Whoo Hoo. My Naim CDI is back and working perfectly :)

[Marco]

Hi Dave,

I can also tell you that just 'cos the machine has TDA 1541's, doesn't guarantee a good sound, believe me. I can think of one or two "bitstream" players that creamed the cheaper Philips/Marantz "16 bit" players we sold at the time........

Indeed - it's all to do with implementation. It takes a bit of effort and know-how, not to mention more complex circuitry, to get 1541s to sound optimal, as I'm sure Leo would agree

TDA 1541s, like anything else in hi-fi, aren't 'magic bullets' - if the rest of the design isn't up to scratch then the results will be mediocre, which is why some of the smoother-sounding (but ultimately rather bland) bitstream players of the day often 'outperformed' the more intrinsically musically adept multi-bit players. Get it right though, and there's no better sounding DAC chip than the TDA1541 in single or double crown versions, IMO.

The CDS never sold itself to me and my Micro creamed it on a Naim system (I think the demonstrator we had is actually my machine...). The CD-I was a different kettle of goodies altogether and the CD-2 and eventually the CDX are horrible by comparison IMO.

I disagree about the CDS. The one you heard must have been broken because all the ones I've used and heard (in Naim systems) were superb and exhibited that beguiling musicality that good TDA1541 machines all have in abundance. If a CDS is performing optimally a Micro shouldn't outperform it in the context of a Naim system, providing of course that the Naim system in question was set-up properly in the first place.

In many ways I preferred the CDS to the CDS2 I later bought brand new for just over £6k (those were the days - not!), no doubt in no small part due to the different DAC chips. I'm sure that the transport mechanism used in the CDS2 was also different. I loved the 'top hat' puck, too of the CDS which was a much more user-friendly and clever design than the small round puck Naim then used on all their latest players.

As for the CD2, I've not heard one, but I owned a CDX with and without an XPS and found it to be an excellent CD player. In fact, some prefer a CDX/XPS to a CDS2 and I can understand why.

Marco.

[pjdowns]

I loved the 'top hat' puck, too of the CDS which was a much more user-friendly and clever design than the small round puck Naim then used on all their latest players.

Totally agree with you on this one Marco,

The 'Top Hat' puck is something quite special, and looks the part too

My Dad has a Naim CDS3 and although I'd say the rest of the CD Player whoops my CDI, there is something almost tacky about the CDS3's puck.

P.

[The Grand Wazoo]

I had a CDI - one of the very early ones (I actually won it in a competition in Hi-Fi World just after it was first introduced) and I sold it only about a couple of years ago. I was very happy with it. It had some quirks that made me despair, but it made good music and I had to spend a lot to significantly better it.

Despite the theory of the time that Naim stuff only really works with Naim stuff, I was always happy with how it sounded through some really diverse combinations of gear - in fact some of the best sounds I ever got out of it were through my Radford STA15. You just never know till you try do you?

[YNWaN]

Paul, very glad to hear your CD problems are now cured (odd though).

[Spectral Morn]

While I freely confess to not liking the sound of Naim amplifiers ( I don't like many Solid State amps anyway), I do think their CD players are very good...at least the ones I have heard outside of a Naim system context. This was something that happened occasionally in the shop I worked in (we didn't do Naim). I always suggested that the Naim CDP be kept, and the amplification be changed...that advice was always based on the customer wanting of the Naim bus.

I think that sources tend to have broader use outside of a mostly closed system like Naim. At least that has been my experience...so far.


Regards D S D L----Neil

[Marco]

Hi Mark,

Welcome back

Marco.

[NRG]

As I'm finding out with my TDA1541a DAC experiment, its a very fine line between making the TDA sing and making is sound so-so. I think many manufacturers just did not know how to get the best from it in the early days...

[Marco]

I think that's very true, Neal. It is a difficult and quite expensive chip to optimise. There are some cracking examples of TDA 1541s 'done right', the CDI (and CDS) discussed here, and the AMR reviewed by Neil in Strokes of Genius being three of them, and of course the venerable Marantz CD7 and Sony CDPR-1/DAS-R1.

However, you could also probably reel off two dozen players or more featuring TDA1541s which sounded pants for reasons discussed, but like you say, get it right with this chip and the sonic and musical rewards are substantial...

Marco.

[The Grand Wazoo]

I had a CDI - one of the very early ones (I actually won it in a competition in Hi-Fi World just after it was first introduced) and I sold it only about a couple of years ago. I was very happy with it. It had some quirks that made me despair, but it made good music and I had to spend a lot to significantly better it.

Despite the theory of the time that Naim stuff only really works with Naim stuff, I was always happy with how it sounded through some really diverse combinations of gear - in fact some of the best sounds I ever got out of it were through my Radford STA15. You just never know till you try do you?

Photos here: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2175 (bottom of page)

[DSJR]

Hi Dave,



Indeed - it's all to do with implementation. It takes a bit of effort and know-how, not to mention more complex circuitry, to get 1541s to sound optimal, as I'm sure Leo would agree

TDA 1541s, like anything else in hi-fi, aren't 'magic bullets' - if the rest of the design isn't up to scratch then the results will be mediocre, which is why some of the smoother-sounding (but ultimately rather bland) bitstream players of the day often 'outperformed' the more intrinsically musically adept multi-bit players. Get it right though, and there's no better sounding DAC chip than the TDA1541 in single or double crown versions, IMO.



I disagree about the CDS. The one you heard must have been broken because all the ones I've used and heard (in Naim systems) were superb and exhibited that beguiling musicality that good TDA1541 machines all have in abundance. If a CDS is performing optimally a Micro shouldn't outperform it in the context of a Naim system, providing of course that the Naim system in question was set-up properly in the first place.

In many ways I preferred the CDS to the CDS2 I later bought brand new for just over £6k (those were the days - not!), no doubt in no small part due to the different DAC chips. I'm sure that the transport mechanism used in the CDS2 was also different. I loved the 'top hat' puck, too of the CDS which was a much more user-friendly and clever design than the small round puck Naim then used on all their latest players.

As for the CD2, I've not heard one, but I owned a CDX with and without an XPS and found it to be an excellent CD player. In fact, some prefer a CDX/XPS to a CDS2 and I can understand why.

Marco.

Hi Marco,

'Scuse the late reply. I just wanted to confirm that my views on the CDS were based on several demo examples (Studio 99 was one of the biggest Naim dealers in the eighties) and the Micro was on loan for a good few weeks (it wasn't just me who found this either - the sales director went mad because "we" didn't follow the party line).

I just found the CDS had a certain processing of the signal that I didn't like, which was missing in the CDI for some reason (I'm so glad that Paul D has his up and running again - a damned good machine). The CDS2/XPS didn't sound like its predecessor either, having a slightly creamy quality if anything - but SO good - this one creams my player and I loved it to bits. The bass "expression" and power very much like a good anaolgue master tape played on a valve based tape deck as I recall.........

The CDX is harsh toned to me (very "CD" like) and the XPS only serves to make the bass more powerful. A very mechanical and unmusical experience to me (I was one of the first "tune-dem" victims, programmed by Ivor personally ).