DAC-V1 after firmware update, what is happening?

Mike-B posted:

mat posted:

So does DSD sound better than PCM? Is it worth experimenting with?

YES - I've been playing DSD as a streamer (NDX) beta tester for quite a while 

So whilst I say yes, its a yes but ........ Most DSD is niche area stuff & the artist and/or studio is particularly focused on best possible quality SQ from the studio to end product.  This is probably 80% of why DSD recording sound better than PCM rather than DSD as a format per se.

DSD will initially sound quieter than PCM in most cases,  as I understand it its because it can't be noise shaped as can PCM & it means you need to up the volume to get the low level detail & that means the loud & dynamic levels are ........  loud & dynamic.

Its is harder to find DSD copy & especially so with run of the mill popular material - http://www.findhdmusic.com/alb...ch/?q=&fmt_dsd=1 - is a good place to find more or less everything that there is.    

It can be expensive compared to PCM,  but don't let that put you of,  I have found HighResAudio (a German www) a great place for competive pricing & one of the best DSD selections.  

Also - to experiment - look around on www for free sample tracks

for that matter, you will never encounter a pure DSD recording.

mixing is ALWAYS done in PCM, and while each track (sometimes many tracks per instruments, as for drums for example) can be recorded and stored in DSD, the mixing cannot be done in DSD, only in PCM (you can find reliable material on the net about the subject).

so actually what you hear as DSD is already double reconverted, once to PCM, and then back to DSD! just that you know... DSD is just a gizmo, for us, the consumers, IMHO! Naim offers it as support just because some part of the market seem to think this is the new kid on the block... and just because their SHARC DSP can be programmed to support DSD. better jumps you get from optimising the PCM-purposed code, as users already observed, as Naim was and is a hardcore PCM designer since it's very early days, and the expertise in the PCM field cannot be put aside just like that, for the latest gizmo on the market.

and as Mike-B correctly observed, the DSD recordings tend to sound better as the record companies that deliver them are way more of niche and audiophile oriented... while DSD is superior to PCM as digital archival purpose, DSD is - to me at least - unuseful as recording market product. the 172 does not support DSD and i couldn't care less! way more honest product in my views!

mat posted:

So does DSD sound better than PCM? Is it worth experimenting with?

Yes, if you can find it.  There are plenty of free DSD files available as testers on the Internet, mainly classical but occasionally others and, at one point, there was a free DSD download offered by David Ellias which is a great advert for DSD.  Personally I'm not convinced that the improvement is only because of the effort made by the producers as the 'realism' that some instruments have on a good DSD can be even better than 24 192 files imho 

does it only improve dsd files?

sjw posted:

does it only improve dsd files?

The firmware update has improved PCM playback significantly as well, if that is what you mean.  It appears that the re-optimisation of the DSP code has improved both DACs across the board.  In my experience of the last week, everything from youtube music videos through to locally streamed hi-res recordings, have all been given a welcome boost in SQ.  As a couple of people including myself have said above, it's not just about hearing more details in mid-range stuff like that, but the whole set up for me suddenly sounds so right.  

It's great being a Naim owner, I am loving all this, I have to admit.  And loving my DAC-V2.  

^ Just sounds so right- no,  'just sounds so delightfully right' sums it all up for me!

Following the instructions for applying the DAC-V1 firmware update, I first ran the Bitperfect test at 44.1khz/24bit. This test required me to check that the settings in the OS X Audio Midi Setup application on my Mac Mini were the same. In fact they were set at 44.1khz/16bit so I changed to 44.1/24 and the firmware update went fine.

However it got me wondering what the Audio Midi Setup settings should be for regular playback ? To be honest I have never used the Audio Midi Setup application and didn't even know it existed, and I don't really understand what settings need to be set to what values - music plays fine at 44.1/24 though it also played fine at 44.1/16. Should I set it to the highest bit rate ?

It's perhaps obvious that I haven't learnt the technical know-how of anything in digital music beyond ripping CDs to my NAS in ALAC, and playing music from there via iTunes on the  Mac Mini -> DAC-V1 -> rest of my system.

Just wanted to add to all of my fellow V1 owners contributions in this thread that  yes the VI is very V2 like

Thoroughly enjoying the sound, and as Songstream eluded to "wow that midrange" (so to speak lol) and yes indeed "delightfully right"

Will99 posted:

Following the instructions for applying the DAC-V1 firmware update, I first ran the Bitperfect test at 44.1khz/24bit. This test required me to check that the settings in the OS X Audio Midi Setup application on my Mac Mini were the same. In fact they were set at 44.1khz/16bit so I changed to 44.1/24 and the firmware update went fine.

However it got me wondering what the Audio Midi Setup settings should be for regular playback ? To be honest I have never used the Audio Midi Setup application and didn't even know it existed, and I don't really understand what settings need to be set to what values - music plays fine at 44.1/24 though it also played fine at 44.1/16. Should I set it to the highest bit rate ?

It's perhaps obvious that I haven't learnt the technical know-how of anything in digital music beyond ripping CDs to my NAS in ALAC, and playing music from there via iTunes on the  Mac Mini -> DAC-V1 -> rest of my system.

AFAIK, the 44/24 midi setting is to ensure that firmware updates pass      the bitperfect test and upload to the V1 without issues.  

Files with different sample rates and bit depths will play fine as the software players (such as Audirvana) changes the sample rates and bit depths automatically (as well as changing from DSD to PCM encoding).

Not sure whether iTunes does this or upsamples/down samples files (PCM) to a particular sample rate and bit depth (I only use iTunes for Internet radio).

sorry chaps but compared the updated DAC V1 to my Hugo and the Hugo is still better.

This is quite apparent when playing live music tracks with simple instruments. The instruments on the Hugo just sound more real and live "in the room"

I  just wanted to say that having lived with the latest v1.16 firmware update for a while now I agree with the majority of postings. The update is very worthwhile and at no extra cost to current owners.

Many thanks to everyone at Naim that made this happen.

Dave

analogmusic posted:

sorry chaps but compared the updated DAC V1 to my Hugo and the Hugo is still better.

This is quite apparent when playing live music tracks with simple instruments. The instruments on the Hugo just sound more real and live "in the room"

 Party pooper

I reckon firmware must take a little time to run in, it seems to sound better every time I listen. ;-)

Seriously though, despite having less time to listen this weekend, I did discover an album by Buddy Guy called 'Born to Play Guitar', and thoroughly enjoyed it.  Not once do I remember thinking about how good my system was sounding, and that's a sign that things are working pretty damn well.

Mortalcoil posted:

analogmusic posted:

sorry chaps but compared the updated DAC V1 to my Hugo and the Hugo is still better.

This is quite apparent when playing live music tracks with simple instruments. The instruments on the Hugo just sound more real and live "in the room"

 Party pooper

A real party pooper - more real and live "in the room" ?! how about "musicality"? I like Hugo but love DAC-V1!

Brilliant posted:

Mortalcoil posted:

analogmusic posted:

sorry chaps but compared the updated DAC V1 to my Hugo and the Hugo is still better.

This is quite apparent when playing live music tracks with simple instruments. The instruments on the Hugo just sound more real and live "in the room"

 Party pooper

A real party pooper - more real and live "in the room" ?! how about "musicality"? I like Hugo but love DAC-V1!

Plus, you have to wonder, who is it that needs convincing whether a Hugo sounds better?  Certainly not me, I don't own a Hugo, actually I've never even heard one.  I suspect several others interested in this thread don't own a Hugo either, so are unlikely to have a view on the matter.  Seems like a strange thing to mention.

^Exactly. I happen to own both - different functionality & sound, complimentary in my case. If I was listening to Buddy Guy though my choice would absolutely be the DAC-V1.

the DAC V1 sounds different to me than before, better in many ways, but something about the older presentation is also appealing. Am I the only one thinking this after a few days of hearing it?

analogmusic posted:

the DAC V1 sounds different to me than before, better in many ways, but something about the older presentation is also appealing. Am I the only one thinking this after a few days of hearing it?

 

I don't have the DAC V1 instead the Ndac..and have perhaps the same response .

Before the firmware upgrade I think my bare Ndac kind of sounded more as a piece - or my ears acclimatised in such a way.   After fwup there is more harmonic detail and coherence within lower bass right up to highest frequencies and an over all tightening and focus to music..., but in my system very low bass through to lower midrange has not improved quite as much as upper midrange through to treble.    

This is very slight and only noticable with some material but enough to draw attention.

Others have said this is not an issue if a power supply is fitted - of course.

So fwug is not entirely free unless I get an XPS from Santa .

Cheers

.........Though saying that, things have improved since I first installed it.   Perhaps my bits haven't burnt in properly just yet !

analogmusic posted:

the DAC V1 sounds different to me than before, better in many ways, but something about the older presentation is also appealing. Am I the only one thinking this after a few days of hearing it?

 

I agree that it sounded appealing before the update, wouldn't own it otherwise of course, but I am not left with the sense that anything has been lost after the update.  It's the mid-range clarity that stands out to me the most, but an observation beyond that is the bass seems deeper and less bloated than before.  I am finding the bass lines much easier to follow since the update, and with recordings where the bass is perhaps a bit overboard in the mix, it seems a little more forgiving now.  However, depending on what floats your boat, this could even be a negative to some.  You'll never please everyone, but certainly I'm in the very pleased camp, as I am sure you can all tell. :-)

analogmusic posted:

the DAC V1 sounds different to me than before, better in many ways, but something about the older presentation is also appealing. Am I the only one thinking this after a few days of hearing it?

 

I agree entirely. I've been having some of the most amazing headphone sessions since the update with my Senn HD 700's, but not quite as thrilled with the presentation through my speakers, as it shows up my poor little NAP 110 which was nice and bouncy and intimate before and now just seems underpowered, though it does sound fuller at lower volumes (a good thing).

Through headphones though, the imaging and soundstage is superb. Naim seem to have really placed emphasis on the 'room' putting you right in the middle of it. With the 700's, it seems as if there's no gap between left and right, the room being complete and whole even through the center and instruments falling naturally where they may - no forced hifi effects but one does hear more separation and layering and detail. But along with the detail, they seem to have made it more analog sounding by leaving (or adding?) some noise. It's very compelling and I can't quite get enough! Can's Ege Bamyasi and Future Days in particular mind blowing and revelatory despite having listened to both for decades. World, jazz, and EDM esp helped by the update. Some rock not so much (again mostly an amp thing with the Ls50's). 

SongStream posted:

analogmusic posted:

the DAC V1 sounds different to me than before, better in many ways, but something about the older presentation is also appealing. Am I the only one thinking this after a few days of hearing it?

 

I agree that it sounded appealing before the update, wouldn't own it otherwise of course, but I am not left with the sense that anything has been lost after the update.  It's the mid-range clarity that stands out to me the most, but an observation beyond that is the bass seems deeper and less bloated than before.  I am finding the bass lines much easier to follow since the update, and with recordings where the bass is perhaps a bit overboard in the mix, it seems a little more forgiving now.  However, depending on what floats your boat, this could even be a negative to some.  You'll never please everyone, but certainly I'm in the very pleased camp, as I am sure you can all tell. :-)

Pretty the same here, after the second weekend of listening, the bass is more defined and easier to follow

For me the real gem in the 1.16 firmware update for DAC-V1 is in its bettered performance with cd-files ripped to AIFF or WAV.

For many years I enjoyed my cd collection with the following system: Sony XA-7ES cd player, Audiolab 8000S and 8000P setup as a bi-amps and B&W Matrix 803s2 speakers with XLO cabling throughout.

Then I switched to Naim DAC-V1 and NAP100 and 2x5 meters of NACA5 driving PMC Twenty.23 speakers, and I ripped my whole cd collection to my MAC computer (I now have close to 4TB of good music stored, mostly as AIFF files). I really enjoy my new system, especially with good hi-res files, but I found myself listening less to my old cd files. They seemed to have lost a little blood and vitality on it's way compared to my memory of them on the Sony XA-7ES.

After the 1.16 update this has definitely changed. My cd collection has been revived and I think the DAC-v1 now dishes it out in a much more appealing and vibrant way.

Of course I also enjoy the new hi-res performance. I sense more detail and being a detail junkie I really enjoy this. I also enjoy the more meaty bottom and midrange. As for the good old Naim PRAT I haven't really decided if i believe it has been bettered, impaired or if it's just the same.

I would also be interested to hear if someone has checked out if there are notable differences in performance with file types such as AIFF, WAV, FLAC and ALAC. With the last firmware I preferred WAV and AIFF over FLAC and ALAC. I also subjectively experienced WAV as a tiny bit better than AIFF, but went with AIFF because of iTunes comfort, compatibility and metadata. I haven't had the time to make any 1.16 comparisons, so if anyone has done it I'd be glad to hear about it.

Will there also be a firmware update for the Supernait 1 dac?

Cheers

Ralf

Ralf2013 posted:

Will there also be a firmware update for the Supernait 1 dac?

 

Cheers

Ralf

Maybe in pure theory... But in practice I hardly doubt, as SN1 DAC neither has "user friendly" updating capabilities, nor SHARC DSP processor, like V1/NDAC does.

Brilliant posted:

I had never tried a NAP100 before, but since there was one available to me I thought I might borrow it to see what it is like with the DAC-V1. To my surprise it seemed much less transparent than the DAC-V1 (with the v1.16) i.e. in my main system the sound seemed  'dull' relative to my normal amps.  I tried the SNAIC and also via the RCA inputs. If really this is the case, it could be a bit of a dilemma as I believe many DAC-V1 users probably have it hooked up to a NAP100 (as it is deemed the natural match up).  Naim should  look at this and perhaps come up with a NAP100i  for this 'new' DAC-V1? Only IMHO of course.

I don't own the NAP100, none the less very interesting observation Brilliant.