Naim Prototype DAC at Bristol

I am enjoying the AoS damage limitation exercises, elsewhere, though.

 

Right along side as well;-)

 

I've spoken to a couple of Naim dealers who said the same thing. I would be interested to hear one but it is overpriced, if not as much as the CD555. Digital started off pretty level compared to vinyl and has become much more so. Spending much over a grand is madness.

 

Digital started off pretty level compared to vinyl and has become much more so. Spending much over a grand is madness.[/QUOTE]

Hence the original question asked in my post. I have no idea why it went so off-topic.

I really don't care how good the new Linn or Naim CD555 is because I have no interest in either of them. Spending that much money now on them makes no sense in my scenario as I have ripped my entire collection to HDs and have decided that playback via laptop of desktop is the future for me.

For the record, I've have tried a number of Naim CD players and liked the sound. I have noticed that the perspective has changed over the years and that the so-called "Naim" edge on top has been slightly rolled back and that the bass is certainly fuller.

If the DAC will make my ripped files sound like the top of Naim range, then it is something that I am interested in investigating. If I have to add a PS that costs more than the DAC to achieve that, then I'll continue looking.

I do wonder what Julian would think of the sound now.

 

Apologies for the aos reference, it was an in-joke.

 

Having just chanced on your remark elsewhere:

"I'll take any naim cd player over any TT I've heard."

Yes, Dave, we do have very, very, very different value scales! Quite frankly, you must have damaged hearing for that to be true.

 

...I like to think the rest of you have it wrong;-)

First, neither device comes within a million miles of accurately reproducing live music IMO. Secondly, the best of the TTs I've heard does only one thing in a consistent manner and that's consistently go out of tune (adjustment) making the best of its qualities disappear within a few days after setup--I'm not going to put up with that any longer. At least a top-notch CD player reproduces music consistently from one day to the next. Finally, when forgetting all of the bullsh*t hifi terminology and just enjoying music for what it is, I get more fun out of the cd player. Not a popular opinion but how things are for me.

 

Well, no, and thank goodness for that. 99.8% of the time, live music sounds much worse than a good hi-fi, usually due to a rubbish PA and/or poor venue acoustics.

If you mean an LP12, other turntables are available.

 

LOL...I don't use electronic instruments as a gauge for anything.

The LP-12 is the table I was referring to. I know other tables are available, I simply haven't heard one that beats the LP-12 in every way though I wouldn't doubt there's another TT out there with my name on it so to speak. However, I wouldn't be interested if it did exist. Replacing my music again in another format is too much hassle especially since I'm satisfied with my cd player's performance.

 

Acoustic guitar, drums & vocals - not "electronic instruments". Now and again live is better than at home, but only very, very rarely, and a larger part of the enjoyment of live music, for me, is the sense of occasion, unpredictability, and having a night out with some friends. Sound quality comes last.

The LP12 had its day, Dave, and it was a while ago. Try Michell, Notts Analogue, SME, etc etc. There's a new DC motor on the way, I gather, but this is tinkering at the edges if you ask me.

Mind you, if you haven't got any records, there's not much point in having a TT.

 

Any acoustic instrument including voice squeezed through a PA system is now "electronic" in my book. When I speak of "live", I'm referring to unamplified acoustic instruments. I understand your position and agree with you regarding most of those "electronic" live performances--they are indeed rubbish sound-wise. The only enjoyable part is the experience itself as you mentioned.

The SME and Notts both sound intriguing but I'd still have the hassle/expense of switching back to vinyl. I really don't have it in me to go back there again;-)

 

THIS OFF TOPIC !

having spent a considerable ammount of time listening to various makes and models of hifi [30years plus] its clear to me that the naim sound or wall of sound as some people term it ....can consitently be heard. Its more in the sense of the presntation of the music rather than any overt "better bass or that misleading prat thing "

I'll use an analogy listening to naim gear be it just a cdp or a whole system [I've not heard the 12 out side shows but most of the rest cdx's 5's 3.5's etc i've listened to] is like looking at a fish eye lens photo ..all the sound from the central image is extended out the the edges of the speakers the remain left right imagine is then squashed into the remaining space .....now you would not know unless you imediately played the same cd in another cdp [not linn or naim] in the same system . The most tantiising demonstration of this was with a quad 99cdp2 and a 5i [?] portraying this effect using none naim amplification and speakers . It was abundantly clear to everyone listening .....neither was wrong both presentations had people tapping feet etc but for me the distorted ? presentation made no sense of left right imaging ...in that the centre of the sound stage was basically mono to my way of thinking.

I've heard this effect in all but a few naim systems from the humblest to nearly the most expensive ...but oddly the very top of the range had a normal ? [from my point of view ] presentation. As opposed to the room next door playing the same track [heathrow 2008]

 

Well, that's a novel description, and full marks for imagination, but we've already established upthread that the Naim sound is actually musical.

 

Looking at the sound of hifi...

Shakes head and walks away

 

Hi Dave. I know you are one of those people who have this bizarre belief that there's more to audio than can be measured, but even a mystic like you should realise that channel separation is not one of these imaginary things. It would be pretty hard to engineer "fisheye lens" hi-fi, even if you, or Naim, wanted to.

 

Actually, I do not believe there's more to audio that can be measured, I believe we haven't measured everything that affects what we hear.

My shaking head comment earlier wasn't questioning the existence of imaging (fish-eyed or otherwise.) It was over the fact that someone cares.

 

Why do you believe we haven't measured everything that affects what we hear? This seems an irrational belief, to me. Ghost in the machine?

Lots of people care about imaging, me included.

 

If we really had the problem licked most gear would sound similar and systems would sound closer to the real thing. Neither is the case.

Sorry, imaging good or bad means nothing to me since I have no idea what the image was like in the studio nor is it something I look/listen for when enjoying live music. Therefore a very foreign concept with respect to music listening in my book.

In contrast, it's safe to to assume the musicians had a good time making the record and felt it was worth releasing, so if I have a good time listening to it I'd call the recording a success.

 

The problem is licked, and I think you need to invest in some better equipment. I've heard a recording made in my front room, played back via the ATCs.

If you think Linn Isobariks sound nothing like the real thing, I agree.

 

Sorry, I don't think ATCs (or any other make of speakers including briks) on the end of anything will make much of a difference when the signal is missing the information.