Hicap DR, upgrade?.

Hi Pieman,

it depends on what you expect from improvements, but I'd say that much as a HiCapDR is an improvement over a HiCap.2, I would look for a nice, 2nd hand (or new..) CDX2.

Best

M

Thanks M, for your reply.

I have thought about a CDX2 , but many suggest a XPS helps to bring out the best of it.

I do like the smooth sound of the CD5 , a CDS3 has a similar approach I believe from other forum members comments.

Regards

Pieman,

Hi,

I agree with M in that I'd look to improve the CDP first.   The CDX2 is certainly more vibrant but is an excellent player especially with the XPS. But if you could find a CDS3 

Good luck,

Lindsay

I would opt here for source improvement too. A no brainer IMO is to go S/H CD5 XS + nDAC.

Just a different league than a bare CD5 XS or even a CDX2.   

Chag -

Chag... posted:

I would opt here for source improvement too. A no brainer IMO is to go S/H CD5 XS + nDAC.

Just a different league than a bare CD5 XS or even a CDX2.   

Chag -

Don't forget to add a 555PS to the nDAC while you're at it

On a serious note - I would look to upgrade your source if you'd like to change / improve something in your system.

CDX2 with an XPS would be a good start. 

CDS3 - there are some available from one specialist UK retailer.

Pieman,

I am using a bare, first generation CDX2 now, and it sounds wonderful even without an XPS. On the other hand, a CDS3 does not.

Best wishes with your choice,

Max

Upgrading to a HiCapDR is a worthwhile improvement over the older design but it stops short of transforming it.

When I had 202/HiCap/200 I added an NDX.  This worked very well with that combination so the suggestions of a CDX2 sound good to me.

If streaming interests you then now may be the time to take the plunge.

I wouldn't overlook the 272, this would replace five boxes with one and you would have scope to add an XPS2 later.  With all that kit to sell it probably wouldn't end up costing too much.

Richard

I would listen before I changed the CDP - I had a CD5 with Hicap and changed to CDS2/XPS. It was a bit better but not that much to my ears and not really worth the cost to change. I found a much bigger improvement by ditching CDs and going to streaming.

The CD5 is actually a very good player if you want to stay with CDs - it would certainly be worth trying your Hicap on it as I recall the Hicap being a lot better than a Flatcap on my CD5. That might give you the option of trading your Flatcap against a 2nd Hicap DR.

Thanks Guys, for all your suggestions.

I have to admit all options the sound viable. 

How much better can the sound be by streaming method ,compared to a CD of a identical recording?, as I have had limited exposure to this format of replay.

Regards

Pieman

Go listen for yourself! Some people's idea of better may not be yours. FWIW i would not swap a good CD player for any streamer from Naim or anyone else on a sound quality basis. Even the 'convenience' factor is over hyped IMO, so try it for yourself and don't listen to anyone else.

Hi Gary.

Good advice indeed.

I must admit sometimes people think because something is new or costs more, it has to be better than what you already have.

Regards,

Pieman. posted:

Thanks Guys, for all your suggestions.

I have to admit all options the sound viable. 

How much better can the sound be by streaming method ,compared to a CD of a identical recording?, as I have had limited exposure to this format of replay.

Regards

Pieman

In a good streaming setup I found that a streamer should soud as good as a comparable CD player from Naim, give or take differences in the internal DAC.

I would not expect any sound improvements.

As to convenience - once the network and NAS and UPnP server have been set up and are running correctly streaming is convenient. 

Must agree with Adam if a Streamer is set correctly it is a perfectly viable  alternative to a CD player, don't  miss mine at all and since I got rid of my Naim CD player I've purchased more  CDs than ever before.

Just my own option of course but do have a listen.

Re streaming, with renderer (aka transport) of comparable quality to the transport part of the CD player, and through the same DAC, streaming a lossless file identical to one on a CD nominally should sound identical. However, as streaming does not rely on reading a rotating disk in real time in the way CD does (albeit with a buffer), it has the potential to sound better because it doesn't need or have the error correction algorithms used by CD players to cope with missing or corrupt data from disk read errors, and the resultant effect on sound that could cause. However, that said, some people who have both CD players and streamers with a streaming collection ripped from the CDs report that they prefer some recordings on one, and others on the other, though the impression I get from various discussions (but it is only an impression) is that a majority prefer most of the music via the streamer, and CD for a select number of disks.

Streaming has added advantages of very small physical storage space for media, of no mechanical player to go out of alignment or wear out (instead, as the hard disks etc on which streaming files are stored can fail, backup copies are kept); of being able to browse and play any piece of music from your chair if you wish; of being able to download and play new purchases almost instantly; of giving access to higher resolutions than the 44kHz/16bits of CD ( not that they all sound better - but the option is there); and of online streaming services like Tidal and Qobuz if  they are of interest.

I changed to streaming when my last CD player reached the end of reliable life, and I recognised "electronic" storage (actually mainly not electronic!) as the future, and one that would avoid the regular servicing or replacement of worn-out mechanical parts of CD players.

With a working CD player the transition would be easier as there would be no need for intensive ripping to make your collection accessible.

Here we go again with the Streaming justification….. Just let the man decide for himself. All the technical reasons in the world why streaming 'ought' to sound better mean nothing if you hear it and are bored to tears. Let's move on.

Consider yourselves instructed!

gary yeowell posted:

Here we go again with the Streaming justification….. Just let the man decide for himself. All the technical reasons in the world why streaming 'ought' to sound better mean nothing if you hear it and are bored to tears. Let's move on.

Erm, Pieman did ask for suggestions as to how to improve his system, and how much better streaming might be compared to CD - why do you see the responses as "justification"?

Of course, yes, the OP will have to decide for himself, but presumably wouldn't have come here and asked if he wasn't interested in hearing the range of views any/all of us might offer!

Yawn.

gary yeowell posted:

Here we go again with the Streaming justification….. Just let the man decide for himself. All the technical reasons in the world why streaming 'ought' to sound better mean nothing if you hear it and are bored to tears. Let's move on.

Hi Gary,

I have your (former) HCDR at home, at night it keeps the 282 awake with its anti-streaming invectives... But it's a nice PSU-guy.

Ciao

Max

Hi all.

Thanks for all your thoughts to date.

I think that Hi fi as a subject always has, and always will be subjective in almost every aspect of the equipment involved.

This is a great thing.

Imagine a world with one box  and some speakers, that provided the only and ultimate sound quality to all applications available only because there is nothing else available to choose from ?.

Subjectiveness is what fills this place up .

Regards,

Pieman.

Pieman. posted:

Imagine a world with one box  and some speakers, that provided the only and ultimate sound quality to all applications available only because there is nothing else available to choose from ?. 

Sounds great to me! 

Hi CRISSU

It would take a lot of the headaches away ,and save a lot of the financial up and downs,.

Having a choice, making mistakes on the way , gives us all the experiences that we can share if desired.

That's what I am trying to say,

Cheers.

It seemed like such a nice idea, but then I remembered the Morlocks 

Pieman. posted:

Imagine a world with one box  and some speakers, that provided the only and ultimate sound quality to all applications available only because there is nothing else available to choose from ?. 

I'm imagining. Imagining that it has managed to be designed to reproduce as if I were in the room with the artist playing. It is fantastic (except when the artist has an off-day (=bad recording))

Less idealistic imagining of it: clear and accurate, with nothing removed, diminished or added. Sounds great to me. (Not sure it would sound as great to everyone else.)

And the reality if it were to happen: compressed, no proper bass but maybe some upper bass exaggeration to bring out the beat. Awful! 

ChrisSU posted:

Pieman. posted:

Imagine a world with one box  and some speakers, that provided the only and ultimate sound quality to all applications available only because there is nothing else available to choose from ?. 

Sounds great to me! 

Are you by any chance suffering from Ostalgia?

Everybody same car, tv, audio, all sportsmen using doping.

:-)