DAC

analogmusic posted:

 

.......All hi fi replay is a balance of compromises.  

 

Mine isn't, it's perfect.....except if you play Metallica on it...there you go, compromise made.

NJB posted:

Now, as a guy that works on contracts, I could take issue with Richards words about ‘within budget and design briefs’. Although not purposely crippled or held back, what you have stated is the reality that the design team stop seeking improvements once they hit the buffers of money or design brief. Thus the design is optimised to a point but who is to say whether it could be taken further. 

OK, take a situation where new Naim device N is designed by R&D.  It sounds great but it starts to look like it may be slightly over budget. In this situation every aspect of the BOM will be examined to see how it can be brought within budget without impairing performance. It may not even be possible, in which case the selling price may have to be increased. It happens. Why? because, as I said above, performance has always been, and always will be, Naim's top priority.

Richard - my comment was based on the ‘information’ from Simon that the 272 had an older and less performant DSP processor than the NDS, Nova and others. The immediate question is obviously ‘why?’ Designing to a price and managing performance to fit a hierarchy seem rather like two sides of the same coin to me. Take the 272 - an item that has somewhat discombobulated the Naim hierarchy. Say it was being designed to sell for £3,300, which is about what it was when first released. The designers find a new chip that would increase the price by say £250, but would raise the performance above that of the NDS. What do they do? Limit the product or upset the hierarchy? It’s an interesting question of strategy, I’d have thought. 

250 gbp DAC chip to bridge the gap between a 272 and even NDS?

blimey

Digital doesn’t work like that Nigel.

the 272 uses a delta sigma DAC and the NDS uses a true 24 bit resistor ladder DAC 

there are no 250 gbp DAC chips and that’s why Chord and Rob Watts built their own DAC chip called pulse Aray

most of the magic though is in the digital filter processing in any Chord DAC

Hungryhalibut posted:

Richard - my comment was based on the ‘information’ from Simon that the 272 had an older and less performant DSP processor than the NDS, Nova and others. The immediate question is obviously ‘why?’ Designing to a price and managing performance to fit a hierarchy seem rather like two sides of the same coin to me. Take the 272 - an item that has somewhat discombobulated the Naim hierarchy. Say it was being designed to sell for £3,300, which is about what it was when first released. The designers find a new chip that would increase the price by say £250, but would raise the performance above that of the NDS. What do they do? Limit the product or upset the hierarchy? It’s an interesting question of strategy, I’d have thought. 

Except that the report that the NAC-N272 has "an older and less performant DSP processor" than the NDS is incorrect.  See my post above.  Steve Sells confirmed that it's the same 21489 processor used in the NAC-N272 as in the NDS etc..

I think Nigel is using 'Chip' as a generic term, Analog - if we phrase it that by spending an extra £250 on overall component cost you get a significant uplift in performance then...

Carry on...

Naim use IIR filters which are half band... simpler calculations for the digital filter to perform. 

It doesn’t need to perform calculations like chord FPGA processors do which use large FIR filters

So spending money on a big processing chip isn’t going to make much difference to the sound in a Naim digital source.

the magic in a Naim source is in how well the whole componentry has been designed to work and extreme attention to detail. 

The nds uses heavy brass plates on sensitive components to decouple it from sound vibration from the speaker. 

Also power supply arrangements are different so not that simple as spending an extra 250 quid

 Thanks - I have a reasonable understanding of how these things work. You didn't quite get Nigel's question....

james n posted:

I think Nigel is using 'Chip' as a generic term, Analog - if we phrase it that by spending an extra £250 on overall component cost you get a significant uplift in performance then...

Carry on...

The DSP 21489 costs x1ea from Mouser is in the £15 to £21 brkt depending on spec.

I did get Nigel’s question and I guess Richard has answered it already

i suppose those who have owned things like a 552 should know this already but it isn’t just parts

it is also the labor cost involved in building precision equipment like a 552 or an NDS. If only one could get a fantastic sound with only a 1704 chip. No it’s not that simple at all. 

As for upsetting the strategy

the 250 dr 300dr and 500 dr all share the same 009 transistor as the statement

did it upset the hierarchy?

nigel upgraded from his 250 dr to a 300 dr and found it worth his money  

I have a NDAC and love the improvement it brought to the NDX. Sold my NDX and kept the NDAC. I hope NDX2 can make me sell the NDAC but I doubt it. It is the 1704K and the components in the DAC that makes the difference.  I had the Chord Qute before and although it is high resolution, the sound is not rounded or full enough for me. It is on the lighter side of neutral, touching brightness. Not my cup of tea. What about the Hugo? I cannot live with a dying battery which is not user replaceable. The Qutest? Aesthetically it does not match. 

analogmusic posted:

I did get Nigel’s question and I guess Richard has answered it already

 

i suppose those who have owned things like a 552 should know this already but it isn’t just parts

it is also the labor cost involved in building precision equipment like a 552 or an NDS. If only one could get a fantastic sound with only a 1704 chip. No it’s not that simple at all. 

As for upsetting the strategy

the 250 dr 300dr and 500 dr all share the same 009 transistor as the statement

did it upset the hierarchy?

nigel upgraded from his 250 dr to a 300 dr and found it worth his money  

Of course it’s not that simple. I’m not a complete idiot, you know. I was talking about a hypothetical magic game changing component, and how Naim might respond to that hypothetical situation. 

And Richard - yes I saw your response and thanks for the clarification. That’s why I put ‘information’ in inverted commas. 

Harry posted:

It might seem a bit over simple, old fashioned even,  and perhaps not the done thing in this weeks brave new digital world, but I've always found that the best way to assess a DAC and in the process, not waste my money, is to go listen to as many as possible and buy the one that that I like the most. The problem with ears, even golden ones, is that the pair attached to your head are not those of the reviewer. 

I've lost count of the number of breakthrough products that had everyone raving that turned out to be not all that much really.

Oh, come on, Harry. Where's the fun in doing that? Buying a DAC on the basis that you liked the sound of it, and sitting there enjoying the music for year after year must be really boring.  

No, you be far better off reading lots and lots of Hi-fi magazine reviews and fora, scrutinising carefully what others like and especially what the technical specifications are, and buy the latest most-hyped DAC you can find, preferably on-line.  And the beauty of this approach is that this world changes so quickly that you can repeat the process every few months, and have a different box to look at on the rack, probably with different coloured LEDs, and bore your mates down the pub with details of the latest chip-set you've just bought.  The DAC never gathers dust because it doesn't stay on the rack long enough. Nor does it ever go out of warranty because it has been moved-on for the latest DAC before the warranty expires.  

I really don't think you understand this hi-fi hobby at all. 

MDS posted:

Oh, come on, Harry. Where's the fun in doing that?

I'm all funned out.

I've had so much fun that that it's turned me all serious in my old age.

Seriously happy and content too, by some bizarre coincidence.

Harry posted:

It might seem a bit over simple, old fashioned even,  and perhaps not the done thing in this weeks brave new digital world, but I've always found that the best way to assess a DAC and in the process, not waste my money, is to go listen to as many as possible and buy the one that that I like the most. The problem with ears, even golden ones, is that the pair attached to your head are not those of the reviewer. 

I've lost count of the number of breakthrough products that had everyone raving that turned out to be not all that much really.

Gosh, Harry, splendid advice, now why didn’t I think of this, listen before I buy.

It’s hard to comprehend  how stupid  I must have been!

Thankfully there are people like you on here to show me the way. 

.sjb

Harry advice is quite interesting 

so he assumes every he listens to a DAC there are identical components each and every time

including the mood and ears of the listener?

analogmusic posted:

Harry advice is quite interesting 

so he assumes every he listens to a DAC there are identical components each and every time

including the mood and ears of the listener?

How do you determine if you like a component or not ?

Purchase the component that gives you the most enjoyment is surely the way and to be certain, listening to it over a long period in your own home and system. This should remove 'being in the right mood' from the equation too.

well I liked this explanation.

"Live music may be viewed as a continuously pulsating wavefront. If you hold your hand up, you can almost feel it. Recorded music is a coded narrative simulacrum of that pulsing wavefront. If anything in the recording or playback chain interrupts, bends, truncates, or haphazardly disrupts the original (live) continuity—all the world's smart guys can never restore its hyperfragile relationships of time, frequency, and amplitude. Love, music, and poetry live only in the undamaged continuity of those relationships. (Unlike the stock market or election polling, music is not a stochastic process.)

In home stereo, accurate tonal characters and lifelike rhythms are the surest indicators of an unmolested musical narrative. If we look at audio historically, it's pretty obvious that digital has been (mostly) hammer-and-tongs rough on this sacred continuity. Whether in the recording studio or at home, digital's punch-press aggressiveness can be recognized by the (usually) hard, mechanical nature of its playback.

An impressive spec sheet and a hefty price tag is guarantee of only one thing, and that sure ain't how good it is going to be at playing music.  5 star reviews in hifi rags can largely go and do one as well.  Not to say I always disagree with what's said, but equally there are times where I can only assume the writer was drunk and got confused.  

For us it is usually what we think when the candidate goes back, that determines its desirability. How the system sounds when it's back to the original configuration. 

There are all sorts of indicators. Depends on lots of things. And not being in a hurry.

Amazing... and all the OP did was to ask whether the nDAC would be an upgrade to HDX and NDX.....

Hungryhalibut posted:

analogmusic posted:

I did get Nigel’s question and I guess Richard has answered it already

 

i suppose those who have owned things like a 552 should know this already but it isn’t just parts

it is also the labor cost involved in building precision equipment like a 552 or an NDS. If only one could get a fantastic sound with only a 1704 chip. No it’s not that simple at all. 

As for upsetting the strategy

the 250 dr 300dr and 500 dr all share the same 009 transistor as the statement

did it upset the hierarchy?

nigel upgraded from his 250 dr to a 300 dr and found it worth his money  

Of course it’s not that simple. I’m not a complete idiot, you know. I was talking about a hypothetical magic game changing component, and how Naim might respond to that hypothetical situation. 

And Richard - yes I saw your response and thanks for the clarification. That’s why I put ‘information’ in inverted commas. 

what magic game changing component could exist? Naim has always been about Power supplies first.

The DR 009 transistor is the recent innovation and also the DR regulators were implemented in the Hicap and Supercap...

As for chipsets, after so many years, Naim still is using 1704, and also well unless Naim decide to implement FIR filters which require FPGA like Chord electronics, then there is not much to be gained.

In any case, Naim would sensibly implement the best innovations in the top kit and then slowly trickle some/most of it down....the statement got the 009, and DR regulation and then it slowly trickled down.........

 the more expensive the Naim, the more complex it gets internally, and that's how Naim I guess justify the pricing.

That's why the ND555 now has some "low voltage differential signalling".... and 13 voltage regulators which are similar to the ones used in the statement amplifier.

it is perhaps the reason that the op never appeared again after his original question.....

My answer to the op, which is the answer of the majority of the members having added the ndac to ndx and hdx:  yes, the ndac improves the ndx and hdx.  the hugo too, but it is a different question.....

Richard Dane posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

Richard - my comment was based on the ‘information’ from Simon that the 272 had an older and less performant DSP processor than the NDS, Nova and others. The immediate question is obviously ‘why?’ Designing to a price and managing performance to fit a hierarchy seem rather like two sides of the same coin to me. Take the 272 - an item that has somewhat discombobulated the Naim hierarchy. Say it was being designed to sell for £3,300, which is about what it was when first released. The designers find a new chip that would increase the price by say £250, but would raise the performance above that of the NDS. What do they do? Limit the product or upset the hierarchy? It’s an interesting question of strategy, I’d have thought. 

Except that the report that the NAC-N272 has "an older and less performant DSP processor" than the NDS is incorrect.  See my post above.  Steve Sells confirmed that it's the same 21489 processor used in the NAC-N272 as in the NDS etc..

That’ll be why it sounds so damn good then!

G

Patu posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

I wonder why the 272 has the older DSP processor, given that it was released after all the other products mentioned, other than the Nova. 

Maybe it would’ve sounded too good with the better DSP.

Interesting that the 272 does indeed use the ADSP 21489, there were several posts - and I think even from Naim (?) saying a different ADSP was used around the launch time  - perhaps that was for a prototype or or purely incorrect. If anyone can whip the top of the 272 they should be able to confirm

S