Thinking of abandoning Naim after 35 years
Posted by: Dunstan on 05 February 2015
Virtually all my musical audio pleasure since leaving University has had Naim pre- and power- amplification in it, from a Sondek driving a 42-110 combo in 1985 (then another 42-110 when the first one got stolen) Then an CDX2, XPS2, 202, 250-2, NAPSC, HICAP2, subsequently upgraded to HDX with DAC in place of the CDX2. Now a SuperUniti graces a small second property.
It's all lovely stuff and it is a privilege to be able to afford it and enjoy it. My daughter inherited the 42-110 and still sounds good sitting at the back end of her apple mac and driving my ancient Ram 150 speakers.
By any standard I have been a faithful advocate of Naim hifi for over 30 years, but now I'm just about getting to the end of my tether and I am seriously thinking of heading for a different 'manufakturer'. The sad thing is this frustration has nothing at all to do with hardware, no, it's that irritating little interface called n-stream that acts as a constant and frustrating barrier between my 400 albums and being able to listen to them.
There is plenty of screen 'real estate', even on my iPad mini, so why can't I have an omnipresent area for controls (volume and input), a playlist, the album list and some info on the current album? Why do I have to press un named buttons in the corner for the screen to flip over, or swipe left and right to swap from upnp to the television? Why is my music collection even called upnp, my wife has no idea what this means? Why can't I random play my whole music collection, or just my chosen genre or artist? Why were all these things better on the previous version of n-stream than they are on the new version? There are plenty of fantastic little music player apps out there so why is Naim creating rubbish software from scratch when an alliance that leverages someone else's skills would be simpler and provide a better result?
My wife is no technophobe - she plans London journeys with Citymapper (just about the best app you can imagine), reads the news on Flipboard and trades shares on the HL app. However, without me there she never listens to our own music on the SuperUniti because she can't figure out the n-stream app - she just puts on Radio Paradise from the remote control.
Isn't that just a ridiculous situation? Naim products have an enviable reputation for revealing the music, but the software is doing its best to hide it.
For me it was more:
and that took me to - A symphony of foot and fist. .
Thanks (unironic)
My conclusion? In retrospect, I think using blind loyalty to the Naim badge and selecting the SuperUniti has turned out to be a mistake for me. I wanted a clean, minimalist music player with sound quality that would bear comparison with my main system. The Naim literature assured me that was just what I would get...
Hi Dunstan, for whatever is worth I will contribute my own opinion. I come from a small country where several reputable manufacturers are not represented (Linn being one of them). When last year I decided to look for a decent music system after more than 20 years with a very basic set up (bought for less than 800$ when I was a grad student in the US and moved around with me in another 4 countries) I got hooked on NAIM precisely because of the streaming solution which presented to me a completely different and hitherto unknown (to me) paradigm of listening to music. I am grateful for that opportunity and do not regret it. Were I to start again and with the benefit of hindsight (now aware of Devialet, USB based DACs like V1, Chord and PS Audio DACs) I wonder what I would have done. But I still dislike the idea of a computer in my living room and the elegance of a NAIM steamer solution I still find very appealing. Yes, I do have a long wish list but I personally don't mind the "connect" approach and thus, no, I am not ready to abandon NAIM :-)
My conclusion? In retrospect, I think using blind loyalty to the Naim badge and selecting the SuperUniti has turned out to be a mistake for me. I wanted a clean, minimalist music player with sound quality that would bear comparison with my main system. The Naim literature assured me that was just what I would get...
Hi Dunstan, for whatever is worth I will contribute my own opinion. I come from a small country where several reputable manufacturers are not represented (Linn being one of them). When last year I decided to look for a decent music system after more than 20 years with a very basic set up (bought for less than 800$ when I was a grad student in the US and moved around with me in another 4 countries) I got hooked on NAIM precisely because of the streaming solution which presented to me a completely different and hitherto unknown (to me) paradigm of listening to music. I am grateful for that opportunity and do not regret it. Were I to start again and with the benefit of hindsight (now aware of Devialet, USB based DACs like V1, Chord and PS Audio DACs) I wonder what I would have done. But I still dislike the idea of a computer in my living room and the elegance of a NAIM steamer solution I still find very appealing. Yes, I do have a long wish list but I personally don't mind the "connect" approach and thus, no, I am not ready to abandon NAIM :-)
DrPo, I was more or less in your situation last year (with a 20 years old system bought when I was a student which I had moved around quite a lot) and I eventually came to a non-streaming (or, say, USB streaming) solution. I have been considering buying a SU or a ND5XS in the beginning. But I absolutely wanted to avoid having to lay down an ethernet wire to the leaving room. I also wanted to avoid a computer in the living room, let apart a NAS, of course. But I found the small, fanless and all black Fit-PCs more acceptable than ethernet cables. I would have bought a UnitiServe if it had supported an open OS. I am sure both ethernet and USB streaming can be very rewarding approaches. But it seems to me that many users who have adopted streaming solutions were not fully aware, on one hand, of the possible alternatives and, on the other hand, of the implications -- in terms of software technology and LAN requirements -- of ethernet streaming. I myself, at least, was not completely aware of such implications when I made my decision. In retrospect I am very happy with my decision. But I have to admit that it was more luck than understanding. It is from this perspective that I argue that Naim can and should provide better information, in particular for potential customers. And considering Naim's focus on ethernet streaming solutions, I would expect such solutions to be supported by first-class, customizable, documented software. At the moment this is far from being the case, I believe. Best, nbpf
It's great that there are so many options. Some people use an all-Naim solution, others mix and match, and you can easily go for a headless PC / DAC or NAS / streamer and be happy with the solution you've chosen. This is all down to personal choice. I also agree that Naim and other manufacturers could do more to explain the implications of each route and provide instructions and guidance of the type that can generally be found on this forum.
But in the interests of ensuring newbies reading this get exactly that, I think I should point out that the streaming option is very good for lots of people, including me. Once again, Ethernet is just a bit of wire, essentially no more or less convenient than a USB wire, and a Fit-PC is a perfectly good headless computer to serve music, and a NAS is much the same. Either can be connected to the Internet via wifi or a wire, depending on your house layout. I see no reason why either option involves more or less disruption than the other. There are lots of apps to drive the Fit-PC but I find the Naim app fine too, and I like the remote control.
To to me it's just horses for courses. I just want to make sure anyone reading won't think streaming is hard or unreliable, because it really isn't.
Solid Air, I absolutely agree with your observations: streaming does not need to be difficult or unreliable. That said, there are 2 crucial differences between ethernet streaming and USB / SPDIF streaming:
1) ethernet streaming requires, at replay and control time, 3 running programs (UPnP server, UPnP client and control app). USB streaming only requires 2 running programs.
2) ethernet streaming implies, at replay time, data transfer of musical contents over LAN and therefore wired connections. USB streaming does not imply data transfer of musical contents over LAN and can be realized in a wireless LAN.
These differences can be completely irrelevant for a given user and yet very important for another one. In ethernet streaming solutions, for instance, the implications of 2) can be effectively addressed by using switches or dedicated LANs. Still, wired connections are mandatory and can represent, for users living in old buildings for instance, a severe limitation.
The implications of 1) are more subtle: because the UPnP client is implemented in the firmware of streamers, support for newly available services (lossless streaming services, for instance) has to be provided through firmware upgrades. This can be a problem both in principle and in practice. From the manufacturer's viewpoint, developing, testing and distributing firmware extensions for a wide range of products and in a fast moving environment can easily become a costly nightmare. Hardware (e.g., memory) limitations can make implementing such extensions expensive or even impossible. And the disadvantages of firmware upgrades from the user's perspective are quite obvious. In contrast, adding support for newly available services to a USB / SPDIF streaming solution only requires upgrades of application level software (and, as for ethernet streaming, of the control app, of course). These are programs that live on a computer's (SSD) hard drive, are subject to virtually no memory limitations and can be easily upgraded and tested over internet connections.
I am not arguing that USB / SPDIF streaming is better than ethernet streaming. Both approaches can be well or poorly implemented, of course. But USB / SPDIF streaming and ethernet streaming are quite different approaches and I believe that users and potential customers should be (made) aware of these differences.
Solid Air, I absolutely agree with your observations: streaming does not need to be difficult or unreliable. That said, there are 2 crucial differences between ethernet streaming and USB / SPDIF streaming:
1) ethernet streaming requires, at replay and control time, 3 running programs (UPnP server, UPnP client and control app). USB streaming only requires 2 running programs.
2) ethernet streaming implies, at replay time, data transfer of musical contents over LAN and therefore wired connections. USB streaming does not imply data transfer of musical contents over LAN and can be realized in a wireless LAN.
These differences can be completely irrelevant for a given user and yet very important for another one. In ethernet streaming solutions, for instance, the implications of 2) can be effectively addressed by using switches or dedicated LANs. Still, wired connections are mandatory and can represent, for users living in old buildings for instance, a severe limitation.
The implications of 1) are more subtle: because the UPnP client is implemented in the firmware of streamers, support for newly available services (lossless streaming services, for instance) has to be provided through firmware upgrades. This can be a problem both in principle and in practice. From the manufacturer's viewpoint, developing, testing and distributing firmware extensions for a wide range of products and in a fast moving environment can easily become a costly nightmare. Hardware (e.g., memory) limitations can make implementing such extensions expensive or even impossible. And the disadvantages of firmware upgrades from the user's perspective are quite obvious. In contrast, adding support for newly available services to a USB / SPDIF streaming solution only requires upgrades of application level software (and, as for ethernet streaming, of the control app, of course). These are programs that live on a computer's (SSD) hard drive, are subject to virtually no memory limitations and can be easily upgraded and tested over internet connections.
I am not arguing that USB / SPDIF streaming is better than ethernet streaming. Both approaches can be well or poorly implemented, of course. But USB / SPDIF streaming and ethernet streaming are quite different approaches and I believe that users and potential customers should be (made) aware of these differences.
nbpf,
I think you've missed some points.
1 USB vs LAN.
By the time you have multiple USB hubs (and there are multiple hubs in most computers), the USB subsystem is, functionally, a limited form of network; and as such, is a form of LAN. In fact, it's just as complex as the typical Ethernet set-up as most people use at home.
2 Ethernet uses a robust hardware protocol, USB does not.
3 At replay time both rely on transfer of data packets (wired or wireless). And, as pointed out in point 1, this is, in effect, over a LAN.
4 The standards for wireless USB are much less well adopted than Ethernet (IEEE802), and the different standards are incompatible.
5 The firmware vs. software updates is not affected by the choice of data transport but by design decisions in the production of the hardware device (updates to a Hugo or DAC V-1 are still firmware updates despite the fact that they're USB devices).
6 Neither was designed for audio data transport!
But as you say, in the end, it's just a data transport, fundamentally each is as good as the other, it makes no real difference. Pick which ever system suits the way you want to use the system.
Yes, agreed. The critical difference - as far as I can see - between these options is that a headless computer / DAC option puts most of the 'intelligence' in the headless computer (eg Fit-PC or MacMini), and then it just feeds the DAC with that data. That approach provides a high degree of flexibility. If Apple or Spotify or whoever launch a great lossless streaming solution then you have the flexibility to adopt it easily. In ye olde computer language, you have unbundled the elements. Because almost any solution will be available on a headless computer, you are mostly future-proofed, plus you can use any control point software you like. I totally get that.
The more integrated solution offered by Naim's streamers puts more 'intelligence' at the streamer end, and the NAS just serves the data. So I'm reliant on Naim to provide all the integration with the services (ie 'Connect') and I have to use Naim's own app, at least to an extent.
At present I almost entirely use music stored on a NAS, rather than cloud-based streaming. My kids use Spotify and I do the same once in a blue moon. The Spotify integration is really very good - simple to use and reliable. If Naim start to offer equally good lossless streaming in the next few months, I'll be well satisfied and very happy with my choice. If not - either it takes forever or isn't great - then I'll start to look at alternatives. From a price point of view I guess that'll be Sonos Connect or similar rather than going to a DAC / PC approach, but that's only because I'll have a sunk investment in the streamer option. If I didn't, I would take the same approach as you, with a Fit-PC and (probably) a Chord 2Qute, and use Naim only for amplification.
...
But ultimately, there are more considerations than just the form of streaming and these need to be examined closely in conjunction with the sources one wants to use.
If you want access to all streaming sources in the future, buy a general purpose computer (Windows or OSX). It can reasonably be expected that any new streaming systems will support those platforms at launch.
To connect to the audio system there are a number of choices:
UPnP over Ethernet (a UPnP server that acts as a 'local relay' controlled by the computer)
Internet Radio (using a 'local relay' controlled by the computer)
USB (preferably asynchronous)
S/PDIF (either direct hardware support or through HDMI)
Lastly and very much least analogue.
This is the closest you'll get to a universal digital source connection - it's unreasonable to expect Naim to support the foibles of each new service that comes along within in the streamer firmware.
I view this as a complement to the streaming from a NAS. The streaming from a NAS isn't subject to the vagaries of the internet, and for me is very convenient as well as giving a stable high quality data feed.
In fact it's so good that
1 substituting a USB stick as the source gives no improvement
2 the result is better than playing a CD in a CD5i.
I dunno, the TIDAL app on OS X or Windows is atrocious compared to the iOS or Android versions - I think there is still a market for something in the middle; I'm just not sure what that is yet....
I think you've missed some points.
1 USB vs LAN.
By the time you have multiple USB hubs (and there are multiple hubs in most computers), the USB subsystem is, functionally, a limited form of network; and as such, is a form of LAN. In fact, it's just as complex as the typical Ethernet set-up as most people use at home.
Right, but the USB subsystem comes in a very small package and at a quite moderate price. The manufacturer (Apple or Fit-PC, for instance) takes completely care of it. In an ethernet based streaming solution, in contrast, the LAN subsystem might consist of dozens of meters of cables and the responsability of laying down and setting up such system is on the user! That makes a huge difference.
2 Ethernet uses a robust hardware protocol, USB does not.
That's possible, but I never experienced any problem with asynchronous USB dacs. From this point of view and to my experience, the two approaches are comparable.
3 At replay time both rely on transfer of data packets (wired or wireless). And, as pointed out in point 1, this is, in effect, over a LAN.
No, with USB streaming no data need to be transferred over a LAN at replay time. I can switch off my router during replay: the system will play to the end of the playlist. This is definitely not the case in ethernet based streaming solutions.
4 The standards for wireless USB are much less well adopted than Ethernet (IEEE802), and the different standards are incompatible.
That's possible but see point 2.
5 The firmware vs. software updates is not affected by the choice of data transport but by design decisions in the production of the hardware device (updates to a Hugo or DAC V-1 are still firmware updates despite the fact that they're USB devices).
Agree. But maintaining and distributing firmware upgrades is more expensive and error prone than maintaining and distributing application level software. Adding support for lossless streaming services (which I do not care about but many users who have opted for Naim streaming solutions appear to do) does not affect the firmware of dacs. But it does affect the firmware of streamers!
6 Neither was designed for audio data transport!
Agree. But this does not imply they are equivalent: blackboards and bananas also were not designed for audio data transport!
nbpf,
1 Ethernet cables are as cheap as USB cables. If you want separation between computer and audio equipment you need to use cables of that length with either system, or you need to use wireless with all the limitations and unreliability that brings. Very long USB cables simply aren't an option because they just don't work! Long cables can be used with Ethernet because the system is more flexible.
2 If you've never known USB fail to work, then you're lucky, I've had plenty of problems with USB drivers (many more problems than with Ethernet systems!).
3 If you don't transfer the data you don't hear anything after the buffer empties; this applies to all system where the data are not stored local to the DAC. In either case, if you switch off your router during replay via an internet streamed service, the music stops.
5 Firmware limitations apply just the same. Neither USB nor Ethernet is affected by the choice of a general purpose computer to run the front end application.
Yes, agreed. The critical difference - as far as I can see - between these options is that a headless computer / DAC option puts most of the 'intelligence' in the headless computer (eg Fit-PC or MacMini), and then it just feeds the DAC with that data. That approach provides a high degree of flexibility. If Apple or Spotify or whoever launch a great lossless streaming solution then you have the flexibility to adopt it easily. In ye olde computer language, you have unbundled the elements. Because almost any solution will be available on a headless computer, you are mostly future-proofed, plus you can use any control point software you like. I totally get that.
The more integrated solution offered by Naim's streamers puts more 'intelligence' at the streamer end, and the NAS just serves the data. So I'm reliant on Naim to provide all the integration with the services (ie 'Connect') and I have to use Naim's own app, at least to an extent.
That is exactly the point! And it is clear that ethernet streaming solutions can have advantages over USB streaming solutions, for instance for multi-room replay. But apart from this, I do not see, at this point, obvious advantages of ethernet streaming over USB / SPDIF streaming. On the contrary. In the long term, the software could make a difference, of course. If Naim would support customizable UPnP servers and control applications (this would also have the advantage of making such solutions suitable for schools, museums, public institutions, etc, b.t.w.) I could see a point in moving away from USB streaming. But I do not see any effort in this direction and, at the moment, I do not want to rely on Naim's software solutions.
nbpf,
3 If you don't transfer the data you don't hear anything after the buffer empties; this applies to all system where the data are not stored local to the DAC. In either case, if you switch off your router during replay via an internet streamed service, the music stops.
This is not the case. After sending a "play" command to the server, I can of course switch off my router (or my client, or both). The server is connected to the dac via asynchronous USB and the music data are stored locally. It will keep on playing until the playlist is empty.
nbpf,
3 If you don't transfer the data you don't hear anything after the buffer empties; this applies to all system where the data are not stored local to the DAC. In either case, if you switch off your router during replay via an internet streamed service, the music stops.
This is not the case. After sending a "play" command to the server, I can of course switch off my router (or my client, or both). The server is connected to the dac via asynchronous USB and the music data are stored locally. It will keep on playing until the playlist is empty.
I did say this applies to all system where the data are not stored local to the DAC. You here are downloading the data to a local store, not streaming from an internet source. If I turn off my router whilst my streamer is playing from the local NAS, then it continues to play.
No difference.
nbpf,
1 Ethernet cables are as cheap as USB cables. If you want separation between computer and audio equipment you need to use cables of that length with either system, or you need to use wireless with all the limitations and unreliability that brings. Very long USB cables simply aren't an option because they just don't work! Long cables can be used with Ethernet because the system is more flexible.
The point is that you do not need separation between computer and dac. A Fit-PC can be placed in a shelf just below your dac. It is fanless and, with a SSD drive, absolutely noiseless. If you serve with a UnitiServe or with a Mac Mini you do not even need a USB cable: a short SPDIF connection, electrical or optical, is enough. That's the whole "infrastructure" you need.
With Ethernet all you need is the router/switch and the server (which can be a Fit-PC if you like).
USB vs Ethernet - no real difference.
In both cases, for internet streaming, you still need the Ethernet connection from the server to the router; USB doesn't do away with that.
(S/PDIF wasn't in the original discussion, but the same applies).
They are all just different data transport protocols.
nbpf,
3 If you don't transfer the data you don't hear anything after the buffer empties; this applies to all system where the data are not stored local to the DAC. In either case, if you switch off your router during replay via an internet streamed service, the music stops.
This is not the case. After sending a "play" command to the server, I can of course switch off my router (or my client, or both). The server is connected to the dac via asynchronous USB and the music data are stored locally. It will keep on playing until the playlist is empty.
I did say this applies to all system where the data are not stored local to the DAC. You here are downloading the data to a local store, not streaming from an internet source. If I turn off my router whilst my streamer is playing from the local NAS, then it continues to play.
No difference.
Agree. And if you use a Mac Mini as a UPnP server, you can even put it on a shelf just below you streamer. Or even bypass the UPnP client and directly connect to the streamer's dac via optical SPDIF 
. The differences are then just in the control application and sound quality, I guess.
The real difference is in where the intelligence lies - in the same box as the DAC or the same box as the data. Which is best for you depends on how you want to run your music and how much faith you have in Naim to keep up.
There are also alternatives such as using a Fit-PC as a NAS or adding a Sonos Connect box - but I'd rather follow the Naim route if they can get it done right.
I hope Naim is reading this!
An interesting discussion this. I currently feed my hugo with a UnitiQute 2 which works very well via upnp from an Assetnas running whs. I recently tried to bypass the qute by running a usb cable from the server into the Hugo. The results were surprisingly good but not good enough as there was clearly noise being fed into the dac via the usb. Whether another type of pc or mac mini would be better I don't know but my qute certainly is better. I'd like to try something like the Auralic Aries which seems very flexible but I'd want to hear it back to back with the qute, or even an ndx
I have no idea what a Fit or Headless PC is. However, my SSD MacBook Air or iPad communicate very happily with my Muso. That is almost an irrelevant preamble.
I was at the HiFi Show in Bristol yesterday and had the pleasure of listening to the new NAC 272 with a NAP 200 Amp, I think, linked to some Focals with the Super Lumina cables and interconnects and very nice it was too.
Also had the opportunity to listen to the Statement amplifier again linked to Stella Utopia Speakers with Super Lumina cables, approximately £300,000 worth of kit. We had a 20 minute demo of various types of music and there is no doubting the clarity, separation, depth and detail of the output, never mind the potential volume. None of the music was genuinely to my taste and I have to admit I found it a bit sterile and tiring after a bit, possibly because of the overwhelming detail. However, it was all CD quality music that was presented and the presenter did not seem to be over enthusiastic about 'higher quality' recordings, but maybe it was just to emphasise the detail you can get from a standard CD if you have good kit.
At the Muso demo I was a bit surprised that Naim thought that being able to link several Musos together in 'party mode' i.e. multiroom output of the same music a la Sonos would be a major development of the product. I only have one Muso so didn't realise that this was lacking, but it did open my eyes to where software development would have to be undertaken by Naim in-house.
There is no doubting that Naim realise that streaming is the future and, as I have said earlier, I will be very surprised if Naim concentrate their efforts on the hardware storage of music given that the purveyors of PCs and NASs have much more expertise and resources in this area. Whether you like or loathe the principle behind the NAC-N 272 it is part of the beginning of the chain for Naim's streaming future, whether bundled, as in the 272, or unbundled. I will take bets that this is where streaming music begins in Naim's future world and I certainly would not mind having the N 272 at the head of my own home setup.
As to connectivity, WiFi will win out in the end and the debates about the arrival of the data to the DAC are, in my opinion, academic and almost irrelevant. Naim just need to make sure they are up to scratch with the transmission protocols. If all the electronic guff arriving in your house from Sky, Virgin, mobile phones, televisions, radios etc. etc is not wrecking your musical enjoyment now then neither will WiFi.