New Naim NDX

Can't say I've been blighted with holographic feelaround HiFi since the nDAC moved in. The staging is bigger, sure. The sound seems to have more "organic texture" (whatever that is) and flow and the timing has snapped in very tight. Maybe that's because I don't have Naim amps and speakers? Who knows. My guess is that as already stated, we all listen differently and we all hear different things. I hail from the camp of sitting back and letting it wash over. Although like many I'm sure, I do have some albums that I'm so enamoured of and familiar with that they practically become tests by default. the trick is not to get the mental feeler gauge and slide rule out.

quote:

Originally posted by Harry K:
Can't say I've been blighted with holographic feelaround HiFi since the nDAC moved in. The staging is bigger, sure. The sound seems to have more "organic texture" (whatever that is) and flow and the timing has snapped in very tight. Maybe that's because I don't have Naim amps and speakers? Who knows. My guess is that as already stated, we all listen differently and we all hear different things. I hail from the camp of sitting back and letting it wash over. Although like many I'm sure, I do have some albums that I'm so enamoured of and familiar with that they practically become tests by default. the trick is not to get the mental feeler gauge and slide rule out.

As you hint at its all so system dependent and that's another big reason why we all here different things.

To give you an example I was in love with my CDS3 through a Nac52 but with it now plugged into Dynavector amplification and shahinians it sounds sluggish and too laid back. The more neutral L300 does not give it the fizz and the kick up the backside that it perhaps needs and gets from a Nac52. From my listening I imagine that a rega Isis or the CD555 will restore the sparkle and sprightly bounce that has been lost in the non-Naim setup.

quote:

Originally posted by Harry K:
Although like many I'm sure, I do have some albums that I'm so enamoured of and familiar with that they practically become tests by default. the trick is not to get the mental feeler gauge and slide rule out.

Harry - for sure. BTW my amp, pre-amp and speakers are not Naim either. Anyway my CDX2 with XPS is back in place after my experiment with the nDAC - I put Queen's Night at the Opera on - track eight - The Prophet's song - the drum break after the into is nicely subtly clipped into the 16 track or what ever they taped it on - whether it was deliberate or not I don't know but the CDX2 just lets that analogue sound flow - absolute magic. Another test is the layered vocals on that album. I find some devices can make them bright and un natural (I think term is glassy ?) - the CDX2 makes it more choral with a touch of grain .. magic :-) Elsewhere on the album some electronics can accentuate Freddie's teeth induced sibilance - and some of it is too far gone in the recording either because of heavy reverb or eq - and so the studio equipment has done it on its own - but elsewhere you can almost hear the spit coming from his mouth with the CDX2.

If I am smitten with the CDX2/XPS and just can't imagine what state I would be like with the CD555 - I suspect I will never know... This NDX has a lot to live up to .......

Simon

quote:

Originally posted by rich2513:
To give you an example I was in love with my CDS3 through a Nac52 but with it now plugged into Dynavector amplification and shahinians it sounds sluggish and too laid back. The more neutral L300 does not give it the fizz and the kick up the backside that it perhaps needs and gets from a Nac52.

Or - substituting Dynavector amplification and Shahinian speakers gives me a sound which I consider more neutral but now sounds sluggish and too laid back.

The CDS3 is still providing the same signal output as before.

quote:

Originally posted by Simon-in-Suffolk:

If I am smitten with the CDX2/XPS

Simon

As was I and I still have many happy memories. I've moved on, possibly in a different direction. If money and rack space were infinite I would run a CDS3 alongside my present components. I'm not saying it "outperforms" what I have now or vice versa,it's just somehow special to my ears. I liked it best with the 252/300 and this pre/power combo will be my next home audition. Synergy with the CDS3 and lack of it elsewhere could yet cause this to fall down. It's a funny thing. Real yet somehow imponderable. For each of us, when something just sounds right, it is. Should be fun though.

quote:

Originally posted by rich2513:
To give you an example I was in love with my CDS3 through a Nac52 but with it now plugged into Dynavector amplification and shahinians it sounds sluggish and too laid back. The more neutral L300 does not give it the fizz and the kick up the backside that it perhaps needs and gets from a Nac52.

This would be an expected result of the lower input impedance of the L300 preamp - perhaps very warm and fluid-leaning as its inputs behave more like a current-source preamp than a voltage-source one.

quote:

Originally posted by David Dever:

quote:

Originally posted by rich2513:
To give you an example I was in love with my CDS3 through a Nac52 but with it now plugged into Dynavector amplification and shahinians it sounds sluggish and too laid back. The more neutral L300 does not give it the fizz and the kick up the backside that it perhaps needs and gets from a Nac52.

This would be an expected result of the lower input impedance of the L300 preamp - perhaps very warm and fluid-leaning as its inputs behave more like a current-source preamp than a voltage-source one.

It's also inevitably to do with the sonic signature of the 52 which in olive tradition has a tendency to enhance the rhythmical and leading edges of the sound at the expense of detail, soundstage and other properties.

quote:

Originally posted by Adam Meredith:

quote:

Originally posted by rich2513:
To give you an example I was in love with my CDS3 through a Nac52 but with it now plugged into Dynavector amplification and shahinians it sounds sluggish and too laid back. The more neutral L300 does not give it the fizz and the kick up the backside that it perhaps needs and gets from a Nac52.

Or - substituting Dynavector amplification and Shahinian speakers gives me a sound which I consider more neutral but now sounds sluggish and too laid back.

The CDS3 is still providing the same signal output as before.

The CDS3 is a slower and more laid back product. It's arguably one of the most unNaim like items they've made in this respect.

The CDS3 was a lot more laid back than its predecessor the CDSII.

The CDS3 is providing the same signal source as before, just as you say, but this time it's not getting a load of prat-esque pyrotechnics added in at the preamp stage.

Not knocking anything here. Just underscoring the fact that when we listen to any particular item, we are listening to an interrelationship.

quote:

Originally posted by David Dever:
This would be an expected result of the lower input impedance of the L300 preamp - perhaps very warm and fluid-leaning as its inputs behave more like a current-source preamp than a voltage-source one.

I think you mean the CDP is acting as the source and the pre-amp the sink, and each be designed to connect to a particular impedance; usually low to high. Low impedance sources are current sources, and high impedance are voltage sources. The lower or more different from the design impedance the input impedance of the pre-amp compared to the source the more it will have an affect on the output response of the CDP. Also the lower the pre-amp input impedance the more scope of interconnects affecting (filtering) the sound ( ac signal) due to the potential divider being more pronounced as seen at the pre-amp input as compared to the CDP output.

A point to note is that these impedances usually change with frequency, and this variation is often not mentioned in consumer technical specs. My belief is that it is this characteristic more than many that makes component matching appear somewhat of a suck-it and see.

Simon

Yes-I oversimplified, for sure.

But some hi-fi consumers enjoy playing within the system matching process, to which end that type of arrangement serves their needs–but it doesn't make an existing component "soft", "rolled-off" or "dull" in ipse, but in situ.

quote:

Originally posted by David Dever:
Yes-I oversimplified, for sure.

But some hi-fi consumers enjoy playing within the system matching process, to which end that type of arrangement serves their needs–but it doesn't make an existing component "soft", "rolled-off" or "dull" in ipse, but in situ.

Except even if you played EVERYTHING through an all naim system - 52/SC/250, 252/SC/300 take your pick - a CDS3 is still slower and more laid back than say a CDSII, a CD555 etc..

No one has to get upset by this. It's just the way it is and is the endogenous nature of the CDS3 ... 'in ipse' as you say.

I just don't agree with that description in it being either slower or unNaim like in character. It is in some ways their most fun player of all time. 555 is better but the CDS3 has a certain sparkle to it. the Isis or 555 will not have more. Laid back is not it's character unless the rest of a system doesn't pass along the timing. The players below clearly do not have as good timing.

quote:

Originally posted by js:
I just don't agree with that description in it being either slower or unNaim like in character. It is in some ways their most fun player of all time. 555 is better but the CDS3 has a certain sparkle to it. the Isis or 555 will not have more. Laid back is not it's character unless the rest of a system doesn't pass along the timing. The players below clearly do not have as good timing.

I'd say a CDSII actually times better than a CDS3. I know a number of dealers who would agree with me. And just about every Naim dealer i've ever visited would agree with me that the CDS3 has a laid back sound (comparatively). The CDS3 is distinctly 'middle earth'. It is darker and fuller than the CDP's that went before it and is atypical for Naim. Ever heard a CDS1 in comparison ? That should tell you all you need to know ! Not trying to take anything away from it of course. It plays beautiful music as we all know.

CDS2 is definitely more forward but it times no better than an early CDX2. CDS3 times better than either. Systems don't have good time and need tonal brightness if one feels otherwise IMO. Too much tonal preferences instead of music related ones on this board in general. Tonality is the easiest aspect to work around or adjust to long term.

Bollox.

Everyone likes to think well of their own choice. The amusing thing about this aspect is that there is absolutely nothing about WAV files being spun on a plastic disc that is advantageous. Naim should be able to match the performance of any of the CDPs with a suitable DAC.

I've had CDX, CDS2 and CDS3 players and found the biggest difference to be between CDX and CDS2. But in truth they all represent quite expensive options these days IMO.

Joe

Then appropriate that this thread is about the NDX. Oh Wait!

quote:

Originally posted by js:
Then appropriate that this thread is about the NDX. Oh Wait!

Indeed and the virtues of having a DAC combined with its source such as with the NDX and many Naim CDPs or having it separated by an asynchronous bit stream such as via the rather aging SP digital interface.

Simon

Aging like a fine whine. Can't be too bad if the outboard DAC is still considered an upgrade via said interface.

quote:

Originally posted by js:
Aging like a fine whine. .

Let's just hope it doesn't turn to vinegar

quote:

Originally posted by js:
Aging like a fine whine.

Either a clerical slip or a nice pun! Good one!

Anyone heard this at the Manchester Sound and Vision show?

"Naim Audio

Star of the Naim stand will be the NDX network audio player. It can play UPnP audio streams, internet radio, iPod or iPhone audio, and files stored on USB memory sticks. The company claims music reproduction is equivalent to its CDX2 CD player and HDX hard disk player."

So it works like a Logitech Transporter but better?

quote:

So it works like a Logitech Transporter but better?

I can't see where it is better than Logitech TP (designed 7 years back BTW).

quote:

Originally posted by AMA:

quote:

So it works like a Logitech Transporter but better?

I can't see where it is better than Logitech TP (designed 7 years back BTW).

It can make a better sound? No?