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

Allen,

Just a quick note: my HDX is not the SSD version. I am not sure if this version would make a sonic difference. Mine also has local storage option. It is equipped with the latest sound card.

No worries Patrick! 

Hook

Just to summarize and see if I finally understand the question:

For someone who:

a) does not have yet a hi-fi system

b) has music files

c) does not have the need for CD ripping capabilities

d) does not have a Upnp media server

If a Naim "file player" (able to connect to other devices using file system) would exist, then would it make more sense to purchase this Naim file player rather than a streamer like the NDX that requires to use some UPnP server?

In other words, are there some intrinsic qualities to Upnp that would definitely establish its superiority over file system based approach?

One striking characteristic of the UPnP approach is that music files can be "pushed" as well as "pulled". For instance it is possible to select music on Windows Media Player on a Windows 7 PC and "play to" the Upnp client (NDX, Uniti).

This feature was not developed specifically to work with the Naim player but with any client that follow the UPnP rules.

If there was a Naim File player, I imagine that in order to be able to "push" a file to the player, it would be necessary to write specific code calling the specific API of the Naim Player...

To my very limited understanding of those topics, UPnP is supposed to facilitate communication between devices of various kinds (computers, phone, TV, audio-sytem, fridge...), in other words allow broader interoperability than file systems

Going back to practical matter, simply by adding a basic Windows 7 machine to the NDX, it is possible to do exactly the equivalent of the file player system we are evoking. Windows Media Player can be used to aggregate the content in the library, then the file can be streamed to the NDX. Since the streaming feature is native to Windows Media Player, there is no need to install any additional software.

Conclusion: in order to mimic the feature of a Naim FDX (the hypothetical File player from Naim), it is possible to use an NDX and a Windows PC. The additional cost is $400 if you do not own a PC already. So why not UPnP?

Think big, chaps–why waste good programming resources on a single-client player?

Have files? Connect small set to Uniti-family player of choice, or go big and park 'em on a server. Unless you live in a one-room studio (and, even then) you will probably need music in more than one place.

>  Naim FDX (the hypothetical File player from Naim),

Excellent sounds great when can I buy one

> It is possible to use an NDX and a Windows PC. 

Sounds dreadful think I'll avoid like the plague - I detest Windoze 7; had to use it today for work and it crashed as usual obliterating the file I was working on. If we'd been meant to use Windoze PCs with the hi-fi then His Royal Steveness would never have given us the iPAD. 

I do not have a complete visibility on delivery date for the FDX. If you are willing to pre-order and leave a deposit, I am sure some arrangement can be found.

Regarding Windows 7, I am not a big fan either...it looks too much like Apple OS. 

When it comes to the Ipad, the last time I tried, I could not find the pointer and also I noticed the keyboard was missing. Some companies really cut corners to save on costs. It is amazing that customers put up with such shortcomings.

Excellent 

Alamanka,

I think you have understood my question.

I am not sure if "pushing" and "pulling" describes the process exactly, but yes the control point of UPnP streaming may be located in the client device as well as on a computer, or on an iPad. The same thing would be true for the imaginary "file player", just like for HDX: front panel screen, DTC on computer, or n-Serve on iPad.

To answer your question "why not UPnP?", I would say, because I believe a non-UPnP player has the potential to sound better, as I've explained earlier.

As to this hypothetical File player from Naim (which you named FDX): I am personally happy with HDX because I have not yet ripped most of my CDs; but a friend of mine who doesn't need a Naim ripping solution anymore, he would be willing to pre-order and leave a deposit. 

David,

I think you misunderstood our proposal, the "File Player" from Naim would be a non-ripping version of HDX (possibly without a dac either) and would incorporate a UPnP server as well; so no worries about future multizone prospect!

Just to clear this up - the Naim Hard Disc Players are there *PRIMARILY* to allow the user to (subject to copyright of course) store his or her collection of CDs on the Hard Disc Players own internal storage and play that collection as required via the Hard  Disc Players own audio outputs.

In addition to that they will also go out and trawl the connected network for any available network shares (using the SAMBA protocols) and make any playable audio that it finds available for playback too.

None of this is using UPnP at this point...

The Hard Disc Players *ALSO* function as a UPnP server so that a UPnP client (Uniti / UnitiQute / NDX) can play the music that the Hard Disc Player has access to via UPnP - this is one difference between our UPnP implementation and that of most NASs - we amalgamate all the different sources of music into one collection (and allow browsing of it as a whole or by individual source) whereas most NAS UPnP servers only server the music from the device it is running on so you have to remember which UPnP server to connect to for whatever music you want to listen to...

Cheers

Phil

Phil, thank you very much for the clarification.

I think your explanations also support my (and some other forum members') plead for a network player based on "SAMBA protocols" instead of UPnP for the first zone of music playback. Such a player could "amalgamate", as you explain, different music sources into one collection.

The problem with existing Naim Hard Disk Players is that they contain a ripping engine, which some users do not require, and in HDX case a dac which some users don't use due to existence of an external dac.

I wish you had provided some feedback onto this proposition.

Hi,

It's rarely possible to produce a piece of kit that fits *EXACTLY* with what every possible combination of customer wants - for example I have a 552/552PS but I only use two inputs on it and don't use the record functionality, nor the balance control, so for me the ideal would be a 552 with 2 inputs, no balance control and no record selectors ... oh, and ideally with the RS232 control of the 252 as well as I really could do with that too as I use that on my 252.

In the case of the streaming players there's a *MASSIVE* difference in the processes (and processing) involved in traversing a network, scanning folders and caching data, coverart and file lists compared with the comms between a UPnP server and a UPnP client where nothing is cached on the UPnP client and everything is generated on teh fly by teh UPnP server - and remember, the more processing that there is going on in a box the more difficult (read - expensive) it becomes to try to minimise the effect that the digital processing has on the final analogue output.

If you want a network player that uses the SAMBA protocols to traverse your network then you have the Hard Disc Players which can be had with SSDs if you don't want local storage and can be had without analogue audio outputs if you wish to use a external DAC (UnitiServe).

Cheers

Phil

Aha....."LOCAL" playback.  I missed that above.

Hi Phil,

Of course, we didn't want an exact special customer order, but wanted to point out that there may be a significant market demand for such a player.

About the processor load, I didn't really understand why the load should be higher if the network is scanned beforehand (not during playback) and added to the database than when all the data is streamed on the fly real-time. But however it is working, HDX seems to be able to manage this load quite beautifully, as its digital signal quality is marvelous - I am less interested in its analogue output. Moreover, I understand from your previous post that you actually recommend the existence of a Naim HDPlayer/Server in every music system, due to the qualities you mentioned; so it seems indispensable to put up with this load.

About your last remarks about the existing HDPlayers: I am very happy about the existence of a high quality store location in my HDX, so the ssd version is not an option for me. UServe is indeed an option for those who use an external dac, but its dig out is not, according to the findings of some of us in the forum, exactly up to the same level as HDX or NDX. It may be more useful as a UPnP server, depending on your sQ demands.

Best Regards,

Thank you Phil, for providing generously technical insight into this. I understand better now, why the development of HDX had been "arduous" and it "set a new standard in the market." (HDX White Paper, 2008) So, you were not talking about the instantaneous processing load, but about the processing power, memory and storage needed to be built into the device, and implying that our hypothetical device would be more expensive than NDX. Perhaps, the high quality of the HDX dig-out is partly a result of this higher processing power.

Anyway, I still think that it would not be a bad idea to make such a well designed product more easily accessible by making rip-less and dac-less variants. On the other hand, it would of course be a pity to have all this processing power & memory, and not have the ripping tools on-board, which in turn becomes one argument to go for the Naim ripping solution.

>  still think that it would not be a bad idea to make such a well designed product more easily accessible by making rip-less and dac-less variants. 

+1 - HDX without an internal DAC or ripping engine would be very interesting to many of us. 

Also like to thank Phil for his explanation - although I'm not keen on UPnP, the sonic results of using it to feed the UQ as a player are excellent - so Phil and his colleagues at Naim have done a good job making the silk purse

All the best, Guy

I have a (relatively) cheap Monitor Audio Airstream 10 in my kitchen.

It can browse UPNP servers similarly to my Qute.

It can also browse SMB shares and traverse folder structures.  It doesn't do anything clever with these (no creating playlists or indexing the content), but it is a nice feature to have.

I think that adding this latter feature to the Uniti code base would be a welcome and relatively simple addition.