Sub 5 grand DACs

i am not sure that test shows all, maybe. The DCS works best with standalone dacs, directly connected to it. The 272 is a streamer/ dac/ preamp in one box. The quality of the spdif cable may also change the game.

Very good points, FR. I only used a £200 Chord Shawline spdif and I have 15 year old Naim power amp and speakers. Also my entire system is tuned to maximise musicality, not detail resolution.

The quality of the DAC and the whole signal chain through to speakers and the room and the listener will influence whether any difference can be discerned between an NB and a more basic bridge, and whether it is preferred or not.

This is proven just by the fact that Bluesfan said above that he did hear a difference - and that the preferred the dcs nb to certain other bridges, although he didn’t buy it.

I was only reporting what I found, not trying to generalise the result to anyone else’s system.

When I said: “it doesn’t sound better than a good bridge like wot Bluesfan got” I was not trying to be scientifically rigourous!

1 Like

We haven’t done a back to back comparison of DCS Network Bridge versus any Sonore products, let alone the optical ones.

A comparison of the NB versus optical Rendus brings in too many other variables for conclusions to be readily drawn. A definitive comparison would require reviews of different power supplies and SFP modules on the Rendu’s performance, different ethernet cables on the NB. Life’s just too short for all that.

In our case, we understood how sensitive the Chord dacs are to RFI, so wanted to block it as firmly as possible - hence the optical network link which only leaves leakage via power supplies and via the air. We also decided to spend the budget on the dac, knowing that we could revisit the streaming front end at a later date if we so desired. As we preferred OpticalRendu + the Chord combo to ethernet + ND555/555PSDR or CDS3/555PSDR, we thought that this would more than suffice for quite a while.

3 Likes

To add one more point for the OP to chew over - I believe that dCS designed the NB to perform best with older dcs dacs, as a way of downsampling hi res files to those old dcs dacs can play them at the highest resolution of which they are capable.

But of course the nb will also work with other dacs too.

Again for the OP - what bluesfan says in this quote is what I was also trying to get at. i.e. that you will probably get much greater SQ per $ by investing in the DAC rather than a dCS Network Bridge.

1 Like

Yes, I agree COMPLETELY. I think I tweaked my ultraRendu & SOtM as much as is possible in terms of power and widgets, and I preferred the dCS - but it was still a tad more expensive than the SOtM, and a bigger gap to the Sonore. Worth it in my opinion.

2 Likes

I prefer the dcs bridge for 3 reasons: only one box, with no additional ps to add. The updates can be regularly downloaded, so no need to change the box. And it looks nice , vs the more common sonore little box.
Sonore is also regularly evolving its products: first was sonore rendu, then ultra rendu, then ultra rendu se, then optical rendu and now optical rendu se.
The DCS will last longer and will be upgraded by downloading.

2 Likes

I’ve been contemplating a Network Bridge or similar for a while , I think they make an awful lot of sense . I noticed a used DCS NB for sale today which might be of interest to Steve ? From a dealer but auction site .

A slight exaggeration. First came the MicroRendu (still a current product), then ultraRendu (still a current product), then opticalRendu. In parallel, there has been the posh version which has its own internal linear power supply called the Signature Rendu, which is now the Signature Rendu SE. So there have been successive developments but not much in the way of obsolescence.

Best regards, BF

2 Likes

So if you had the signature rendu or optical rendu, you can upgrade without selling the box if you want the SE version?
You know better than me about these products, so maybe i exaggerated a bit?

Hi FR,
There is no opticalRendu SE. There is only 1 version, the opticalRendu.

The Signature Rendu was originally an ultraRendu + Sonore’s very good linear power supply, all in a single, full width box.

Today, the Signature Rendu SE is an opticalRendu + Sonore’s linear power supply in a single box. The much larger box allows the manufacturer to lay out the components of the opticalRendu with more space between critical ones in order to further improve sound quality (presumably be reducing interference between components)

Last time I checked, the Signature Rendu could be upgraded to an SE.

Hope this helps, BF

2 Likes

Thanks for the clear overview! It’s a pity that all the Sonore Rendus come with a USB output. To feed old Naim streamers and the old Naim DAC, it would be good to have the option of buying the Rendus with a S/PDIF BNC output. The alternative is to add yet another link to the chain, like for instance the Sonore Ultra Digital. Good that we have the Allo DigiOne Signature. In my system, it does not sound worse than the UltraRendu + Shiit Eitr or UltraRendu + Mutec MC-3+ Smart Clock USB!

Indeed. We look forward to Naim combining its excellent streaming know-how with its own state of the art dac. Now that would be nigh on unbeatable.

Best regards, BF

Isn’t that what the ND555 is?
Now I concede the Texas Instruments PCM1704K converter chips themselves are somewhat long in the tooth, albeit highly regarded, but their implementation and supporting circuitry is arguably state of the art… certainly very advanced.
We shouldn’t confuse Naim’s focus on using IIR filtering as distinct from the currently more fashionable FIR filtering as not being state of the art… far from it…
I suspect when Naim upgrade the chipsets they may well stay on their current evolution path with IIR, advanced clock stability, advanced decoupling and hyper accurate current to voltage conversion in converter to analogue stage coupling.

But DAC technology is subjective in terms of critical sound performance and so one design can’t be unbeatable as perfection is impossible (literally) to achieve… one simply chooses the compromises and areas to focus on… so different DAC techniques will always sound and perform critically somewhat differently… you choose what is best for you.

4 Likes

i recently heard the nd555 . I feel it will be very difficult for Naim to find a dac so musical as the one inside. It’s the real naim signature, even more than the electronics.
I have not heard still more enjoyable digital sources than naim. Heard a lot since 20 years.
So for me this prehistoric dac is really not a problem.

Chatting with Steve Sells at the Bristol show launch of the ND555 a few years ago he seemed to think that more SQ gains could be made by removing the DAC altogether from the streamer and that the seperately suspended ‘box within a box’ approach of the ND555, whilst a big step up from NDS, was still something of a compromise on what might ultimately be possible if the gloves could really be removed, specifically on box count and the number of separated duty power supplies. These could ideally be further optimised, but cost would obviously be substantially increased again and the planners probably don’t see too many buyers for a 5 or 6 box streamer… Interestingly, he didn’t voice any reservations about or suggest he might have alternative plans for DAC chipsets.

But they must have alternative plans … the batch of PCM1704 they managed to secure will not last forever!

1 Like

Buy the copyright of the tda1541 :slight_smile:

1 Like

Already in communication with said dealer :wink:

1 Like

Indeed transport DAC physical decoupling is something a few of us have suggested to Naim, and indeed would follow true to their stated ‘DNA’.
I suspect when and if the Statement level streamer appears it will follow this approach… and you do to some extent now if you do it yourself with a seperate DAC (Naim or not) to the transport… which is what I do.
I find a lot of the issues and observation of ‘noise shaping’ effectively disappear when you adopt this approach

1 Like