Does UPnP Streaming make any sense for a single zone music system?

Keep in mind that there are BOTH Servers and Renderers.

It is easy to confuse them because the Servers Naim offers have local digital (and analog in the case of HDX/NS0X) output.

Renderers must slave themselves to the Servers they can see and operate according to the Server's rules.  Naim's Servers on the other hand make multiple streams available to any renderers on the network.

Regarding the question in your Thread Title; if you dont want or cant have a computer near your hifi, then yes UPNP makes a ton of sense.

If you do have a computer near your digital inputs, you can use a USB converter or a decent sound card to supply the digital output.  Of course this assumes SQ is on par with a UPNP method.  Otherwise use UPNP either way.

-p

This is exactly my point: because Naim servers have local output, they function also as renderers and "network players". Therefore, I would formulate it the other way around: Some of the Naim network players have also UPnP server functionality (for multi zone use).

This is where I don't exactly agree. Even if the computer is not near your hifi, Naim servers can reach your music files, through network file sharing, on the ethernet network, and render them available for local playback. Therefore, UPnP streaming is not needed.

I don't want to be misunderstood: UPnP streaming works, even for single zone systems, and many manufacturers use this method. Naim showed an exemplary implementation of a UPnP client device with NDX. I just say it is not necessary; and I see advantages if Naim proceeds to develop the concept of computer-alike-music-server-with-local-output (like in HDX, UServe, NS0X) for future products.

You lost me............. That is UPNP streaming.

No, UPnP is one protocol you can use.

UPnP may make sense if you live in the Microsoft world where it is supported and you have a (media-)server-centered approach.

Less so if you use Apple products (Apple thinks UPnP-progress moves to slow for their plans and does not support it). Apple is also using a decentralized approach - any client can own the big TV-screen (or Naim.system), you don't have to transfer the movie on your iPhone to a mediaserver somewhere - you can stream it to the big screen right from the phone. Apple is using HTTP (and HTTP Live Streaming) in its Airplay, this allow Airplay to stream directly from the internet (iTunes, iCloud or some cloud locker-type product).

HTTP Live Streaming is also the only video-streaming iPhone/iPad-apps support. It is very simple to setup and does not require special server-software beyond the normal web-server. 

Naim support mostly UPnP but certain products (like the HDX) can also access network-storage (NAS) directly. I use my HDX-SSD with a NAS every day and it just works, I am very satisfied with my system right now.

For a lot of people, it makes sense to separate the storage of data from the Hi-fi replay system. Data storage, data backup, security access are a different set of problems than sound quality replay.  From this point of view, music data is not different from any other type of data. It is therefore possible to use the existing IT devices, tools and methods.

Also when it comes to data management, it is considered more efficient to centralize the data in a single location. This makes backup easier as well as security access management.

Following the logic of specialization, the player should be physically separate from the data server. The player should be designed by the Hi-Fi experts and the data center should come from IT manufacturers.

Following the logic of data centralization, the music files must be centrally located instead of being stored over a multiplicity of devices.

Based on the above, a configuration with a NDX(player) or UnitiQute(player) communicating over UPNP to a separate NAS server follows best practice for both data management and sound quality.

I hope this will help clarify why many people consider NDX and UPnp the "correct" solution.

The same people would still admire UnitiServe and HDX, but mostly for their ability to provide an off-the-shelf solution to the ripping process and to the complexity of music metadata management. However, those people attached to the separation of data from Hi-Fi music system frown at the idea of storing the music files inside a music system. The SSD UnitiServe using an external separate NAS as a storage unit constitutes a good answer to those objections.

For the same people, the idea that HDX is a good tool because it can get data from multiple location is not appealing either because it appears as the "wrong" solution. Again, the "right" solution is for those people to centralize the data, not keep them spread out.

To summarize, for people who believe in these ideas, the correct way is to choose NDX as a player and UnitiServe SSD as a server, or a generic NAS with a Upnp server installed on it.

Best regard,

i said that?  seriously... what the hell are you talking about?

imo Naim should be putting their efforts into making network music players and DACs that are utterly uninfluenced by how they are fed! It shouldn't make any difference to an nDAC where it's s/pdif is coming from, and it shouldn't make any difference to an NDX where on the network it's music data is being streamed from.

Simon, i think it is preposterous that the source of an ethernet packet should have any influence whatsoever on how it sounds when it is played back. My (£40 cheapo) network printer will print the same document whether I send it wirelessly, via ethernet or from my phone the other side of the world. 

Surely if you were to start from scratch you wouldn't sit down and design an HDX -> NDX -> nDAC replay chain?  

Hi Likes - I think that is what Naim has tried to do with its clever clocks and use of buffers - in effect created a virtual transport within the Naim DAC - I'm sure they will enhance this further when they have figured out how.

In the meantime feed the Naim DAC from the optical out of a MacBook and it sounds good - replace the optical with the V-Link USB to S/PDIF convertor and it sounds great. 

Or feed the Naim DAC from coax out of a Sonus ZP90 and it sounds good - introduce the Wired 4 Sound board to Cullenise the ZP90 and it sounds great.

In both cases the cheap Cirrus chips give way to rather more expensive TI chips to reduce jitter and provide a better S/PDIF out - the Naim DAC seems to say thank you very much for giving me such a nice clean signal and duly obliges with even better SQ. It is, as Simon says, alchemy - pure and simple (possibly tainted with some magic), but my ears tell me it works. 

The CDX2.2 is indeed a superb source for the Naim DAC, but a rather expensive one compared with those I use - similarly, the NDX would probably further improve on what I have, but I'm happy with what I have. In my view even a moderate outlay to improve the source feeding the Naim DAC returns dividends. 

This applies equally to the UQ. 

All the best, Guy

As it turns out, it is better practice to keep data spread across more than one physical location for purposes of fault tolerance–also, most NAS devices have limits on the amount of storage an individual device can handle (took much is never enough for some)–some of which is a consequence of the embedded processor architecture use to drive the NAS device.

The "right" solution from an end-user's perspective is to see all content as one source (even Apple Home Sharing cannot do this, in its current guise), across multiple storage devices.

In the case of the Naim servers, this happens by taking bog-standard CIFS/SMB ("Windows Sharing") sharepoints, cataloguing the contents, parsing the metadata, and offering up the complete contents (transcoded or decoded to WAV if required) as one content source for the end user.

This same, value-added model for content aggregation is used by a variety of enterprises (Google, anyone?), is time-tested, and works well.

Lastly–the HDX utilizes a fully-separate power supply for the analogue output stage, which itself is strategically located to minimize the effect of noise from other devices inside the chassis. The product was designed as a high-performance digital source, and it is safe to say that there are quite a few manufacturers whose efforts of late have included the introduction of high-performance music servers (Bladelius Embla and Burmester 111 among others) to compete within this space.

Patrick -

You wrote in your post yesterday:

"...Renderers must slave themselves to the Servers they can see and operate according to the Server's rules.  Naim's Servers on the other hand make multiple streams available to any renderers on the network...."

In my view, operating according to the server's rules (i.e., the central management of options on a single UPnP server on behalf of one or more players) is "handy".   Did I misinterpreted your statement?  How so?

Maybe I am once again reading too much into one of your posts, but is there any particular reason for your harsh tone?   Did I do something to piss you off?

Hook

It doesn't use UPnP though - as far as the player is concerned it is playing music files on a local disc. Using NFS allows you to mount a disk on a server as if it were a local disk. I've always been puzzled why this is not the standard way of doing things and why UPnP was ever necessary (there probably is a reason, but I don't know what it is).

Why couldn't you just have a player with 1GB of RAM free and access a share over NFS and copy the album in to local RAM as soon as the first track was stored you could play - I'm not sure this would be regarded as streaming, but I would think it would sound pretty good assuming the player and it's S/PDIF out were good. However, nobody seems to do it that way so perhaps it isn't such a good idea. 

You wouldn't need Windoze, OS X or any other such system to run this type of player - you could put the artwork and other metadata associated with the files on an iPad and use this to control the player. The player itself would run a small AmigaOS kernel or similar - perhaps its software could be written directly for an XMOS CPU and avoid the OS all together. 

The player I'm describing is similar in many ways to PS Audio's CD transport except that it gets the files from a network file share rather than local CD. 

Allen

It will be interesting to see. When Naim were developing thier top of the range CDPs, they were definitely of the view that sperating DACs from the transport brought more problems that it solved. Technology has moved on and Naim feel quite comfortable to do this now, and we can certainly hear the benefits of thier engineering and product design. Therefore I wonder if an all-in-one high top of the range network player fits with thier new philoosphy. Given the cost of product development I'd be suprised if we saw ND555 or equivalent.

I wonder if the next suge of product development from Naim will be more centred around Class E amplifers, that is the exciting technology area currently that can give great advances in our audiophile world.

Simon

Thank you Jack, for summarizing perfectly my point in few sentences. This is exactly why I propose it would make sense if Naim would offer a HDX version without the ripping engine and possibly also without the dac. (a device analogous to NDX in functionality but using "file sharing" instead of UPnP.

Small correction here: afaik, DLNA is on the contrary a subset of UPnP. DLNA aims to provide interoperability of devices in the home network, and therefore narrows down formats and standards used in UPnP, and neither Naim nor any of the audio manufacturers we discuss often are part of this initiative.

Alamanka,

Storing the data in multiple or single location is not really related to my argument about non-UPnP players. David introduces some ideas on this later in the thread. However, it doesn't matter if data is in single or multiple location, a Server/HDplayer can reach them and render them for playback.

As to your comment, that "data center should come from IT manufacturers", I am not fully convinced about this. This is off the topic of this thread, and I want to bring up and discuss this later in another thread.

Allen,

I certainly share your wish for less box count, but I am not sure if this is practicable especially as you go to a higher range of Naim. Usually, box counts go up as you go up in the product ranges. However, if this will be possible, then I propose a different path. You propose to exclude the ps from the box and thus open space for a superior dac, which would then need no upgrading. I propose the opposite: to exclude the dac from the box of an higher range player, which we both imagine would arrive one day. As we've seen many times in this forum, choice of dac depends a lot on personal taste, as every dac has a different sound characteristic. Free choice of dac should be retained. Moreover, the S/PDIF interface doesn't seem to be a bad interface after all. Naim has avoided it for a long time and now recommending it on its "upgrade" paths. You also reported that the good qualities of the UPnP input of NDX are retained and even upgraded when an external dac was used.

Many manufacturers include the dac in their players as a strategy to keep the customer (and his/her money) for the dac component as well, but I doubt if this strategy is working, as it makes the customer insecure about to what component in the purchased device the money is going.

Allen,

I totally agree with you on the significance of the sonic signature of the 'rendering/pre-dac-processing' sections. We had discussed abundantly how these differences could originate: Simon had proposed it would be due to DSP and then was not so sure; AMA reminded us of the importance of the quality of S/PDIF generation etc. Whatever! To your remark, that a sweet spot in this area was hit by NDX, I want to add that HDX is also in this sweet spot, imo even slightly better in some respects. That's why, I wanted to question if file sharing method could possibly have some sonic advantages compared to UPnP stream client method.

Didnt mean to be harsh... I actually read your post and thought it was written by Aysil...  Hence my further confusion with what Aysil is trying to do or say.

Sorry buddy!!!!!

Patrick