Is the ND555 now the pinnacle of sound?

Music reproduction peaked in the late 1980s with high quality speakers, tube amplification and the Linn Sondek with Koetsu cartridges. All that we have been doing since is trying to replicate that quality digitally and more conveniently. 

Yes. I’ve not been able to hear a single weakness in the ND555’s ability.

In theory..digital sound will continue to improve for quite come time ...till it gets to a point where you will not be able to hear the slightest little changes that occur...then prices should start to drop slowly ..

In 10 or 20 years ? What's next won't be about adding more, just better at making sense with what we have now.

The ND555 sounds very good indeed ... but it is a matter of taste. The analogue reconstruction uses rather old but hugely loved and highly respected and understood ladder DAC technology along with, by some people’s standards, a relatively modest filter kernel size. However  attention to detail in the implementation, the analogue filter, the current to voltage converter etc is probably second to none... but it is limited by the DAC technology used. I personally have got used to hearing things in a different way with some of the newer approaches... so the ND555 is not the pinnacle of digital audio reproduction for me, but it’s a mightily impressive implementation and wonderful design and engineering.

Kiwi cat posted:

Music reproduction peaked in the late 1980s with high quality speakers, tube amplification and the Linn Sondek with Koetsu cartridges. All that we have been doing since is trying to replicate that quality digitally and more conveniently. 

You’re being very generous to the LP12, though if you only include digital devices it has s good chance against them. Don’t forget reel to reel tape if you’re talking of the best.

Nice collection of comments again!

Kiwi cat posted:

Music reproduction peaked in the late 1980s with high quality speakers, tube amplification and the Linn Sondek with Koetsu cartridges. All that we have been doing since is trying to replicate that quality digitally and more conveniently. 

Personal taste on the valve amps angle KC; but that aside, I think you're pretty much spot on. The ND555 (at its performance peak) is a CD copying/replay machine.

GIGO.

John.

yeti42 posted:

Kiwi cat posted:

Music reproduction peaked in the late 1980s with high quality speakers, tube amplification and the Linn Sondek with Koetsu cartridges. All that we have been doing since is trying to replicate that quality digitally and more conveniently. 

You’re being very generous to the LP12, though if you only include digital devices it has s good chance against them. Don’t forget reel to reel tape if you’re talking of the best.

 

Also very generous to Koetsu cartridges--not everyone's cup of tea.  I agree about reel-to-reel.

Well the pinnacle of a Naim source

Digital audio without room correction is missing the point. Long way for audio company to catch up. 

In the very early 80's my father worked as a government photographer. One of his assignments was at the Cranfield institute of research and technology. I remember him coming home and telling me of this amazing silver reflective disc and machine that he had been photographing, saying that it would one day replace records. He told me that he'd asked one of the top professors if it was as good as a record, his reply was "maybe in 30 or 40 years it will be".

How right he was!

kaydee6 posted:

Digital audio without room correction is missing the point. Long way for audio company to catch up. 

That's a very fair statement, I do tend to agree.

How can anyone say until they’ve heard the ND555, and compared to all other sources? 

And as that would only be as measured against their desire for sound, a consensus of many people doing the same would be needed before a conclusion can be reached.

kaydee6 posted:

Digital audio without room correction is missing the point. Long way for audio company to catch up. 

Room correction is not the point of digital audio!

However I agree that a potential bonus when in the digital domain is the capability to ‘tune’ the sound far more directly, accurately and possibly with less undesirable side-effects than with analog circuitry - though a DSP device can be added into replay of vinyl to do the same, and Linn and Naim have already done that to enable bettr RIAA equalisation, whence adding additional DSP before the DAC would be simple.

BUT, electronic room correction is not the be-all and end-all, can’t correct some room problems, and can caus espeaker or amp damage if attempting to apply high levels of boost to compensate for nulls in the room. Acoustically, roomtreatment is far preferable, and for certain problems the only real solution - DSP correction can then be the ‘icing on the cake’.

Of course, DSP also provides an opportunity to ‘correct’ poor recordings, e.g. those with diminished (or emphasised) bass, etc, which is no more wrong than any other manipulation of the sound, and could make the music more enjoyable...

>. Acoustically, roomtreatment is far preferable, and for certain problems the only real solution - DSP correction can then be the ‘icing on the cake’.

indeed DSP and it can diminish the fidelity and naturalness of a track on playback too, as the so called compensations also have their errors, distortions and artefacts... DSP is not a free lunch... and this is quite evident, at least to me, with a well known Scottish hifi company.

 If it wasn’t it wouldn’t be naim, yet restricted to digital replay. My guess it will be within the ballpark of a CD555. 

Kiwi cat posted:

Music reproduction peaked in the late 1980s with high quality speakers, tube amplification and the Linn Sondek with Koetsu cartridges. All that we have been doing since is trying to replicate that quality digitally and more conveniently. 

Hi Kiwi cat.

Just to add my two pence worth.

I am lucky to to have my original 80/90s active 250"s system in one room and the latest active 500's set up in another, and as good as the old system is there no comparison to the latest set up. I think many people look back with rose tinted glasses, remembering the first proper system they heard and being astounded, many years later you have improved your system many times and you are un-impressed by the old system. 

It's a bit like tv size, you get used to 60inch very quickly and the old large 32inch looks small now.

I, too, was never a real koetsu fan.

Kiwi cat posted:

Music reproduction peaked in the late 1980s with high quality speakers, tube amplification and the Linn Sondek with Koetsu cartridges. All that we have been doing since is trying to replicate that quality digitally and more conveniently. 

Seriously?

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

>. Acoustically, roomtreatment is far preferable, and for certain problems the only real solution - DSP correction can then be the ‘icing on the cake’.

indeed DSP and it can diminish the fidelity and naturalness of a track on playback too, as the so called compensations also have their errors, distortions and artefacts... DSP is not a free lunch... and this is quite evident, at least to me, with a well known Scottish hifi company.

Exactly why I only apply DRC to the feed to the sub.  That way it ameliorates the primary resonance modes of my listening room, without disturbing the delicate signal to the main speakers.

Alba1320 posted:

I have no experience of it, nor any interest in it, but, to me, DSP room correction seems little more than a fancy 'tone control'; far better (if more 'work'), to address any problems at source i.e. the room itself ( I would have thought).

But, each to their own.

It's rather more than that as it can adjust phase (/timing) as well, but yes fixing the worst of the acoustic problems of the room first is always a good idea as then the changes to be made to the signal by the DSP can be smaller and the artefacts cause are reduced.

I have done this and can confirm that the combination works better than either solution used alone, provided the DRC is only applied to the subwoofer.

to really know if nd555 is the pinnacle of sound today, it should be compared to the best digital system on the market, as full dcs, top of the range msb or ch precision ( 100k digital sources).   As it will probably be never done, we will probably never know.

J.N. posted:

Kiwi cat posted:

Music reproduction peaked in the late 1980s with high quality speakers, tube amplification and the Linn Sondek with Koetsu cartridges. All that we have been doing since is trying to replicate that quality digitally and more conveniently. 

Personal taste on the valve amps angle KC; but that aside, I think you're pretty much spot on. The ND555 (at its performance peak) is a CD copying/replay machine.

GIGO.

John.

GIGO indicates clear prejudice as opposed to objective, or even subjective, assessment of the sound produced - but that does seem a common position.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

>. Acoustically, roomtreatment is far preferable, and for certain problems the only real solution - DSP correction can then be the ‘icing on the cake’.

indeed DSP and it can diminish the fidelity and naturalness of a track on playback too, as the so called compensations also have their errors, distortions and artefacts... DSP is not a free lunch... and this is quite evident, at least to me, with a well known Scottish hifi company.

I agree. 

I have a digital streamer from a Scottish hifi company (perhaps the very one to which you refer) which sounds absolutely fantastic (to my ears) and which offers their DSP room correction technology. Although most people who have tried it appear to think that its DSP correction is fantastic, I don't actually use it myself. I find that in my particular listening environment and with my system, the DSP correction detracts from rather than adds to the sound quality.

This may be because although they have mapped a very large range of speakers, my specific speakers have not been fully mapped by Linn. Still, I am not convinced that it would work for me. 

Indeed, that streamer you refer I did prefer without the DSP room correction as well. When I asked why they only had profiles of their own speakers and requires specialist setup the answer was something along the lines that creating an accurate as possible profile was very involved, and they felt creating one by the consumer recording one with a quality microphone into some bespoke profiling software just wouldn’t cut it... perhaps an admission that room correction can be useful in some circumstances but it can so very easy to get it wrong.