Merging + NADAC @ the Pacific NW (this week) & SoundStage review

[awsmone]

Thanks for the photo's Amir, and the system report.

Happy to be of service Ian

My experience of the Nadac was that DSD 256 reproduction (whether native or via HQP) was beguiling. In my humble opinion that is what the Nadac truly excels with - high sample rate DSD. I also like DXD, but thought that DSD just had a sense of "ease" and "space" with it, which was unique in my own experience of digital-land.



Well, that is the theory. Phillip wisely went for the single switch set up method.

Which is the only practical one for demonstration purposes. Pity he didn't use Windows Laptop with an ASIO driver. There is an audible difference between DSD 128 over DoP and DSD 256 via ASIO. The latter was (is) head and shoulders the best digital I have experienced. But of course I haven't experienced eg Lampi, dCS Rossini etc. So YMMV, of course.

I'd love to have some members who were there report on how they found the sound, within the context of the system used.

Great and honest write up by Amir

AS's assertion about DSD256 being better, makes sense, as the main issue with dsd is the noise, as you sample higher rates the noise is pushed higher and higher out of the audio band
DSD is an excellent archival media for analog, it is what it was develop for by Sony.

Only later did it get converted to a playback format

Thus needle drops played back via dsd, not unexpectedly should sound good

remember, in many ways dsd is an analog signal, as a low pass filter will give you music....

 

[amirm]

Amir - would you say the Nadac was well received among the audiophiles present and in the context of the fairly modest system it was played through?

There was universal praise for it. So much so that the club president said he is hoping to acquire one for the group.

 

[PeterA]

There was universal praise for it. So much so that the club president said he is hoping to acquire one for the group.

Amir, is it you sense that there is enough native DSD music available to justify this DAC over other options? This was the only format with which I thought the NADAC was better than other DACs I have heard, excepting the dCS gear I mentioned up thread.

 

[amirm]

Amir, is it you sense that there is enough native DSD music available to justify this DAC over other options? This was the only format with which I thought the NADAC was better than other DACs I have heard, excepting the dCS gear I mentioned up thread.

I do a lot of high-res downloading and DSD has become increasingly common. So much so that it is providing motivation for me to get a DSD capable DAC. Regardless of whether DSD or PCM is better, I like to play the music in whichever it was originally captured. And on that front, I routinely run into DSD as the original capture and PCM the converted one. So it makes sense to be able to play that format natively.

There is definitely wind behind DSD as the "prefered" audiophile digital format driving speciality labels to record and produce in that. PCM of course dominates but I see an improvement situation for DSD.

 

[PeterA]

I do a lot of high-res downloading and DSD has become increasingly common. So much so that it is providing motivation for me to get a DSD capable DAC. Regardless of whether DSD or PCM is better, I like to play the music in whichever it was originally captured. And on that front, I routinely run into DSD as the original capture and PCM the converted one. So it makes sense to be able to play that format natively.

There is definitely wind behind DSD as the "prefered" audiophile digital format driving speciality labels to record and produce in that. PCM of course dominates but I see an improvement situation for DSD.

From my selfish perspective, I think it is all good. My friends who listen to digital are getting better sound as time marches on, and that is to be celebrated. I agree that there is some push toward DSD. The more recordings in that format, the better.

 

[Andrew Stenhouse]

There was universal praise for it. So much so that the club president said he is hoping to acquire one for the group.

That is wonderful news for Phillip.

I agree that there is some push toward DSD. The more recordings in that format, the better.

Picking up on this, my sense from collecting native DSD titles - mainly classical - over the last couple of years it is indeed gathering "wind" behind it. Last year or so I have seen a marked increase in the availability of music natively transferred or recorded in DSD. Of course - some of that music isn't necessarily what you would otherwise buy, or include in your library. Which may or may not be a good thing. I would welcome Sony lifting its restriction on ripping SACD's - as that would open a huge market for the format.

One of the limitations of natively recorded DSD is the inability to edit it in any meaningful fashion, which renders large works very much "warts and all" and in my experience far from the ideal. Accordingly I summise it may be the reason it is more common to see individual artists so recorded, or small groups (Chamber music for instance), where less editing may be required.

My feeling is the music is best recorded/captured in DXD (32/352 or 384 pcm) , edited and then transferred losslessly to DSD 128 or (perhaps - not sure of the math) 256. That is the approach usually taken for instance by eg 2L, and their recordings are superb.

Of course many major record labels would argue, convincingly, that pcm "done right" is perfectly fine. Linn for example. My experience of Linn hi- rez recording both in digital form and transferred to vinyl is of absolute quality and fidelity. I recall having an interesting discussion with the chief technical engineer at Linn in around 2007/2008 when hi rez downloads were in their infancy, and his view was bit rate was more important than sample rate. My ears agree with that. So ceteris paribus I would prefer for instance a 24/44 over a 16/88.

Of course my ears prefer vinyl to both, but that is a different discussion entirely and OT.

 

[bonzo75]

Phillip mentioned the turntable, cartridge names/brands but not being into the format, it went in one ear and then the other . Maybe Gary remembers and can provide the info.


The difference between analog formats to my ears was quite pronounced. I say even the levels were different as were the frequency responses. On Digital sampling rates, I could not detect any large differences like this. The "profile" of the sound in digital versions was the same to me. Gary however commented that violin, etc. sounded very different in digital versions as if it was a different instrument/orchestra. I was too deaf to hear that .

Amir, sorry, no disrespect after all the recent round of messages. But the above post is showing a high degree of unfamiliarity with analog add a format. In that case, why the push back on analog when compared to digital? I would expect someone who does that you have first familiarized himself with the analog format

 

[amirm]

Amir, sorry, no disrespect after all the recent round of messages. But the above post is showing a high degree of unfamiliarity with analog add a format. In that case, why the push back on analog when compared to digital? I would expect someone who does that you have first familiarized himself with the analog format

The familiarization I talked about is knowing the names of cartridges, arms, etc. which Philip mentioned and Peter asked about. I don't track such products because I have no need for them. So the names did not register with me to remember to post now.

As to your other comment, I did not push back on analog versus digital because that was not the stage. Everything played on the DAC by definition was digital. No turntable was in the room to play anything analog.

The captures were analog and my ears could hear differences in that phase of conversion. I don't think knowing the brands and names of products would have helped and overrode what I was hearing. But I am open to learning that. Are you saying I needed something more than my ears to make my perception of what I heard more reliable in an A/B test of two analog captures?

 

[spazmatron]

The familiarization I talked about is knowing the names of cartridges, arms, etc. which Philip mentioned and Peter asked about. I don't track such products because I have no need for them. So the names did not register with me to remember to post now.

As to your other comment, I did not push back on analog versus digital because that was not the stage. Everything played on the DAC by definition was digital. No turntable was in the room to play anything analog.

The captures were analog and my ears could hear differences in that phase of conversion. I don't think knowing the brands and names of products would have helped and overrode what I was hearing. But I am open to learning that. Are you saying I needed something more than my ears to make my perception of what I heard more reliable in an A/B test of two analog captures?

i would of thought unfamiliarity in this regard would be preferable as it excludes expectation bias.. so amir is the perfect guy to ask for his impressions. obviously you are all knowing amir and merely humouring us by pretending not to know something.. a fine example of your generous and gracious nature my king.

 

[PeterA]

The captures were analog and my ears could hear differences in that phase of conversion. I don't think knowing the brands and names of products would have helped and overrode what I was hearing. But I am open to learning that. Are you saying I needed something more than my ears to make my perception of what I heard more reliable in an A/B test of two analog captures?

I think this is pretty clear, Amir. Your ears are all that you need for this kind of evaluation. The interesting thing to me is that others mentioned the easily heard differences between the upsampling rates and digital formats, but did not mention the differences between the analog sources. You discussed the opposite. Perhaps that is what bonzo was referring to. And you mentioned the one analog source and who owns it but not the other.

I think a more complete report about the listening session, a better description of the source of the vinyl rips and the audible differences between the various digital upsampling rates/formats would be helpful information in such a thread and tell us a bit more about this Merging/NADAC product which seems to be getting a lot of attention lately.

 

[ack]

Does anyone have close-up pictures of the Nadac board and power supply? It all sounds too good to be true for $10.5K

 

[PeterA]

Does anyone have close-up pictures of the Nadac board and power supply? It all sounds too good to be true for $10.5K

Ack, you should go and borrow MadFloyd's and listen to it in his system before you take it home. Then you can hear it in your system and remove the cover and report back.

 

[amirm]

Does anyone have close-up pictures of the Nadac board and power supply? It all sounds too good to be true for $10.5K

Found just one pictures:

I zoomed in and did a bit of processing to get this:

Nice sealed power supply box on the left. Making a wild guess, the board on the right has a processor to deal with Ethernet traffic. And the board to the left is the DAC. Ribbon cables take the data from one board to the other. Construction seems more pro-level to me sans the power supply.

 

[PeterA]

Nice millwork for the case. Seems that the whole thing could be half the size, or height. Are those headphone jacks to the right of the volume knob? One cool thing was that while we listened to Ian's, the illuminated triangle on the left face changed colors depending on whether it was playing PCM or DSD.

 

[ack]

I don't know... not very impressed.

 

[amirm]

Seems that the whole thing could be half the size, or height.

The unit is expandable to 8 channels so it needs the width for all of those balanced connectors.

 

[Bruce B]

Are those headphone jacks to the right of the volume knob? One cool thing was that while we listened to Ian's, the illuminated triangle on the left face changed colors depending on whether it was playing PCM or DSD.

The headphone amp is quite nice.

 

[Andrew Stenhouse]

The headphone amp is quite nice.

I disagree.

 

[Andrew Stenhouse]

The interesting thing to me is that others mentioned the easily heard differences between the upsampling rates and digital formats, but did not mention the differences between the analog sources. You discussed the opposite.

^^ you noticed that as well huh...

 

[Kingsrule]

I don't know... not very impressed.

Certainly nicer than the Alpha dac...