Idly wondering (NDX, NAP 300), always dangerous
Posted by: nickpeacock on 01 December 2015
But then I have this little niggling voice whispering NAP 300 (perhaps used, for eventual DR-ing).
My rational brain says it's one or the other for now, but which first? (Actually my rational brain says stick with what you have, but who wants rational?) Should I put off all thoughts of NAP 300 for now?
[PS - yes I will audition, so please spare me that reply. And no I will absolutely never be able to afford NAC 552, so spare me that one also...]
I'm interested in where the difference lies, is the NDX re-clocking the S/Pdif data on the output stream (both must re-clock the input stream from the Ethernet)?
Allante: If you can manage to read to the end of my post before selectively quoting me, you will see what I said about the 300. Of course a 300 is better than a 250: it's just a matter of deciding what one needs/wants.
Allante: If you can manage to read to the end of my post before selectively quoting me, you will see what I said about the 300. Of course a 300 is better than a 250: it's just a matter of deciding what one needs/wants.
It also depends on the speakers; with something easy to moderately hard to drive there's be less difference, with speakers that are very hard to drive there'll be more difference.
I was just trying to point out that if the OP went the 300 route, he wouldn't be far off the 250DR path.
No offence to you, in fact I was giving praise to you. As a proud owner of an 250DR!
""But then I have this little niggling voice whispering NAP 300 (perhaps used, for eventual DR-ing).""
Hugh, I agree speakers would make a difference, just trying to make sure the OP stays true to his first thought!
I was just trying to point out that if the OP went the 300 route, he wouldn't be far off the 250DR path.
No offence to you, in fact I was giving praise to you. As a proud owner of an 250DR!
My point is that I was not simply saying 'get what I've got'. Yes, the 250DR is more like a 300 than a 250.2, but a 300DR is better than any of them, and the OP can choose whichever they prefer or can afford.
I'm interested in where the difference lies, is the NDX re-clocking the S/Pdif data on the output stream (both must re-clock the input stream from the Ethernet)?
On Ethernet it goes without saying since it arrives as packet data which is potentially out of sequence or with duplicates and all manner of network specific foibles which must be dealt with to put the data back into a consistent stream. In this respect, even a Mac mini will be doing reclocking. I guess that comes down to how accurate the internal clock of the unit is.
As stated in their own marketing bumpf on the website, it uses a RAM-buffer master clock as in the nDAC. Yeah sounds fancy but this is how nearly all reclocking works these days. The simple principle is "do not trust the timing of the supplied data - assume it is wrong and redo it". So data goes into memory (forgiving of timing) and is fed out according to the NDX clock. It is basically a message queue at the bit level.
But in any event we are all in agreement, the OP, Me, and you.
My intentions is never to attack a Forum member, but to share and give information when I can!
Enjoy your gear!
Speculation is entertaining but the proof is in the listening. I know that in my system the Naim DAC sounds different depending on the digital source fed into it. It also sounds different if a different cable is used to feed it. I don't know if this applies to the Hugo and hopefully some users who have run their Hugos with different digital sources will chip in.
If this does not happen you will need to listen before you buy. If you can't do that and have no choice but to speculate, conventional wisdom says that a NDX will not sound any different from what you are now using. In the absence of objective personal experience, this gives it to the 300. A 300 will happily take an NDS without losing the plot. Meaning a 300 might be a more cost effective long term purchase.
I own a Hugo and have fed it with two streamers, including a Qute 2, a PC, a Macbook Pro, a Mac Mini, a Virgin Tivo and a WD TV Live and I can assure anyone interested that every single one sounded different. I've also used pretty much every input on the Hugo, sometimes with the same front end. After much listening I opted for a Mac Mini running Audirvana to which I later added a usb regen which further improved it. Despite what I have been told about other inputs being better this option was clearly superior for me and incredible value for money. It baffles me how much people argue that there is no difference, often without having listened, when it is so easy to demonstrate that there is. Anyone in the NW of the UK is more than welcome to pop by and listen for themselves providing you don't play jazz or The Smiths
HH correctly, as so often, identifies that the issue is 'want', not 'need'. As Glenn Campbell would also have said...
The discussion is helping to coalesce my thinking.
I'm interested in where the difference lies, is the NDX re-clocking the S/Pdif data on the output stream (both must re-clock the input stream from the Ethernet)?
On Ethernet it goes without saying since it arrives as packet data which is potentially out of sequence or with duplicates and all manner of network specific foibles which must be dealt with to put the data back into a consistent stream. In this respect, even a Mac mini will be doing reclocking. I guess that comes down to how accurate the internal clock of the unit is.
As stated in their own marketing bumpf on the website, it uses a RAM-buffer master clock as in the nDAC. Yeah sounds fancy but this is how nearly all reclocking works these days. The simple principle is "do not trust the timing of the supplied data - assume it is wrong and redo it". So data goes into memory (forgiving of timing) and is fed out according to the NDX clock. It is basically a message queue at the bit level.
I think you'll find that they all do that for the Ethernet stream, even down to the UQ (they just don't specifically mention it in the literature of the others).
The main difference in the nDAC is using multiple switched crystal controlled master clocks to do the adaptive clocking for the S/Pdif signal. I don't believe that the ND5 does that for its S/Pdif inputs (I believe it uses a more traditional variable adaptive re-clocking for the S/Pdif buffer)
Hi Nick,
The Martin Logan Electromotion ESLs have an unusual load characteristic, from their literature...
6 Ohms, 1.6 @ 20kHz. Compatible with 4, 6 or 8 ohm rated amplifiers.
That 1.6 is very low; it's not a problem from a power handling perspective as there's little musical energy in the higher harmonics, but from the perspective of the electrical load to an amplifier, that's HARD (you'll definitely need high inductance speaker cables with these!).
Whether such a load affects you choice of power amp, only you can decide; but, in the circumstances, I would strongly recommend auditioning both power amps with your speakers.
I own a Hugo and have fed it with two streamers, including a Qute 2, a PC, a Macbook Pro, a Mac Mini, a Virgin Tivo and a WD TV Live and I can assure anyone interested that every single one sounded different. I've also used pretty much every input on the Hugo, sometimes with the same front end. After much listening I opted for a Mac Mini running Audirvana to which I later added a usb regen which further improved it. Despite what I have been told about other inputs being better this option was clearly superior for me and incredible value for money. It baffles me how much people argue that there is no difference, often without having listened, when it is so easy to demonstrate that there is. Anyone in the NW of the UK is more than welcome to pop by and listen for themselves providing you don't play jazz or The Smiths
Cheeky bugger! Still, it will save my putting a load of Smiths and ECM albums on a memory stick. And it's too cold oop north. Jazz at Berlin Philharmonic is sounding mighty fine here at the moment, even though I'm slumming it without Hugo to help!
G
I recently made the comparison and, like yourself I didn't find them to sound exactly the same 
Which one did you prefer?
Which one did you prefer?
I preferred the Hugo. I do think it's system dependant however and can see why others may prefer the 2Qute in their set up.
Huge posted:Hi Nick,
The Martin Logan Electromotion ESLs have an unusual load characteristic, from their literature...
6 Ohms, 1.6 @ 20kHz. Compatible with 4, 6 or 8 ohm rated amplifiers.
That 1.6 is very low; it's not a problem from a power handling perspective as there's little musical energy in the higher harmonics, but from the perspective of the electrical load to an amplifier, that's HARD (you'll definitely need high inductance speaker cables with these!).
Whether such a load affects you choice of power amp, only you can decide; but, in the circumstances, I would strongly recommend auditioning both power amps with your speakers.
Huge, many thanks for this. Sorry for the late reply. I read about this sort of thing when auditioning and buying the speakers. What these figures mean in numerical terms is beyond my basic (gsce-level) science. I use NACA5 - is that ok? I've never noticed any issues driving the MLs with my 250.2. What, sonically, should I watch out for if I were to DR the 250.2 or upgrade to 300?
Hi Nick,
Speaker cables first as that's the easy one: NAC A5 is fine with a minimum of 3.5m each side, in fact it's more than fine; electrically, it's ideal! With these speakers I'd actually be very wary of using anything else, particularly cables that the manufacturers claim are compatible, be don't actually publish the capacitance and inductance figures (for instance the Tellurium Q cables).
Sound-wise, the effects are very difficult to guess at, My expectation is that (in addition to the usual benefits from the 300) the better drive from the 300 will give a more natural presentation to the extreme high frequency, and may also improve the 'transparency' of the midrange. But this is just a guess. Auditioning them is the only way to really know.
For any speaker it's impossible to predict exactly what faults will arise when an amp with insufficient capability is used, and further more, the balance of these faults also varies dependant on the characteristics of the power amps being used. The only way to learn how a speaker behaves with different amps is to listen to it with different amps!
Thanks, Huge - very interesting. I chose panels because of their transparency so I'll be intrigued to find out (and report) what a 250DR or 300 can do.
Originally posted by Hugh:
""Sound-wise, the effects are very difficult to guess at, My expectation is that (in addition to the usual benefits from the 300) the better drive from the 300 will give a more natural presentation to the extreme high frequency, and may also improve the 'transparency' of the midrange. But this is just a guess. Auditioning them is the only way to really know.""
It's know running away from that little voice in your ear, but I agree with Hugh, the only sure way is an demo.
Then you can confirm what the vast majority has posted on this Forum.
250.2/250DR/300/300DR, I know the obvious, but to satisfy that little voice in your ear, you might as well demo the 300DR, what the heck.
Then you will know for sure��
Enjoy your gear!
Originally posted by Nick:
"But then I have this little niggling voice whispering NAP 300 (perhaps used, for eventual DR-ing).""
Sorry, trying to get adjusted to the new format meant to put this on the last reply!
Hi Nick
just to go back to topic
as an NDX. - 300 user, you in for a treat as it is a beautiful combination
regards Hilary.
PS mine is in for DR as soon as they let my drug. Oops! Naim dealer let them send it in. 1st of February I hope, after which I can enlighten you as to the benefit of the upgrade
Ok Hilary - looking forward to your views!
HungryHalibutSo I'd get an NDX. This has the benefit of being the same size as the rest of the boxes.
I should also, very belatedly, pay tribute to HH's appreciation of my design ethos. It really does matter to me whether the boxes are the same size (hence my oft-stated irritation at the NAPSC...)