Mac Mini vs Naim ND5 XS

I would think that the new ND5xs2 would comfortably replace both the Mac mini and dacv1, though the new version cannot be upgraded with a power supply, but still has digital out for an improved dac later on.

Well in the general sense, I suggest one keeps away from computers... computers and high quality audio, especially when digital to analogue conversion is involved are not good bed fellows. The main issue is ground noise and clock stabilityand resultant  intermodulation noise from the clock. A typical computer only needs its clocks to be generally stable... one just doesn’t need to make the clocks extremely stable and as that takes space, adds extra componentry  and adds extra cost, it therefore usually is not done.

With high quality digital audio, the clock(s)  stability including transport clocks  ars one of the most important aspects of design. A stable clock produces less intermodulation components with connected components which in turn lowers the digital and analogue noise floors on these related functions.. which means resultant analogue reconstruction will be more natural and contain less artificial ‘additives’. 

I would consider selling the V1 as well, as that might put an NDX within your budget.

angelodipa posted:

...

Currently, as seen from my configuration, I'm using a Mac Mini as a streamer via Audirvana connected to the DAC-V1. I can not complain about the surrender but I'm not totally satisfied with it.

I wanted to understand if taking an ND5-XS instead of the Mac Mini (always connected to the DAC-V1) could bring improvements.

...

I very much doubt that a ND5-XS would bring significant improvements over the Mac Mini: I understand that the Naim DAC V1 is based on a very decent Audiophilleo USB interface with galvanic isolation and reclocking. But  you could always try it, of course. In this case, please report your findings.

What are you actually missing in your current system? If you could answer this question it would be perhaps easier to suggest paths of improvement. Good luck, nbpf

My system is analogous to yours:  Mac Mini / nDAC / NAC552 and NDX-FM into same.  I am using Audirvana, and a Meridian Explorer USB to TOS between the Mac and nDAC.

Sometimes I think Audirvana sounds as good or better than the NDX; but system automation provided by the NDX is so good, I use the NDX most of the time.  It is great.

Because you use your DAC into a NAC, I recommend you try the ND5XS for the best user experience, if not in hope of any significant improvement in sound quality.  If you can, consider buying used to reduce the risk, in case you do not like it.  That is what I have done with nearly every piece.

Nick

I see the DAC-V1 cannot be controlled by Naim’s system automation the way the nDAC can.  While this is a nice feature, not having it would not spoil the benefit, for me.  You still gain Volume control and source-switching at the NAC, plus the Naim App for music play.

If you route all digital sources throught the ND5 first, including the Mac Mini, then ND5 to the DAC-V1, you will have all the control you could want.

Nick

first of all thanks for your valuable contributions ....

so for your direct experience you are telling me that even the Mac Mini with Audirvana (via asynchronous USB to V1) equals the NDX?

So it comforts me ... of control I do not really care ... with the APP of Audirvana I select the music I want to listen to, and with the remote control of the NAC I adjust the volume ... all this for me at the moment is not a problem.

But if I take a used ND5 instead of the Mac Mini, do you suggest me to connect it to the V1 anyway? would I get the same quality and be able to drive everything (both music and volume) with Naim's APP?

angelodipa posted:

first of all thanks for your valuable contributions ....

so for your direct experience you are telling me that even the Mac Mini with Audirvana (via asynchronous USB to V1) equals the NDX?

No.  They sound slightly different, but equally pleasing, to me, through the Naim DAC/555.  Some might disagree.  Both sound much better to me than Sonos does, through the same DAC, any source.  So, it is not that I am not picky.

. . .

But if I take a used ND5 instead of the Mac Mini, do you suggest me to connect it to the V1 anyway? would I get the same quality and be able to drive everything (both music and volume) with Naim's APP?

I would try it both ways and decide for myself (if I were curious).  I doubt all would agree.  I already had the Naim DAC 555 when I added the NDX.  I admit I have not tried the NDX on its own, without the nDAC, yet.  Word here is the DAC555 is better than the NDX555.  I take it on faith.  Not as clear a ruling with DAC-V1, if I recall correctly.

Nick

The Naim app will not control volume on the V1. It will, however, control the volume of your 202 if you set up system automation on the NDX or ND5XS, even if you continue to use the V1 with it.

As for which combination sounds best, that will always be subjective to some extent. It will also depend on whether you buy new or used, as new would mean NDX2 or ND5XS2, and old would mean the discontinued models that they replace.

I use MM with Audirvana UPnP out, and I am happy with it. However, your V1 is not a streamer so you cannot use the Audirvana UPnP feature.

My streaming started with ND5XS. I upgraded it by adding Hugo as an external DAC, the ND5XS then functioning just as a renderer. That was a significant improvement in sound quality.

i then changed my  basic/cheap and very noisy NAS for a Mac Mini as a silent NAS, following which I compared Audirvana on the Mac Mini as a renderer against ND5XS. Initially it was significantly worse, however I hadn’t allowed for the susceptibility of Hugo to RF interference, which was a lot worse from the MM than ND5XS, the latter being designed to minimise it. I added a Gustard U12 isolator between the MM and Hugo, bringing a dramatic change. Redoing the comparison, MM/Audirvana/Gustard vs ND5XS, the MM was better, though only marginally. 

(N.B I cannot say whether the benefit of the MM setup vs ND5XS was due to any difference in te renderer, or if it was the fact that the MM was a combined store+renderer and not streaming my own music collection across a network, therefore with no influence from network cables, switch power supplies etc.)

I cannot stress too much how important is RF isolation - some DACs reject better than others, and my current DAC (Dave) is better than most - but even with that, its designer is finding additional ways to improve, e.g. with ferrites on cables. Dedicated streamers aren’t immune - they are still computers inside, and by their very nature generate RF, however they are designed to minimise, and remove/spisolate before their DAC stages: and that is very possibly where some better streamers score over lesser ones. I think that where different people have reported different experiences with Mac Mini it is very likely due to differences in effectiveness of different approaches to stopping RF, and on teh susceptibility of whatever DAC is used.

At the end of my initially auditioning Dave DAC, which was done with my MM/Audirvana (excluding Gustard on the Dave), I had a comparative listen to the Melco N1A (an audiophile design essentially equivalent, but optimised internally for music including attention to RF minimisation) against my MM - and there was no immediately apparent difference in sound. (System was Dave DAC, Bryston 4Bsst2 power amp, PMC Fact 12 speakers, in dealer’s listening room.)

For reference, my MM is optimised with a dedicated USB bus, no unnesessary functions or connections operating,  and Audirvana is similarly fully optimied, including direct mode. It runs headless - just a small box, without screen or keyboard), controlled by VPN remote control software from any other computer or tablet, both for setup and AUdirvana control, or Audirvana controlled by its own app on an iPad or iPhone. Also, I use SSDs not HDDs, though can’t say whether any difference as I haven’t compared.

I have been supremely happy with the sound of MM/Audirvana, both through Hugo (with Gustard isolator) and now through Dave - however I do find AUdirvana’s library software frustrating and irritating to use (probably mainly a function of  metadata my music and its associated metadata, as other people seem quite happy with it), and unless Audirvana improves that side of it I will readily ‘jump ship’ when I find a suitable alternative.

Frank Yang posted:

I use MM with Audirvana UPnP out, and I am happy with it. However, your V1 is not a streamer so you cannot use the Audirvana UPnP feature.

I don’t understand this optional function of Audirvana (unless you are using it purely as a means of Tidal MQA first stage unfold?) This software’s real strength is its rendering function, which you lose if you stream the music over your network by UPnP, so all you have is its library handling (which with some collections is abysmal).

I gather you are currently running MM/Audirvana into DAC V1, and also from other comments the V1 does have galvanic isoltion as well as being asynchronous. On that basis, and my own experience, and assuming you have your MM setup fully optimised, I would expect ND5XS to be slightly inferior in terms of sound quality - though that may depend on how your network is setup, and questions of network cabling may come into it.

Whether your MM-V1 experience can be improved I don’t know - it is conceivable that additional RF prevention could assist, whether adding (all at low cost) ferrites to the usb cable, or an Audioquest USB regen, but then thetpy might not give audible improvement.

Of course, another option for improving sound quality could be changing the DAC- quite a few people who have compared prefer Hugo’s sound to that of Naim’s DACs, typically describing as more natural or analog-like, but not everyone, and I’m not sure I’ve come across a direct comparison with V1. Hearing is obviously the thing to do - but if you do try, be sure to include an isolator otherwise the RF from MM wil have a negative effect on Hugo.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Frank Yang posted:

I use MM with Audirvana UPnP out, and I am happy with it. However, your V1 is not a streamer so you cannot use the Audirvana UPnP feature.

I don’t understand this optional function of Audirvana (unless you are using it purely as a means of Tidal MQA first stage unfold?) This software’s real strength is its rendering function, which you lose if you stream the music over your network by UPnP, so all you have is its library handling (which with some collections is abysmal).

Audirvana actually does the rendering, and it outputs  via UPnP instead of USB, or Toslink, i.e. without any cabling. I can play Tidal, Qobuz, and music stored on a NAS.

There are many ways one can improve the PC/MAC -> DAC USB signal integrity. In my case (PC) this greatly benefits the V1 resolution.  I am using the Uptone audio/Sonore products and my setup is here:

https://forums.naimaudio.com/t...of-streaming?page=15

There are many other ideas in the computeraudiophile forums e.g.  in the huge thread "A novel way to massively improve the SQ of computer audio streaming" !

Frank Yang posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Frank Yang posted:

I use MM with Audirvana UPnP out, and I am happy with it. However, your V1 is not a streamer so you cannot use the Audirvana UPnP feature.

I don’t understand this optional function of Audirvana (unless you are using it purely as a means of Tidal MQA first stage unfold?) This software’s real strength is its rendering function, which you lose if you stream the music over your network by UPnP, so all you have is its library handling (which with some collections is abysmal).

Audirvana actually does the rendering, and it outputs  via UPnP instead of USB, or Toslink, i.e. without any cabling. I can play Tidal, Qobuz, and music stored on a NAS.

I do not understand either. What do you mean by "outputs via UPnP"? Outputs to what and via which interface? UPnP is a communication protocol whereas USB and Toslink, in this context, denote physical interfaces!

Please check this link (https://audirvana.com/network-playback/), not sure which Audirvana version that you are using?

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Well in the general sense, I suggest one keeps away from computers...

I totally agree with you

Frank Yang posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Frank Yang posted:

I use MM with Audirvana UPnP out, and I am happy with it. However, your V1 is not a streamer so you cannot use the Audirvana UPnP feature.

I don’t understand this optional function of Audirvana (unless you are using it purely as a means of Tidal MQA first stage unfold?) This software’s real strength is its rendering function, which you lose if you stream the music over your network by UPnP, so all you have is its library handling (which with some collections is abysmal).

Audirvana actually does the rendering, and it outputs  via UPnP instead of USB, or Toslink, i.e. without any cabling. I can play Tidal, Qobuz, and music stored on a NAS.

No it doesn’t do the rendering.

But it can or does do some processing of the file before serving across the network, one aspect may be similar to how other UPnP servers can be used to transcode on the fly. 

This from the current Audirvana description:

To send audio files to your HiFi equipment, Audirvana Plus 3.1+ transmits these files over a network using the UPnP / DLNA protocol.

The UPnP / DLNA standard is the protocol used by control points, media servers and media renderers to send and receive audio files.

How does the UPnP / DLNA protocol work?

In a UPnP / DLNA network playback configuration, a control point associated with a media server sends audio data to a media renderer via a network.

The media server offers media content to be used by the media renderer.
The control point coordinates the media server and the media renderer. It controls playback on the media renderer, telling it which media to fetch and play from the media server.
The media renderer (e. g. a network player,…) is an audio device that is controlled by the control point end. The media renderer gets audio files from the media server, converts the digital signal into an analog signal using one or more DACs and reads the received data or sends them to other audio devices (amplifiers, HiFi systems, speakers…).
How does Audirvana Plus 3.1+ work in network playback?

Audirvana Plus software is a control point with an ad-hoc media server. It prepares the audio data in the format that best suits the media renderer, then sends the prepared data in the best possible way to the media renderer using a network.

Please note: Audirvana Plus 3.1 + sends audio files to media renderers that are fully compatible with the Media Renderer UPnP / DLNA standard and whose manufacturers have committed themselves to maintaining this compatibility. Network Reading Partners are identified by the “Works with Audirvana Plus” logo.

Emme posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Well in the general sense, I suggest one keeps away from computers...

I totally agree with you

Agree or not, computers can be effective as renderers, especially when dedicated to the task provided there is effective RF blocking unless the DAC has effective blocking built in, and assuming an asynchronous DAC. 

That doesn’t mean it may not be possible to better a computer source, as I am sure the best dedicated audiophile designs can, with minimisation of potential interferences at all stages - but certainly a good computer implementation more than match the rendering stage of the likes of ND5XS, and possibly match the Melco N1A (my qualification is because my comparison was brief, so I could only say no obvious differences). 

And I suspect that with even audiophile renderers, the effectiveness of RF blocking and susceptibility of different DACs may be the main cause of differences in sound. 

Innocent Bystander posted:

Frank Yang posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Frank Yang posted:

I use MM with Audirvana UPnP out, and I am happy with it. However, your V1 is not a streamer so you cannot use the Audirvana UPnP feature.

I don’t understand this optional function of Audirvana (unless you are using it purely as a means of Tidal MQA first stage unfold?) This software’s real strength is its rendering function, which you lose if you stream the music over your network by UPnP, so all you have is its library handling (which with some collections is abysmal).

Audirvana actually does the rendering, and it outputs  via UPnP instead of USB, or Toslink, i.e. without any cabling. I can play Tidal, Qobuz, and music stored on a NAS.

No it doesn’t do the rendering.

But it can or does do some processing of the file before serving across the network, one aspect may be similar to how other UPnP servers can be used to transcode on the fly. 

This from the current Audirvana description:

To send audio files to your HiFi equipment, Audirvana Plus 3.1+ transmits these files over a network using the UPnP / DLNA protocol.

The UPnP / DLNA standard is the protocol used by control points, media servers and media renderers to send and receive audio files.

How does the UPnP / DLNA protocol work?

In a UPnP / DLNA network playback configuration, a control point associated with a media server sends audio data to a media renderer via a network.

The media server offers media content to be used by the media renderer.
The control point coordinates the media server and the media renderer. It controls playback on the media renderer, telling it which media to fetch and play from the media server.
The media renderer (e. g. a network player,…) is an audio device that is controlled by the control point end. The media renderer gets audio files from the media server, converts the digital signal into an analog signal using one or more DACs and reads the received data or sends them to other audio devices (amplifiers, HiFi systems, speakers…).
How does Audirvana Plus 3.1+ work in network playback?

Audirvana Plus software is a control point with an ad-hoc media server. It prepares the audio data in the format that best suits the media renderer, then sends the prepared data in the best possible way to the media renderer using a network.

Please note: Audirvana Plus 3.1 + sends audio files to media renderers that are fully compatible with the Media Renderer UPnP / DLNA standard and whose manufacturers have committed themselves to maintaining this compatibility. Network Reading Partners are identified by the “Works with Audirvana Plus” logo.

As far as I am concerned, Audirvana streams the same digital signals to a DAC regardless whether the output channel is USB, Toslink, ethernet /wifi network  (in the case of UPnP). 

How can it be different? Unless the Audirvana developer takes an exception approach with respect to sending a different audio signals over the UPnP protocol?

Frank Yang posted:

As far as I am concerned, Audirvana streams the same digital signals to a DAC regardless whether the output channel is USB, Toslink, ethernet /wifi network  (in the case of UPnP). 

How can it be different? Unless the Audirvana developer takes an exception approach with respect to sending a different audio signals over the UPnP protocol?

Yes, the same digital signal is sent via USB or Toslink (though subject to different causes of potential degradation in the different transfer processes and paths).

However, what DACs have UPnP inputs? If it is going to a streamer via UPnP, it is being rendered by the streamer’s renderer not Audirvana, unlike the direct feeds. 

Innocent Bystander posted:

Frank Yang posted:

As far as I am concerned, Audirvana streams the same digital signals to a DAC regardless whether the output channel is USB, Toslink, ethernet /wifi network  (in the case of UPnP). 

How can it be different? Unless the Audirvana developer takes an exception approach with respect to sending a different audio signals over the UPnP protocol?

Yes, the same digital signal is sent via USB or Toslink (though subject to different causes of potential degradation in the different transfer processes and paths).

However, what DACs have UPnP inputs? If it is going to a streamer via UPnP, it is being rendered by the streamer’s renderer not Audirvana, unlike the direct feeds. 

Is a streamer not a DAC? It is a DAC with a network interface.

A streamer is a renderer plus a DAC.

Hence you can have an Nd5XS or NDX etc acting as renderer feeding an external DAC. Or you can have a separate renderer like Audirvana, microRendu etc. Or one combined with a music store like in Melco, Innuos etc.

A DAC is a renderer, that is why a Naim DAC / NDS / NDX  sound different to a Chord DAC

I think I will put a stop here.