Naim's servers and streamers: why no modular approach ?

Posted by: nbpf on 05 July 2014

I am relatively new to Naim but I have been following this forum for a while and I have recently bought a SN2 and a second hand DAC. I am quite happy with my system but there is a question which is bugging me and that I'd like to address / answer / debate.

 

Naim has been developing both integrated products (the Uniti range) and single components which can be combined to build modular systems: one can buy a pure digital to analog converter (DAC), a pure integrated amplifier (SN2), a pure preamp (152 XS) and so on. There are product lines (XS, 500, Classic) that suggest meaningful combitations of these components and support building modular systems which are well balanced and devoid of redundancies.

 

But when it comes to servers (UnitiServe, HDX) and streamers (NDS, NDX, ND5XS), Naim does not support a modular approach. Separation of concerns is not an option anymore: you cannot, for instance, buy a pure Naim hard disk player, connect it to a dac and go.

 

This lack of modularity necessarily leads to bloated systems and redundancies. Why is it so? Why doesn't Naim offer streamers which are just streamers and not streamers and dacs? Why doesn't Naim offer servers which are just servers and not servers and CD players and ripping stations ?

 

I have been looking carefully at Naim's products and I have the impression that there is a dichotomy between the line of traditional audio devices and that of servers and streamers: the first one is open, understandable, modular. The second one is, to say the least, confusing.

 

I have been considering different options for building my system but I have to say that I could not find a sufficient reason to buy a Naim server or a streamer. I possibly would have bought a pure streamer (say a ND5XS without a dac) and I certainly would have bought a Naim dedicated device that just plays files from a SSD drive. And considering the number of posts in this forum concerned with the usage of Mac Minis or PCs  as audio servers it appears that I am not alone.

 

So the question is: Naim offers excellent modular traditional products. Why doesn't Naim follow a similar approach when it comes to servers and streamers ? Why four CD players but not a single pure hard disk player ?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by Kiwi cat

npbf, I bought a unitiserve because I am not tech savvy, in fact most of this discussion goes right over my head. The idea of a high quality ripper that could play back cds ripped, at cd  or better quality, was very appealing to me. I could get all the CDs out of the listening room, avoiding clutter. Plus the n-stream app is an easy and fun way of controlling  the  superuniti that the unitiserve is connected to.The idea of using a server from a different brand is aesthetically displeasing to me as it would not match the SU in appearance, and I would lose some functionality, not being able to control everything from the n-stream on the iPad. I am happy to pay the premium to avoid the faffage and to have the hifi looking good.

 

.

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by hungryhalibut

Faffage - nice!

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by Jude2012
@daveforjazz,

Good point I meant to say that 'integrated DAC and streamers are best' .

Yep, as the OP, yourself, and others, and I have said, it is what we wish Naim would produce.

J :-)
Posted on: 06 July 2014 by nbpf
Originally Posted by AllenB:
Originally Posted by nbpf:
 What I understand under a simple, straightforward entry point is a device with a modern multicore low power cpu, high quality build standard, high quality optical and electrical SPDIF outputs, USB ports, SSD, fanless and certification for open OSs. I guess I already wrote this, haven't I ?

Been an interesting thread!

 

With your description, it strikes me that the Unitiserve is pretty much that piece of hardware (it even has the mouse, keyboard & display ports of a normal computer). It, of course, runs an embedded Windows OS with all sorts of customised services built on top of that, giving you the proprietary Naim Server. But it strikes me as to whether anyone could completely overwrite the OS from scratch, and set it up as a server, or indeed a SPDIF-output basic player to their own custom needs. I also guess that, at the price of the US, nobody would contemplate it. 

 

Or is their something in the Windows embedded system that needs specialised software to even get started in flashing a new basic Windows  OS starting point. To summarise, it should not be difficult for Naim to provide a US with a basic OS (i.e. without all the Naim server services) for customer customisation. Would Naim want to do this? I doubt it, but could someone expert in embedded OS do it? I don't see why not, after all, the US is only a basic mini PC.

AllenB, I essentially agree with your analysis.

 

I can add that, if Naim had certified the UnitiServe for some decent GNU / Linux distribution and offered a few meaningful hardware customization options, I would certainly have bought the UnitiServe instead of going the fit-PC + M2Tech way.

 

And you are right it should be possible to install an open OS on the UnitiServe. But without certification and meaningful customization options (in particular, HD options) it's a no go.

 

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by nbpf
Originally Posted by Kiwi cat:

npbf, I bought a unitiserve because I am not tech savvy, in fact most of this discussion goes right over my head. The idea of a high quality ripper that could play back cds ripped, at cd  or better quality, was very appealing to me. I could get all the CDs out of the listening room, avoiding clutter. Plus the n-stream app is an easy and fun way of controlling  the  superuniti that the unitiserve is connected to.The idea of using a server from a different brand is aesthetically displeasing to me as it would not match the SU in appearance, and I would lose some functionality, not being able to control everything from the n-stream on the iPad. I am happy to pay the premium to avoid the faffage and to have the hifi looking good.

Yes, as I said devices of the Uniti rage are great products ! I'm glad you have found what you were looking for. Best, nbpf

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by Huge
Originally Posted by AllenB:

...

but could someone expert in embedded OS do it? I don't see why not, after all, the US is only a basic mini PC.

I could probably do it (unless the ROM was hard soldered), but I have no interest in doing so.  If you want a PC without the customisations, buy a fit-PC3 (or similar); it's cheaper and a LOT less hassle.

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by charlesphoto

Isn't the OP essentially talking about an HDX? 

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by nbpf
Originally Posted by charlesphoto:

Isn't the OP essentially talking about an HDX? 

No, the HDX is quite the opposite of what I am after. If you look at the HDX specification you will see that the HDX is, among others, 1) a CD player, 2) a ripping unit, 3) a UPnP server, 4) a file server and 5) a digital to analog converter. This is a highly integrated device. In contrast, what I have been arguing for are simple, specialized components that can be integrated in a modular system: a dacless player, for example, or a dacless UPnP client. 

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by dave4jazz

The basic components in my modular system would be:

  1. Media Streamer
  2. CD Transport
  3. Digital Pre-amp (DAC + analogue pre-amp)
  4. Power Amp

Clearly this doesn't cater for the analogue turntable user but, despite the increase in sales of LPs, how big a market is this? Naim are not unique in persisting with the necessity for an analogue pre-amp but to me, in the digital age, this item is redundant. I look at the back of the typical analogue pre-amp and think why do I need all those input sockets; I just need an input for the DAC output. What I want is a digital pre-amp that offers mutliple input choices, e.g. USB, S/PDIF, optical, BNC, etc.

 

Dave

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by Jude2012
My components would break down as follows

1) storage device
2) streamer
3) DAC
4) Pre
5) Power

Or substitute 4 and 5 for an intergrated. 

Previously, I would have gone with the same ad @dave4jazz.  However, seeing what's happening with the intro of the Hugo and advances in streaming make think as I do now, FWIW.

J :-)
Posted on: 06 July 2014 by Huge
Originally Posted by Jude2012:
My components would break down as follows

1) storage device
2) streamer
3) DAC
4) Pre
5) Power

Or substitute 4 and 5 for an intergrated. 

Previously, I would have gone with the same ad @dave4jazz.  However, seeing what's happening with the intro of the Hugo and advances in streaming make think as I do now, FWIW.

J :-)

You missed one important (though not absolutely essential) component:

 

0) CD Ripping device (+ AccurateRip Software)

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by Jude2012
Good point @Huge,

I would need to either rip or transcode. I am agnostic as to whether this is in the 'storage device' (aka computer).

J :-)
Posted on: 06 July 2014 by Huge
Originally Posted by Jude2012:
My components would break down as follows

1) storage device
2) streamer
3) DAC
4) Pre
5) Power

Or substitute 4 and 5 for an intergrated. 

Previously, I would have gone with the same ad @dave4jazz.  However, seeing what's happening with the intro of the Hugo and advances in streaming make think as I do now, FWIW.

J :-)

A:  There is also another configuration that make better use of available technology (similar to the Chord DACs)

 

B:  You should also consider the possibility of a data pull mode of operation (i.e. direct file reads rather than data being pushed by a media streaming solution).

 

 

1) CD Ripper

2) storage device
3) streamer / file reader
4) PCM / DSD to PDM converter
5) Class T Line Driver
6) Class T Active Speakers

 

4 and 5 would probably be combined as for best control 4 will need at least a very low power line driver anyway.  It's simply a matter of how long the lines are, separately the driver only needs to power 3m cables, to drive the PDM signal to the speakers it needs to drive 20m+ of balanced signal cable.

 

If we're going for a new non-Naim design philosophy why stop at a half-way house?

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by nbpf

dave4jazz, Jude2012, Huge,

I very much agree with your positions and see a number of advantages in the kind of systems you are envisaging. These would exhibit very little redundancies. Money and space would be spent on what gets actually used. It would be easier to compare, optimize and replace individual components, identify potential sources of noise and correct misbehaviour. And, of course, a small set of dedicated, single-purpose, open OS based components, would allow users to build systems according to their individual needs. All this seems to me very obvious. It is possible Naim is following a different approach. But it's one I find it difficult to understand.

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by Huge
Originally Posted by nbpf:

dave4jazz, Jude2012, Huge,

I very much agree with your positions and see a number of advantages in the kind of systems you are envisaging. These would exhibit very little redundancies. Money and space would be spent on what gets actually used. It would be easier to compare, optimize and replace individual components, identify potential sources of noise and correct misbehaviour. And, of course, a small set of dedicated, single-purpose, open OS based components, would allow users to build systems according to their individual needs. All this seems to me very obvious. It is possible Naim is following a different approach. But it's one I find it difficult to understand.

Very simple:  It would be very expensive to develop and market each of these individual components.  It's unlikely that the result would be price competitive.

 

From my own design experience, I disagree that "It would be easier to ... identify potential sources of noise and correct misbehaviour.".  Comparison and replacement of components however, yes, I agree whole-heartedly.

 

(And yes, I have worked in a company manufacturing modular electronic equipment.)

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by DavidDever
Originally Posted by nbpf:

dave4jazz, Jude2012, Huge,

I very much agree with your positions and see a number of advantages in the kind of systems you are envisaging. These would exhibit very little redundancies. Money and space would be spent on what gets actually used. It would be easier to compare, optimize and replace individual components, identify potential sources of noise and correct misbehaviour. And, of course, a small set of dedicated, single-purpose, open OS based components, would allow users to build systems according to their individual needs. All this seems to me very obvious. It is possible Naim is following a different approach. But it's one I find it difficult to understand.

At what point does the activity of listening to music through any of these cut-down configurations become a hairshirt exercise?

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by George J
Originally Posted by DavidDever:
At what point does the activity of listening to music through any of these cut-down configurations become a hairshirt exercise?
 

Music as a necessary evil to show the reply is really good?

 

The lack of musical examples in these discussions does seem to indicate that you are quite right, Mr D-!

 

ATB from George

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by DavidDever

It just reminds me of the Archigram experiments of the Sixties and Seventies, that's all - perfect for anyone who would dominantly wander through the plains of technology without providing any roots by which any good concept could grow....

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by nbpf
Originally Posted by Huge:
Very simple:  It would be very expensive to develop and market each of these individual components.  It's unlikely that the result would be price competitive.

Good point. But Naim seems to be doing quite well in marketing single-purpose, dedicated, modular components: NACs, NAPs,  power units, etc. It could try a similar approach on the source side. We finally have (at least) three streamers with integrated dac but no single dacless streamer and, what I find equally surprising, no single pure player.

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by nbpf
Originally Posted by Wat:

There are a number of streamer only products around, such as one from Cyrus. 

Thanks Wat, I know the Cyruses and the MSB. Interesting products indeed. But as I said, I am very happy with my modest system and my next step will be replacing the 25 years old speakers. I have not gone the streaming route and kept components which depend on fast moving technologies (dac, storage) well separated from the rest. At a certain point I might replace Naim's DAC but the SN2 is there to stay. I am not the kind of person who is really interested in high fidelity. I have just tried to set up a simple, straightforward, non-redundant system and found Naim's offer in the player / streamer department to be confusing to say the least. And it goes without saying that this is my very personal and subjective account.

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by nbpf
Originally Posted by DavidDever:

It just reminds me of the Archigram experiments of the Sixties and Seventies, that's all ...

Interesting indeed Davis, thanks ! But what reminds you of Archigram ? Best, nbpf

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by GraemeH
Originally Posted by nbpf:
Originally Posted by DavidDever:

It just reminds me of the Archigram experiments of the Sixties and Seventies, that's all ...

Interesting indeed Davis, thanks ! But what reminds you of Archigram ? Best, nbpf

The 'aesthetic of incompleteness' as noted by Simon Sadler might be one but I think David is hinting at the critique of individualism that Archigram elicited as a foil to the collectivism of the (largely failed) modernist urban projects.

 

G

Posted on: 07 July 2014 by nbpf
Originally Posted by DavidDever:
Originally Posted by nbpf:

dave4jazz, Jude2012, Huge,

I very much agree with your positions and see a number of advantages in the kind of systems you are envisaging. These would exhibit very little redundancies. Money and space would be spent on what gets actually used. It would be easier to compare, optimize and replace individual components, identify potential sources of noise and correct misbehaviour. And, of course, a small set of dedicated, single-purpose, open OS based components, would allow users to build systems according to their individual needs. All this seems to me very obvious. It is possible Naim is following a different approach. But it's one I find it difficult to understand.

At what point does the activity of listening to music through any of these cut-down configurations become a hairshirt exercise?

It will depend on the listener, I guess ! The kind of chains I have been arguing for are commonly found as implemented by those users who complement Naim downstream devices with dedicated Mac Minis and PC. I think a Naim computer (in place of a Mac Mini or PC) could sound better, look better and be easier to integrate and set up.

Posted on: 07 July 2014 by Jude2012
I wondered when folks would chime in an sat 'it's about the music'.  That's a given.

I so don't buy into the it ant be done attitude.  You only have look at Naim's product range to see that it it is trying to appeal for all scenarios.  The missing one is one being discussed/explored. :-)
Posted on: 07 July 2014 by nbpf
Originally Posted by George J:
Originally Posted by DavidDever:
At what point does the activity of listening to music through any of these cut-down configurations become a hairshirt exercise?
 

Music as a necessary evil to show the reply is really good?

 

The lack of musical examples in these discussions does seem to indicate that you are quite right, Mr D-!

 

ATB from George

George, I do not see your point. This is a discussion about the reasons why Naim does not (allegedly) support a modular approach for streamers and players. There are different opinions and explanations, of course. I might be missing something important but I do not see how the lack of musical examples can indicate anything in this particular discussion. But, of course, if you feel that some musical examples could help to clarify some aspects of this discussion, just go ahead ! Best, nbpf