Naim NAC-N 272 Streaming Preamplifier

Whatever the device, I don't think a system of multiple control apps will ultimately work. It is not just about picking music but about playlists too. I can see two possible outcomes:

1) one of the streaming services becomes so good (lossless, brilliant app and comprehensive music catalogue) that its users don't care about other services

2) an aggregated search solution such as already provided by Sonos wins

If Spotify went lossless then it would be closer to 1) than anyone else. I also think most people who don't frequent hi-fi forums will only bother to use one streaming service in the long run.

Multi box design makes sense on many levels but isn't a cure all other than the aforementioned ability to keep up with technology argument. 

putting digital stuff in one box and analogue stuff in another doesn't necessarily decouple unwanted noise from either box. Proper earthing, power supply impedance etc are as much the key as physical isolation. Add a tiny bit of earth impedance to the system and all the noise end up inconveniently generated across it - it's a rather big can of worms and in some ways the multi box approach has the potential (no pun intended) to create its own problems. 

Spotify Connect is a simple and classic software disintermediation tactic. Reduce the links in the chain and tie the consumer more closely to your service with a unique experience. If you use streaming services via an aggregator like Sonos or Bluesound; providing the control apps are good, the actual service starts to become less important providing it's meets your basic requirements. That's not good for a company like Spotify because it commoditises your product.

In time I fully expect other streaming providers to rollout 'Connect' style functionality, for the same reasons Spotify has done it. That's clearly good for Naim's narrowly defined approach to streaming, but don't think Naim has any particular leverage in any of the negotiations. If you look at the API documentation from most of the streaming services you'll spot two things in common. They look quite similar; because they use the same underlying frameworks and technologies, and it's pretty standard take it or leave it stuff. 

Rather than many of the alternatives to Spotify I'm sure Naim is most interested to see if Apple's new streaming service will be open to device companies, 'Connect' or otherwise. Beat's is currently available on Sonos, but no new device agreements have been implemented since the acquisition.

Fully agree, which is why despite Paul S's previous comments I think Naim will go in the direction of an integrated control solution closer to that that of Sonos/Bluesound. I bet they would also like to get rid of the need for customer UPnP servers. If that's with a new generation streaming hardware, then it's perfectly understandable that Naim haven't come out and said it for fear of losing customers in the interim.

One wildcard I see builds on outcome 1. The streaming service aggregating your music together with it's own catalog in the cloud making it available to you in one place.

Apple does this today with iTunes Match so you can access your own (…≤ 25K songs) library in 256kbps AAC. I do this today in a second home using a Mu-so and Apple TV. With the Remote App you don't even need the TV turned on. Rumours suggest Apple is considering merging this in to the new Beats service.

Personally I think many of the existing streaming companies will fail, but it's just possible that after the big shakeout one or two audiophile services will remain. I'd certainly be willing to pay a little extra per month to have my CD quality and 24 bit material matched/uploaded together with their catalog making all my music available in the cloud ready to stream. The economics would be quite interesting because unlike photographs which are unique music is not.

And while hobbyists like multiple boxes because they can play with each, and a vs. b compare interconnects and power supplies for each, there is a considerable desire for one-box, integrated solutions among consumers who just want to listen to well-reproduced music.  I totally understand, and accept, that I MAY not be able to consume the latest technology as a result of enjoying the fact that my streamer/player and dac are all in one box.  But given that there is no technology TODAY that I feel I am missing out on, it's at best a theoretical disadvantage for me.  Meanwhile my music sounds fabulous. 

We?

You mean you, and say we!

And says need instead of want.

Bart, surely it's about music? There is much music now that can only be accessed via streaming services.. It tends to be new and emerging artists and even amateur music. Until recently on audio systems that required physical media much of this was inaccessible to most.. Now its accessable.. Although you need to use a service aggregation capability in your hifi or computer today to access.

Surely life is too short to be constrained by technology implementation limitations.. This is is about music not hifi replay systems is it not?

None in this forum has been arguing against integrated solutions in general. And there would be nothing to object if Naim would foster both integrated and modular solutions. But when it comes to integrated UPnP clients, a certain unease comes from the fact that Naim insistingly promotes streaming solutions (which is a perfectly legitimate strategy) but does not care to provide users that adopt those solutions with any decent UPnP server let apart a transparent software roadmap (which is simply unacceptable). As in other prominent examples -- Naim is certainly not the only and by far not the worst case -- it is the contrast between hardware excellence and software misery which is discomforting.

interesting new product.

Would have been more interesting if it allowed for HCDR and also for XPS connection.

I would have bought one, but the price of XPS puts me off.

still nice.

Will I sell my 202/HCDR for this. No. I may wish to add a chord hugo at some point. (the 3V output bothers me)

I'm happy at the moment with squeezebox USB into DAC V1-->202/HCDR/200.

At the same time, it has that amazing volume control. The volume on the 202 is not to my liking with digital sources (although fine with my TT).

it would get worse even with chord dac with their too high 3V output.

@npbl and others - I am in fact largely in agreement with most of this despite taking a devil's advocate approach. As consumers we have our own agenda and differing needs and agendas and any manufacturers striving to retain ANDY build a market will always be beset with conflicting  needs and wants from what, in Naim's case, is a fiercely loyal bunch of followers.

i never saw even the integration of soft switching and remote controls as being sympathetic to the Naim philosophy right from the start. One only had to look at the topology of the arguably better sounding NAP 42 to see what was going on, the simplest possible signal path with careful attention paid to layout, earthing and, however unconventional, even connectors. The NAP series amplifiers, barely class A/B designs, fully against the norm for many years yet, albeit somewhat more 'developed' now, offering startling performance. So DACs and streamers and software (or should I say firmware) are most certainly most in Naim like in comparison to those components. 

Of course we all should be considering the music as much as the convenience or otherwise of the architecture of all this kit and some of us have the financial capability and the space to lash out £15 or 20 or 30 grand to do this. Our partners will accept a substantial rack in the shared space etc etc. others and its perfectly acceptable to say 'we' and in any case we're not arguing grammar here (or perhaps we are!). the success of the Nait, the Uniti etc are testament to the desire of some to have simple and affordable solutions to their audio need for a variety of reasons and I see nothing wrong with that, just as there was nothing wrong, years ago, with a Linn/Naim classic 'six pack' system. Those of us too poor to even contemplate the possibility of such glorious ness could taste the cake with an LO12/Basik - Nait - Kan system. The core philosophy was the same, the core attributes were too and that, I believe, is the point of products like the 272.

As for the method of getting bit streams into devices and processing them there is much logic in dividing it all up and keeping an-harmonic noisy stuff away from analogue (hence the twin power supply approach of the 282 for instance). An-harmonic including digital noise and distortion is at least 100 times more objectionable than harmonic distortion (one reason NAP amplifiers don't major on the crossover area where evening out the transfer characteristic cab just as readily introduce nasty stuff as remove it). Trouble with more boxes is the cost, the boxes themselves, power supplies cables etc which is fine foe the no compromise system and a wealthy customer. Even three boxes with appropriate cables will add nearly £2k in cable costs alone if the philosophy is strictly adhered to. Some of us struggle to raise £3k for a black box so this is not a realistic option for many.

for sur changes in technology can make these integrated boxes potentially obsolete and that is a risk in an area where standards vary and are still changing. Frankly I am not optimistic about any coincidence of control. over thirty years of remote controlled televisions hasn't produced one iota of congruence with regard to control protocol or universality. Our coffee tables are strewn with remotes and all the 'all in one' devices I have played with fail at some level or another. Brand exposure and a modicum of arrogance saddle us with inconvenience and none of the telly box makers acknowledge that those things crash. We still, should we realise what the solution is in the first place, have to reach around the back to power cycle kit that will inevitably fall over - makes me wonder if we are considered at all by designers!

irrespective of what goes on inside our beloved black boxes the interface will always annoy us. It was simple a while ago, we had boxes with knobs on and that was that. Now we have boxes with and boxes without whic in a way is laughable. So a friend starting out with a Uniti, adding a Unitiserve is happy; a nice iPad app to control and display everything, neat and tidy with the hardware tucked neatly away. Then the desire to upgrade - fundamentally not possible other than adding a NAP so now a 250, NDX or HDX, 282 and some power supplies and cables. More intrusive, but that's ok, tne music is fabulous and I am extremely envious but don't have £16k handy to go there. Access files via n-Serve, not a problem volume control via standing up and going to turn a knob - not so clever now. A trivial thing perhaps but an example of the lack of I tegration that plagues us. I can't be smug though because n-Stream is 'redesigned' and 'flattened' to confirm with Apple's corporate strategy (not Naim) and it's ruined in the process. You can't please all the people all the time and many would suggest my gripes about it aren't relevants and I accept that. I am habituated into its counter intuitive interface but still find the hiding of the volume control infuriating at times and the almost marginalised track selection/option buttons laughable.

i apologise, I ramble too much. Bottom line is Naim are widening their potential customer base by making compromises that are bound to irk some and delight others. I will never be able to afford the Naim system I aspire to but exchanging my Uniti for a 'preamp' that I can power more cleverly and connect to my 250 and stream from my UnitiServe sound like a damned good idea for an all up price of £9k ish (power lines excepted of course).

Just turn down the  output on the Hugo, it's really not a problem

+1

there is no problem matching with Hugo having its volume lowered.

It can be a better match than Naim CDPs with their fixed output level of 2.1V.

Is the volume lowered in the digital domain or analog?

Hi Simon.  The "Music Room" forum here gets way less traffic (or at least way fewer posts) than the forums dedicated to hifi replay and technology.  But I'm sure that in our hearts, most of us are "about music."

My observation is that technology implementation absolutely stimulates interests -- maybe brain centers -- different than that stimulated by the music.  That's one reason why this is such a compelling hobby -- there is the "about music" aspect AND the "technology implementation" aspect.  Few hobbies can hit such disparate parts of the brain!  I've been told that "boys love their toys" and we need not be ashamed of it. 

But there is a vast range of interest and aptitude and patience for the technology side of this, and I feel a kindred spirit for those who come to the forum looking for basic help just trying to get their music to play, and who want to purchase hardware that is both of the highest quality and simple to use.   When a bloke who can't get his Mac to talk to his Uniti 2 gets a recommendation (not from you, mind you) to build a pc server or Debian box, I feel the forum has let him down.

After I've fourth years of immersing myself in HiFi, as a consumer and some time demonstrating some pretty high end systems the few things I have learned that are constants are that there is a goodly amount of snake oil out there. There is also some fascinating stuff that others brand as snake oil because their 'science' doesn't provide ready answers. A very well known designer once presented, as a simple explanation, what he termed a passive power amp! Need,Essex to say the press just swallowed that up without understanding what he was trying to simplify. But boys, as you say, like their toys and we are naturally attracted to esoteria.

i am still regularly told by technologists that Nyquist was right and 44.1kHz is a perfectly adequate sampling rate even though Nyquist never actually stated that! Even at the launch of CD Philips, is an internal technical paper was acknowledging that 192kHz 24bit might just about do for truly high quality audio reproductions! And none of this takes into account all the other artefacts that technologists tell us we can't perceive but we know we can. I work in the world of technology and just about all my colleagues will tell us all that cables, particularly mains and network new cannot make a difference to audio quality. Yet not one of them is prepared to come and listen for themselves or simply book a demo at a local store - science explains it all perfectly adequately. Yet one, for long involved in squeezing more loudness and compression into broadcast audio States quite categorically that 192/24bit will do, at a pinch - no closed mind there. His big experiment incidentally is to play with class D amplification in a rather clever way whereby the bitstream is, to put it simply, amplified and fed, more or less directly to the speakers! loudspeakers, he asserts, are almost perfect low pass filters and a neatly and efficiently amplified square wave turns into nice sine waves whilst conveniently moving the cone of a loudspeaker!

none of this addresses the commentary about the 272 of course but I feel it illustrates that there are many ways to satisfy our ears and still fit into our budget. If money were no object I would buy Naim or more accurately I would buy Naim and several other brands and types of kit. My experiences with demonstrating and having the opportunity to listen to so much kit over the years is that given an open budget I would definitely own planar loudspeakers driven by meaty class A Amos - but I'd not throw out my Naim PMC to do that! Nothing, sadly, does it all. 

+2 The Hugo adjustable line output really works a gem with the Naim NACs

Bart - I don't disagree- but I also struggle to understand some people (although I really try) who appear to prefer the ritual of playback of certain media almost more than the music itself. All those comments of walking over to play some vinyl and putting a physical CD into the player and pressing the play button being so rewarding etc

These are all a means to an end for me  and sometimes also get in the way - I have since sold my turn table. My point being there are many new formats and techniques that make our music yet more accessible and easier to enjoy with out fussing over the technique of playback or be limited to certain big music labels - I feel we should embrace this. And where I get passionate - new media and convenience shouldn't mean lower replay quality standards...

Now if we are talking mechanics etc I do confess to being into real steam models etc - now that is where I get my kicks of watching things spin around.....

Given the hard option of a 272/250 or the like against a282 and all the bits I'd go for the 272 etc and 1000 CDs/Downloads any day!

What, even before you've heard one?

It is lowered in the digital domain in the central FPGA processing stage:

In the case of Hugo, the volume control is in the central WTA filter core, and has an internal accuracy of 51 bits. But it then gets passed to the cross-feed dsp, then on to the 3 stage interpolation filters to take it to 2048FS, then into the OP noise shapers. So the 51 bits has to be truncated. But since the signal is at 16FS, the truncation is done via noise shaping and dithering. This means that the signal is not lost, but perfectly preserved, as this process adds zero distortion - just a fixed noise at -180dB. This has been verified with Verilog simulation.  

ragman

WTGR the thread starts on Page 1. A review of the posts may be in order.

Dave

It is also a clever solution when used with the Nait 2.

Daunt, I personally do not see a problem of conflicting needs. And to be honest, I do not even see a problem of costs. I have a Naim system which, by many standards in this forum, can be considered as "modest". But I am sure that I would be perfectly happy with an even more modest system, sound quality wise. If I have sound quality issues at all, it is because of poor recordings or environmental noise.

But what is far below dignity is the software side. I am glad I did not take the streaming route in the very beginning. But I did so more or less by instinct. If I had bought a streaming solution -- as some dealers were advising -- I would definitely feel that I have been cheated: The UPnP servers Naim relies upon for serving its streamers -- Asset, Minim, minidlna, Twonky and the likes -- all support but a dull, primitive view of your music collection. Customizability is virtually inexistent. Even if you have been careful to tag your music according to your interests and classification criteria, you will not be able to take any advantage of your work. In particular, you will not be able to search, browse or filter your music collection according to your tags. This is not just disappointing: even for plain classical music -- let apart for opera or for more specific musical interests -- these UPnP servers are unusable.

This is what I mean by the divide between hardware (and sound) quality and software quality. Of course, Naim is not responsible for the dullness of commodity UPnP servers. But it is certainly responsible for pushing customers towards dull solutions. And for not providing any clear and understandable software road map (again, I am not talking about hardware roadmaps) to bridge the hardware-software quality divide. 

I know that other companies are not much better. And many are certainly worse. And I have no problems with companies pursuing less ambitious goals than Naim and providing mainstream streaming solutions for mass consume. But Naim has the aspiration to provide solutions for, among others, music enthusiasts. It's current approach towards streaming does not justify such ambition, I believe.  

I also understand that implementing a decent UPnP server might take some time. And I would have no problems investing in Naim streaming solutions if I knew that, in a reasonable time framework, they will address the most obvious deficiencies of current UPnP servers and of their client softwares. But, things being as they are, I do not see any point in investing in streaming solutions and find the announcement of yet another device with a built in UPnP client a bit distasteful.