Naim DAC - part 2

Posted by: james n on 08 July 2009

Well i managed to slip out of work and i've seen the DAC myself now - i've been very interested given my front end is computer driven. I was quite lucky to get there early and so had the dem to myself. Unfortunately my dealer had laid on some live music. Just a girl and a guitar and she was superb and set a standard that the systems i would hear couldn't really compete with - i could have stayed and listened much longer but the DAC was calling...

Lets get the speakers out of the way first. Good looking and some very interesting design features. Sound, well the room wasn't ideal but i thought the Ovators had too much bass - almost like a badly adjusted sub. Mid and treble good though - very clean and detailed without harshness. This was driven via a 555/552/500 system.

Next up the new CDX2 with its switchable S/PDIF output. This sounded good, in fact i thought the Ovators bass was better on the end of the CDX2, mainly as the 555 goes so deep it wasn't doing the speakers any favours.

Onto the DAC - This is quite an assuming box as most have you have seen. Inputs are 4 Toslink, and 4 Coax - two of these are via BNC the other two RCA. Audio output is via DIN or RCA and there is the Burndy connector to allow PSU upgrades. USB connectors on the front and rear for an iPod or memory stick.

Internals - Jason explained that Jitter had been eliminated on the S/PDIF interface by clocking the data into memory and then clocking back out into another buffer which is synchronised to the internal clock - nothing very new there although i'll await the white paper with interest to see if Naim are doing something innovative with regards to jitter reduction.

The sound - well it was (to me) better than the CDX2 - voices had more presence more detail and the music flowed better. How good that it is i don't know - its better than the CDX2 but does that mean the DAC is a lot better or the standard CDX2 output stage isn't that hot. I'm sure that is not the case and for any CDX2 owners it'll be a decent upgrade with the option to add a PSU for further sonic pleasure.

The other thing the DAC does is that it'll play files from a memory stick and iPod. I'm a bit confused on the iPod side of things as the iPod is connected via the USB connector - Wadia connect to the Dock connector to take the raw digital data out of the iPod. As i see it (and i may be wrong), i'm not convinced that the DAC is 'doing a Wadia' - its just playing files from the iPod with the DAC providing 'transport' controls as i'm sure the USB interface wouldnt support raw data unless its in a proprietary format and the DAC is doing something else with it.

I was dissapointed to see no computer driving the DAC as with perfect jitter reduction it shouldnt really make a difference - Jason explained that the transports would sound different - but at this point i'm not too convinced. We then got onto computer ripping but again my own findings are different.

So is the DAC for me ? - well probably not. I'm not convinced by a fancy S/PDIF interface as being a good option for computer audio. The iPod connectivity is probably useful but seems a bit of an afterthought. I'd also need to hear it in my own system - the room, system and music was unfamiliar so no point of reference for me. As a digital hub in an all Naim system and an upgrade to HDX/CDX etc i'm sure it'll be a winner.

James
Posted on: 09 July 2009 by u5227470736789439
Dear DHT,

I think spending more than your mentioned budgets is an almost entire waste!

Best wishes from George
Posted on: 09 July 2009 by DHT
The revelation for me was that the mac/dac was actually better than my old cd player, which was rather contary to everything I had read and been told !
Posted on: 09 July 2009 by u5227470736789439
Same experience here, and as my old CD player [very fine Naim] was more than good enough for me, I stopped worrying about differences in dgital, beyond getting the presentaional factors right!

The detail is never in question with good digital ...

ATB from George

PS: Intersting parallel thought:

http://forums.naim-audio.com/e...172943227#9172943227
Posted on: 09 July 2009 by kristeva
quote:
Originally posted by james n:
quote:
While the Lavry was popular several months ago it appears (based on postings) that the Weiss is the new and upcoming flavor.


Not really - the Weiss gets rid of the main weakness in the Mac - the toslink SPDIF interface and sounds very good too.

James


James, is the SPDIF interface on a Mac really that bad? I've run from my G5 tower both SPDIF to Dac and USB to Trends SPDIF converter to Dac, and for the life of me I can't hear the difference.
Posted on: 10 July 2009 by Exiled Highlander
kristeva
quote:
James, is the SPDIF interface on a Mac really that bad?

No.

Cheers

Jim
Posted on: 10 July 2009 by james n
Kristeva No it's not and it does work very well (as you know) - i just dont like having to use the toslink output on the Mac. Playing around with the Lavry a few months back with a Sonos and using coax or toslink showed that the coax connection was better - i thought via coax the sonos bettered the Mac.

James
Posted on: 10 July 2009 by js
The Sonos also had the advantage of streaming files outside the OS like it appears Amarra in MAC or ASIO in PC can do. Your current DAC or a TC when setup to do the same is again clearly better than a sonos etc. which is limited like most to 16/48. It's why I've always been a bit baffled by some of the preferences though always individually valid. Doesn't mean that I just didn't get it but I didn't.
Posted on: 10 July 2009 by AS332
quote:
Originally posted by james n:
Playing around with the Lavry a few months back with a Sonos and using coax or toslink showed that the coax connection was better .

James


Ahh , I must look in to this .
Posted on: 10 July 2009 by kristeva
[QUOTE]Originally posted by james n:
Kristeva No it's not and it does work very well (as you know) - i just dont like having to use the toslink output on the Mac. Playing around with the Lavry a few months back with a Sonos and using coax or toslink showed that the coax connection was better - i thought via coax the sonos bettered the Mac.

I've come to the same conclusion when testing coax and toslink - coax is slightly better. I must admit I also forgot that many people are using a mini mac to stream which has a mini jack dig out if I'm not mistaken? Maybe that's not so good either.

A Lynx PCI soundcard is tempting - although an option not available for the mini-macs

K
Posted on: 11 July 2009 by pcstockton
The above brings up the question.

On most tiny computers (Mac Mini), upgrading the soundcard is not an option.

Does anyone know anything about the Mini's internal soundcard and its quality? Everyone seems to use it unquestioningly. I would never assume a computers stock components to be the cream of the crop.

Is it only because there is no option to change it, that people do not suspect it could be a weak link?

-p
Posted on: 11 July 2009 by u5227470736789439
One to test with audition, surely.

Either it sounds fine or not.

At the price if it is fine then one hardly needs to worry.

The sad risk is that some may consider the Mini too cheap to possibly be able to sound fine!

ATB from George [who is going to a get a Mini in the Autumn].
Posted on: 11 July 2009 by pcstockton
quote:
Originally posted by GFFJ:


Either it sounds fine or not.




agreed.
Posted on: 11 July 2009 by kristeva
quote:
Originally posted by pcstockton:
The above brings up the question.

On most tiny computers (Mac Mini), upgrading the soundcard is not an option.

Does anyone know anything about the Mini's internal soundcard and its quality? Everyone seems to use it unquestioningly. I would never assume a computers stock components to be the cream of the crop.

Is it only because there is no option to change it, that people do not suspect it could be a weak link?

-p


I have no idea how my sound card (G5 tower) compares to the third party PCI products available. Moving to OS 10.5 enabled me to stream 24 bit - but certain people have raised doubts as to whether the a Mac is properly capable of this, hence the move toward the likes of Lynx, M Audio, etc.
Posted on: 11 July 2009 by u5227470736789439
Dear Patrick,

I have some fantastic new recordings of Bach!

Have look in the Music Romm if you fancy an absorbing read about them ...

ATB from George
Posted on: 11 July 2009 by David Dever
quote:
Originally posted by pcstockton:
The above brings up the question.

On most tiny computers (Mac Mini), upgrading the soundcard is not an option.

Does anyone know anything about the Mini's internal soundcard and its quality? Everyone seems to use it unquestioningly. I would never assume a computers stock components to be the cream of the crop.

Is it only because there is no option to change it, that people do not suspect it could be a weak link?


Depends on the vintage–current Macs offer only fixed-output PCM sample rates at 44.1 / 48 / 96 kHz via (mini-) Toslink outputs–fine if you're not playing 88.2 kHz files (or anything above 96 kHz). By contrast, an iMac G5 is able to play out PCM streams at additional sample rates (64 / 88.2 / 176.4 / 192 kHz)-different audio chip.



Though the audio IC connects to the "south bridge" (as does the disk I/O and Ethernet controller), the FireWire OHCI chip has higher priority than the audio chip, with a dedicated 33 MHz PCI bus.

For this reason–I'd go for a FireWire-based interface.
Posted on: 11 July 2009 by Wilko
Sensational stuff. Some real, useful information in place of ill-tempered position-taking. I've been wondering how to go with DAC in my main system, since I use a Mac Mini with TOS in the secondary and like the ease of use with an iPod Touch very much. And now I know – Firewire. Thank you.
Posted on: 12 July 2009 by gary1 (US)
JS has been writing about this for months wrt Firewire. I guess a picture really is worth a thousand words.
Posted on: 12 July 2009 by js
There's more than one way to do this. Everyone that says 'in theory' isn't wrong, it's just that theory and practice aren't the same thing. A direct PCI or firewire interface needs the least compensation and can more correctly apply an original clock because of how (in some devises,programs) they can handle instructions dedicated to that. Running outside the mixer also helps. When someone finds a way to reclock with a proper reference to the original,(most just throw it away) the interface will be less important though like most things, it will probably never be taken completely out of the equation.
Posted on: 12 July 2009 by Eloise
quote:
Originally posted by David Dever:
Depends on the vintage–current Macs offer only fixed-output PCM sample rates at 44.1 / 48 / 96 kHz via (mini-) Toslink outputs–fine if you're not playing 88.2 kHz files (or anything above 96 kHz). By contrast, an iMac G5 is able to play out PCM streams at additional sample rates (64 / 88.2 / 176.4 / 192 kHz)-different audio chip.

I'm not 100% sure as I don't have one myself ... but I've read reports that the Mini-Toslink connector on the newest MacMini's and Mac Books are capable of 16 and 24bit at 44.1, 48, 88.2 and 96k when using MacOS X 10.5.x. The hardware is capable of 24/192 (and I think 24/176.4) but the MacOS drivers don't support it, though it works at this rate under Windows with BootCamp.

For details - search Apple Support for knowledge-base document HT3478 (I don't think links are allowed is this right?)

Eloise

P.S. Just because it will do it - doesn't make it the best of course.
Posted on: 12 July 2009 by David Dever
They WILL work if you send the stream out as a Dolby AC3 stream, oddly enough (?)–but will NOT work as PCM, as presently supported. Regardless of whether this is an OS X (or Core Audio) restriction, it affects out-of-the-box functionality.

Will check Windows XP / Vista / 7 with (non-FireWire) 13" MacBook when I get a chance (listed in System Profiler as "Intel High Definition Audio").
Posted on: 12 July 2009 by connon price
"When someone finds a way to reclock with a proper reference to the original,(most just throw it away) the interface will be less important though like most things, it will probably never be taken completely out of the equation"
John,
Do you mean that people will take the better sounding option over the better interface?
My low listening level experience last night with the Uniti and nSats had the UPnP served Neil Young file sounding better than the same file traveling via iTunes and the optical output of my solidbody MacBook Pro using Chord Optichord 3m.
File was AIFF and using eyeconnect.
Posted on: 12 July 2009 by james n
quote:
Uniti and nSats had the UPnP served Neil Young file sounding better than the same file traveling via iTunes and the optical output of my solidbody MacBook Pro using Chord Optichord 3m.


Not suprising - i'd expect the uniti to sound better streaming than via its toslink connection.
Posted on: 12 July 2009 by js
So would I for the reasons mentioned. The UpnP is a dig file clocked inside the Unity. The tos should be the poorer interface here as it's Itunes going through the mixer, in a noisier environment and is getting clocked before being sent through tos transceivers and cable to find Dac lock but there may come a time where the difference is minimized.
Posted on: 13 July 2009 by pcstockton
quote:
Originally posted by GFFJ:
Dear Patrick,

I have some fantastic new recordings of Bach!

Have look in the Music Romm if you fancy an absorbing read about them ...

ATB from George


George, thanks for the head up. Ill check it out.

I was unsatisfied with my collections of Bach about 6 years ago and hunted around for a used Bach 2000 set (150 discs). I found one on an unreserved auction and got it for a steal!

It might not contain the best performances, but hearing Bach, well recorded, on period instruments is really illuminating.

-p
Posted on: 16 July 2009 by Harry H. Wombat
Heard the NAIM DAC today and thought it maybe worthwhile adding to the general discussion. Have scanned the threads and I am sure none or at least not much of what follow is new but just in case:

1. CDX2->DAC outperforms the CDX2. I am not great with hi-fi words but following the 555 the CDX2 sounded flat, thin and I could feel my eyelids closing. Through the DAC the sound becomes more dimensional, less flat sounding and basically much more alive.

2. The USB port on the front is for iPods, associated Apple stuff and USB sticks. NAIM have incorporated some Apple "stuff" in the DAC to allow this to work. You control the music selection from the iPod (obviously) and this was demonstrated.

3. CDX2->DAC is significantly better than iPod Touch -> DAC. Don't laugh. It surprised me!

4. The DAC buffers incoming data and then clocks it out. This has long been my personal (theoretically) favoured way to go about things as one essentially decouples the DAC from the transport (theoretically).

5. The latency from the buffering (I was told) is minimal so if used in part as a DAC for a SKY box lips and sound should sync fine.

6. There are 10 clocks in the DAC.

7. The DAC uses DSP using a Black Fin and a Sharc DSP chip (whatever these are). I am not sure though what DSP is going on

8. The DAC chip is the same as the chip in the 555 - PCM1704(?)

9. It does support 192 (although not demonstrated).

10. NAIM say the layout inside the DAC is very important to the final performance and have kind of promised to show pictures of it with its clothes off after it is released.

Unfortunately, there was no demonstration of computer based audio (apart from the iPod) and no demonstration of high-res stuff. Computers would attach through the optical ports and one would presume that any related jitter issues are removed through the buffering and re-clocking. I believe that this also has the advantage that the DAC is electrically decoupled form the transport.

[EDIT: Oh and most importantly Thanks to Grahams for hosting and to NAIM for the presentation. I am rubbish with names but I think it was Doug who handled my endless questions with great patience and had all the answers. I am sorry I cannot remember the name of the guy who hosted the presentation and ran the speaker demos but my thanks to him as well (but I was really there for the DAC)]