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

[Andrew Stenhouse]

not sure that it's even sensible to compare those two. unless you have some music that is native in both digital formats

one is native dsd, the other native PCM.

I've heard PCM through the NADAC and was not impressed. my perception of PCM through the Alpha dac was much better (if not quite Trinity dac level).

I have not heard dsd through the Alpha dac but am skeptical of it......dsd was superb through the NADAC.

so since any comparison would not be strength to strength......they are just different.

and the whole up-sampling subject one digital format to the other is murky at best.......i'll give the nod to PCM upsampled to Quad dsd of what I've heard.....although I'm not sure how doable/flexible that is with the NADAC interface.

Agree entirely as reflective of my experiences with the Nadac. Great post Mike. As a DSD dac, particularly in the higher resolutions of DSD, I agree the Nadac is stunning. I was fairly underwhelmed by the PCM performance until it got up to DXD level, where it was excellent. Yes, the interface.

My experience was the magic with the Nadac was in native DSD 128-256 via ASIO, not via DoP 128 in Linux /OSX. ASIO means Windows. That meant interfacing problems, or simple single switch set ups which limited eg remote functionality.

I sometimes wonder when I hear reports of how great the Nadac is with PCM through fairly modest systems like the one featured above if I am the odd one out and hearing something completely differently, or if I am the only one who is being honest about it, or can hear it, or if the systems I am using to hearing are inherently more resolving.

I know when I was with Edgar the difference between PCM and DSD was very plain to behold through his reviewing system. I'll have a .pdf of Edgar's review in a few weeks and I'll post it. It has been published, but I haven't read it, so it will be interesting to see how he deals with what we heard. Diplomatically, if I know Edgar's writing.

And when I read a review like this by Jeff Fritz I fairly cringe. All that review tells me is that Jeff Fritz hasn't got a clue about DSD & computer audio, and either wouldn't know good sound if he fell over it, or is prepared to write platitudes despite what his honest feelings were, or a combination of the two. Why you would ever use legacy connections with the Nadac are beyond me. Let alone with an Oppo as a source. Mind you, he is a reviewer so I take all he says with a grain of salt.

Very few people IMO are actually qualified to review, as opposed to writing words that appeal to readers and advertisers. Plenty of the latter.

BTW this statement by Mr Fritz:

"Of course, using the Ravenna protocol, it would be possible to choose additional sources on the network, such as additional computers. I had only the one."

is just wrong the way he configured Ravenna. He didn't connect the Nadac to a LAN, he connected it to a single computer, a very different thing.

It makes me wonder how transparent people's systems are, and what their listening experience actually is.

 

[MadFloyd]

Agree entirely. Great post. As a DSD dac, particularly in the higher resolutions of DSD, I agree the Nadac is stunning. I was fairly underwhelmed by the PCM performance until it got up to DXD level, where it was excellent.

As long as one is up sampling PCM to DSD (preferably quad) via HQPlayer, any deficiencies with PCM are moot when it comes to the NADAC.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

As long as one is up sampling PCM to DSD (preferably quad) via HQPlayer, any deficiencies with PCM are moot when it comes to the NADAC.

well.......

does that work with the NADAC interface? and if it does have you heard it that way?

then you would need to compare that directly to the Alpha dac PCM performance (or the Trinity dac or MSB Select). otherwise you still have one great PCM dac and one great dsd dac.

I agree that up-sampling PCM to Quad dsd is a step forward (and what I'm doing on my GG). but I've yet to read about it being directly compared to a top flight PCM dac.

 

[Andrew Stenhouse]

As long as one is up sampling PCM to DSD (preferably quad) via HQPlayer, any deficiencies with PCM are moot when it comes to the NADAC.

Yes, I agree with that Ian. I was commenting on the straight PCM performance.

I heard no difference incidentally between DXD and DSD with the Nadac. It is an interesting experiment to compare a 2L file of each.

You can't do that natively with the Nadac Mike, it is a pure DAC, you need a computer to feed the signal to the Nadac, whatever that is - DSD 256, DSD 64, PCM. HQP of course dsp's everything to DSD 256, if that is how you configure it, and has very positive implications for the Nadac's performance.

Edi: I really wish that Merging had released a simple DSD only dac with ethernet (wired and fiber) connections at a much lower price point and in a much smaller and cheaper case. No headphone out, no volume control, no legacy connections. I could see that selling like hotcakes. Or better still keep the case and put an i7 in it running HQP and dsp everything to DSD 256, no matter what it is fed.

From a shot of the internals, and knowing what I do about this dac, I don't doubt it could in that form be brought to market for around 5k. What a game changer that would be for the greater audiophile community.

 

[MadFloyd]

well.......

does that work with the NADAC interface? and if it does have you heard it that way?

then you would need to compare that directly to the Alpha dac PCM performance (or the Trinity dac or MSB Select). otherwise you still have one great PCM dac and one great dsd dac.

I agree that up-sampling PCM to Quad dsd is a step forward (and what I'm doing on my GG). but I've yet to read about it being directly compared to a top flight PCM dac.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'work with the NADAC interface'. The NADAC will do any mode but excels ate DSD. If you feed it high quality DSD all is good.

Having had the MSB Analog in my system before I can say with confidence that the NADAC is better.

 

[Andrew Stenhouse]

Having had the MSB Analog in my system before I can say with confidence that the NADAC is better.

Oh streets ahead of the MSB Analog, I agree completely.

In case anyone has the idea I am negative on the Nadac, I am not. It was/is the best most transparent and involving digital I have ever heard when playing back DSD. With PCM not so much. But as MF points out, that is a moot point given HQP.

I suppose for all my bitching about what the Nadac could have/should have been, I should acknowledge what it is - a SOTA converter from one of the leading pro manufacturers at a very reasonable cost.

For anyone thinking of buying one, I would say go for it. Just plan on playing DSD as your preferred playback container.

 

[Kingsrule]

Yes, I agree with that Ian. I was commenting on the straight PCM performance.

I heard no difference incidentally between DXD and DSD with the Nadac. It is an interesting experiment to compare a 2L file of each.

You can't do that natively with the Nadac Mike, it is a pure DAC, you need a computer to feed the signal to the Nadac, whatever that is - DSD 256, DSD 64, PCM. HQP of course dsp's everything to DSD 256, if that is how you configure it, and has very positive implications for the Nadac's performance.

Edi: I really wish that Merging had released a simple DSD only dac with ethernet (wired and fiber) connections at a much lower price point and in a much smaller and cheaper case. No headphone out, no volume control, no legacy connections. I could see that selling like hotcakes. Or better still keep the case and put an i7 in it running HQP and dsp everything to DSD 256, no matter what it is fed.

From a shot of the internals, and knowing what I do about this dac, I don't doubt it could in that form be brought to market for around 5k. What a game changer that would be for the greater audiophile community.

As one who pissed and moaned about getting the NADAC on your network reliably, not liking its display, and whatever else you were grinding on with it, who can rely on what you were listening to and the rest of your comments ? And what do you really know about it to claim it can be brought to market for around 5k?

 

[Andrew Stenhouse]

Edit. Happy Easter to all.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'work with the NADAC interface'. The NADAC will do any mode but excels ate DSD. If you feed it high quality DSD all is good.

since the NADAC does not use USB, I was not sure that the Ravenna Ethernet interface used by the NADAC supported HQPlayer PCM -> Quad dsd up-sampling. that was my question......whether HQPlayer is compatible. your comment 'excels at dsd' does not answer that question. and it's only a question.

you also did not answer my question as to whether you had heard the MQPlayer PCM -> Quad dsd up-sampling thru the NADAC; Have you?

Having had the MSB Analog in my system before I can say with confidence that the NADAC is better.

I cited the MSB Select ($90k) as an example, along with the Trinity dac, as a reference for PCM performance. MSB Analog is under $10k and while a fine bang for the buck digital source.....not in the ballpark I was referencing.

 

[Andrew Stenhouse]

.....I was not sure that the Ravenna Ethernet interface used by the NADAC supported HQPlayer PCM -> Quad dsd up-sampling. that was my question......whether HQPlayer is compatible.

Yes it does - it accepts any form of DSD stream via ethernet.

.......whether you had heard the HQPlayer PCM -> Quad dsd up-sampling thru the NADAC; Have you?

Yes he has. In fact that was the point when Ian said it's PCM performance was moot given HQP's ability to produce DSD 256.

 

[MadFloyd]

Thanks for clarifying, Andrew.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

so regarding comparing the Alpha dac and the NADAC, which was what I was commenting on, the question remains......how does the MQPlayer upsampling PCM -> Quad dsd thru the NADAC compare to a dedicated top notch PCM ladder dac such as the Alpha dac, Trinity, or MSB Select doing PCM???

until we know the answer to that question, the direct comparison between those 2 units is still not really possible......as they do different things and have different strengths.

I know how that goes in my perceptions with JRiver PCM -> Quad dsd on the GG compared to my recollection of the Trinity. and there is still a considerable gap. how much better is MQPlayer than JRiver? don't know. I suspect any up-sampling is not going to reach top level PCM performance. and whether we like it or not, most music is native PCM.

 

[adyc]

Alpha DAC is not ladder DAC. It is delta-sigma. Alpha DAC also cannot play DSD. Actually, when you buy Alpha DAC, Berkeley will give the owner a copy of Jriver to convert DSD to PCM.

 

[MadFloyd]

so regarding comparing the Alpha dac and the NADAC, which was what I was commenting on, the question remains......how does the MQPlayer upsampling PCM -> Quad dsd thru the NADAC compare to a dedicated top notch PCM ladder dac such as the Alpha dac, Trinity, or MSB Select doing PCM???

until we know the answer to that question, the direct comparison between those 2 units is still not really possible......as they do different things and have different strengths.

I know how that goes in my perceptions with JRiver PCM -> Quad dsd on the GG compared to my recollection of the Trinity. and there is still a considerable gap. how much better is MQPlayer than JRiver? don't know. I suspect any up-sampling is not going to reach top level PCM performance. and whether we like it or not, most music is native PCM.

I certainly wouldn't know how HQPlayer upsampled to the NADAC compares to the Trinity or MSB Select DACs (which are far more expensive units) playing straight PCM, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if it fell short. I certainly believe it falls short of the dCS Rossini. I also wouldn't be surprised if it had a more neutral sound than the Trinity or MSB (pro audio vs audiophile output stages?).

As for HQPlayer being superior to JRiver, there is no contest. It's a night and day difference. HQPlayer is much, much better.

 

[adyc]

...most music is native PCM.

Not too sure about that. Most ADCs are delta-sigma. These ADCs downsample to PCM for further editings. That's why most of DSD supporters criticise PCM as the recordings are not native PCM.

 

[Kingsrule]

This is the setting I'm using now on HQPlayer to the NADAC. Maybe it'll make things clearer ML:

 

[microstrip]

so regarding comparing the Alpha dac and the NADAC, which was what I was commenting on, the question remains......how does the MQPlayer upsampling PCM -> Quad dsd thru the NADAC compare to a dedicated top notch PCM ladder dac such as the Alpha dac, Trinity, or MSB Select doing PCM???

until we know the answer to that question, the direct comparison between those 2 units is still not really possible......as they do different things and have different strengths.

I know how that goes in my perceptions with JRiver PCM -> Quad dsd on the GG compared to my recollection of the Trinity. and there is still a considerable gap. how much better is MQPlayer than JRiver? don't know. I suspect any up-sampling is not going to reach top level PCM performance. and whether we like it or not, most music is native PCM.

It is why I would love to listen from owners of GG DACs having the new r2r PCM and DSD!

 

[Kingsrule]

Tough to compare NADAC to Rossini right now as the dCS piece doesn't work with roon and when it is fully implemented I believe it will be uPnP only. There are some nice features on Rossini that I wish HQPlayer had, namely being able to change filter and sampling rates on the fly. I'll bet the audio out on Rossini is better than NADAC. Rossini only upsamples to DSD128. My hunch is the HQPlayer is better sounding than the dCS. I plan on getting a dCS to compare

Also, just because a dac is $90k, pcm only or whatever really doesn't mean anything anymore. All that really matters is how it sounds, especially playing pcm. Many times we get stuck on the pricing and with computers that's most likely a mistake

 

[Ric Schultz]

Mike,
"As for HQPlayer being superior to JRiver, there is no contest. It's a night and day difference. HQPlayer is much, much better." If this is so, and I have no doubt....having read the same thing many other places....then I really think you should get HQplayer and see how good Quad speed upsampling can sound into your Lampy......still might not reach Trinity level....but you never know. Also, some say 8XDSD is even better.....you will need powerful computer to do it and I don't know if the Lampy can take 8XDSD. I think the Gustard can via i2S.......yes, stay tuned for the Gustard show! What is really cool is that all software sounds different. Do we really think that HQplayer will be the last and best upsampling software?......even the guy that wrote it is probably working on a better version.....the beat goes on.

 

[YashN]

That's why most of DSD supporters criticise PCM as the recordings are not native PCM.

Not necessarily, some of us also mention the more gentle filtering and effects on transient reproduction available with DSD over PCM. In other words, a simpler output possible (and better sounding).