NDX with and without nDAC

Posted by: aysil on 06 May 2011

I’ve been listening to my NDX for a few weeks now, both alone and with nDAC, and I think I am able to share my impressions now. Some friends on this forum were stating NDX should pass or fail on its own. I can say, not only that it passes, but in some respects it excels.

My first impression was already that I prefer the NDX alone. The reason became clear before long: NDX provides a very pleasing and easy listening experience, not tiring and not very demanding. First, it provides wonderful tone colors, especially in the midrange, not in the sense of added color, but it has the ability to convey and differentiate between the natural tones of instruments. For example, different wind instruments blossom beautifully with different colors in an orchestra like a pastoral spring scene. You can distinguish easily between the gut strings and metal strings of a guitar. On the other hand, nDAC tonal balance is rather on the metallic side. It emphasizes the metal strings of a piano whereas the NDX adds more ingredients from the resonances of the wooden body of the piano. Secondly, NDX is more fluid. I would not call it ‘soft’ because it has plenty of detail and resolution. nDAC has a sharper leading edge, which can be misinterpreted as higher resolution, but I doubt if this is natural. It may even be perceived as grain or slight ‘edginess’. It accentuates the edge more than the flow. nDAC’s higher resolution is in another area, and you understand this when you play a complex musical passage. When a big orchestra is playing in Tutti, nDAC never loses authority and brings about the different instrument groups in full clarity in space. NDX’ picture is a bit more blurred and the soundstage is a bit compressed between the speakers. nDAC soundstage is not only wider but also deeper. For soundstage fanatics, the nDAC is definitely the better choice. Thirdly, NDX provides a more easy listening session. Not that dynamics are lacking, on the contrary, the rhythmic drive and swing is wonderful, but some of the inner tension of the music seems to have been a little bit tamed. nDAC sounds more vivid and more upfront. When you compare them on the same volume level, you may wish to turn the volume up by NDX because of something lacking, and wish to turn the volume down by nDAC because something is in excess. This is partly due to nDAC’s stronger (and better controlled) bass fundament.

Is nDAC an upgrade to NDX? No, I would rather say, they are just two totally different dacs with two different sets of virtues and weaknesses. To make an analogy of their presentation, NDX is more communicative, like a musician who looks into the eyes of the audience from the first moment on stage; the nDAC on the other hand, is like an admired virtuoso who does not care about the audience. NDX alone is better for acoustical instruments and human voice, and for smaller ensembles; nDAC is better for larger ensembles and more complex music. Personally, if I were to choose between the two, I would be happier with NDX alone; but I can imagine many people will prefer the nDAC. It is a matter of personal taste and of synergy with the rest of the system.

What if you want the best of both worlds? You may try to spend ten times as much, but even then, it is not guaranteed. You know as experienced audio enthusiasts, that your selections are always based on some choices and some compromise.

The listening sessions that provide the basis of this write-up were made with both NDX and nDAC without external PS. It was simply easier to compare them ‘nu’, avoiding the complications of switching the connections of PS and additional warm-up periods etc. I can only say both devices profit substantially from connection to PS555, although not changing the basic sound characteristics. It would be interesting, though, if somebody else could compare them both with PS. Would they become more similar to each other, or would the differences be even more accentuated?

During these sessions, I used my HDX as source component. I used it both as S/PDIF digital source and as streaming server through ethernet network.

I am curious how differently, you will comment on your own experience with NDX and nDAC.

Posted on: 11 May 2011 by murkku

^^ Hehe, I have too. Even on a same day. With and without XPS2.

They both have very distinctive signature sound, so a demo is highly recommended. Power supply just refines that sound. They don't get similiar at all (haven't tried with 555, though). Even with USB-stick or a lowly Airport Express they both rock, but emphasize different things.

I prefer NDX's presentation as it seems to deliver the musical message better for me. NDX just sucks me into the music whereas DAC leaves me with more hi-fi sound but is not as engaging.

Posted on: 11 May 2011 by aysil

Originally Posted by Mr Underhill:

I am resolutely decided to enjoy the nDAC and not wonder in the grass is greener on the NDX side of the fence!

Mr Underhill,

Yours is a very correct position. They are both very good dacs. If a nDAC owner is fully satisfied with his device, there is no reason to look elsewhere. Only if one is not fully satisfied with nDAC, and feel disturbed by its slight shortcomings (which was true in my case), I suggest NDX may be more to your liking.

Originally Posted by pcstockton:

Originally Posted by aysil:

Patrick (pcstockton),

No, I think you misspelled. The two systems compared were:

First case (HDX connected with UPnP to NDX):

1)HDX+NDX

2)HDX+NDX+nDAC

Second case (HDX connected with S/PDIF)

1)HDX+NDX

2)HDX+nDAC

Thanks Aysil!

I am having a hard time correlating those four combinations with your initial post. Can you point to where you speak of the "Second Case"?

...

Patrick

Patrick,

You can not find any reference to the four cases in my initial post because, as I've said, the differences between the dacs compared were constant over the type of connection used. In fact most of the initial comparisons were made with the "second case", and then later confirmed also with the UPnP connection. The differences described must be a result of the dac sections, and I believe mostly of the analog output stages.

Later on the thread however, in a reply, I tried to describe the differences between the two different input variants of NDX. This introduces other variables. For example, the slightly wider soundstage of UPnP connection makes up for the slightly narrower presentation of the NDX - which makes sense of course because NDX, being mainly a stream player, must have been voiced primarily for its UPnP input.

Posted on: 11 May 2011 by totemphile

Originally Posted by Salmon Dave:

Originally Posted by pcstockton:

Has anyone compared the bare DAC to the bare NDX?

-patrick

Yes, me. Well, not on the same day, but I did own the DAC for a few months before ultimately moving it on. The NDX I tried extensively this last weekend.

Shame you deleted your subsequent reply, I was just about to say thanks for your comments when I noticed they have gone...

Thanks anyway, it was much more helpful than your comment above

Cheers

Posted on: 11 May 2011 by pcstockton

Many thanks for the clarification Aysil!

So would you say that, assuming you prefer the NDX, the nDac spoils what the NDX does well if played together? Was there a difference between the NDX>nDAC and the HDX>nDAC?

Thanks!

Patrick

Posted on: 11 May 2011 by aysil

Originally Posted by pcstockton:

So would you say that, assuming you prefer the NDX, the nDac spoils what the NDX does well if played together? Was there a difference between the NDX>nDAC and the HDX>nDAC?

Patrick,

I think we should see NDX as actually two devices in one: a stream client and a dac. If we use NDX and nDAc together, we are not spoiling what NDX does well, but skipping what NDX could have done well in its dac section and using an external dac instead.

I am trying to understand your last question. Hmm, this is interesting. I think you are asking: taking the internal dacs out of the equation by using the same external dac with both NDX and HDX, how do these devices (HDX and NDX) compare in their sonic character in how they play a music file on the network? Do the two different methods of playing remote files - UPnP stream reception of NDX and the file sharing playback of HDX - have different sonic signatures? This is exactly what is next on my agenda! This is off the topic of this thread, and I will try to answer this in a separate thread next week.

Posted on: 11 May 2011 by Simon-in-Suffolk

Aysil, if I cam help. Stream reception perhaps confuses things. The concept is more stream browsing, with the player akin to a web browser for a streamed audio, simplistically using XML over HTTP instead of HTML over HTTP to manage the fetching of audio, as a web browser would use HTML to manage audio or video playback on a web browser. The PnP manages its own transport protocol for the media file transfer, like a web browser would handle a media attacment such as Flash.

Alternatively file playback system uses file attachment protocols instead of HTTP to remotely mount the disk directory so the player can see the audio files as if they were on it's local storage.

The audio files transferred remain the same in both methods

However the algorithms/software to handle both ate very different, and as such in the real world we could expect sonic signature changes due to different patters of noise being loaded onto the internal power lines and other contamination from the RF harmonics generated by the digital electronics.

Posted on: 12 May 2011 by Salmon Dave

Originally Posted by totemphile:

Originally Posted by Salmon Dave:

Originally Posted by pcstockton:

Has anyone compared the bare DAC to the bare NDX?

-patrick

Yes, me. Well, not on the same day, but I did own the DAC for a few months before ultimately moving it on. The NDX I tried extensively this last weekend.

Shame you deleted your subsequent reply, I was just about to say thanks for your comments when I noticed they have gone...

Thanks anyway, it was much more helpful than your comment above

Cheers

Thank you for your kind words. I deleted it for diplomatic reasons - it's almost impossible to comment on the NDX's sound without direct comparison to the DAC (which was the point at issue anyway) and thereby offending people.

However, as I recall I said that the NDX had a very even, open and authoritative tone, whereas the DAC was more punchy and assertive. The NDX created a large scale picture in my system/room, a very enthralling experience, and has a lightness of touch which reminds me of my old CDI from 1993.

I'm still not convinced that passing CD through the SPDIF, i.e. separating CD replay out to 2 boxes, is ultimately beneficial.

My ideal box, as a mainly CD user, would be a CDX3 which sounded like the NDX and had digital inputs! What are the chances....

Posted on: 12 May 2011 by pcstockton

Originally Posted by aysil:

I think we should see NDX as actually two devices in one: a stream client and a dac. If we use NDX and nDAc together, we are not spoiling what NDX does well, but skipping what NDX could havedone well in its dac section and using an external dac instead.

Aysil,

Thanks again for the thoughts.

Posted on: 12 May 2011 by totemphile

Originally Posted by Salmon Dave:

I'm still not convinced that passing CD through the SPDIF, i.e. separating CD replay out to 2 boxes, is ultimately beneficial.

My ideal box, as a mainly CD user, would be a CDX3 which sounded like the NDX and had digital inputs! What are the chances....

Thanks for sharing your impressions anyway.

Posted on: 12 May 2011 by aysil

This is becoming a thanks series

Thanks Simon for the valuable information. I will try to use the correct terminology in my next post.

"Alternatively file playback system uses file attachment protocols instead of HTTP to remotely mount the disk directory so the player can see the audio files as if they were on it's local storage." Does this explain how HDX is playing remote files? Which devices use "XML over HTTP"?

Posted on: 13 May 2011 by Simon-in-Suffolk

Hi Aysil, perhaps getting a bit geeky now ;-). . UPnP uses XML. xML is often referred to as web 2.0. The idea is that Web 1.0 was about passive consuming via browsers and Web 2.0 was interactive control browsing via applications such as uPnP.

Both variants of Web use Mark up languages (ASCII text describing the coded functions). Web sites use HTML and web applications can use XML. And both use HTTP as the application container therefore HTML and XML have similarities when viewed in a text editor. A uPnP control app on say an iPhone would use XML over HTTP. The network player talking to the uPNP server would use XML over HTTP. The server talking to the renderer if that was different from the network player would use XML. Hopefully you get the idea?

From memory when I auditioned the HDX, I only remember mounting (connecting) files systems and directories, I can't remember using uPnP with it or whether it supports it, perhaps others can comment.

Simon