Comparing RME ADI2 with Naim nac-n 172xs

[sleach]

I'm reconfiguring the front end of my system at the moment and have these two units on the hand. 

 

Prior to this I was using a Cambridge cxn as a placeholder. The cxn has excellent functionality and is very easy to use. But the sound of both the RME and the Naim are noticeably better than the Cambridge.

 

I found the RME has better imaging and separation of instruments and the bass is more articulated. The Naim sounds warmer, a bit meatier. 

 

Whenever a family member walks in while the Naim is playing they tend to start dancing. This didn't happen with the Cambridge, and not as much with the RME. So by that metric Naim wins.

 

I really like the hyperreal soundstage of the RME though, so that wins for me.

 

 

 

[mjs]

I'm really interested in any comments on this thread. I have been interested in the ADI-2 Pro fs and the ADI-2 DAC. I have been using an RME Fireface 400 primarily for A-D duties and it is a very good D-A as well, it is an absolutely excellent product. I have a Luxman DA-250 for D-A stuff that is in the normal signal path (either hi-res stuff on a Mac Mini or audio from an Oppo BDP-95). I am an RME fan and would really like to see how either the ADI-2 Pro fs or ADI-2 DAC perform in comparison. The ADI-2 would be almost just as good I suspect.

 

Thoughts anyone?

[was_a]

The Naim was released seven years ago - a long time in ''digital years'... Like Densen and Rega, Naim is known for fast transient attack and PRAT, which is fine for pop, rock, electro. But not great for acoustic genres. I'm not surprised you like the RME. 

[sleach]

I'm very happy with the fact that the Rme sounds so good with regular USB input and the bundled PSU. No need for expensive peripheral dejitter and reclocking devices.

 

On the other hand, the Naim is a beautiful piece of hifi design and is a really nice single box. 

 

I would love RME functionality in a Naim chassis.