What is the point of the HDX?

With a 555PS it outperforms a CD555. Get a NAS with a RAID system for redundancy. Next S/W upgrade will allow you to rip direct to a NAS.

/Erik

quote:

I can see the benefit of having a very large music collection stored on one small machine

As I understand it, the HDX will hold 400 uncompressed albums, which is actually a small collection. The way Linn are going seems much better, where their box connect to a third party storage which can be really large. I guess the HDX comes into its own when you get the discs from the library or friends, which would be breaching copyright. I think it's one of those areas where to wait a few years would be the best plan.

Nigel

From the Naim website:

"Music from the HDX is not just limited to ripped CDs. The HDX can play WAV, FLAC, AAC, MP3 and WMA from any connected storage device whether it is USB or network attached."

So, you're not just limited to the 400 CDs on the HDX

quote:

Originally posted by Huwge:
From the Naim website:

"Music from the HDX is not just limited to ripped CDs. The HDX can play WAV, FLAC, AAC, MP3 and WMA from any connected storage device whether it is USB or network attached."

So, you're not just limited to the 400 CDs on the HDX

That's exactly what I've been wondering about since an increasing amount of the "weird" music I like is now increasingly available on as downloads. Is there a sonic benefit to playing from an MP3/4 on another disk compared to simply pluging the iMac into the 552?

And Erik, I don;t want to come across as a sceptic, but I;d be very sirprised at an HDX with 555PS outperforming a 555....

Cheers

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Michael_B.:

And Erik, I don;t want to come across as a sceptic, but I;d be very sirprised at an HDX with 555PS outperforming a 555....

Cheers

Mike

Well, thats what I heard in an humble active DBL system. I'm totally convinced!

/Erik

That deserves a thread by itself, because if the HDX+555PS outperforms a 555 then I will sell my source material and put together a HDX+555PS as that would show more long term.

Curious.

Regards

Jon

quote:

Originally posted by Consciousmess:
That deserves a thread by itself, because if the HDX+555PS outperforms a 555 then I will sell my source material and put together a HDX+555PS as that would show more long term.

Curious.

Regards

Jon

Jon, the HDX/555PS does outperform the 555 with 24 bit material, not 16 bit or 16 bit ripped.

There are alot of things that an HDX can do that the CDX2/CDS3 cannot do. Music management, playing different file types are just a couple of the things. The HDX facilitates music download since you now have a device with which you can play the music back with. Whether you like DGG flac classical, HD tracks 16 bit flac or 24 bit, anything you can download you can store on your PC or NAS and via network sharing have that music playback through the HDX.

As far as 16 bit is concerned ripping a CD takes 7-8 minutes per and possible slightly less with the newer ripping disk although Dave did not comment on the new ripping time. Again choices to make. The best thing is that you can leisurely rip your collection as you listen to other music through the HDX.

The issue really depends on your need for handling the physical disc and how big a collection and whether you want to rip all those CDs. Next month software update will aloow ripping to external NAS, so really unlimited "storage" as iwht Linn DS series which require all external storage.

Performance 16 bit: HDX on a par with CDX2, HDX does some stuff better than CDX2 and others the reverse is true, and same for adding XPS2/555 and the benefits incurred. I know others fell different in that HDX>CDX2 or CDS3, but overall consensus seems to be CDS3 is better with 16 bit material. I hope this does not stir another performance debate. I'm sure that Naim would love for everyone to have both boxes. There have been a few comments from people who own a CDX2 or CDS3 that have or are considering trading in for the HDX and while you may sacrifice some performance with 16 bit compared to CDS3, some feel that the benfits mentioned above and the lack of need for the physical disc outweigh the other factors.

The only way I'd see the "need" for both boxes is if you have a really large number of CDs and don't want to spend the time ripping them and there appears on the market either streaming subscription services of either 16 bit wav/flac and definitely 24 bit material or a wealth of downloadable 16 bit/24 bit material.

My opinions only.

quote:

Originally posted by Erik:
With a 555PS it outperforms a CD555
/Erik

Everyone has a different set of ears - for me and who I was with it did not outperform my CDS3/555PS. More on par with a CDX2 with power supply.f

The CDS3 is THAT good!

Gregg

quote:

Originally posted by hungryhalibut:

quote:

I can see the benefit of having a very large music collection stored on one small machine

As I understand it, the HDX will hold 400 uncompressed albums, which is actually a small collection. The way Linn are going seems much better, where their box connect to a third party storage which can be really large. I guess the HDX comes into its own when you get the discs from the library or friends, which would be breaching copyright. I think it's one of those areas where to wait a few years would be the best plan.

Nigel

I prefer Linn's other approach - the LP12: unlimited capacity and no need to worry if it is WAV, FLAC, AAC, MP3 and WMA - just pop on HMHB and it plays: now that's progress

I agree with you that it is best to wait and see.

quote:

HDX/555PS does outperform the 555 with 24 bit material, not 16 bit or 16 bit ripped

Not for me 16-bit HMHB sounds better than anything I've heard in 24-bit. Source first and, IMHO, that's the artist first.

quote:

With a 555PS it outperforms a CD555.

Not when I heard it it didn't.

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:

quote:

With a 555PS it outperforms a CD555.

Not when I heard it it didn't.

I had an HDX at home for a week and it came no where near to my CD555. As I have two 555PSes I used one on the CD555 and one on the HDX.

I found other digital based streaming solutions showed the HDX a clean pair of heels. But that's a discussion for the other forum.

It is true the 555PS improves what the HDX does, but to my ears it just wasn't good enough for what effectively became a £10k player (when coupled with the 555PS).

Graham

Here we go again another da thread devolving.

@ Graham Russell:

What other digital streaming solutions bettered the HDX in your comparison? Linn DS products or PC/MAC based solutions and what DAC did you use?

quote:

Originally posted by John R.:
@ Graham Russell:

What other digital streaming solutions bettered the HDX in your comparison? Linn DS products or PC/MAC based solutions and what DAC did you use?

I've not had the chance to listen to Linn's solutions.

At home I tried PC, MAC and Sonos through Lavry and Cyrus DACs.

The reason I replied to this thread is based on my experience of using the HDX in my system is was no where near the CD555.

quote:

Originally posted by gary1 (US):
Here we go again another da thread devolving.

Why is this thread "devolving" - because several of us do not agree with the original poster who stated that the HDX beats a CD555?

Gregg

quote:

Originally posted by glevethan:

quote:

Originally posted by gary1 (US):
Here we go again another da thread devolving.

Why is this thread "devolving" - because several of us do not agree with the original poster who stated that the HDX beats a CD555?

Gregg

Gregg,

First of all the original question asked about the HDX capabilities in terms of what functionality it offered as compared to a CDP. What prompted this was the Naim "recommended systems" which is showing the HDX on the right as you would find the CDX2/CDS3 etc... and also listed in the "upgrade" section. While this is meant to offer different options ie. CDX2 or HDX, CDS3 or HDX it was interpreted as thinking as if Naim wanted you to have both, which I'm sure they'd love. The post also brought up issues of storage, etc...

Unfortunately geetee also asked about performance and the first comment was stating about the HDX vs. CD555 and in almost every post thereafter instead of addressing the main thrust of the query what we get once again are comments about comparing the HDX to the CDPs and DACs. The same comments put out time and again by the same individuals everytime they see anything mentioned about performance comparisons or the HDX mentioned.

I'm not going to argue anyone's right to make those comments are they are certainly entitled to do so. However, it just continues and offers nothing constructive or interesting for anyone to discuss. It's one of the reasons why the DA forum or DA threads have gotten stale.

That's why it's devolving.

geetee, Obviously you don't need both a cd player and HDX or any alternative computer-based system, but how many more Naim cd players do you expect to see? To give you some idea, there's been one wholly new one in the past five or so years.

It's fairly obvious where things are heading, and things are changing fast - for example, solid state storage is imminent. Naim's dilemma is in finding the right niche in the market (dacs please).

Gary, The Distributed Audio forum is the way it is largely because of the performance of the HDX.

Make of that what you will.

The point of having a cdp and the hdx in the same system is as I see it, a modern take on having a t/t,cdp,tape deck all in one system ie. you have more than one choice for format replay of maybe the same but not all of the recordings.

For example you can make you're own playlists on the hdx and the replay standard without a ps should match a cdx2,if you have a cdx2 with ps you need a ps on the hdx.
the hdx will stream to outher rooms will a cdp?

In the future we should have high res. downloads which may only be available in this medium and may also go further in terms of musical satisfaction,I have yet to hear high res. formats so I am not sure if this true or false as yet.

I for one listen to a lot of music and if I only had a cdp the transport would expire sooner which is also a point for having other sources,mines a t/t and some times a tape deck but only if I feel the need to make a compilation and I listen to the music on the t/t mostly.

I do feel the hdx is a huge chunk of money, much more than I will have any time soon but if I did not own vinyl and needed multi room music that at least rivaled and with a ps went beyond cdx2 standard I would run one in the same system as a cdx2 or greater because it would provide me with more choice, in more rooms and would give the cdp transport a longer life span.

I know the cdp transports can be replaced but will it last the rest of my life after I have had a replacement? will they be available 2030 something? will I be deaf?LOL. This how long term I think about my current replay gear and how much I enjoy listening to music,all thanks to Naim sounding so musically satisfying.

Not meaning to be picky bit the hdx stores approx 600 cds not the 400 as stated by someone else.Bye.

So it sounds like the basic premise of the HDX currently is Naim future proofing its technology. It doesn't really do anything that the existing redbook players can't also do - they each have multiroom capability; you can make your own compilation redbook CDs; and you still need a copy of the redbook before you can play it on the HDX anyway.

My original question (and I was more than happy for everyone to focus on the performance aspect - that devolution of the thread does illustrate what is important to people I guess) was triggered primarily by the premise that you won't typically be playing music on your HDX that you don't already have the redbook CD for. I based that premise on the notion that in order to obtain audiophile quality music files, you need to rip from the redbook rather than download from the web, i.e. music file formats that are small enough to be downloaded are inherently inferior in quality and therefore why would you want to play them on a (very) expensive hard disk player?
The performance aspect is interesting though because after all, it is top of all our lists in tems of 'order winners', i.e. why pay such a premium for Naim/other audopphile equipment, if the quailty of the reproduction is not the most important thing. Of course there are other factors such as reliabiltiy, support, upgradeability etc.
I love the fact that Naim is pushing technological boundaries; it means they should still be around in 20 years time and my equipment won't be obsolete.
But I do wonder whether the commercial viability of the HDX at this time, is really about the technology gain rather than the financial gain. If I didn't already own a CDX2/CDS3/XPS2/CD555 etc I think it would be a worthwhile consideration; otherwise it looks like something a first time Naim purchaser would buy (although I am sure there are those with deep pockets that would have both).

For me the unspokeN assumption behind this and all HDX debates is that we all have the same ears; we all like Naim and therefore we must all hear and like the same qualities in our Naim and call them musical. We do not.

I have now heard a HDX v a 555 etc. The detail and round earth qualities of the former do challenge the latter undoubtedly. Do they provide more musical enjoyment? To these ears no. I have heard the Linn Ds stuff too. In many ways it was equal to the HDX. Again though I left unengaged.

Mike

Well, here's my 2p worth...

I'd say the point of the HDX, in many ways like the iPod is in the flexibility it gives you. Yes you can burn a compilation CD & play it back on a CD player, but that's a one off exercise to create a fixed CD mix. With the HDX you can create as many mixes as you like as the mood takes you.

Also, the benefit of having all that metadata available (artist, year recorded, genre, etc etc), means you can easily find music you want to play. Many is the time (pre HD music) I sat there looking at my (moderately) large music collection, looking from A to Z & thought "don't really fancy playing any of that", whereas now (albeit only on the Mac so far, as I don't yet have an HDX) I can say "Hmm, I want to hear some blues, or something from the eighties etc, & all of a sudden I've found something I want to hear.

Thirdly, I wouldn't discount high quality downloads. I know the vast majority of music downloads are poor quality MP3 rips, but there's also a growing catalogue of high res material becoming available, & with a decent broadband connection, access online is certainly "do-able" now, & already done by the likes of Linn. For my part, I'm starting to rip my vinyl using a USB phono stage, & converting it to 24/96 AIFF files. I'm definitely looking forwards to trying those out via my main system once I get it connected to my NAS.

Jason all good points.

With a top notch set-up the 24 bit A2D vinyl recordings are excellent played back through an HDX. The main issue as with all things is the quality of the equipment and there is a big difference in the result depending on not only your analogue system, but also the quality of the A2D recorder. It took a top LP 12 system/superline and an expensive Nagra to really do the job.

The hdx sounds like a 5x. It isn't any better than that really. At its price point I'd expect cdx2 sound quality. It may sound as good as a higher end player on normal naim gear but on an old nac52/nap 250 it just doesn't.

I did actually in isolation like the HDX on its sound quality as it grew on me. The interface needed improvement and until the ripping to NAS feature is available its a bit of a runt. Being able to play a whole genre is also quite good.

If it sounds like a 5x then it should sell for £2500 max. If naim want to sell it for £4500 then it needs to sound much better. This is why it has had a luke warm reception, it just doesn't sound £4.5k.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chief Chirpa:
geetee, Obviously you don't need both a cd player and HDX or any alternative computer-based system, but how many more Naim cd players do you expect to see? To give you some idea, there's been one wholly new one in the past five or so years.

It's fairly obvious where things are heading, and things are changing fast - for example, solid state storage is imminent. Naim's dilemma is in finding the right niche in the market (dacs please).
QUOTE]

Interesting that everyone is taking about solid state storage being imminent. Research on the internet shows that while solid state storage prices are coming down, so too are the prices for HDDs. Furthermore, the articles also state that the ability to add more storage onto an HDD also continues to increase and has not reached its endpoint.

The articles then gave some conclusions about all of this in terms of application of various storage options to various industries and applications.

The conclusions were that HDD would be the continued mode of storage for large data bases for the next 5-10 years for home usage including music, video, photos etc... and that Solid state storeage would expand mostly for business applications over the same time period.

The articles also pointed out various design issues and problems with SSD and that while it had no spinning parts it was not immune from interactive effects of the various components on the outgoing data, etc... and was not the "perfect" solution that I see everyone here claiming it to be.

quote:

Originally posted by Chief Chirpa:
Naim's dilemma is in finding the right niche in the market (dacs please).

The Distributed Audio forum is the way it is largely because of the performance of the HDX.

Make of that what you will.

Actually Chief, my take is a little different. I think that the DA Forum is the way it is largely because:

Naim did not come out with the box that forum members wanted (DAC), at a price point they wanted (cheap), with the performance that they wanted (CDS3 and above)!!