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

Oh yes I forgot to add one small thing to the cost side of the argument:

Each of these additional components will need an additional Fraim layer (another £450)

George, for this specific thread, I'm afraid I have to agree with nbpf, we're not saying the music's unimportant, but this thread is just about the organisation of the boxes.

We all (I hope) agree that good sound can be obtained with all the proposed organisations, it's just about the compromises between cost, performance and flexibility.  If you keep any one of these constant and improve anther one, the third is inevitably more compromised.  This is the way engineering compromise always works.

You are right, but this seems, from a manufacturer's viewpoint, an additional reason for supporting a more modular approach. And I guess half a box would be large enough to host a dacless streamer or a dacless player and leave some space for a halfbox nDAC2 or perhaps blackboxed Hugo !

In fact, if I may add, George's chain (2012 MAC Mini ...) is a very good example of the kind of streamlined, non-redundant chains I have been arguing for. If Naim would offer a pure player, it could be an all-Naim chain (except for the  ESLs, of course :-).

By the way (and a little bit OT): the SOtM sMS-100 Mini Server seems to be, for those interested in a small dacless server / streamer, an interesting device.

Yes, it's intriguing. Have you tried it by any chance?

No, I just read a review on computer audiophile. It still does more than what I actually need but seems quite nice and more affordable than the Aurilac Aries.

Some time back in this thread, nbpf asked who buys Unitiserves and why. I bought it because it seemed to me to be a very well thought out solution for someone like me who had a large CD collection, who wanted to dabble in HD Downloads, who wanted Internet Radio, who wanted an 'always on' and quiet music source with easily configurable backup and, most of all, who wanted a simple tablet based interface to all of these sources, which could truly be used by 'dummies'. That it can supply up to 6 (or is it 8) feeds simultaneously is a bonus. 

I am using it connected to a V1 DAC which is connected directly to my 552. I would describe it as a very elegant solution to a complex problem.

A very eloquent justification for a Naim server, with which I thoroughly concur, David.

I particularly like that includes DAC V1 and 552 in the same sentence without embarrassment!

In my view the DAC V1 can be mentioned in the same sentence as the CDS 3 without embarrassment.

In spite of new developments the V1 remains a masterpiece ...

It is not going to disappear fast.

As for streaming, well I prefer a MAC feeding iTunes, but each to his or her own ...

ATB from George

It encourages me greatly that I have had two non confrontational responses to one of my posts. This must be a record!

To spoil the odds, certainly not a LP record!

Sorry for that!

Very best wishes from George

David, confrontational approaches seem to have been focusing on another thread , here we have managed so far to have quite a civilized discussion, I hope.

And yes, I agree that UnitiServe is a great product in particular if you start with a CD collection to rip and use all its functionalities.

But I was starting from a different situation and I have somehow gathered the impression that the device was not as flexible as I would expect a dedicated audio server to be. I might be wrong, of course.

One point that (after a cursory reading of the handbook) was not clear to me, for example, was how I would transfer downloads from my laptop -- where I usually keep the originals zipped versions of the albums I buy and do some fine-tune retagging (e.g. adding / changing composer and conductor tags) -- to the UnitiServe when this is used as a stand-alone server. In my setup I do this by just entering a command from my laptop, no matter whether I am at home or in my office or elsewhere.

This and a few other functionalities which I consider to be mandatory to interact with a dedicated audio server seemed (to me) to be lacking (or cumbersome to realize) on the UnitiServe. I might have missed something important, of course, but this and the lack of support for an open OS were the reasons why I eventually opted for a non-Naim solution.

rjstaines, I do not think the UnitiServe needs a justification. It is a great product and as far as I understand, no one in this thread has been arguing against the UnitiServe or any other Naim integrated solution. Some have been arguing for single-task dacless components, of course. These would not replace or exclude integrated components, just complement them (as the Uniti range complements the other ranges) ! 

Thanks David, I agree the UnitiServe is a very nice integrated solution, in particular if one starts from scratch and with a big CD collection to rip. I also think that single-purpose modular components (dacless servers, dacless streamers) would be a very welcomed complement to such highly integrated devices. Best, nbpf

Is there a version that converts to spdif or optical out? I'm not sure I have anything that will take a USB input. Is there a good reason to only have a USB output?

Buy an Intel Nuc mini PC, a linear psu to power it, install Vortexbox or Daphile (both free downloads) and use it to feed a USB DAC.  Job done.

I think it's main purpose is to enable the use of USB DACs without having to have a computer in the room, which some people are keen to avoid. Plus there should be benefits to the sound by having the USB in a low power, dedicated device away from computer noise sources.

USB only I believe, you could use a USB to S/PDIF converter like a Stello U3 though this costs about the same as the SOtM itself taking the total cost close to that of the Moon MInd 180 or Auralic Aries...

The Computeraudiophile review of the SOtM said that the USB output was perhaps a little electrical noisy itself and was improved by the use of either a SOtM battery power supply or a USB to AES/EBU converter - they used one made by Berkeley Audio Design.

True, but they did also say that this didn't matter with DACs that have excellent electrical isolation, e.g. Ayre QB-9, and presumably the DAC-V1... which is what I have, and why the SotM is of interest to me.

The original text was not especially clear but this point was clarified in subsequent comments.

I tried the SOTM streamer it wasn't fantastic to be honest, I am looking forward to trying the Weiss MAN301 it is a network player, and modular too, there is a pure server version but you can add a dac later, I had a play with one and it does everything, the Ui is the best I have tried.

H

That is essentially what most people seem to want, just in a black box with 'Naim' on the front, with specially selected output and power supply components (and with all the development costs associated with that)

Yes, far too cursory a read.  Ch. 9 of the owners guide describes how to copy 'external data' to the Downloads folder of the hdd UnitiServe.  It's as easy to copy music to the UnitiServe as it is to copy it to my Synology nas -- drag and drop.  For this use, I find the UnitiServe and nas equally easy to operate.  Indeed, Finder doesn't seem to know they difference; they are both external 'drives' so to speak.  When I add new music to the UnitiServe, I'm in the habit of also adding it to a shared folder on my nas, just as an extra backup (in addition to the automated backups I do).

Why all this interest in USB for digital audio transport?  It's not a real-time protocol and inherently unsuitable for high quality audio.  Asynchronous USB is just a sticking plaster to cover up the worst of the problem.  Use USB for the purpose for sort of which it was designed - use it to transfer complete files from the storage device to the audio rendered.

S/PDIF also has major design problems - it was intended as a cheap way of transferring the I2C within the limits of early DACs, and never designed for the performance of today's high end equipment: clock recovery is jitter prone, and the solution (buffering and real-time re-clocking) is expensive to develop.

If you want a real-time digital audio transport protocol, AES/EBU is the way to go.

The other issue is Naim's development costs for a multi box streaming system, where they develop and market each piece individually, hence them leaving to others (and staying in business rather than bankrupting themselves to develop boxes that would be too expensive to sell)  At the 500 series level it would probably be viable and quite possibly also at Classic series level .  At the XS or 5 series level the separate costings would almost certainly just add too much.

On the other hand, if you intend to take a fresh approach, please do so rather than just slight tweaks to existing layouts.  We already have sufficient variations of the existing technology; Naim have chosen their sub-set, other manufacturers have chosen theirs.  The consumer can then choose the route they wish, and from whom to buy.

In my opinion, there's little point in lengthy discussions of what's already known and well established.  I also believe the OP was interested in packaged audio components not DIY low power computer solutions.