NDX or HDX

Posted by: RoyleBlue on 26 March 2011

Starting to put my 1000 or so cd's on a PC NAS with a view to getting an NDX in a month or so, pennys permitting, but have now been offered an HDX for approx. the same money - any thoughts?
Posted on: 26 March 2011 by lawoftrust
Hi, If it is just a choice between the two of them and just related to sound quality, I would definitely go with the NDX. For me better by a margin.
Posted on: 26 March 2011 by RoyleBlue
Thanks, SQ by far the most important factor so thats 1-0 to the NDX.
Posted on: 26 March 2011 by likesmusic

There are claims on the forum from Naim and their distributors that UnitiServe rips sounds better than rips done with non-Naim software so, if you believe that, you should factor it into your decision.

 

1000 cds is a lot of work to waste.

 

The threads are here:

https://forums.naimaudio.com/di...ent/3960068600513875

https://forums.naimaudio.com/di.../lastReply#lastReply

Posted on: 26 March 2011 by RoyleBlue
I had also heard HDX rips were better - decisions!
Posted on: 26 March 2011 by Jack

There are so many combinations to consider.....personally I think I would go the HDX route particularly if it's an SSD version and quite new. Why? Well it doesn't rely on any sort of server to stream from and has the ability to play CDs, plus it can be upgraded with the nDAC.

 

I haven't heard the NDX, I'm sure it sounds great too......would be surprised if better than HDX/nDAC. Of course you could add nDAC to NDX although doesn't seem a favoured option. Will be interesting to see if either really does become a clear winner from SQ perspective.

 

Nice problem to have!

Posted on: 26 March 2011 by garyi

I would go with the HDX, it has so much more functionality and there is no reason why it should not sound as good or better than an NDX.

Posted on: 26 March 2011 by lawoftrust
Garyi,



You should do a side by side comparison if only sound shall matter and then easily the bells and whistles of the Hdx vanish.
Posted on: 26 March 2011 by John Bailey
The HDX may (as a stand alone unit) be slightly behind the NDX in ultimate sound quality but it's still better than a CDX2 in my experience so I don't consider it a slouch in that area. When one factors in the convenience, flexibility and operation as a multiple source server and upgrade flexibility my view is that the HDX beats the NDX hands down as the more solid purchase. Sound quality of the streamer isn't everything it's cracked up to be if the rips and server are unstable, of inconsistent quality or clunky in operation.
Posted on: 26 March 2011 by sktn77a

What D/A converters do the various NAIM components use?  (eg, NDX/HDX/CDX2/CDS3........)  I realize the analog circuitry (where present) makes a big difference also.

 

 

Posted on: 26 March 2011 by Alamanka

Buy both.

 

Then, you will know.

Posted on: 27 March 2011 by EJS

RoyleBlue,

 

Was in the same boat as you were, and went with the HDX. Standalone it sounds very good - close to a CDX2 as John says. I suppose if you prefer an external network attached storage drive, then the choice comes down to NDX + server software or HDX. If both are within your reach, I'd certainly go for an audition.

 

EJ

Posted on: 27 March 2011 by Klout10

The ease of having a one-box solution for ripping, storage, etc. was the primary reason to go for the HDX. Never regretted it, I don't have to worry about various types of ripping software, settings etc....

 

Now, all I have to do is enjoying my music 

 

Regards,

Michel

Posted on: 27 March 2011 by Tog
I think things are changing so rapidly that it pays to remain flexible. For me that means investing in a renderer and keeping the music files separate either on a mac or a nas.



The HDX is a fine one box solution but is too inflexible and inefficient. I stopped using a CD player over 6 years ago and everything but the codecs I have used aiff/alac and flac has changed constantly.



What will happen when UPnP and AirPlay go head to head - I don't know but I bet my files will still play.



Tog





Posted on: 27 March 2011 by John Bailey
I really can't understand how the HDX is inflexible or inefficient - certainly not the SSD variant.



It rips, it catalogues, it plays locally to above CDX2 standard and it serves up UPnP or NetStream. It has an iPhone app. It will have an iPad app. Its controllable from a web browser. It's going to get iRadio later this year as well as make mp3 copies for iPods etc. Its upgradeable with an XPS, 555PS or nDAC.



And no messing about with configuring third party servers, rippers etc.



I really can't think what else I would want or need it to do.

Posted on: 27 March 2011 by Klout10
Originally Posted by John Bailey:
I really can't understand how the HDX is inflexible or inefficient - certainly not the SSD variant.



It rips, it catalogues, it plays locally to above CDX2 standard and it serves up UPnP or NetStream. It has an iPhone app. It will have an iPad app. Its controllable from a web browser. It's going to get iRadio later this year as well as make mp3 copies for iPods etc. Its upgradeable with an XPS, 555PS or nDAC.



And no messing about with configuring third party servers, rippers etc.



I really can't think what else I would want or need it to do.


Hi John,

 

I could not have said it any better! I absolutely agree with you. However, since it's release there are certain people who always find a reason for bashing the HDX....

Regards,

Michel

Posted on: 27 March 2011 by Tog
Read the post guys ... Nobody is bashing the HDX and yes the SSD version is certainly more flexible and supports the IS adage that you should always keep your data separate from the OS. I do think most of the future development will be lead by software and that the HDX isn't the solution I would opt for in the circumstances. Tog
Posted on: 27 March 2011 by John Bailey
At it's heart it's a PC. It can be re-programmed....
Posted on: 27 March 2011 by Harry

The answer is the ear of the beholder and anyone who is flipping a coin should go hear both side by side.  For me the HDX offers everything I need/want plus a few things I never knew I needed but wouldn't be without. If contemplating as a one off purchase with zero percent likelihood of future upgrades (yeah, right...) the one that sounds best to the individual will be the one to take home. I suppose this equally applies if there are plans to add more boxes but once a DAC is sitting in the mix the differences are likely to be more about facilities and less about musical differences. It would not have been difficult for me to rig up a ripping and storing system. But it would have been yet another thing it would have taken me ages to get around to and would have involved endless tweaking, had the HDX not turned up and been totally convincing (to my ears) on sound quality/musical enjoyment.  I'm more interested in a higher level DAC or DAC/Pre. I won't be holding my breath. To say the HDX is not highly versatile is selling it considerably short IMO. 

Posted on: 29 March 2011 by RoyleBlue
Thank you all for the helpful comments. The HDX is a 2 year old, non- SSD model - for those that said HDX what do you think now? SQ wise I could well live with one its just I may well have more than enough cd's to fill its hdd before I buy more - can you put larger hdd's in or not?
Posted on: 29 March 2011 by Cal

RoyalBlue: Just rip to a NAS when the internal drive is full. And when (if) the internal HDX drive ever fails, get it upgraded to SSD.

Posted on: 29 March 2011 by Mr Underhill

Royle,

 

What is the rest of your system?

 

M

Posted on: 29 March 2011 by RoyleBlue
LP12/Aro/Rohmann CD2 > 202/200 > Kans
Posted on: 29 March 2011 by Mr Underhill

The obvious answer would be to listen to each ...which is true, and unhelpful.

 

The things I would consider would be:

 

1. Do you have a fileserver/NAS?

2. Are you happy ripping your CDs?

3. Are you OK with setting up an uPNP server?

4. Are you considering other digital 'transports'?

 - DVD/BluRay/PC

5. Are you happy dealing with Networking.

 

 

Depending on the number of digital sources the NDX might be sufficient, or you might start thinking nDAC. The HDX, on its own wouldn't be sufficient. I might even start thinking UnitiServe + nDAC.

 

On the other hand if I found ripping CDs a pain; or I didn't have a fileserver/NAS; or I didn't want to get into setting up a uPNP server - I might think HDX.

 

That leaves sound quality ....be good to know what you think once you've had a listen!

 

Of course, some of this might help you decide whether you've got a good dealer!

 

Hope this helps,

 

M

Posted on: 30 March 2011 by John Bailey
The HDX has had numerous tweaks (both hardware and software) which have improved it. As far as I know these are all retrofittable - at a cost. Harry has had the upgrades as I recall so perhaps he can add something here. Even without these the HDX will still (easily) make great rips and store them on an external drive if you want to. Capacity isn't really an issue. I think I'd still be tempted - but do the audition first and if you like it factor in the upgrade cost against a new one with warranty.
Posted on: 30 March 2011 by Harry
Originally Posted by RoyleBlue:
Thank you all for the helpful comments. The HDX is a 2 year old, non- SSD model - for those that said HDX what do you think now? SQ wise I could well live with one its just I may well have more than enough cd's to fill its hdd before I buy more - can you put larger hdd's in or not?

Mine came with twin 500Gb HDDs. I spent plenty of ears on time with machines such as yours and concluded that what I could would get was at least as good as CDX2/XPS2 level. My finding (for me anyway) that rip to and playback from NAS was of equal quality/enjoyment was after the fact. It was at that point that two things happened. I had no use for the internal HDD for music storage and I first heard of the arrival of the SSD - which would have suited me much better and resulted in a period of self kicking. SQ wise the older machines were fine by me. Newer models with the updated sound card do sound a bit tighter and more detailed to my ears. It's an inexpensive upgrade. More RAM went in too, which was purely an operational enhancement.