NDS/555DR vs NDS/555DR+NDac - burn in time?

Also the ethernet cables make a very noticable difference to the sound. I use an audioquest vodka from switch to nds, and a meicord from synology nas to switch. This combo gave a big lift to the sound. The combo used does vary according to room and system so a bit of home dem and experimentation is advisable. 

Your nds/555dr combo are superb and will get better and better with attention to set up and some tweaking.

I was using Vodka from room switch to NDS but have moved on to Chord C Stream., which to me sounds more transparent (which is to say, doesn't really sound like anything). The AQ for me, had a slight edge which was a worthwhile trade off until I had a go on the C Stream. It's a variable, not to mention highly subjective area. Just for a change!

I tried the AQ cinnamon before and took it back, but it had 12yd. How important is the lan cable from the modem to the switch,  the one from the wall to the modem and the switch itself?

Had 12yd?

Sorry, 10m (not = 12yd?) ��

We use AQ Cinnamon between the streamer and the switch, the nas and the switch and the router and the switch. The first makes the biggest difference. The second makes nearly as much difference, and the last makes the least difference. At least, that's what we found. 

There is a www magazine test the looked into the effects on SQ of ethernet between the various components (& with a more complex home net than most) & found just as per HH (above)       #1 is Switch to NAS,  #2 (& nearly as important as #1)  Switch to NAS.  

I found the same using my current MeiCord (Cat6) cables swapping around some other cables (2x makes of Cat7 & an old damaged Cat5)  in fact I reckon both #1 & #2 are equally important.  What I could not detect was any difference in SQ with the Switch to Modem branch.   

Hey all,

I want to thank you for your help and give my latest impressions concerning my new NDS after now eleven weeks. It all changed completely:

In the beginning my new NDS/555DR-combo sounded a bit harsh and a bit flat and all my experiments ended in my strong impression that my old ndac is sure the better dac. It all was very disappointing. 

I did some changes (connected NDS and US via switch (TP-Link 8port TL-SG108E) and some good but no name cat7-cables) put the ndac out of the frame and waited and prayed. And became afraid in week 5 and 6 and 7 because it still was not good. But after week 8 it all began to change. 

Now I can say: Yes, NDS/555PS rules! Also with 202/200/FCXS/NAPSC it is really beautiful! Ok, I tried some upgrades and yes it sure was a benefit (282 and 250 will perhaps come later and I ordered the SL speaker cables...) BUT it was not really necessary! FOR ME THIS IS THE PROOF: SOURCE FIRST IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO! And the musicality of the NDS is hard to beat...

Best regards out of berlin!

Glad to hear it has all worked out after the usual frustrating burn in period.

Happy listening.

I am really happy to read your contentment Andi. I still believe however that NDS/555DR can only give its full potential in resolution, refinement and transparence from 252/250 level up. I would also have climbed up that ladder before considering SL speakers or even I/C for that matter. But this is all relative. To each its own.

Chag -   

The source first approach to system hierarchy has not failed me yet but I try to keep an open mind. It’s never straight cut and black and white and it will never work for all listeners in all rooms. But it’s never steered me wrong. The NDS being a case in point. The benefit was clear from the start and after that it just kept getting better and better – unlike your experience but with what sounds like the same result. Hook coined a phrase for the NDS contents “The NDS Retirement Village”. I have been a happy member of that community for some time. I’m just lost in my music and the HiFi is invisible and seldom thought about.

I am in a minority in not liking the 250. I think it tries too hard to sound clever and rather predictably, ends up sounding like it’s trying too hard. I haven’t changed my view after spending some time with the DR version. It may work a treat for you. I would not consider one without a long home audition. The over saturated and crash bang wallop presentation of the 250 is for me at odds with the grip, poise, subtlety and effortless delight of the NDS.  The latter is musical while the former tends to sounding mechanical. Your ears may think different. Your money your choice. As long as fun is had. 

AndiB - well done for sticking with it. It does take a while, but the result is rather good isn't it?
As you mention possible upgrades for the future - 282 / HiCap / 250 is a good, solid combo. I enjoyed mine (albeit with a SuperCap), but we never really got on together so it was changed for a pre-loved 252. 

You should demo as many combinations as possible, just to find the one you really enjoy.
Regardless of your final choice you will have a wonderful system.

Harry posted:

The over saturated and crash bang wallop presentation of the 250 . 

Having had a 250.2 for a while, Harry, I enjoyed your description. While a little over-the-top I wouldn't say you were wrong.  For all that, the 250.2 is great fun though. Given the choice between accuracy which is boring against some coloration which is fun I know which I'd chose.     

Harry posted:

The over saturated and crash bang wallop presentation of the 250 is for me at odds with the grip, poise, subtlety and effortless delight of the NDS. 

Not great reading for those toiling in the lower reaches, for whom the NAC282/ HCDR/ and NAP250.2 (or DR) represents the zenith of their Naim amplifier ambitions!

C.

I never liked the 250.2, though I'd never describe it as crash, bang wallop. I always found it a bit heavy and dull, and remember getting a lot of flack for calling it a fat old bloater. The 250DR seems to me a much better amplifier altogether, reminding me of the 300, which is my favourite Naim amplifier, though I've not heard the DR version of it. 

Harry posted:

I think it tries too hard to sound clever and rather predictably, ends up sounding like it’s trying too hard. I haven’t changed my view after spending some time with the DR version. It may work a treat for you. I would not consider one without a long home audition. The over saturated and crash bang wallop presentation of the 250 is for me at odds with the grip, poise, subtlety and effortless delight of the NDS.  The latter is musical while the former tends to sounding mechanical.

Whilst of course the NDS even when pumped up with 2 PSUs is utterly soporific in comparison with the CDS3 and CD555.

Hungryhalibut posted:

300, which is my favourite Naim amplifier, though I've not heard the DR version of it. 

Oh I have

Christopher_M posted:

Harry posted:

The over saturated and crash bang wallop presentation of the 250 is for me at odds with the grip, poise, subtlety and effortless delight of the NDS. 

Not great reading for those toiling in the lower reaches, for whom the NAC282/ HCDR/ and NAP250.2 (or DR) represents the zenith of their Naim amplifier ambitions!

C.

Naim are not the only brand on the planet. Some of us survived untraumatised with other brands (and in my case much cheaper equipment) on discovering the 250 was not the right way to go. Same for the 200/202 in my case. I got years of greater musical enjoyment than Naim offered at a quarter of the cost.

I think the 152 is an absolute belter. It shows up the 202 and 282 in the sound for outlay stakes.  I'd go from 152 to 252 and if I couldn't do it in one jump I'd look elsewhere in the interim. Other people's experiences will naturally differ. So what? Trust your ears, not mine.

MDS posted:

Harry posted:

The over saturated and crash bang wallop presentation of the 250 . 

Having had a 250.2 for a while, Harry, I enjoyed your description. While a little over-the-top I wouldn't say you were wrong.  For all that, the 250.2 is great fun though. Given the choice between accuracy which is boring against some coloration which is fun I know which I'd chose.     

I'm glad you got it.

Yes, somewhat emphasised for effect.

Like my impression of the 250

I enjoyed the NAP250.2.  While Harry's description is perhaps a bit OTT, I can perhaps understand a little for where the description is coming from.  There was a warmth to it that was perhaps not totally neutral and with that, a slight sense of fuzziness. I guess cramming so much into the one box of what in the NAP300 is spread across two boxes brought with it a penalty, however, It actually melded rather nicely with Naim's own speakers, although some others where the upper bass and lower mid have been already boosted to add warmth, I guess it could all just get a bit much. This warmth in the NAP250.2 I found was something that became worse with age - a service got things back to normal though.  I think this is why the NAP250.2 could come across as a bit slow for a Naim amp when insufficiently partnered; i.e. not enough source or pre-amp - the old mistake of partnering the NAP250.2 with a NAC202/Hicap, which was just a poor match.  Better by far, a NAC282 or above.

Richard - as ever excellent insight.  Is the 250DR a generally less fussy beast while retaining the virtues of the previous amp. I say this in the knowledge of it being successfully matched with 272, 172, Superuniti and even DAC V1?

Regards,

Lindsay

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Richard - as ever excellent insight.  Is the 250DR a generally less fussy beast while retaining the virtues of the previous amp. I say this in the knowledge of it being successfully matched with 272, 172, Superuniti and even DAC V1?

Regards,

Lindsay

Having had a demo of a 250DR in a system very similar to mine I'd say no, Lindsay.  The 250DR struck me as more refined, having a lower noise floor and tonally neutral. I didn't think it displayed the 250.2's characteristics at all.

Mike  

Lindsay, I haven't yet heard the NAP250DR so couldn't give you an opinion there.

MDS posted:

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Richard - as ever excellent insight.  Is the 250DR a generally less fussy beast while retaining the virtues of the previous amp. I say this in the knowledge of it being successfully matched with 272, 172, Superuniti and even DAC V1?

Regards,

Lindsay

Having had a demo of a 250DR in a system very similar to mine I'd say no, Lindsay.  The 250DR struck me as more refined, having a lower noise floor and tonally neutral. I didn't think it displayed the 250.2's characteristics at all.

Mike  

I agree: more neutral and more dynamic with greater control.

MDS posted:

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Richard - as ever excellent insight.  Is the 250DR a generally less fussy beast while retaining the virtues of the previous amp. I say this in the knowledge of it being successfully matched with 272, 172, Superuniti and even DAC V1?

Regards,

Lindsay

Having had a demo of a 250DR in a system very similar to mine I'd say no, Lindsay.  The 250DR struck me as more refined, having a lower noise floor and tonally neutral. I didn't think it displayed the 250.2's characteristics at all.

Mike  

I hope that's the case the because the experience I've had with a 250.2 was distinctly underwhelming and, frankly, dreadful.