Here is the detail of what I did using the Naim CI-102 and the setting of the Sub Bass control.
The ‘Outputs’ selection tab window (note that I did not show this window in my previous postings) appears like this:-
The next step is to select the ‘Configure Outputs’ button for the Sub/Aux RCA outputs highlighted in ‘brown’ colour on the diagram (maybe that colour is meant to suggest ‘Gold’?)
Again, as for regular loudspeakers in the Focal-Naim manager software, one can select from the availble range of Focal Sub Bass products. Here is an example…
Needless to say, as before, I just bypassed that setting!
Here I could add some amusing quip along the lines of Paul Hogan in the film ‘Crocodile Dundee’, substituting the word ‘Sub’ for ‘Knife’…as in… "That’s not a Sub…
…That’s a Sub!"
The Magico Titan 15 Sub comes with its own built in DSP Equaliser with dedicated control software. I am still optimising my settings for this, but nevertheless had established a reliable set of workable EQ values, the control panel ‘Output’ tab of which is shown here…
For the experiments with the Naim CI-102, I turned off all the Magico EQ (apart from the time delay correction) and set the Titan15 for full bandwidth with 0dB gain.
Then I set the Naim CI-102 software for the Sub/Aux outputs to give the same EQ settings that I had established previously with the Linn SO and Titan 15 together. Here is the image from the control window in the Focal-Naim Manager EQ Software where I set the relevant filter parameters for the Sub/Aux Output.
If people are really interested I could post the practically identical sets of REW measurements using the Linn Klimax DSM as the source with the Titan 15 and also using the Naim CI-102 as the source with the Titan 15.
The sound was very very very close! Amazing given the price difference of the sources?
However the ‘edginess’ of the Naim CI-102 source compared to the more ‘smooth’ and ‘realistic’ Linn Organik DAC (and hence my personal preference for the later) is the only observation I have for the differences in the ‘sound’ of the two products.
My hypothesis for this difference in sound relates to the nature of the digital oversampling processing, DAC output modulation type and also output filtering. Which brings me to the question I have for Naim staff (@Stevesky ) if they are willing to answer, please?
Which of the 8 available pre-programmed digital filters in the ESS 9033Q DACs have Naim selected for the Main and Sub Outputs on the Naim CI-102 (if indeed that is/was the design decision taken)?
I perhaps assume that Naim have selected one of the later listed 3 (three) Mimimum Phase types (type 6, 7 or 8) - but I am definately sufficiently interested to ask and find out and even be proven wrong if the answer comes back as Linear Phase Apodizing type 2!
Thank you for your consideration.