new year's goodies - mixing NDX+XS2 into 172/200DR/S400

Well Cat, sounds like after your chat with Naim you have convinced yourself what you wanted to convince yourself. 

you got it backwards, Gary! i was already convinced, i just wanted to know how honest the Naim folks were. and they passed the test!

@analog: better is better! that some like coloration, ok, some of us like colored glasses... but that's not reality! and i'm curious, besides the NDS and Hugo how many REAL hi-end digital sources you listened to, at home?...(you're not obliged to answer, that was a rhetorical question)

maybe you haven't read well what i wrote, but on the S400, and through the XS2, the difference between the 172 as source and NDX was dangerously small...

source first means an amp below the source, as analog suggests. well, as Richard said, a lower spec'd amp, will require a lower spec'd speaker.

so how on earth will you really hear those tiny differences between digital sources nowadays, with a "blunter" amp and "blunter" speakers?

i don't get it!

You carry on believing that Cat. Upon reading your summary you seem to have gone full circle, you are a man of many contradictions. As they say, to each his own.

catalinmetal posted:

 

so how on earth will you really hear those tiny differences between digital sources nowadays, with a "blunter" amp and "blunter" speakers?

i don't get it!

Knowing that the Nait XS by far is not the top of the range amp in the Naim universe, it still allows me (with my speakers in my room) to appreciate every change of analogue and digital source I have ever made - be it cables, PSU, powerlines, mains socket, media player etc.

Catalin, to even question Naim honesty after all these years is getting a bit cynical isn't it? 

But anyway Cat, I fully expect sources at this level, HDX, DAC V1, NDX, 172, and the 272 to sound quite similar, and the reason is : they all use the same level of DAC chip. Now I have heard what PS555 does to HDX, but still...

Naim uses the 1704 for their top level sources, and as for Hugo, that is another beast.

I fully hear what my Chord Hugo is capable of, in my car stereo, in my Yamaha HT, on my 202.200, 282.200 and all the way up to 552/500

as for how I hear differences, that is the issue here. 

You hear what you hear, and I can't dispute that, but still knowing what I know today, I would buy the best source, then amp, and spend the remaining cash on speakers.

And somehow, the fact the Naim, Linn, and most forum members have learnt by experience the same thing can't be disputed either.

Hm, I've heard several streamers in my system, and a Hugo with two difference Macs and one PC and the differences were pronounced.  Indeed, it is for that reason I bought my Hugo.

ok... i won't carry on here... seems some have it figured already and the efforts of discovering things on one's own, aren't too good looking...

contradiction was one of the keys to evolution... if man would have sat confy in it's cave, would we have now Naim to listen to?

sometimes, test results can be altered in many ways, the same as our perception... important is to recycle until you fully understand, and why.

I've been following this thread for a while. And I have absolutely no idea what is it that you are trying to prove to yourself or anyone.

Looking at it from a bystander's position: there seems to be a theory, which you are now trying to prove by manipulating the evidence. 

At least that is how I see it

Cat, of course you are the only one to have discovered things for himself...... Contradicting oneself even in the same thread, paragraph or sentance is hardly a basis for valued judgements.

Adam Zielinski posted:

Looking at it from a bystander's position: there seems to be a theory, which you are now trying to prove by manipulating the evidence. 

manipulating the evidence?! that's a goodie!

too many detective movies, for you, perhaps?

it was simply a reported situation as i heard it... i am not trying to prove anyone - not on this forum anyway - nothing.

i was just made a sideways reference to source first sindrome: it does not apply everywhere! if you don't like my thread, why read it? and why post here? just skip it! if i trespassed a forum rule, i'm sure Richard would have warned me...not the case, so again, don't like it, please skip it!

analogmusic posted:

. You hear what you hear, and I can't dispute that, but still knowing what I know today, I would buy the best source, then amp, and spend the remaining cash on speakers.

However a better speaker doesn't necessarily make a system sound worse, And I would contend that one thing important for enjoyment is getting a speaker sounds best to the individual listener - we all have different preferences and different aspects of the sound of music that trigger our enjoyment. Personally, though I may be in a minority here, I would expect to spend more on speakers than the amp.

Of all components, at least above basic budget level, speakers have the greatest influence on the overall character of sound than any other individual item in the reproduction chain. For someone whose satisfaction is provided most by a absolute clarity of midrange, to whom lower bass is a distraction or at least unimportant, the requirements for a speaker are less demanding than for someone to whom music is incomplete and not fully satisfying unless what they hear includes the full frequency spectrum of all instruments at correct relative sound level.

The latter requires bass extension down to the lowest fundamentals in the music they listen to, needing speakers with a response that doesn't fall off att the bottom end (in their listening room), as no amount of improvement of signal input or amplification will provide what the speakers can't reproduce, Unfortunately, speakers with good bass extension that is also well controlled, clean and fast tend to be expensive, meaning that a balance would need to be struck out of any available budget.