Another plead.... Strip the all-in-one streamers

Posted by: JYOW on 11 January 2010

Strip the all-in-one streamers

I remember being very excited about the HDX when it first came out. Only to find out that Naim had invested in unnecessary but noisy components like touch screen, CD drive and 2 hard drives, all these noisy components cost a lot to isolate. So I passed on the HDX.

Then came the Uniti, a dream machine for a starter system. But the cost included an even longer list components that are not needed, like CD drive, FM tuner, DAB tuner, DAC in, pre/power section. …. etc. So again not for anyone looking for a pure streamer.

Now the UniQute, which is so cute, so much like the old Naits that I want to hug it. But again, it is not a pure streamer, the only thing stripped out is the CD drive.

Dear Naim,

I understand that the all-in-one streamers fit the iPod crowds. But why not a pure streamer similar to the Linn DS? I am sure that it is EASIER to strip everything and develop a clean, low noise streamer.

Please understand that a pure streamer is a proven business model, Linn is investing its entire company into it, Slim Devices has done it for years with the Transporter. I know a few Transporter users who are also die hard Naimees, myself included, who cannot wait to switch to naim the minute streamer with a Naim logo comes out.

It probably cost less to build a high end streamer, and like everything with high-end written on it it will get much better margin. (e.g. Linn Klimax)

Meanwhile I am getting used to streaming my Macbook Pro to my Weiss DAC. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

Thanks for listening…..

Posted on: 11 January 2010 by JYOW

Sorry, this should belong to Distributed Audio

Posted on: 12 January 2010 by Richard Dane

Have patience Grasshopper. I'm sure Naim is listening...

OK, off to the DA room...

Posted on: 12 January 2010 by JYOW

Thanks for the heads up kung fu master. Naim needs to boggie since the other trains has left and many passengers have already boarded.

Posted on: 12 January 2010 by David Dever

quote:
Originally posted by JYOW:
Strip the all-in-one streamers

I remember being very excited about the HDX when it first came out. Only to find out that Naim had invested in unnecessary but noisy components like touch screen, CD drive and 2 hard drives, all these noisy components cost a lot to isolate. So I passed on the HDX.

Then came the Uniti, a dream machine for a starter system. But the cost included an even longer list components that are not needed, like CD drive, FM tuner, DAB tuner, DAC in, pre/power section. …. etc. So again not for anyone looking for a pure streamer.

Now the UniQute, which is so cute, so much like the old Naits that I want to hug it. But again, it is not a pure streamer, the only thing stripped out is the CD drive.

Dear Naim,

I understand that the all-in-one streamers fit the iPod crowds. But why not a pure streamer similar to the Linn DS?

The unitiQute has a digital out - this should be sufficient for even the most die-hard purists (no up-sampling to non-integer sample rates here). Its linear supply should be sufficient for nearly anything you'd need, with no hash put onto the mains from a noisy supply.

The FM tuner module also functions via the digital out (as it is DSP-based).

Personally, I find it much easier to use than the DS units - and the Uniti models both have Wi-Fi and a supplied IR remote control, which is incredibly easy to place in a client's home. Customers expect ease of use, and I know at least a handful of retail customers who have added NaimUniti all-in-ones to replace their low-end DS units.

Response from retailers at CES 2010 was exceptionally positive, and there will be wider appeal for Naim products as a result–and lots of interest from competitors who might make similar products as a result of the Uniti range's success.

All of this, though, is based on the US market–Hong Kong might be different than other markets.

Couldn't find the Linn room at the show, BTW.

Posted on: 12 January 2010 by likesmusic

quote:
Originally posted by David Dever:

The unitiQute has a digital out - this should be sufficient for even the most die-hard purists (no up-sampling to non-integer sample rates here).

Does it do gapless playback?

Posted on: 12 January 2010 by Aleg

quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
quote:
Originally posted by David Dever:

The unitiQute has a digital out - this should be sufficient for even the most die-hard purists (no up-sampling to non-integer sample rates here).

Does it do gapless playback?

Probably not eh, since it is still UpnP, which is an architecture they should ditch alltogether, because it is a useless addition to local network filesystems.

I'll just wait and see.

One thing for sure, I'll not be buying a UniQute either. I don't want to pay for all the useless parts that come with a one-box-for-everyting solution.

So I'll just wait and see....

-
aleg

Posted on: 12 January 2010 by JYOW

quote:
Originally posted by Aleg:
One thing for sure, I'll not be buying a UniQute either. I don't want to pay for all the useless parts that come with a one-box-for-everyting solution.

So I'll just wait and see....

-
aleg

Exactly, if I was looking for an entry level system for the bedroom this would be a no brainer. I bought the Meridian all-in-one box for similar reason.

But as a source for my main system, the $2000 price which includes all the gadgets implies the source alone is probably in the $1000 class or less. And don't forget all the other components inside are drawing power and making noise.

Posted on: 12 January 2010 by Exiled Highlander

Dear Naim

quote:
I don't want to pay for all the useless parts that come with a one-box-for-everyting solution.

Please do not take out all these usless parts as I won't be able to drive my speakers nor listen to the radio without them.

Thanks

Jim

Posted on: 12 January 2010 by Aleg

quote:
Originally posted by Exiled Highlander:
Dear Naim
quote:
I don't want to pay for all the useless parts that come with a one-box-for-everyting solution.
Please do not take out all these usless parts as I won't be able to drive my speakers nor listen to the radio without them.

Thanks

Jim

Useless, that is, for those of us that already have a Naim pre-amp, Naim power-amp, Naim DAC, Naim or other (cable) tuner, ...

Thank you as well if you would be so kind to remove them superfluous parts anyway

-
aleg

Posted on: 12 January 2010 by Milo Tweenie

quote:
Originally posted by JYOW:
Please understand that a pure streamer is a proven business model, Linn is investing its entire company into it, Slim Devices has done it for years with the Transporter. Thanks for listening…..

+1

Seriously looking at Linn DS, but would really like to have a Naim choice too.

Posted on: 12 January 2010 by lawoftrust

Seconded, a pure NAIM streamer (which must be able to play GAPLESS) is a definite must in 2010, otherwise I will switch this source to Linn (aside of the LP12) which would be a pity as I would much more favor a Naim sources.

Not interested in a new CDP.

Posted on: 12 January 2010 by goldfinch

features suggestions for a possible Qute-based streamer:

- UnitiQute looking (that's great!),
- Ethernet and Upnp streaming (maybe also new wifi protocols...)
- coax, bnc and optical inputs and outputs
- Internet radio streaming (FM & DAB optional)
- Remote with big screen for navigating through music library and showing album art.
- Great software (I find this is very relevant in such a product).
- Napsc/FC/HC PSU upgradeable? I don't know if this is worth technically speaking.

That is, an state of the art pure streamer!

Maybe a mid box would be too big for those features, making it a bit smaller could make it even more attractive.

I would like to use it with a DAC so I wouldn't like to pay for a DAC and analog output but I guess this would be necessary in order to match the needs of a bigger potential market. UnitiQute already has a DAC so...

Usb and Ipod capabilities would be again redundant with the Naim DAC but this would be nice again for direct connectivity to current systems.

Thinking about the non CDP digital Naim range:

Two transporters:
- A pure streamer with an entry DAC (let's say CD5i performance)
- One CD ripping and HD player: HDX

Two DACs for upgrading the above: current Naim DAC and future top DAC?

Ok, I will stop here.

Posted on: 12 January 2010 by rich46

quote:
Originally posted by goldfinch:
features suggestions for a possible Qute-based streamer:

- UnitiQute looking (that's great!),
- Ethernet and Upnp streaming (maybe also new wifi protocols...)
- coax, bnc and optical inputs and outputs
- Internet radio streaming (FM & DAB optional)
- Remote with big screen for navigating through music library and showing album art.
- Great software (I find this is very relevant in such a product).
- Napsc/FC/HC PSU upgradeable? I don't know if this is worth technically speaking.

That is, an state of the art pure streamer!

Maybe a mid box would be too big for those features, making it a bit smaller could make it even more attractive.

I would like to use it with a DAC so I wouldn't like to pay for a DAC and analog output but I guess this would be necessary in order to match the needs of a bigger potential market. UnitiQute already has a DAC so...

Usb and Ipod capabilities would be again redundant with the Naim DAC but this would be nice again for direct connectivity to current systems.

Thinking about the non CDP digital Naim range:

Two transporters:
- A pure streamer with an entry DAC (let's say CD5i performance)
- One CD ripping and HD player: HDX

Two DACs for upgrading the above: current Naim DAC and future top DAC?

Ok, I will stop here.

it would seem logical that after releasing a dac hub, a stand alone streamer/etc would be the next thing.

the cute was released to seek out new customers only

some one will put out a streamer of vgood quality similar to the sonos 90 that can except all high res downloads and it will be a winner, the cute as too many parts that are not needed, dac/amp radio etc who will it be not naim.

the naimdac is tiptop i just want to have access to stored files and downloads 24/96

Posted on: 12 January 2010 by DaveBk

I think I'll just stick with my Transporter. It has 75 Ohm BNC outputs so should work well with the DAC when I get my hands on one.

Posted on: 12 January 2010 by Guido Fawkes

quote:
UpnP, which is an architecture they should ditch alltogether

Agreed

Posted on: 12 January 2010 by JYOW

quote:
Originally posted by DaveBk:
I think I'll just stick with my Transporter. It has 75 Ohm BNC outputs so should work well with the DAC when I get my hands on one.

I should have done the same (kept my Transporter) as well. I was waiting for a Naim DAC mostly for sentimental reasons. I have since set up a Macbook based solution which worked out very nicely.

Richard Dane has kindly hinted that it is imminent. Well, better late than never. Naim has missed at least one, if not two or three purchase cycles.

Posted on: 12 January 2010 by JYOW

quote:
Originally posted by goldfinch:
features suggestions for a possible Qute-based streamer:

- UnitiQute looking (that's great!),
- Ethernet and Upnp streaming (maybe also new wifi protocols...)
- coax, bnc and optical inputs and outputs
- Internet radio streaming (FM & DAB optional)
- Remote with big screen for navigating through music library and showing album art.
- Great software (I find this is very relevant in such a product).
- Napsc/FC/HC PSU upgradeable? I don't know if this is worth technically speaking.

That is, an state of the art pure streamer!

Maybe a mid box would be too big for those features, making it a bit smaller could make it even more attractive.

I would like to use it with a DAC so I wouldn't like to pay for a DAC and analog output but I guess this would be necessary in order to match the needs of a bigger potential market. UnitiQute already has a DAC so...

Usb and Ipod capabilities would be again redundant with the Naim DAC but this would be nice again for direct connectivity to current systems.

Thinking about the non CDP digital Naim range:

Two transporters:
- A pure streamer with an entry DAC (let's say CD5i performance)
- One CD ripping and HD player: HDX

Two DACs for upgrading the above: current Naim DAC and future top DAC?

Ok, I will stop here.

Heck, if Naim just tweak the Transporter and cover it with a black case with a green logo. And for good measure install a Naim power supply, it will sell like hot cakes.

Posted on: 12 January 2010 by Peter Dinh

quote:
Originally posted by JYOW:
Heck, if Naim just tweak the Transporter and cover it with a black case with a green logo. And for good measure install a Naim power supply, it will sell like hot cakes.

NO.

The Transporter is alright, but I am not a fan. I think the Transport is crisp, clear but it is not as musical, bass clean, fast as I would have liked.

Posted on: 12 January 2010 by David Dever

quote:
Originally posted by Aleg:
quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
quote:
Originally posted by David Dever:

The unitiQute has a digital out - this should be sufficient for even the most die-hard purists (no up-sampling to non-integer sample rates here).

Does it do gapless playback?

Probably not eh, since it is still UpnP, which is an architecture they should ditch alltogether, because it is a useless addition to local network filesystems.

I'll just wait and see.

One thing for sure, I'll not be buying a UniQute either. I don't want to pay for all the useless parts that come with a one-box-for-everyting solution.

So I'll just wait and see....

-
aleg

If you cross UPnP off your list, there goes the Linn DS units as well, and (at their core) Sonos and Logitech devices.

Posted on: 12 January 2010 by Aleg

quote:
Originally posted by David Dever:
quote:
Originally posted by Aleg:
Probably not eh, since it is still UpnP, which is an architecture they should ditch alltogether, because it is a useless addition to local network filesystems.

I'll just wait and see.

One thing for sure, I'll not be buying a UniQute either. I don't want to pay for all the useless parts that come with a one-box-for-everyting solution.

So I'll just wait and see....

-
aleg

If you cross UPnP off your list, there goes the Linn DS units as well, and (at their core) Sonos and Logitech devices.

Right, I am indeed not interested in those solutions either.

The streaming concept was developed to deliver audio/video over the internet with small pieces a time not needing to download the whole file first and at the same time preventing the listener/viewer can get his hands on the complete source files. It is a broadcasting model for the broadcasting industry.

UpnP-devices are nice devices to connect to these internet broadcasts, if that interests you. But there is no audiophile level of broadcasting yet (if ever), it all is still some level of lossy audio.

Within a local area network, with local (NAS) storage of preferably lossless audio files, these arguments don't stick. Within a local network there is no need to put in a streaming server (Twonky e.g.) and start broadcasting audio around your local area network. A networked media player can just access the file on the fileserver directly, it need not be streamed. There is no delay of access, bandwidth in a local area network is more then sufficient for all audio or video playback. Playback can be gappless. Adding a streaming server is IMO again a useless addition within a local area network.

A Naim mediaplayer/streamer, on my part, doesn't have to be a UpnP streamer (I'm not particularly interested in internet radio broadcasts). For playback from my local area network NAS it just needs to be capable to access at least NFS-exports and/or support the SMB/CIFS-protocol for file access and be capable of playing a few popular lossless audio codecs.
The files are directly available on the local network, so just get them and don't start streaming them first.

-
aleg

Posted on: 13 January 2010 by JYOW

quote:
Originally posted by Aleg:
quote:
Originally posted by David Dever:
quote:
Originally posted by Aleg:
Probably not eh, since it is still UpnP, which is an architecture they should ditch alltogether, because it is a useless addition to local network filesystems.

I'll just wait and see.

One thing for sure, I'll not be buying a UniQute either. I don't want to pay for all the useless parts that come with a one-box-for-everyting solution.

So I'll just wait and see....

-
aleg

If you cross UPnP off your list, there goes the Linn DS units as well, and (at their core) Sonos and Logitech devices.

Right, I am indeed not interested in those solutions either.

The streaming concept was developed to deliver audio/video over the internet with small pieces a time not needing to download the whole file first and at the same time preventing the listener/viewer can get his hands on the complete source files. It is a broadcasting model for the broadcasting industry.

UpnP-devices are nice devices to connect to these internet broadcasts, if that interests you. But there is no audiophile level of broadcasting yet (if ever), it all is still some level of lossy audio.

Within a local area network, with local (NAS) storage of preferably lossless audio files, these arguments don't stick. Within a local network there is no need to put in a streaming server (Twonky e.g.) and start broadcasting audio around your local area network. A networked media player can just access the file on the fileserver directly, it need not be streamed. There is no delay of access, bandwidth in a local area network is more then sufficient for all audio or video playback. Playback can be gappless. Adding a streaming server is IMO again a useless addition within a local area network.

A Naim mediaplayer/streamer, on my part, doesn't have to be a UpnP streamer (I'm not particularly interested in internet radio broadcasts). For playback from my local area network NAS it just needs to be capable to access at least NFS-exports and/or support the SMB/CIFS-protocol for file access and be capable of playing a few popular lossless audio codecs.
The files are directly available on the local network, so just get them and don't start streaming them first.

-
aleg

Is this dislike of "streaming" based on actual listening of other network "streamers" or based on the OP's association of "streaming" with low res Internet radio?

Network streamers like Squeezebox/ Transporter/ Linn DS/Meridian Sooloos buffer lossless audio up to 24/192-Khz over the network beautifully. In fact, similar to the Naim DAC, the buffering of audio data an help to ensure audio date is “clocked into the memory at the incoming inconsistently-timed rate.”

Incidentally, Linn is so confident about "streaming" over the network that they are literally betting their farm on streaming audio by announcement the termination of their CD players range in favor of the Linn DS architecture.

Posted on: 13 January 2010 by Aleg

quote:
Originally posted by JYOW:
Is this dislike of "streaming" based on actual listening of other network "streamers" or based on the OP's association of "streaming" with low res Internet radio?
....

No, it is not based on listening.

It is based on my experience of having a networked mediaplayer that doesn't require a streaming server.

It is also based on my experience of being an ICT-architect and from there on the principle that best solutions are usualy clear and simple.

And looking at it from that perspective, if a file is available in a local area network, why put in an extra piece of software that will stream it across the network, instead of just get it by accessing the filesystem where it is stored. Esp. since the streaming technology was not intended to be used in a local network, where there is no need for it.

That doesn't mean it doesn't work, but it is an unnecessary and complicating factor.

Further the UpnP specs appear not to support gapless playback, so additional functionality needs to be developed , which then again are not part of the specs. It requires extra software on the server that needs to be developed, maintained, can contain errors, puts extra management efforts onto the user to manage this TWONKY thing.

And all this while it is not necessary for playing audio from a local network.

For me it is the same as e.g. (just to give a stupid example) modulating the output of a CD-player onto an FM-radio signal and playing that using a tuner, because we have tuners that can receive and play FM-signals. Just forgetting that FM radio signals are a broadcast technology and are not required for playback of CD's.

-
aleg

Posted on: 13 January 2010 by likesmusic

quote:
Originally posted by Aleg:
For me it is the same as e.g. (just to give a stupid example) modulating the output of a CD-player onto an FM-radio signal and playing that using a tuner, because we have tuners that can receive and play FM-signals. Just forgetting that FM radio signals are a broadcast technology and are not required for playback of CD's.

-
aleg

So, by the same token, it would be unnecessary and inelegant to turn the data into s/pdif to get it into a DAC, especially as in the case of the NAIM DAC there is already a handy RAM buffer in there. Just grab data off the network, keep that buffer topped up, and it's sorted.

Posted on: 13 January 2010 by Aleg

quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
quote:
Originally posted by Aleg:
For me it is the same as e.g. (just to give a stupid example) modulating the output of a CD-player onto an FM-radio signal and playing that using a tuner, because we have tuners that can receive and play FM-signals. Just forgetting that FM radio signals are a broadcast technology and are not required for playback of CD's.

-
aleg

So, by the same token, it would be unnecessary and inelegant to turn the data into s/pdif to get it into a DAC, especially as in the case of the NAIM DAC there is already a handy RAM buffer in there. Just grab data off the network, keep that buffer topped up, and it's sorted.

If your proposed type of DAC would have processing logic to access file systems and retrieve data directly from there, have the capability of applying the decoding logic of a CODEC and be capable of deciding the timing signal required, that would be a possibility. But then you would have incorporated the mediaplayer into the DAC with the purpose of avoiding just one S/PDIF conversion, whereas the Naim DAC also has other digital inputs for other S/PDIF devices and the function of the Naim DAC is only to convert Digital into Analogue audio signals, not to retrieve and play digital audio files. Which is nice to me, just a clear and simple function that can be used in multiple configurations.

The mediaplayer/streamer would have the function of being the digital source for playing (= converting and presenting) HDD or network stored audio files to a unified and standardised digital format S/PDIF used in the HiFi branch to connect digital devices.

I looking forward to your next reply, because I get the impression I'm being setup here

.

-
aleg

Posted on: 13 January 2010 by likesmusic

No I didn't intend to set you up at all - I agree with a lot of what you say about the silliness of upnp servers, I just think it follows from what you say about simplicity that the place for your proposed mediaplayer is inside the DAC (just as upnp media-renderers have a DAC incorporated). By all means have s/pdif inputs too for sources like legacy cd transports that need them. Add a volume control and you would have a magnificent digital pre-amp! Once you make the DAC separate then you get involved with all the rubbish about s/pdif cables, bnc/toslink which, judging by other posts on this forum from the esteemed golden-eared introduce sound-quality issues. There's just no need for this if your data is on the network, anymore than the DAC needs to apply RIAA pre-emphasis so that it can be fed into your phono-inputs.

Perhaps the closest thing to what I am suggesting is the Logitech Transporter. It can access music data files across a network (albeit with its own proprietary server, but at least it does gapless playback) and also has two s/pdif inputs and a volume control.

Think of it another way. Inside your proposed media streamer is some memory, into which data gets put. Inside the NAIM DAC is some memory from which you want the same data to be read into the D-A itself. Who in their right mind would use s/pdif to transfer data between two lumps of RAM?