QNAP or Synology ?

I have Synology & am happy as a pig in muck with it.   I'm impressed with the way they provide support & upgrade to better firm/software for the OS (called DSM)  & the Synology UPnP 'Media Server'.     It is remarkably easy to use & has an excellent webpage (GUI)   

If you use WAV codec its perfect,   & thats what I use.  However because you use FLAC etc.  it plays these perfectly when played 'straight'.  The problem is if you want to transcode them to WAV,  it down-samples 24-bit to 16-bit & then has problems if they are gapless.     In this case the solution is to install Minimserver from the Synology included 3rd party package.   This works very well albeit a little more fiddly to set up.      My only other beef is Synology & Asset are not formally supported.   

I help a disabled friend who has moved from US to QNAP & although impressed with QNAP I feel more comfortable with Synology - maybe its just familiarity.    Although the QNAP gets up to speed a little quicker - it has more CPU & RAM power - there is no difference that I can detect in SQ.

Both excellent products, I use them both and we support them equaly.

Synology has a better setup software and Minim ( Java) is easier to install

QNAP is a bit faster, but irrevelent for music. Has Asset if you like it.

both resonably quiet.

QNAP have an ultra Quiet model(fanless).

qnap installed with dbpower/asset no issues at all.

audio1946 posted:

qnap installed with dbpower/asset no issues at all.

I think that is the point.

Choose Synology or choose QNAP and either will be faultless.

The only way that anyone will have strong feelings either way is if they have had one fail.

They are both excellent, I went for QNAP as I liked the metal case better than the equivalent Synology and being able to run Minim and Asset added flexibility.

It's been completely reliable and I find it easy to use.  I don't think there is much in it for ease of use, I setup HH's Qnap and had a brief encounter with his old Synology and found it hard to find my way around.  I suspect as Mike suggests its familiarity rather than one is better than the other in this respect.

If you Google Qnap Live Demo you will find a simulator that you can log on to try it out, it looks like Synology also has this so you can compare before you buy.

Also, I have 2 Netgear ReadyNAS which are used for backups, I have the RN102 and RN104.  They make excellent stable backup devices, enable rsync on the devices and use the built in backup software on the Qnap and set the Netgear to switch on automatically to a schedule that suits you.  Also you can connect a USB drive to the front of a Qnap and setup a backup that runs when you press a button on the front panel which is also very convenient.

Richard

QNAP for me. Out of the box and up and running with Asset in about 20 minutes. There is a youtube clip of a very helpful guy going through the set up. Back-up is set to run once a week and so far, after a year, no problems. 

QNAP works for me.

I don't think it matters that much wheter it's Synology or QNAP - both are top notch.

Hard-drive choice and dual or single bay is more important. Choose only 'approved' drive manufactureres (most likely going to be Segate or WD) and I would recommend a dual-bay NAS running in a RAID mode. Whilst RAID is not a de facto backup, it does create a mirror copy of a drive. So in case of one disk failing, you will have another one to work from.

Whilst we are on a subject of backing up. Worth keeping a separate off-line backup, especially of the 'downloads folder'. For that purpose a regular USB drive will suffice.

Adam

Manu posted:

Both excellent products, I use them both and we support them equaly.

Synology has a better setup software and Minim ( Java) is easier to install

QNAP is a bit faster, but irrevelent for music. Has Asset if you like it.

both resonably quiet.

QNAP have an ultra Quiet model(fanless).

 

have a QNAP - as Manu says above I use the HS 210 -which the fanless NAS only issue with this model is small RAM memory which you can't add to but works with Asset really well, from the form most are happy with either NAS

100% qnap 210  ,run for over 3yrs no issues

QNAP for me too although I do also have a Netgear ReadyNAS 104 which has never put a foot wrong. I run both with WD Red drives

Synology with WD Red here, very happy. One warning, using the low-end DS115j, the new backup app Hyper Backup struggles with processor load and runs really slowly on an initial backup. Using a higher spec NAS seems to mitigate that, or not doing what I did which is set a 1,4TB backup running and find it was goingt to take 10 days.

Good call Eoink,  the problem you have is with the single core CPU models.  I'm pretty sure Roger will be looking for a model with CPU & RAM power as a primary consideration & these will all have dual or quad cores.  This is a useful selection guide  https://www.synology.com/en-uk...CPU_does_my_NAS_have  

i am looking at various QNAP NASs on their website.  whats the experience with dual vs quadcode, and 4GB vs 2GB memory?

I am looking at TS-251 vs TS-251+ -- anyone using these with Naim streaming setups?

I hope i'm not high jacking this thread Roger... :-(

enjoy

ken

Just bought myself a HS-251+, my first NAS. Fanless and media center functionalities. Won't be powering it up in the next weeks though, so can't comment on the sw quality and user experience yet. 

I have Synology with WD Red and it's perfect, faultless. Minim works very well on it. If I were choosing a new one today I'd get QNAP and run Asset, but just to try something new. Synology and QNAP are both brilliant products quite honestly, and you won't go wrong with either.

Synology and Minim for me too. Does exactly what I want when I want it!

Unsure whether QNAP can do this, and if it's even of interest, but I use my Synology as a movie server too. Using the DS Video Synology app, I stream movies to wireless devices or wired SMART TV. Works flawlessly also!

Both are great products and I think you'll be pleased with either!

Neil

I use a QNAP with Minim and have no issues 

ken c posted:

i am looking at various QNAP NASs on their website.  whats the experience with dual vs quadcode, and 4GB vs 2GB memory?        I am looking at TS-251 vs TS-251+ -- anyone using these with Naim streaming setups?

Quad core CPU & 4GB is not really needed for audio, it will speed up response times but outside that its mostly wasted on audio & will do nothing for SQ.  If you intend to run video then more & bigger becomes more worthwhile.  Mine is audio only & its a dual core CPU & DDR3 512MB RAM.   

Mike-B posted:

ken c posted:

i am looking at various QNAP NASs on their website.  whats the experience with dual vs quadcode, and 4GB vs 2GB memory?        I am looking at TS-251 vs TS-251+ -- anyone using these with Naim streaming setups?

Quad core CPU & 4GB is not really needed for audio, it will speed up response times but outside that its mostly wasted on audio & will do nothing for SQ.  If you intend to run video then more & bigger becomes more worthwhile.  Mine is audio only & its a dual core CPU & DDR3 512MB RAM.   

Mike-B, thanks for this...

enjoy..

ken

Ken,  I must follow up on my post,  I didn't get all my points over that well,  I intended to include that more RAM is no bad thing & there is reason not to go for it.  

Thanks again Mike-B...

actually another question -- i assume that if i get a new NAS, it will be just a question of copying my current music folder (\media\MQ) on the ReadyNAS to an equivalent folder on the QNAP and all should 'just' work?

enjoy

ken

That's the theroy, Ken 

ken c posted:

Thanks again Mike-B...

actually another question -- i assume that if i get a new NAS, it will be just a question of copying my current music folder (\media\MQ) on the ReadyNAS to an equivalent folder on the QNAP and all should 'just' work?

 

Ken, the MQ folder name suggests that these are Unitiserve CD rips: are they FLACs? If not, convert them to FLAC on the US before the transfer. You probably already know that?

One way to do the transfer would be to set up the QNAP as a backup to the Unitiserve, then point a UPnP server (Asset, Minim, or whatever) at the backup folder, which can then become your main music folder.  

Thanks Chris -- they are indeed UnitiServe .wav rips.  i have heard about some side effects of this conversion to FLAC so this worries me slightly. why do i need this conversion?

enjoy...

/ken

The way Naim servers store metadata for WAVs is different to others, so it usually can't be read by non-Naim gear. You need to convert to FLAC for that reason, otherwise you end up with a huge track listing that isn't divided into albums with artwork, etc. It's essential to do this on the Unitiserve before transferring the files elsewhere - converting it afterwards doesn't work.

I haven't found any downside to doing this. The file transfer will be quicker due to the smaller file size of FLACs. There's nothing to stop you from converting back to WAV (or any other format) at a later date if you prefer.