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: 12 November 2009 by js
quote:
Originally posted by scottyhammer:
Thought so js........anyways so much easier to compare and fiddle around at home in own system.
good day
Can't argue with that.
Posted on: 12 November 2009 by likesmusic
js, the O/P included a claim that the same track ripped to WAV using different ripping engines sounded different.
You yourself admit that you can get settings on ripping engines wrong.
How do we know that the differences the O/P claims to hear are not due to his incompetence?
Can you, or anyone you know, hear the difference between a track correctly ripped to WAV by dbPoweramp compared to the same track correctly ripped to WAV by EAC?
Posted on: 12 November 2009 by js
Don't recall anyone saying those 2 were different and I personally am not sure they're (always) significantly different from an HDX. I'll have another but more serious listen at some point. I've heard the difference in burst vs secure etc. and folks do use these both ways. Proper can be in the eye of the beholder but I have always used secure with proper offset and cache settings. Accurip is just a report and doesn't fix anything. Some drives need to cache so there will be differences in settings from machine to machine etc. C2 correction? Accurite stream? Lots of variables to get right and yes, setup matters. Can a cached setup be perfected? I don't know. Of course, these variables are gone in a dedicated device. I can't answer for what was demoed and settings as I wasn't there. I usually mention DB because I like the DB interface and tag access better than EAC. Bye.
Posted on: 12 November 2009 by novelty
I wish I could unread this thread.
Posted on: 12 November 2009 by Guido Fawkes
A digital file is a load of 1s and 0s - so if you do a rip to WAV you get
101011010101
if you do the rip again with different software you'll also get 1s and 0s ... if you get
101011010101
then the two rips are the same if you get anything different then they are not
that's all there is to it.
It is not a matter of opinion .. it is a fact either the 1s and 0s match or they don't. Who thinks the two sequences are different? Anybody?
Well if we can all agree they are the same then they should sound the same - if they don't something else is at play. 1 is 1 and 0 is 0.
If I add 13 and 26 I get 39
If you do it on a calculator and get it right you'll also get 39.
It doesn't matter that I did it my head and my arithmetic is a bit dodgy at times and your calculator is rock solid - we can both get the answer right - my 39 is no different from yours.
Playback is a different matter - they way I say 39 will sound different from the way you say 39 - so on different playback systems it should be no surprise they sound different, but two identical rips played on the same system will sound the same unless something else changes.
Posted on: 12 November 2009 by BobF
[QUOTE]Originally posted by likesmusic:
How do we know that the differences the O/P claims to hear are not due to his incompetence?
Likesmusic
I think Purehifi took the time to make an informative post, which was his experience based on listening (I assume since you disagree with him that you have heard the same or similar set ups - I would hate to think your opionion was not based on your listening experiences). IMO I have found that the harware and software doing the ripping does make a difference, you don't agree, thats fine both ways as the forum is about sharing ones experiences. What is not fine, IMO, is what amounts to a personal attack on Purehifi. Just because you don't agree does not mean you should be rude about it.
Bob
Posted on: 12 November 2009 by BobF
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ROTF:
then the two rips are the same if you get anything different then they are not
that's all there is to it.
It is not a matter of opinion .. it is a fact either the 1s and 0s match or they don't. Who thinks the two sequences are different? Anybody?
Well if we can all agree they are the same then they should sound the same - if they don't something else is at play.
ROTF
exactly - if they don't something else is at play. And why would one think there would not be many "something elses at play". I am not disagreeing with what you are saying, but I think alot of common digital theory is oversimplified. In the Naim whitepaper on the DAC the engineers make a comment something along the lines of two identical samples might sound the same.
Current digital audio "facts" remind me of "scientific proof" used by Julian Hirsh in the 60's to prove that all amplifiers sounded the same. Obviously they did not and over time additional technical paramiters (such as TIM) were discovered which helped to explain why amps did not sound the same. It is interesting to note that 40 years later you still can't tell what an amp will sound like by measurements. Another example is the CD red book standard for sampling frequency and word length which many scientists agreed was enough for perfect reproduction (for human hearing).
Anyway ramble is over, enjoy the music
Bob
Posted on: 12 November 2009 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
IMO I have found that the harware and software doing the ripping does make a difference,
I agree it could, but then one is wrong (possibly both), but you can prove if they are the same or not. In my analogy the calculator would get it right every time, where I'd make mistakes. However, I would suggest a cheap and expensive calculator would both get their sums right.
I do not doubt the OP heard differences. I just think they are not caused by different ripping engines (assuming the binary WAV files they generate are identical).
ATB Rotf
Posted on: 12 November 2009 by u5227470736789439
quote:
Originally posted by novelty:
I wish I could unread this thread.
I started at the end and was working back!
Dear Novelty,
I will stop now on your advice!
ATB from George
Posted on: 12 November 2009 by likesmusic
BobF, the claim that Purehifi makes in the O/P is that an HDX rip to WAV sounds better than a dbpoweramp or EAC rip of the same track to WAV.
I am asking whether Purehifi has established that the three WAV files themselves are bit identical. Without knowing that, it is not possible to interpret his results. We don't know whether (like js) he got some ripping settings wrong, whether dbPoweramp or EAC or the HDX are defective, or whether 3 bit-identical WAV file nonetheless sound different.
This not an 'attack' unless you are paranoid.
If there are differences between the bits, it would be a simple matter to make the WAV files and the original track public, so that the authors of dbPoweramp and EAC could defend their products against this attack by the o/p.
If there are no differences between the bits in the WAV files, then how about putting them online but disguising their origins and let's see if anyone can identidy the HDX rip blind?
Posted on: 12 November 2009 by PureHifi
Interesting comments from all who have contributed so far...
The reason I posted our findings was to report what we heard, and I find the whole subject very interesting. It brings a whole new perspective to my job as a retailer, suddenly there is a raft of new things to know and understand...ultimately, so that we can best advise a customer how to get a result that fits their desired listening experience and expenditure.
1's and 0's - if only it were that simple...we would have no need for more than one type of laser mech for CD players, and all CD players used as a transport would sound the same. I would then not have to try and fathom why there is still a huge difference in performance between the latest CD5XS and the CDX2-2 when used soley as transports into the same DAC, especially as they use the same CD Mech.
Lets please try and get some real results based on what various people are experiencing - conjecture is fine and is mostly just healthy debate. I fully appreciate that some people simply do not have access to what we as dealers do nor have the time to experiment with various peices of kit. Part of my job is to find answers based on experience and pass that knowledge on.
Bruce McArthur
Owner/operator
Purehifi
Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted on: 12 November 2009 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
1's and 0's - if only it were that simple...we would have no need for more than one type of laser mech for CD players, and all CD players used as a transport would sound the same.
That's playback and I agree the results will be different - it is different from ripping - I can't understand how two identical files could sound different: the way they were created is irrelevant surely. If the files are different then that means one ripper is more accurate than another. When it comes to ripping it is as simple as 1s and 0s.
It is not conjecture that
5 + 3 = 8
It is true (unless we dispute the Peano axioms). I don't even need to experience it to know the above sum is right.
But I fully understand that when you replay music on hi-fi you'll hear differences - you said you did and I believe you. I can hear difference between CD players. I think it is only the ripping thing that is contentious.
I thank you for your post and found it interesting.
However, I'd love somebody to run some
diffs against these differently ripped WAV files and (apart from the file preambles) let us know whether or not they are different.
ATB Rotf
Posted on: 12 November 2009 by church warden
This has been an amusing but frustrating read for me.
I guess I share the skepticism of those who find the suggestion that identical WAV rips (if they were identical) can be superior if produced on one software rather than another. That said, I do feel the OP could have helped on this by posting a little more detail on how the rips were taken, whether they were then checked to ensure that they were identical and how each one was then played back (for instance, was the HDX rip played back on its internal drive and the others from an external drive or USB stick?).
If it was the case that all rips were checked to be identical, all were made to an external drive and played back from the external drive and yet the HDX rip sounded superior, an alternative to concluding that the HDX makes superior rips would be that the HDX plays its rips better than it can play any other WAV rip. This makes about as much sense, if not slightly more, than the bold claim that identical WAV rips are different.
Posted on: 12 November 2009 by likesmusic
Publish the WAV files online, and state the source track.
Let the authors of the ripping software defend their products.
Posted on: 12 November 2009 by u5227470736789439
The whole issue is indeed involved.
All I can add, is that I have about 520 CD's worth of music in iTunes [ALAC] and the sonic aspect is superb.
Better than direct CD replay at say £5K ...
Via headphones that is ...
I am not deaf, and have been looking for a cheap replacement for a CDS2. I thought I would have to settle for the CD5x, and keep saving till ...
iTunes is a marked advance, and not embarrassed by the old CDS2 ...
Just two good old fashioned English Pence' worth. George
Posted on: 12 November 2009 by BobF
quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
BobF, the claim that Purehifi makes in the O/P is that an HDX rip to WAV sounds better than a dbpoweramp or EAC rip of the same track to WAV.
I am asking whether Purehifi has established that the three WAV files themselves are bit identical. Without knowing that, it is not possible to interpret his results. We don't know whether (like js) he got some ripping settings wrong, whether dbPoweramp or EAC or the HDX are defective, or whether 3 bit-identical WAV file nonetheless sound different.
This not an 'attack' unless you are paranoid.
If there are differences between the bits, it would be a simple matter to make the WAV files and the original track public, so that the authors of dbPoweramp and EAC could defend their products against this attack by the o/p.
If there are no differences between the bits in the WAV files, then how about putting them online but disguising their origins and let's see if anyone can identidy the HDX rip blind?
likesmusic
I understand what you are saying and it seems reasonable. I just found the tone - probably not your intent - a little harsh, especially the incompetence remark. hope there are no hard feelings all around.
Cheers
Bob
Posted on: 12 November 2009 by BobF
quote:
Originally posted by ROTF:
quote:
IMO I have found that the harware and software doing the ripping does make a difference,
I agree it could, but then one is wrong (possibly both), but you can prove if they are the same or not. In my analogy the calculator would get it right every time, where I'd make mistakes. However, I would suggest a cheap and expensive calculator would both get their sums right.
I do not doubt the OP heard differences. I just think they are not caused by different ripping engines (assuming the binary WAV files they generate are identical).
ATB Rotf
ROTF
sounds reasonable. interesting times!
Cheers
Bob
Posted on: 12 November 2009 by Joe Bibb
ROTF is absolutely right. We can have all sorts of interesting debates about the replay chain, or the best access to ripped data. But data transfer itself, and subsequent validation is easily measurable.
Joe
Posted on: 12 November 2009 by garyi
I am happy to except that getting music off a cd to the drive may introduce issues which may cause sound problems. Infact I found my first the other day, I ripped fragile some years ago and never got round to listening, the other day I did and one track skips like a record.
USB sticks do not sound different. If they genuinely do sound different on a HDX then the HDX has a problem and naim have more work to do on the beta software.
I would expect a WORD file to transfer on a memory stick, the worse I would expect is for the USB stick to fail. In this instance its black and white, it works or it does not work.
Music does NOT sound different depending on which drive you use.
Sadly this will be yet another audiophile thing thats created, that hifi companies won't deny or confirm and hifi dealers will push so they can sell cheap things more expensively. And men with beards and very little else to do will exclaim, 'Yes, I believe!'
Posted on: 12 November 2009 by Hutch
Hi Bruce
I spent a morning with the road show at Real Music and would be keen to hear your impression of the Ovator's.
Many thanks
Don
Posted on: 13 November 2009 by JonR
quote:
Originally posted by David Dever:
As for rip quality–if it didn't make a difference, why are quite a few people hearing said difference? Is it a plague of mass insanity,...
Yes.
quote:
...or might there be a (rational) technical reason why this seems to be the case???
If you haven't got a (rational) technical reason then the answer is that what are claimed as being differences in sound are no more than a product of the individual perceptions of the listener and that, in reality, no such differences exist.
quote:
This industry is littered with the carcasses of those who have both rightly and wrongly found differences where there is none–or plausible reasons why....
This industry is littered with people who claim to hear differences where none exist and have sold expensive solutions on the back of such claims.
Go figure.
Posted on: 13 November 2009 by js
Remember, only top engineers are allowed to hear differences. You guys are precious. I guess you don't remember perfect sound forever and you would be very hard pressed to show technically why the output of 2 different DACs, CD players or preamps are different. Measured differences are generally considered in the inaudible range. How about DIG cables? They're not dropping bits. Just use that yellow ended thing that came in the DVD box.
You can believe differences don't exist but cut the technical proof crap, take off the blinders and at least approach this with an open mind. You could use the same argument against many of the things that you happen to believe in. As I've said before, I guess you're all also agnostic and don't believe in gravity. Not understanding how something happens isn't the same as it not happening. Some of the smartest people I've encountered were those that understand what they don't understand. You're perfectly entitiled to your beliefs and opinions but please keep it in that context.
I guess one has to be paranoid to think incompetent in most any context is an insult. An insult to defend an insult.
Nice!
Good dig on the EAC besides the mud slinging, likesmusic. All know I understand the settings and like the rippers. LOL. You'll be the first on my ignore list so don't take additional offense if I don't respond in the future. I wont have read your insightful and competent
interpretation of the white paper, declaration of broken or next demand of proof.
Posted on: 13 November 2009 by David Dever
quote:
Music does NOT sound different depending on which drive you use.
No, but playback buffering might be affected by drive and interface performance (including interface chipset). This could directly affect audio performance, so, not such a wild lark.
In an ideal system, this should be properly compensated for, though this doesn't solve issues within the interface chipset itself.
These problems, by the way, go all the way back to the early days of computer audio–not nearly as catastrophic, but still a factor in performance.
Posted on: 13 November 2009 by Patrick F
so lets take this into consideration.
digital tape is a 1 or a 0/ + or -) why does tape sound different.
if its the same content as on a cd and on tape why does tape sound different.
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.
opinons are just that. If you dont like the product dont buy it.
Posted on: 13 November 2009 by DHT
I am sure these dealers have all performed these tests 'blind' thus expunging any sighted bias.
