Naim DAC – a dealers initial perpective

Posted by: Rodborough on 20 December 2009

Having now had the new Naim DAC for almost two weeks I thought I would share some initial thoughts on something that is for me at least still very much a work in progress, it is a shame that the release has been delayed causing it’s appearance at one of the busiest times for dealers even in normal circumstances and this combined with the immanent increase in VAT to 17.5% next month has exacerbated this situation somewhat.

After allowing a few hours for the new DAC to acclimatise, always a danger of condensation when new equipment arrives in this extremely cold weather, but this gave me time to assemble all the necessary paraphernalia, just as well we had the Naim DC1 in all three versions RCA – RCA, RCA – BNC & BNC – BNC, also to hand was the CD5XS (BNC digital out), CDX2/2 (BNC digital out), HDX (RCA digital out), Linn Sneaky & Majik DS, Apple iPod, iPhone & MacBook, some Naim Powerline’s & HiLine’s and XPS2 & CD555PS.

It seemed a good idea to start off with the CD5XS, into the DAC using the Naim DC1 (BNC – BNC), it has to be said that the sound was pretty aggressive, not unlike the old CDX on acid, common with brand new Naim that is neither burnt in, run in or warmed up, but after only a few minutes it begun to improve/calm down but I could not resist a quick comparison between CD5XS & CDX2/2 and was not totally surprised that there was not much between them at this point, I thought perhaps at the very least an overnight with music running through it might provide a better opportunity to make some more meaningful comparisons.

The next day the Naim DAC was transformed but I decided to begin with a straight comparison of CD5XS versus CDX2/2, using standard mains cables & interconnects, these are after all the best 5 series and CDX variants to date and both performed extremely well through our reference system with the CDX2/2 being the clear winner, although on a personal note I do find that the CDX2/2 can tilt a little in the direction of a slightly forward presentation to achieve higher levels of detail.

Via the Naim DC1 (BNC – BNC) the new DAC was added to the CD5XS the improvement was breathtaking it brought out all of the detail whilst preserving the CD5XS units very musical sound and was a clear winner over the CDX2/2, to be fair to the CDX2/2 it does cost a little more CD5XS/DAC £3700.00, CDX2/2 £3,250.00 (VAT @ 15%), but in my view the best £450.00 extra it would be possible to invest, given the many other benefits the DAC is going to bring to future system development.

The next obvious step was to connect the DAC to the CDX2/2 once again a breathtaking improvement and slightly better than the CD5XS/DAC, in this configuration the CDX2/2 with DAC comes out at £5,200.00, £1,500.00 more than the CD5XS, not quite enough to add an XPS2 but certainly enough to add a HiLine and a Powerline to the DAC bringing the CD5XS/DAC/PowerLine/HiLine combination to £4,650.00 against the CDX2/2/DAC at £5,200.00 and now the CD5XS was the clear winner, and of course these benefits (adding HiLine & PowerLine) are shared by any other source components now running through the DAC.

Naturally the next step was to connect the CDX2/2 to the now slightly upgraded DAC and once again the CDX2/2 stamped its authority as the slightly superior combination, adding the PowerLine & HiLine to the DAC raisers the price stakes of this combination to £6,150.00 so my next experiment was to remove the PowerLine & HiLine and add an XPS2 to the CD5XS/DAC combination this being just £400.00 more at £6,550.00 and once again the CD5XS/DAC/XPS2 combination was the clear winner over the CDX2/2/DAC/Powerline/HiLine combination at £6,150.00 and a trend was beginning to emerge. Whilst in standalone operation the CDX2/2 is a superior CD player to the CD5XS the introduction into the mix of the Naim DAC has a levelling affect even though the CDX2/2 always comes out slightly ahead, that £1,500.00 price advantage that the CD5XS has though, if carefully invested in upgrades to the DAC, brings about advantages not only to the replay of CDs but of course to any other source components utilising the Naim DAC, I concluded my experiments through the following combinations:

CDX2/2/DAC/XPS2 (£8,050.00) versus CD5XS/DAC/XPS2/PowerLine/HiLine (£7,500.00)

CDX2/2/DAC/XPS2/PowerLine/HiLine (£9,000.00) versus CD5XS/DAC/CD555PS [PowerLine included]/S-XPS Burndy (£8,945.00)

CDX2/2/DAC/CD555PS [PowerLine included]/S-XPS Burndy (£10,445.00) versus CD5XS/DAC/CD555PS [PowerLine included]/S-XPS Burndy, HiLine (£9,500.00)

Up until this point the CD5XS combinations were often less expensive and yet superior, of course usually the XPS2 & CD555PS power supplies in former pre DAC days were upgrades available only to the CDX variants and would place them into a much higher league than any of the 5 series CD players adding the DAC however now makes these upgrades available to the CD5XS as well.

Having now taken the CD5XS to its current highest level of potential upgrades all that was now left to do was to connect the CDX2/2 to the fully upgraded DAC and the edge that the CDX2/2 had enjoyed throughout made it the best possible combination coming in at £11,000.00 over the CD5XS at £9,500.00.

I have gone back to this when time has permitted over the past couple of weeks and although the DAC continues to improve it has no affect upon the above results.

A reshuffle of the demonstrations rooms here has now taken the DAC off the reference system and into our mid to high-end room so that work could continue by introducing the NaimUnity, HDX/DAC, Linn DS/DAC, even iPod & MacBook/DAC into the equation and I will write more on that later in the thread.

I hope that’s helpful anyway

Warmest regards

Norman
Partner - UHES
Posted on: 23 December 2009 by Gordon McGlade
quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
A high-resolution remaster of DSoM was released on SACD in 2003 - CD, SACD and 5.1 layers. Not sure whether the 24/352 recoring mentioned above has the same origins as the SACD, but since Alan Parsons mixed the original and James Guthrie (re-)mixed the hi-res SACD it is not at all unlikely that you can hear things on one that you cant hear on the other - they are after all different mixes. There are some interesting about the various mixes on the wiki here.


Hi

i have the 2 different LPs, 2 diferent CDs, the SACD version of this album and they all sound different. What we heard on this Hi Res recording was just so much more information and so much clearer clean music.

I have to say that I do not consider SACD Hi res and I know that is a huge debate however it is impossible to compare SACD with red book CD because of the technical differences in the two formats but one thing for sure this 24/352KHZ recording certainly blew every I have heard before to bits!

Gordon
Posted on: 23 December 2009 by likesmusic
Gordon, there's no such thing as a 24/352 recording of DSoM! It was recorded on analogue tape. I think you must mean re-mixes/re-masters, of which there are several, including the James Guthrie/Doug Sax hi-res one that was used for the SACD. Who did the 24/352 mix/re-master you listened to?

My point is that since there are several completely different re-mixes/remasters of this album by different engineers using (sometimes) different master tapes it is perfectly reasonable that they will sound different, for reasons that might have nothing to do with the sample depth/rate.
Posted on: 23 December 2009 by BobF
quote:
Originally posted by Rodborough:
Step it up a gear to the CDX2/2, HDX & Majik DS if you really want to hear what this thing is capable of. Norman
Partner - UHES


Norman

Thank you again for this terrific post.

I have heard the CD5xs and the HDX with 555PS/HiLine/Powerline. Would you place the CD2/2 closer to the CD5xs or to the HDX in this configuration?

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Bob
Posted on: 23 December 2009 by BobF
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BobF:
[I have heard the CD5xs and the HDX with 555PS/HiLine/Powerline. Would you place the CD2/2 closer to the CD5xs or to the HDX in this configuration?


Of course I mean with the DAC as well Red Face

Bob
Posted on: 23 December 2009 by John R.
I guess that this 24bit/352,8kHz or rather 32bit/352,8kHz version of DARK DIDE OF THE MOON is the DXD version(PCM) which is needed for the mastering of the SACD. As far as I know the 1bit DSD stream of a SACD recording needs to get converted to PCM for mastering the SACD and here the standard is called DXD(not DSD)which is 24 or 32bit and a sampling frequency of 352,8kHz. After the mastering the PCM files needs to be converted back to a 1bit signal(DSD). Therefore Philips suggested during the development of the SACD standard to not record in 1bit in order to get rid of one conversion step(DSD->DXD)and to have only the conversion from DXD to DSD and not DSD->DXD->DSD.
Posted on: 24 December 2009 by Gordon McGlade
quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
Gordon, there's no such thing as a 24/352 recording of DSoM! It was recorded on analogue tape. I think you must mean re-mixes/re-masters, of which there are several, including the James Guthrie/Doug Sax hi-res one that was used for the SACD. Who did the 24/352 mix/re-master you listened to?

I am perfectly aware how it was recorded from the the original analogue masters. Mixes do sound different but I will emphasive once more so perhaps this can sink in very simply, there was information heard, very cleary and cleanly, that could not be heard on any other version of this album and that information is on the original tapes. In this case it was definitely to do with the sample bit depth/rate.

The recording on to 24/352KHz was done by an engineer who gave a copy to Doug Graham, or at least a sample of it.


My point is that since there are several completely different re-mixes/remasters of this album by different engineers using (sometimes) different master tapes it is perfectly reasonable that they will sound different, for reasons that might have nothing to do with the sample depth/rate.
Posted on: 24 December 2009 by Gordon McGlade
quote:
Originally posted by John R.:
I guess that this 24bit/352,8kHz or rather 32bit/352,8kHz version of DARK DIDE OF THE MOON is the DXD version(PCM) which is needed for the mastering of the SACD. As far as I know the 1bit DSD stream of a SACD recording needs to get converted to PCM for mastering the SACD and here the standard is called DXD(not DSD)which is 24 or 32bit and a sampling frequency of 352,8kHz. After the mastering the PCM files needs to be converted back to a 1bit signal(DSD). Therefore Philips suggested during the development of the SACD standard to not record in 1bit in order to get rid of one conversion step(DSD->DXD)and to have only the conversion from DXD to DSD and not DSD->DXD->DSD.


John

Not really sure where it came from nor about the DSD/DXD technical points, for me this is getting quite boring and frankly pedantic.

The bottom line is, it sound absolutely fantastic with those all those present, which included a few well known guys in our industry, well floored by this performance and of course the Naim DAC,

And that is all that really matters!

Merry Chrismas!

Gordon
Posted on: 24 December 2009 by rich46
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon McGlade:
quote:
Originally posted by John R.:
I guess that this 24bit/352,8kHz or rather 32bit/352,8kHz version of DARK DIDE OF THE MOON is the DXD version(PCM) which is needed for the mastering of the SACD. As far as I know the 1bit DSD stream of a SACD recording needs to get converted to PCM for mastering the SACD and here the standard is called DXD(not DSD)which is 24 or 32bit and a sampling frequency of 352,8kHz. After the mastering the PCM files needs to be converted back to a 1bit signal(DSD). Therefore Philips suggested during the development of the SACD standard to not record in 1bit in order to get rid of one conversion step(DSD->DXD)and to have only the conversion from DXD to DSD and not DSD->DXD->DSD.


John

Not really sure where it came from nor about the DSD/DXD technical points, for me this is getting quite boring and frankly pedantic.

The bottom line is, it sound absolutely fantastic with those all those present, which included a few well known guys in our industry, well floored by this performance and of course the Naim DAC,

And that is all that really matters!

Merry Chrismas!

Gordon
my original vinyl is still great ds of moon, forget dsm and listen to wish you were here. not in yorkshire though its snowing heavy have fun
Posted on: 24 December 2009 by u5227470736789454
Hi Norman,
Thanks for taking the time out to make these informative posts, given the pressures on your diary your efforts are doubly appreciated.

Wishing you a restful and musical Christmas

Barrie
Posted on: 24 December 2009 by Klout10
Hi Barrie,

Long time since I've seen you here. How are things regarding the HDX? Any plans yet?

Have a nice Christmas!

Best regards,
Michel
Posted on: 24 December 2009 by u5227470736789454
Hi Michel,

The planning is slightly delayed as I am in the middle of building a house, but I think the HDX may have become a NS01 and DAC. ( depends on what we see at CES in January Roll Eyes )

zalig Kerstfeest

Barrie
Posted on: 25 December 2009 by PMR
quote:
Originally posted by Rodborough:
A reshuffle of the demonstrations rooms here has now taken the DAC off the reference system and into our mid to high-end room so that work could continue by introducing the NaimUnity, HDX/DAC, Linn DS/DAC, even iPod & MacBook/DAC into the equation and I will write more on that later in the thread.

I hope that’s helpful anyway

Warmest regards

Norman
Partner - UHES
Hi Norman, have you managed to compare the Naim DAC to the CD555? Would be interested in knowing what you now feel is the best digital setup with standard 16/44 files/CD.

Cheers
Peter
Posted on: 25 December 2009 by Gordon McGlade
quote:
Originally posted by PMR:
quote:
Originally posted by Rodborough:
A reshuffle of the demonstrations rooms here has now taken the DAC off the reference system and into our mid to high-end room so that work could continue by introducing the NaimUnity, HDX/DAC, Linn DS/DAC, even iPod & MacBook/DAC into the equation and I will write more on that later in the thread.

I hope that’s helpful anyway

Warmest regards

Norman
Partner - UHES
Hi Norman, have you managed to compare the Naim DAC to the CD555? Would be interested in knowing what you now feel is the best digital setup with standard 16/44 files/CD.

Cheers
Peter


I have and the CD555 rules OK ya bass!

Gordon
Posted on: 26 December 2009 by Edouard
quote:
Adding the Naim DAC to any Naim system

Can we add the Naim Dac to the Unity? If yes it should be a major upgrade for all the replay based on the Unity sources Smile

Regards,
Edouard
Posted on: 26 December 2009 by ferenc
quote:
Originally posted by Edouard:
quote:
Adding the Naim DAC to any Naim system

Can we add the Naim Dac to the Unity? If yes it should be a major upgrade for all the replay based on the Unity sources Smile

Regards,
Edouard


You can not unfortunately.
Posted on: 26 December 2009 by Edouard
quote:
You can not unfortunately.

Why can we upgrade a CD5XS with the Naim DAC, Itouch and Iphone can be upraded dramatically as well with the Naim DAC, but not the Unity? Is there some logic in there that I'm not getting Confused

Regards,
Edouard
Posted on: 26 December 2009 by Aleg
Unity does not have a digital output to feed the signal to the DAC.

-
aleg
Posted on: 26 December 2009 by Edouard
quote:
Unity does not have a digital output to feed the signal to the DAC.

OK but why Naim didn't provide a digital output to the Unity, why can the DAC be connected to the 5XS, Ipod, Itouch, Iphone, and not to the Unity? Is there a logic or technical issues for not offering a digital output to the Unity?

Regards,
Edouard
Posted on: 26 December 2009 by Don Atkinson
quote:
Is there a logic or technical issues for not offering a digital output to the Unity?

Yes.

ISTR that Naim refused to fit digital outputs to their early range of CD players etc because they considered that in so doing, the analogue output was compromised by the inclusion of the SPDIF components (yes, we all know that Sony, Philips et.al, all fitted both analogue and digital!!!!)

Only this last 12 months have Naim figured out how to fit both analogue and digital outputs (without screwing up the all important analogue output), and even then, AFAIK, its quite a palava to change form digital to analogue or vice-versa - involving complete swith-off and power-up, as well as button swithcing.....all to maintain isloation between analogue/digital circuits!

Naim have indicated they won't be retro-fitting digital outputs to their earlier CD players, other than the CDX2. This seems to apply to Unitie as well.

So you can now buy virtually anybody elses "crap" CD player (eg the original Philips 101 from 1983) with a SPDIF output, connect it to the Naim (Super) DAC and "hey-presto" you have a source retrieval system that will rival a CDX2 and possibly a CDS2 or even a CDS3.

But not a 555.

Cheers

Don
Posted on: 26 December 2009 by Richard Dane
quote:
Originally posted by Edouard:
quote:
Unity does not have a digital output to feed the signal to the DAC.

OK but why Naim didn't provide a digital output to the Unity, why can the DAC be connected to the 5XS, Ipod, Itouch, Iphone, and not to the Unity? Is there a logic or technical issues for not offering a digital output to the Unity?

Regards,
Edouard


Very possibly because one of the devices "unified" within the Uniti is... a DAC!

Perhaps not quite as good as the one in the new Naim DAC, but truly excellent all the same.

Joyeux Noel Edouard!
Posted on: 26 December 2009 by Don Atkinson
quote:
Very possibly because one of the devices "unified" within the Uniti is... a DAC!

Richard, I think (just a guess really) that Edouard would like to know why Naim didn't provide TWO routes within the Unity - one via the internal DAC to an analogue output and the other, to by-pass the DAC, direct to a digital output.

Edouard?

Cheers

Don
Posted on: 27 December 2009 by Aleg
quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
quote:
Very possibly because one of the devices "unified" within the Uniti is... a DAC!

Richard, I think (just a guess really) that Edouard would like to know why Naim didn't provide TWO routes within the Unity - one via the internal DAC to an analogue output and the other, to by-pass the DAC, direct to a digital output.

Edouard?

Cheers

Don


My point of view on this is that the Unity was designed to be a complete one-box device and this is also the way it has been marketed.

Of course you can put all kinds of connectors and other stuff into the box that would allow you to extend it in all different directions, but that's not what it was designed to be. So IMO the Unity was never intended to be part of a multi-Naim-box setup.

So if you buy a Unity then that's all you need, and if you want more you should have bought seperates.


-
aleg
Posted on: 27 December 2009 by Don Atkinson
quote:
So if you buy a Unity then that's all you need, and if you want more you should have bought seperates.

I think you are all missing the point. Edouard was asking for TECHNICAL reasons why Naim didn't put a SPDIF output into their earlier kit.

I have tried to answer that point about 3 posts back. I think my answer is correct - it is my interpretation of what Doug Graham said back at the summer BBQ. But note, it is not what Doug said verbatim, it is my interpretation, so don't blame Doug if my interpretation is wrong.

Aleg's comments above and Richard's on the previous page, are IMHO, COMMERCIAL/SALES reasons for the staus-quo.

And in Aleg's case, even if you HAD bought Naim separates in the past, eg a CD player/preamp/poweramps instead of a Unity, you still wouldn't have a digital output (unless you had bought a CDX2 and then sent it back to Naim for a conversion to Digital output in the past two or three months)

BTW, based on what I heard at the Bristol Show last February, and again at the Summer Roadshows, and finally at the BBQ, the DAC is one hell of a piece of good kit. It is designed to form the "Hub" of a digitally fed hifi system. So you can feed it with a wide range of digital sources including i-pods, Macs, and "crap" cd players- providing they have a suitable digital output. During the various dems that I heard, Naim used a variety of sources, including macs and i-pods. They also "happened" to use their CDX2.2 and they also "happened" to use their external power supplies (555PS or XPS2).

Guess what? The DAC, when fed by a CDX2.2 sounded streets ahead of a DAC when fed by an i-pod or a Mac. Don't ask me WHY? - i haven't got a clue - it just did!!

Guess what else? Introducing an external power supply improved the sound by yet another order of magnitude!

Was I surprised by any of this? Not in principle. But in magnitude? You bet!!

As the Footsie 100 Brokers would say "Buy!"

Cheers

Don
Posted on: 27 December 2009 by Julian H
quote:
Originally posted by Edouard:
quote:
Unity does not have a digital output to feed the signal to the DAC.

OK but why Naim didn't provide a digital output to the Unity, why can the DAC be connected to the 5XS, Ipod, Itouch, Iphone, and not to the Unity? Is there a logic or technical issues for not offering a digital output to the Unity?

Regards,
Edouard


Cost
Posted on: 27 December 2009 by Edouard
quote:
Joyeux Noel Edouard!

Joyeux Noël Richard Smile
...and Merry Christmas to all the Naim forum friends Smile

Edouard