What we have learnt from the Naim DAC...
Posted by: PureHifi on 11 November 2009
I thought it was time that we posted a few tid-bits of our experience with the Ripping, storage and playback of music after our resent promotional event that formed a part of the New Zealand Naim roadshow.
As a Naim retailer we learned a lot from the New Zealand Naim distributor, Chris Murphy, and are finding the whole move to digital storage and playback very interesting...and a lot more involved than a lot of people might initially think.
Our roadshow kit was as follows:
CDX2 (latest with digital out)
HDX (used with digital out)
DAC (with and without a 555PS)
282/supercap, 250.2, Fraim/ Ovator S-600's
Apart from the obvious new speaker exploration we settled down to get to grips with the new CDX2 + DAC and experiment with the HDX a bit more. In particular we wanted to get a solid handle on the performance variations with ripping CD media and the storage and playback.
Ripping the software used does affect the final playback, Chris had files from the same CD Track ripped to WAV with several software packages (WMP, iTunes, EAC, DBpowerAmp, HDX, etc) and the outright winner was the HDX rip - iTunes sounded horrible - ragged & sibilant would best describe it.
Storing It became apparent that the storage medium also influences the audio performance. The simplest example was writing the same HDX ripped music file to different USB memory sticks and then playing them back via the USB input on the DAC - cheap memory sticks generally played back poorly compared to a higher priced stick from LaCie. Perhaps this reflects on Naim's choice of Hard Disk drives used in the HDX.
Playback Several things in the playback domain have cropped up recently for us, in both Naim's solutions and other brands that we stock. We have found, in terms of digital playback from PC laptops and MacBook, that the media player software has a huge impact on the music quality - WMP was poor but Winamp and Foobar were great by comparison (never got around to iTunes). The USB cable between a Cambridge DacMagic and our laptop was also a hugely variable item, we tried a range of normal looking USB cables (some with superior shielding and RF stoppers) and ran them against a Wireworld Ultraviolet USB1 cable, results were outstandingly in favour of the Wireworld item over all others tried. We could not try our Wireworld USB cable on the WD external HDD because of it's use of a mini USB connector but I am looking forward to testing it on a LaCie HDD that has the right USB connector.
The Western Digital 1TB external HDD feeding the HDX also benefited from a power supply upgrade, it might sound over the top but it made for a better result in the music (and was a good use for a spare NAPSC).
I can't explain in technical terms why a lot of these findings are the way they were, we judged everything on its sound merit and I am reporting our results.
What it highlighted most of all was the wonderful way that Naim's R & D has worked to make all those variables disappear for a customer in the HDX product - by providing Superior Ripping, storage and playback in one box.
The DAC is a wonderful device and will be a very successful product.
Posted on: 25 November 2009 by likesmusic
quote:
Originally posted by PureHifi:
I do respect the skill that those people in white coats have and appreciate the quality of the end product.
If you truly had respect for the 'people in white coats' - by which I take it you mean the NAIM designers - then shouldn't you, as an admitted novice in the field of digital playback, take your findings up with them rather than broadcasting them to the world before the product is truly launched?
I am sure that the NAIM engineers had absolutely no intention of making the DAC sensitive to USB sticks, and will be disappointed if this turns out to be the case. Have they verified your findings? Have you given them the opportunity to account for them?
And do you think you should draw conclusions about NAIMs engineering from your observations about a Cambridge Audio Dacmagic?
Posted on: 25 November 2009 by js
Some good ones there.
The bits are intact. Something about getting accessed causing this. I can't explain it and wish it weren't so. At least being aware of it may aid to a fix for audio. Storage has buffers and controller circuits to access the DATA in a organized fashion. I agree that in theory, these should be seamless but my experience says something isn't.
Posted on: 25 November 2009 by winkyincanada
quote:
Originally posted by BigH47:
Don't forget the silver USB sticks sound the best.
Even better if you colour the edge of the stick with a (Naim) green marker!
Posted on: 25 November 2009 by Hook
quote:
Originally posted by js:
Some good ones there.
The bits are intact. Something about getting accessed causing this. I can't explain it and wish it weren't so. At least being aware of it may aid to a fix for audio. Storage has buffers and controller circuits to access the DATA in a organized fashion. I agree that in theory, these should be seamless but my experience says something isn't.
As a long-time computer guy (was doing Unix internals for a good stretch in the 80's), it causes me heartburn to hear that different USB sticks sound different.
Felt the same way when I first heard that higher quality USB cables made an audible difference.
Have for many years believed that bits are bits -- ones and zeroes and nothing more. Still believe that, as long as we are talking about data at rest. Unfortunately, data in motion has, at least in my experience, proven to be a different story.
For many years I resisted buying anything other than Monoprice cables. But I recently took a flyer on a $100 USB cable from Furutech.
Much to my suprise, I can hear a difference compared to the Monoprice cable it replaced. Maybe the Monoprice cable was broken (e.g., not up to spec in some subtle way). Doesn't really matter to me. All I know is that it sounds smoother, less grainy, less edgy, and particularly at higher volume levels. Have asked a couple of friends to listen as well. Both blindly picked the Furutech cable as sounding better. So go figure.
Based on this paradigm-shattering experience, and as much as I hate to say it, I have no trouble believing that there could be an audible difference between USB memory sticks. For starters, aren't they inexpensive, mass-produced commodity items. How can quality control be perfect?
Has anyone other than PureHiFi actually tried different USB sticks to see if they can hear any differences? Not to flame the fire, but IMHO, the dealer bashing would have a bit more credibility coming from someone who actually did some testing.
Thanks!
Hook
Posted on: 25 November 2009 by Exiled Highlander
Hook
quote:
Have for many years believed that bits are bits -- ones and zeroes and nothing more. Still believe that, as long as we are talking about data at rest. Unfortunately, data in motion has, at least in my experience, proven to be a different story.
You are henceforth banned from this forum!!
Many others apparently
know that bits are just bits and they don't have to listen - as that is how the world is. Perfect sound forever....
Regards
Jim
Posted on: 25 November 2009 by Eloise
quote:
Originally posted by ghook2020:
Have for many years believed that bits are bits -- ones and zeroes and nothing more. Still believe that, as long as we are talking about data at rest. Unfortunately, data in motion has, at least in my experience, proven to be a different story.
[...]
Thanks!
Hook
I love that paragraph Hook - I might have to steel it sometime!
Eloise
Posted on: 26 November 2009 by likesmusic
The USB input on the Naim DAC is NOT a USB audio input - you can't connect a pc's usb output to it and 'play' what's coming out. When a USB stick is connected the DAC interrogates the file structure and reads the files found sequentially. So, it is invalid to make inferences about this completely different interface from the performance of another vendors USB DAC or cable.
Not that I have any difficulty believing that USB sticks 'could' sound different; but I do have difficulty believing that they should, or that NAIM would use them if that were the case.
For nearly two decades NAIM declined to make a DAC on the grounds that the s/pdif interface wasn't good enough, because it adversely affects the retrieved sound quality.
Is it now being suggested that after 18 years Naim have abandoned these high, uncompromising standards and introduced a DAC that is adversely affected by the variety of storage media employed? Especially when that is the sole source for the highest resolution material possible.
Posted on: 26 November 2009 by Exiled Highlander
quote:
Is it now being suggested that after 18 years Naim have abandoned these high, uncompromising standards
Only being suggested by you it seems. What's wrong? It doesn't fit with your mental model of the world?
BTW, if they abandoned their high uncompromising standards why are they taking so long to design, test and release it to the market?
quote:
For nearly two decades NAIM declined to make a DAC on the grounds that the s/pdif interface wasn't good enough, because it adversely affects the retrieved sound quality.
Eh, maybe, just maybe mind you, things have moved on just a little in 18 years?
Come back and tell us what a pile of badly designed horseshit it is after you have heard it. Wouldn't that be a novel idea.
Regards
Jim
Posted on: 26 November 2009 by likesmusic
It is Purehifi, not me, that is claiming that the DAC is influenced by the make of USB stick.
So it is they who are implicitly criticising the design (or implementation) of the DAC, for surely a well designed DAC should exhibit no such sensitivity.
Perhaps Purehifi are wrong, rather than the DAC.
Posted on: 26 November 2009 by js
quote:
Originally posted by Exiled Highlander:
quote:
Is it now being suggested that after 18 years Naim have abandoned these high, uncompromising standards
Only being suggested by you it seems. What's wrong? It doesn't fit with your mental model of the world?
BTW, if they abandoned their high uncompromising standards why are they taking so long to design, test and release it to the market?
quote:
For nearly two decades NAIM declined to make a DAC on the grounds that the s/pdif interface wasn't good enough, because it adversely affects the retrieved sound quality.
Eh, maybe, just maybe mind you, things have moved on just a little in 18 years?
Come back and tell us what a pile of badly designed horseshit it is after you have heard it. Wouldn't that be a novel idea.
Regards
Jim
Perhaps no coincidence that the DAC's inception came about near the same time as the bits needed to make it this way and the availablility of HiDef appeared. The drive issue has been discussed by many here long before this DAC. It's often not the weakest link in a chain as few DACs can access them directly. May account for a difference in views here. Have always heard these differences on PCs via a TC and good source for instance and regardless of DAC.
Posted on: 26 November 2009 by Eargasm
I have heard alot rubbish in my days, and i am sorry to say that alot of is coming from this forum, making alot of new members and i belive even some old members follow the train of shitty-old-dogmatic-thinking..
We all a pair of our own ears, demand blind testing when you go out hunting for a new cdp or pre-amp or whatever!
The power of the mind is powerful (aka placeboo-the more expensive-the better) and it is easy to get fooled to go the expensive way..
I love Naim and would not trade my kit for the world but i hate all nonsense that i hear everytime i log on to watch the board every night, but i was pleased to see this tread, keep it going!
We need some more thinking people around this forum that not just accept the "common forum-truth"...
ps. my dear old CD5 did break down on me last night, my suffering is huge and i really do not know how long i can carry on without music! :|
Posted on: 26 November 2009 by Exiled Highlander
likesmusic
quote:
It is Purehifi, not me, that is claiming that the DAC is influenced by the make of USB stick.
There you again with a leap of logic that beggars belief. Purehifi simply stated that different results were obtained when differnt USB sticks were used and you have interpreted that as the DAC is broken.
quote:
So it is they who are implicitly criticising the design (or implementation) of the DAC, for surely a well designed DAC should exhibit no such sensitivity.
Or maybe the DAC is simply good enough to show that indeed there is a difference in memory sticks and the way they handle data that seems to result in different outcomes.
You have already decided the DAC is badly designed as after all it's all about 1's and 0's and nothing else matters.
Jim
Posted on: 26 November 2009 by likesmusic
@Exiled Highlander
So, in your view, the DAC has been designed to show the differences between memory sticks?
I haven't 'decided the DAC is badly designed'. But were Purehifis observations to be true, I would think less of it.
Posted on: 26 November 2009 by Aleg
quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
@Exiled Highlander
So, in your view, the DAC has been designed to show the differences between memory sticks?
I haven't 'decided the DAC is badly designed'. But were Purehifis observations to be true, I would think less of it.
I see a parallel with my Naim set as a total.
I consider my set to be quite revealing, it lets me hear clearly the difference between good recordings and bad recordings. Still I consider that to be a pre of the Naim set, that it is capable of revealing this. I don't blame the Naim set that not all recordings sound equally good, and I don't consider it badly designed because it reveals good and bad recordings.
Of course we know a lot more about what makes a good and a bad recording, so we are capable of explaining it better. In the digital domain we may not yet know so much about it to explain all experiences, and maybe the Naim DAC has a revealing character for certain "digital differences"? Maybe someday we will know, but I don't see it as a reason to try to bludgeon to death this product which you probably haven't tried yourself?
-
aleg
Posted on: 26 November 2009 by likesmusic
@aleg
.. if I had a bludgeon, it would be twitching in the direction of Purehifi, not Naim!
I absolutely accept that a good component will reveal differences in components that precede it in the chain, but if, say, a cd player sounded different when it played the same cd twice in a row, would you want it?
Posted on: 26 November 2009 by Exiled Highlander
likesmusic
quote:
So, in your view, the DAC has been designed to show the differences between memory sticks?
That was exactly what I said...you nailed it again.
Jim
Posted on: 26 November 2009 by likesmusic
quote:
Originally posted by Exiled Highlander:
likesmusic
quote:
So, in your view, the DAC has been designed to show the differences between memory sticks?
That was exactly what I said...you nailed it again.
Jim
So, you believe the Naim DAC has been designed to reveal the differences between memory sticks.
In which case, why has it been designed to minimise the differences between cd transports by buffering and reclocking the data, so that the effects of jitter - a major source of diffence between transports - is diminished?
Posted on: 26 November 2009 by Aleg
quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
@aleg
.. if I had a bludgeon, it would be twitching in the direction of Purehifi, not Naim!
I absolutely accept that a good component will reveal differences in components that precede it in the chain, but if, say, a cd player sounded different when it played the same cd twice in a row, would you want it?
But that's just the point, in this case it are two different "CD's" with the same digital data stored on it (so we expect). Maybe it comes off differently in some way due to different chipsets?
I don't see any reason to doubt the experience from PureHifi, only that their experiences cannot be explained. Maybe someday we can and maybe soon more people can confirm or deny his experiences.
But I don't see a reason to crack down on the DAC for revealing differences.
-
aleg
Posted on: 26 November 2009 by Hook
quote:
Originally posted by pcstockton:
Computer to DAC. What's the difference? You can control dozens of different ways.
Isn't a streamer without a computer controlling it, a streamer in and of itself?
What is the major difference between a PC-less streamer, and a PC dedicated to sending music directly to a DAC.
@ ghook,
The iPod touch is used to stream from another computer, not to be used stand-alone.
-p
Pcstockton -
When I pre-ordered the DAC, it was based strictly on the zero-jitter via SPDIF/Toslink capability. Figured this would give future-proof computer and/or streamer connectivity through the 24bit/192khz horizon. Given what is available now for download through HDTracks and the like, this seemed to be a very adequate hi-rez music solution for quite some time to come.
May have crossed my mind that occasionally, for fun, could drop something even higher rez on a USB stick and give a listen just for kicks. Given how much freaking space these tracks take up, was thinking that the rudimentary controls of the DAC could be adequate.
Your comment got me thinking about how the USB port has been made "special" for iPod connectivity (at least for streaming redbook - specs say 48khz is the current limitation).
Just re-read the spec sheet and the white paper, then did some google'ing. For the likes of me, I cannot find the answer to a basic question. When an iPod is attached to the DAC, isn't it an active device? I assume you retain control of your library through the iPod, since it would be horrible to have access thousands of songs via the DAC's controls.
So, given my assumption that the iPod is seen by the DAC through the USB port as an active device, and given the Blackfin is a very capable DSP, and also given that the DAC is firmware upgradable.....well then, who knows what the future of this USB interface is?
Maybe rev 2 supports streaming of high rez through the iPod/PlugPlayer. Maybe rev 3 turns this box into a true USB DAC. After all, if the DAC can be a USB endpoint for an iPod, why not eventually for other devices? Simple matter of programming, right? :-) Maybe rev 4 irons out all of those subtle differences between different makes of USB sticks (sorry, couldn't resist that one).
Maybe I am missing something very fundamental about iPods, iPod docking, etc. But even if only a bit of what I'm saying is accurate, then perhaps all of this hand-wringing over the USB port may prove to be very premature.
Hook
Posted on: 26 November 2009 by likesmusic
@ghook2020
I'd wondered what the future might hold for the USB input too. But the white paper seems to rule out some possibilities; it says that there is "no USB input for streaming audio from a computer" because "this would entail an electrical connection to a noisy electrical environment making all inputs sounds worse".
But (confusingly perhaps) you can already use the USB input to accept input streamed from a UPnp server through an IPhone running the Plugplayer application. The white paper says: "UPnP: Ipodtouch/phone - lossless files played using PlugPlayer are bit-perfect". You could control that from another (!) Ipod touch or iPhone running another copy of PlugPlayer.
So near and yet so far maybe?
Posted on: 26 November 2009 by Hook
quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
@ghook2020
I'd wondered what the future might hold for the USB input too. But the white paper seems to rule out some possibilities; it says that there is "no USB input for streaming audio from a computer" because "this would entail an electrical connection to a noisy electrical environment making all inputs sounds worse".
But (confusingly perhaps) you can already use the USB input to accept input streamed from a UPnp server through an IPhone running the Plugplayer application. The white paper says: "UPnP: Ipodtouch/phone - lossless files played using PlugPlayer are bit-perfect". You could control that from another (!) Ipod touch or iPhone running another copy of PlugPlayer.
So near and yet so far maybe?
Likesmusic -
It is easy to understand why iPods are so popular. Their feature set and ease-of-use are outstanding.
But in this case, what seems to make them special is that they are battery-powered and, therefore, do not meet Naim's definition of a "noisy electrical environment".
I wonder how noisy a USB-powered hard drive is? Oh well, without a user interface, it probably doesn't matter.
Hook
Posted on: 27 November 2009 by DHT
Naim should have either worked on an async firewire solution or maybe licensed async USB from, is it Wavelength ?
Posted on: 27 November 2009 by Eloise
quote:
Originally posted by DHT:
Naim should have either worked on an async firewire solution or maybe licensed async USB from, is it Wavelength ?
Why?
Which ever solution they used it would
(a) have been the wrong one for some people and
(b) would probably not satisfy Naim's requirement of avoiding direct connection to a "noisy electrical environment"
As it is you can choose your own interface and have the versatility of all the options.
Eloise
Posted on: 27 November 2009 by DHT
So instead of a properly engineered async firewire they have chosen what USB that isn't USB and Spdif?
Posted on: 27 November 2009 by js
This was clearly a choice towards a universal solution. Whether you like it or think it worth owning remains to be seen but it isn't hard to understand.
Async 24/96 isn't that difficult and by the way, isn't a USB standard either. It requires it's own driver.
