ND555 Impressions

French Rooster posted:

i tried once the melco direct into the nds, to compare vs my serve / linear ps or the uniticore i borrowed too.  The nds/ melco was a bit softer, with a bit more details. But the involvement and life was a bit less pronounced.  I prefer the core or serve / nds/ cisco 2960 trio personally.

Good to try and make one's own choice - they all sound different and I'm not saying what I preferred was best, only that I did prefer it. It was the first streaming system combo, both Melco with ND555 and Melco with a DAC that actually made me take notice of streaming as a possible alternative to my CD555 source. The common denominator in both cases was the Melco so it does do something I like - I find it more immediate in a way that aligns with what I like about Active systems.

Of course the all-Naim configuration is the obvious configuration to begin with in auditioning - and it sounds very good. But I found the Melco in combination with ND555 reminded me of aspects of high-end Vinyl replay that I did not really experience so much with the other combination. It depends on personal preference.

I think the ND555 will be great in any system configuration but you can definitely tune it to taste in how you decide to run it and the quality of the source music of whatever format holds what you want.

DB.

French Rooster posted:

Bailyhill posted:

Darke Bear posted:

In this case (ND555) I'd think source is strong enough that if partnered with a good Pre-Power and speakers to taste will deliver more music that a lesser source.

Always need to check via demo - and you can't IMO go too far and have too poor a Pre-Power downstream of a good source and ensure great results. There is a balance to be struck and some combinations do work better together than others.

I'm more impressed with my ND555 as it continues its run-in and reached is next level of detail retrieval and rendering - more to come but very engaging right now, if a little brightly detailed. I know that will pass as it opens-out more later.

In the context of my system it is an obvious and significant upgrade. My next purchase will be the Melco CD-ripper that I home-demoed and did many of my CDs into the Melco database with, as the PC-rips are nowhere near as clear.

We did comparisons of
(A) DB-Poweramp into a Computer then transferred to Melco DB - vs -
(B) CD-Drive into Melco DB direct - vs -
(C) Melco D100 ripper direct into Melco DB
and I was frankly amazed there was any difference at all - but there was and A was worst and sounded a bit dull and with poor timing compared to B that was far clearer and far superior timing and then even better was C that had all benefits of B but was cleaner and more precise.

Unless I'd experienced the demo I'd have wanted to believe it could make no difference - this was with exactly the same CD being ripped three times - A then B then C and each compared on the same system. I had wanted to save some money, but every new CD I've ripped via my PC has just not had the clarity of the Melco D100, so that is next on my list to acquire. 

Source first.

I know most people will not believe this or want to believe it or just 'know' it is impossible - but I had the demo and that is what it does. I have engineering and science background and was genuinely surprised any difference on these magnitudes existed depending on how the rip is made.

DB.

I wonder what the Naim Uniti Core would do in the same system?  So called "D".  Perhaps that should be given a try before you spend the $$$  ??

Bailyhill

i tried once the melco direct into the nds, to compare vs my serve / linear ps or the uniticore i borrowed too.  The nds/ melco was a bit softer, with a bit more details. But the involvement and life was a bit less pronounced.  I prefer the core or serve / nds/ cisco 2960 trio personally.

That is interesting info French Rooster! ????

Darke Bear posted:

French Rooster posted:

i tried once the melco direct into the nds, to compare vs my serve / linear ps or the uniticore i borrowed too.  The nds/ melco was a bit softer, with a bit more details. But the involvement and life was a bit less pronounced.  I prefer the core or serve / nds/ cisco 2960 trio personally.

Good to try and make one's own choice - they all sound different and I'm not saying what I preferred was best, only that I did prefer it. It was the first streaming system combo, both Melco with ND555 and Melco with a DAC that actually made me take notice of streaming as a possible alternative to my CD555 source. The common denominator in both cases was the Melco so it does do something I like - I find it more immediate in a way that aligns with what I like about Active systems.

Of course the all-Naim configuration is the obvious configuration to begin with in auditioning - and it sounds very good. But I found the Melco in combination with ND555 reminded me of aspects of high-end Vinyl replay that I did not really experience so much with the other combination. It depends on personal preference.

I think the ND555 will be great in any system configuration but you can definitely tune it to taste in how you decide to run it and the quality of the source music of whatever format holds what you want.

DB.

your system is more advanced than mine, with S1 pre and active amplification.  With my more modest system, ear 912 pre, nap 300 dr and around 6k speakers, i preferred the serve/ linear ps or core to the melco direct.   But i don’t say it is better or more involving in all system, just in mine and with my ears.

Your system has much more energy and dynamics than mine, so it is very different.

Anyway, when i will be able to buy an nd555, i will certainly retry the melco.  My serve has around 3 years now but i know it will not last many years more.   And the serve software becomes more and more prehistoric.   Today i downloaded a naim waw 16/44 album, of Antonio Forcione/ trilok Gurtu:  i am still waiting for the last 3 tracks of the album which don’t appear on the serve......

nigelb posted:

Thanks to you all for your thoughts and I hope this slight chicken and egg diversion hasn't irritated the OP too much.

I realise that to get the full benefit of any premium component there needs to be a degree of system balance and a degree of synergy (sorry, synergy is a rubbish and lazy reference but hopefully you all know what I mean). I would love to go straight from NDS/252DR/250DR to ND555/552DR/300DR, but it simply ain't going to happen, indeed it may never happen. But having been so richly rewarded with wonderful music on my Naim journey so far, and knowing there is much more available, I don't want my journey to end quite yet. And Harry has now made things even more complicated by, quite rightly, bringing the power amp issue to light, giving me veritable trilemma (no such word, I know) to consider.

So it is a case of trying different options, mindful of the cost of those options, and understanding which provides the best SQ return on investment. Sorry, another crappy reference.

In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy hearing the experience of you ND555 early adopters.

Nigel

Just think that all these early adopters are burning in your future ND555. 

Bailyhill

French Rooster posted:

your system is more advanced than mine, with S1 pre and active amplification.  With my more modest system, ear 912 pre, nap 300 dr and around 6k speakers, i preferred the serve/ linear ps or core to the melco direct.   But i don’t say it is better or more involving in all system, just in mine and with my ears.

Your system has much more energy and dynamics than mine, so it is very different.

Anyway, when i will be able to buy an nd555, i will certainly retry the melco.  My serve has around 3 years now but i know it will not last many years more.   And the serve software becomes more and more prehistoric.   Today i downloaded a naim waw 16/44 album, of Antonio Forcione/ trilok Gurtu:  i am still waiting for the last 3 tracks of the album which don’t appear on the serve......

System-context does make a big difference - I think there could by systems in which you would want a different presentation.
Some of this can be preference, as I like the Active lively feel that the Melco seems to bring, but in some systems that will sound wrong and too forceful perhaps.

In any case it is good to know one can tune a system to taste. I'm mainly mentioning that there are differences to be had and some prefer one way and some another.

...and on the other matter - my ND555 has gone into its next run-in dip of harshness, which I think I was noticing earlier with my 'bright' comment'. This seems to last just under a day so hopefully it will clear soon.

DB.

Darke Bear posted:

French Rooster posted:

your system is more advanced than mine, with S1 pre and active amplification.  With my more modest system, ear 912 pre, nap 300 dr and around 6k speakers, i preferred the serve/ linear ps or core to the melco direct.   But i don’t say it is better or more involving in all system, just in mine and with my ears.

Your system has much more energy and dynamics than mine, so it is very different.

Anyway, when i will be able to buy an nd555, i will certainly retry the melco.  My serve has around 3 years now but i know it will not last many years more.   And the serve software becomes more and more prehistoric.   Today i downloaded a naim waw 16/44 album, of Antonio Forcione/ trilok Gurtu:  i am still waiting for the last 3 tracks of the album which don’t appear on the serve......

System-context does make a big difference - I think there could by systems in which you would want a different presentation.
Some of this can be preference, as I like the Active lively feel that the Melco seems to bring, but in some systems that will sound wrong and too forceful perhaps.

In any case it is good to know one can tune a system to taste. I'm mainly mentioning that there are differences to be had and some prefer one way and some another.

...and on the other matter - my ND555 has gone into its next run-in dip of harshness, which I think I was noticing earlier with my 'bright' comment'. This seems to last just under a day so hopefully it will clear soon.

DB.

why not keep it running 24/7 for one week more, without listening to it.   You may have a big surprise and like a discover.   It will be like no eat for 2 days and go to a good restaurant after. The meals( or dishes) will have more taste.

Harry posted:

It's a nice dilemma to have Nigel. And it's more multi faceted still when you consider the power amp.

I wouldn't offer any firm advice on the basis of what I like because, as you point out, it's up to you and your ears to decide what to do and in what order to do it. So having got the disclaimer out of the way........

I think the elephant in your room is the 250. It will put a crimp in the performance of the ND555 and it is likely that you may not yet have an idea of what the NDS is truly capable of. The limitations in bandwidth, transparency and grip imposed by the 250 are certainly in play. It's an impressive sounding amp which fails to sound impressive - to my old ears.

A 250DR with my 552DR/NDS/555PS-DR/552PS-DR in my room killed my interest in music in two weeks. I just stopped listening. It refused to sound any good and my brain refused to try to get used to it after about 2 weeks of trying. Sorry. Each to our own. Just my £0.02. No controversy or offence intended.

I think a 252 and a 300 might give you an even more favourable impression of the NDS, let alone the ND555. And while source first is an approach I strongly advocate- in principle, the 552, as many say, is something a bit special. It's something you'll never regret and you can subsequently spend the rest of your life throwing better and better sources at it to your heart's content.

On the other hand, a 252/300 with the best source you can source will be a fantastically transparent, musical and fleet system. And it will be 552 ready. The 552 goes just lovely with a 300 and you can treat yourself sometime down the road at a time that suits you. Unlike many components, a 552 has a low potential to throw the balance of the system out. It just makes everything more transparent, believable and life like.

Likewise, a 500 won't unbalance it either if you go there after the 552. It isn't bombastic, big sounding and throbbing. It's confident, self assured, transparent (there's that word again) and has vice like grip.  When you finally get to hear exactly how the notes start and stop, everything makes more sense. The 250 pretends. The 300 reveals. The 500 tells it like it is.

I think that's quite enough of your money spent for one day!

Very good call out, I missed out on the power amp aspect of the overall question for Nigel, and would fully subscribe that at least a 300 is required to nit limit the system. And the mixing in DB’s advise you get to a potential path.

I had the experience of moving from 200 to 300 and realized what i missed before. 

Nigel, a 252/300 was plenty to hear what an ND555 did over an NDS and to want that, even with unfamiliar Dynaudios in a barn of a room and sat off centre. With no vinyl in the system I suspect the 555 will come first. 

When I auditioned the ND555 it was on a 252 supercap/250dr setup ......... I could clearly hear the benefits the ND555 brought..........over the NDS. I am looking forward to strapping the ND555 on the end of my 552/500............

Darke Bear posted:

 

... My next purchase will be the Melco CD-ripper that I home-demoed and did many of my CDs into the Melco database with, as the PC-rips are nowhere near as clear.

We did comparisons of
(A) DB-Poweramp into a Computer then transferred to Melco DB - vs -
(B) CD-Drive into Melco DB direct - vs -
(C) Melco D100 ripper direct into Melco DB
and I was frankly amazed there was any difference at all - but there was and A was worst and sounded a bit dull and with poor timing compared to B that was far clearer and far superior timing and then even better was C that had all benefits of B but was cleaner and more precise.

Unless I'd experienced the demo I'd have wanted to believe it could make no difference - this was with exactly the same CD being ripped three times - A then B then C and each compared on the same system. I had wanted to save some money, but every new CD I've ripped via my PC has just not had the clarity of the Melco D100, so that is next on my list to acquire. 

Source first.

I know most people will not believe this or want to believe it or just 'know' it is impossible - but I had the demo and that is what it does. I have engineering and science background and was genuinely surprised any difference on these magnitudes existed depending on how the rip is made.

DB.

What you have reported is the outcome of a test. This outcome was possibly unexpected and surprising but there is no reason not to believe it.

The interesting question is whether we can draw any reliable conclusions from the results and, if so, which ones.

My impression is that, for the time being, we can draw no conclusions. A first step toward understanding the results and their implications would probably be to check whether the results obtained with A, B and C are identical or not. This probably requires stripping away from the files metadata but should be easily doable.

If the files turn out to be genuinely different, a second step would be to try to understand where these differences come from. If a rip is not required to be bit perfect, it is of course very easy to make it (appear to) sound better than bit perfect rips. Just increase a little bit the volume.

This (form of cheating) can in principle be implemented also for bit perfect copies of an original, e.g. by exploiting hidden information. A system can easily be designed to recognize files that have been ripped with a given program and to treat these file differently from files that have been ripped with other programs.

Implementing these forms of cheating has been very rewarding, e.g., in the car industry. VW is probably one of the most prominent examples.  Apart from cheating, there are more subtle reasons why different rips can sound differently. One of the problems is that the notion of "bit perfectness" is rather weak. But there are other problems as well: for instance, it is not obvious that a rip X that sounds better than a rip Y on a device will also sound better on another device. Consistency of results over time is also not easy to assess: will a device produce "better" rips across many albums or for multiple rips of the same album?

Anyway, thanks for reporting the results, if you find out more, please keep on posting!

Bailyhill posted:

nigelb posted:

Thanks to you all for your thoughts and I hope this slight chicken and egg diversion hasn't irritated the OP too much.

I realise that to get the full benefit of any premium component there needs to be a degree of system balance and a degree of synergy (sorry, synergy is a rubbish and lazy reference but hopefully you all know what I mean). I would love to go straight from NDS/252DR/250DR to ND555/552DR/300DR, but it simply ain't going to happen, indeed it may never happen. But having been so richly rewarded with wonderful music on my Naim journey so far, and knowing there is much more available, I don't want my journey to end quite yet. And Harry has now made things even more complicated by, quite rightly, bringing the power amp issue to light, giving me veritable trilemma (no such word, I know) to consider.

So it is a case of trying different options, mindful of the cost of those options, and understanding which provides the best SQ return on investment. Sorry, another crappy reference.

In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy hearing the experience of you ND555 early adopters.

Nigel

Just think that all these early adopters are burning in your future ND555. 

Bailyhill

Did an interesting head to head yesterday at my dealer of an ND555 against a dCS Rossini with Clock.  The rest of the system was a NAC552DR, NAP500DR, Sonus Faber Guarneri Traditional and almost a Chord Music full loom (Sarum Super TA speaker cable and Signature TA Data cable being the exceptions ).  Pretty close but I thought the Rossini shaded it - incredibly natural and musical (not suggesting for a second the ND555 is lacking).  But it is more expensive and for a similarish cost one could add a second 555PS.  Removing the Clock from the dCS system definitely levelled the playing field both in terms of cost and performance, but definitely worth a listen.

nbpf posted:

Darke Bear posted:

..

Very interesting post, thanks! I also have an engineering background but my conclusions would be very different in this case: I would think that there might have been something wrong with the demo and I would not buy anything until I have understood what's going on. Have you compared the three rips bit by bit after having erased all metadata blocks? Are they equal? If not in what do they differ? If the files are equal, do they still sound differently if you rename them? If you have ripped to .flac, metaflac is a good tool to analyse and check the files.

Life is too short for all that. It is like in the old days decades ago when you would be ridiculed for liking an Amplifier that had no better measurement of THD or whatever was being used to define the criteria of performance. Eventually it was realized that you use your ears to decide and that other parameters may one day be evinced to show what one device in fact is better than the other, but in meantime you can have the best system that delivers music for you. The files are all WAV format and identical named by the way.

I've brought-up the facts - they are real. I've also after that demo several times with other technical background friends done demonstrations of their ripped material of the identical disc against my rips with Melco and they were incredulous but definitely hear it. The last comment (yesterday) was 'the timing is different and there is more detail - how is that possible?'

And I don't know. Melco talked about 'packing the data better' but I don't know what that means right now, but I'd like to at some point understand it all. The scientific approach is to observe and gather results, then theorize a mechanism and devise experiments to test the theory then work up some results that prove or disprove it. The dogmatic approach is to know it all already and shoot-down anything that goes against the dogma - that must be right without need for verification.

I've put the information out here - nothing wrong with the Demo - repeatable as many times as you like.
It will offend anyone that has to fully-understand anything before accepting evidence of their own ears - I can't tell anybody much if I had to explain 'why' and 'how' everything I hear works, so leave it to others to decide. It is easy to have a demo of the effect.

Other people have independently contacted me explaining other ways of getting good rips that until I went and had a demo - with the intent of proving to myself it was all rubbish - I would not really take onboard as being possible. I used to think the same about HiFi Power cables - obviously rubbish, until I tried one and it worked.

DB.

DB...think you could be having a long chat with Alan Ainslie from Melco at Audio show east in a couple of weeks. It’s interesting to me that they Melco moved from recommending relatively cheap “Buffalo” drive units for ripping to this new £800 drive unit. At that price you would hope that it brought some sonic benefit....even if it’s not easy to understand why. I am sure Alan will have a plausible answer.

At this stage I want to put the information into circulation for others to try - if they like. Hopefully it can at this stage be up to individuals to form opinions from the result of their own experience was my aim in context of this forum.

If this were a purely technical forum then I'd not bother and if I were minded go off and perform experiments and submit a report of it all after a long time. I can't be bothered with that.

The magnitude of the differences depends on quality of the recording and the caliber of playback system. Good mastered CD format material via the ND555 will show it - and I'd say also the NDS or lower down a fair way of sources. Through an iPod phone - probably not audible and of no import.

If spending a lot on a system and - like me - just about to rip my entire CD collection, I wanted to make sure I was doing it the right way. We tried the usual DB Power Amp method and then transferred the file to server, as my Dealer had done to that point. They told me it could be done also via a CD Drive connected by USB cable into the Melco Server so I asked to see that done - and asked if there was any difference?

At that point the Dealer had no idea but was up for letting me hear. They also just had arrive the expensive Melco ripper and was just un-boxing it there and then and I groaned at the price and considered it a 'snake-oil' product and asked to also include that into the same demo to eliminate it and make my purchase easy.

All I was looking for was an easy way to rip CDs and putting them into a drive and the Melco Data Server, which I was getting anyway, doing it all for me was appealing, so I did not need anything else - and it would be nice to confirm the rips were not any different from elsewhere.

That is not what happened as I described. I recount my experience - not why - I would like to know. I have a choice now of awaiting a technical proof of what I can easy hear before ripping any more music to play, or proceeding with getting the best rips I can, albeit at a price more than I wanted. In context of my system it is not a lot, but given I expected no difference at all then it surprised me.

DB.

Darke Bear posted:

...ok - I may have broken a forum rule somehow, so may not be posting anymore!

DB.

No broken rule DB, just something in the post triggered the naughty word filter. It's fine, I caught it.

Ok - just realized that and removed that post!

It seems to me that the ND555 has upped the stakes so much that apparently the 'quality' of the rip is now detectable, if such a phenomenon exists. I have no reason to doubt DB's findings and he has one of the most revealing systems out there, and a sensitive ear for such things.

It is just a shame that the Core's ripping capabilities were not part of the test, but I do understand that DB had already committed to Melco for serving duties.

Well, I don't have a scientific degree, but I do have a Masters in Civil Engineering and lots of knowledge about how aeroplanes work, so I trust these qualify me to express an opinion in this thread..............

.....if something "happens", and what "happens" is reliably repeated ie it always "happens", then that is the way of the universe.

If my existing knowledge of physics, chemistry, computer-science, or whatever says this event should NOT "happen" then it's my existing knowledge that is wrong and thus needs sorting out, NOT the fact that this something "happens".

And for £800 it seems a "no-brainer" to go down the Melco D100 route.

Biggest risk to my mind is that some other company comes up with an even better ripper in January for £825 just as DB is finishing his last "rip"

 I'd also like to know where the Core fits in with all this.

Enjoying the "ripping yarns" and my CD555...

Don Atkinson posted:

....

Biggest risk to my mind is that some other company comes up with an even better ripper in January for £825 just as DB is finishing his last "rip"

It may happen!

I really don't think qualifications matter - I only mention I do have some just to fend-off to a little extent the claims that I'm obviously a fool. Now a degree in physics and thirty years working in telecommunications, electronics and having previously designed and built my own DAC from chips and etched and making my own PCBs when I hated the existing digital tech at that time long-ago does not endow me with any better ears than anyone else - but I've been around the block a few times and experienced a few impossible things that were later explained, so I just trust my ears at this time in my life.

Again - my aim was to raise for discussion along the line of 'source first' for people to at least consider. I expect a large-scale rejection - and i wish I could be one of these people but that is not where I am right now.

DB.

It would also be interesting to compare the Melco D100 cd rip to a file of the same cd downloaded from say Quobuz directly to the Melco server. If that was then of comparable quality I would probably not bother with the Melco ripper, and for the future just download?

DB, as you are about to rip your whole CD collection it makes a lot of sense to start by building a rock solid ripping practice. This requires facing two problems: one technical and the other one conceptual.

1. The technical problem is the one that you have started with. I do not want to open up a discussion on the merits of different ripping systems but, to me, it is clear that if two devices produce essentially different rips then there is something fishy with one device or with both. The crucial question here is what does it mean for two rips to be essentially different. I think that I have a reasonably good understanding of this notion but, again, it would be off-topic to delve into this issue here.

2. The conceptual problem is how to organize your music collection. This essentially boils down to settling on a number of indexes or keys that you use to tag your rips. For classical music collections, widely used indexes are composer, work (or composition), form (of the work or composition) , conductor, ensemble, artist, period (or epoch), etc.  You all will need to find out a tagging program that you feel comfortable with to correct and complete the results obtained by your ripping system. These are often still very poor and require manual intervention.

In facing problem 2, I found it very useful to first rip and tag a small number of CDs (say 30 to 50), play a little bit around with this small collection, identify the indexes that I am missing (and those that I rarely use) and then finally settle for a scheme to apply to the whole collection. If you proceed this way, you will also have very good chances of finding a way of solving problem 1 that works for you. 

All in all, the way to a perfectly tagged collection is a rather long one, especially if a large part of your collection consists of classical music. On the other hand, I have found a perfectly tagged music collection to be extremely rewarding: being able to do intelligent browsing (as supported by MinimServer), to search for different versions of the same composition, to see the year a work was composed or first performed, to open the booklet of the current album, etc. makes a completely different listening experience. 

Finally, I would suggest that, if you haven't already done so, you spend some time browsing the documentation of MinimServer. It contains very competent information on problem 2 and specific answers to specific questions about tagging, organizing, maintaining and storing music collections. 

 Try Roon on a free trial - you may like it - i certainly did.....

Is the consensus to rip to wav .........