Soundquality of a transport

Hi everyone!
Today I have a Oppo103d->Rega DAC->Nait xs-2->Harbeth P3esr and I want to upgrade the source.
I heard that the nd5xs have good synergy with Nait xs-2. I´ve heard naim dacs before and like
the sound signature. But how big role does the transport part in a streamer play? Naim Dac has a slightly better dac than the nd5xs has according to some but is the trasport part so minuscule that it would be better to keep the Oppo and buy the Naim Dac instead?
Would like recommendations for these options only. No “save for a 555” or “buy the hugo” :slight_smile:

1 Like

The ND5XS is a great streamer – and I previously used it in combination with the XS2. So I think it’s a really good way of getting into streaming, and used prices are great for buyers. However, for better sound quality, I would rather go down the NDac route, get an Allo DigiOne (regular or Signature), and you would have a fabulous system.

1 Like

Thanks for the reply!
I will keep the Oppo anyway but you still think the transport part is that important?
Never heard of the Digione but it looks interesting. And a lot of upgrade possibilities that we Naim-owners love :smiley:
I don´t listen to internet streaming that much, mostly FLAC from a NAS and some movies so I guess the ndac is the way to go.

At one point I used an ND5XS into Hugo DAC, fed from a cheap NSA325 NAS.
The NAS was noisy, and in moving to a silent one I ended up replacing both ND5XS and NAS with a MacMini running Audirvana (headless and fully optimised), feeding through a Gustard U12 isolator to the Hugo. The sound improved - but I am unclear as to the reason, there being several possible explanations:

The Gustard was needed because without it the sound was very veiled, a consequence of RF interaction in the DAC (not being designed to minimise, Mac almost certainly has a greater level of RF contamination compared to ND5XS, and Hugo is very susceptible to RF: one possibility is that the Gustard on MM reduced RF to even better than the Nd5XS front end.

Another possibility is that the MM approach involves no streaming actoss a network while playing, so no possible effects arising from the network. (And no worry about network cables, switches and their power supplies etc.)

And anothervis that Audirvana may simply be a better renderer, regardless of the “bits are bits” argument, though that is a less rational explanation provided both are bit-perfect.

But the fact remains that the two approaches sound different - though it is fair to say that the difference is small. The same may be true when comparing the rendering stage of ND5XS with other renderers, whether
that in NDX or ND5XS2 or Melco or Innuos etc etc.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.