining what is "better". For example, I've had hi-def downloads of albums that I've got on CD and still prefer the lower resolution CD version.
Are we allowed to do +1s anymore?
What is even more irritating is when there is more than one mastered version of the same album and you have to try and get the best one. DSOTM is a classic example. The quality of the CD I have of DSOTM is terrible!
No, absolutely not.
Just asking.
nigelb posted:
What is even more irritating is when there is more than one mastering version of the same album and you have to try and get the best one. DSOTM is a classic example. The quality of the CD I have of DSOTM is terrible!
Yes as is mine.
nigelb posted:MDS posted:
What is even more irritating is when there is more than one mastering version of the same album and you have to try and get the best one. DSOTM is a classic example. The quality of the CD I have of DSOTM is terrible!
I too used to be disappointed at the quality of DSOTM CDs, Nigel, until a knowledgeable friend pointed me towards this version:
It's a SACD/CD hybrid on the EMI label. I've never listened to the SACD version (I haven't got a SACD player) but the CD recording is the best I've heard on CD.
Mike
MDS posted:I too used to be disappointed at the quality of DSOTM CDs, Nigel, until a knowledgeable friend pointed me towards this version:
It's a SACD/CD hybrid on the EMI label. I've never listened to the SACD version (I haven't got a SACD player) but the CD recording is the best I've heard on CD.
Add my vote for the 30th anniversary CD layer.
I just wish someone in the PF camp would get some serious thinks going about mastering something better than 16-bit for all the classic PF materials.