Guess the line being discontinued!

nbpf posted:

I am not sure that Naim has been providing long term support on such long time scales for their servers. When did the US and the HDX receive their last system updates?

As Claus said - support is different from adding features.  What features "sold" as working on the HDX and US don't work?  The difficulty for Naim might be in keeping the required nServe app working as Apple / Android (is there an Android app?) move forward.  The "issue" for Naim is that (afaik) the underlying design of the HDX (and UnitiServe) was developed by a third party - Netstream - who appear to have abandoned the design (which was based on Windows XP Embedded also abandoned by Microsoft).

The moment Naim decides to upgrade their classical range by adding the functionalities of the new Uniti range to the streamers, they will have to equip these new devices with more or less full fledged SBCs. This implies some compromises, e.g.,  in isolation and, I am afraid, in long term support.

The current streamers / digital preamps already have a SBC inside.  They are a completely different design from the HDX / Unitiserve; but again (iirc) the design was bought in from a third party (StreamUnlimited?) though being a more flexible design a lot more was able to be designed by Naim in terms of how the streaming module interfaced with digital and analogue / control technologies.  I'm not sure how much the "new" Uniti streaming modules are designed in house and how much is still third party - I believe a lot more its Naim's work which should allow then to a lot more design future modules to "snap in" as replacement.

Please note I'm not defending Naim unquestioningly: just trying to explain some of the difficulties Naim face.  They lack (or at least lacked) in house experience to build "computers" and software themselves, so went to third party experts; going to experts left them vulnerable to those companies changing their plans.  I'm not sure if you are a Chord DAC fan: but Chord were left in a similar situation with their earlier USB connected DACs when using what was considered a brilliant interface in the early days of USB; only to see support lacking when changes to OSX left the driver no longer working and the person who designed the driver no longer working for the third party company.

In terms of long term support and flexibility and from a user's perspective, I think that currently it makes sense to invest into DACs (with long term support and good value preservation) and network streamers (with full fledged SBCs on board, best support for current and upcoming internet streaming services, Roon, Airplay, CA, MPD, etc. but relatively poor value preservation and long term support).

While slightly less neat than all in one ... an interesting design could see the streaming module in an external enclosure - something akin to the Stageline in size, which would be powered by the Naim DAC or digital preamp.

Of course none of this overrides the fundamental comment which is what you are talking about is not long term support, but long term adding functionality.  Yes, I would love for my NAC-N 272 to get a new streaming board which supports Roon and Airplay and Chromecast and can have a HDMI ARC connections ... but not being able to upgrade doesn't stop the NAC-N 272 working as it always has.  I see that situation as the same as my Arcam AVR400 - that can't be upgraded to offer HDMI 2 with 4k support and Dolby Atmos that the new AVR380 has ... but it doesn't stop the AVR400 working the same as it always had, or Arcam still supporting it.

Kevin Richardson posted:

If ND5/x/s are not upgradable to the new platform then some day Naim will not have an iPhone app for these streamers.

What makes you say that?  Given that the same app controls both the "old" (ND5/X/S + NAC-N) streamers and the "new" Uniti range there is (to my mind) some indication that the control protocols (outside of UPnP) are the same.  Ideally Naim would give a commitment to continuing to update the app to work with future phones for (say) at least 5 ideally 10 years after the streamers go out of production.

But even if the "Naim" functionality was to stop working, you will still have UPnP control points which will stop the old streamers being paperweights.

Actually if the NDx / NAC-N range ISN'T upgradable that gives Naim more imperative to keep the app working with the older designs as if there was a (say) £1000 upgrade to get your old streamer to the new Uniti platform, then Naim could be more likely to just say "if you want it to work with newer control devices you have to upgrade the streamer hardware".

Eloise posted:

On a technical level... Ethernet is not really an interface to a DAC.  Ethernet is an interface to a “computer” built in to a DAC.  A computer which turns files streamed to it into digital audio data.  It could be argued that modern “professional” standards such as Dante allows “true” digital audio data via Ethernet but there is still complex processing to connect to the network and convert to a form the DAC itself can understand.

 

Ahh I can’t leave this unchallenged...

Ethernet is much an interface to a DAC as USB2/3, SPDIF/ AES/EBU... all this formats are network framing protocols used to carry data. Yes USB and Ethernet provide more options compared to relatively limited SPDIF at the application level.... but they at the of the day  data framing protocols, and Ethernet gives more control in the access layer over prioritisation of queues. However Ethernet is no more linked to computers than USB.

The framed data for the DAC is no more complex to extract for Ethernet than it is SPDIF, however the connection or setup options do vary with Ethernet being the most flexible, then USB, then SPDIF/AES-EBU.

I2S is different as the clock is separate from the data, so it is more a bus protocol rather than a network framing protocol.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Ethernet is much an interface to a DAC as USB2/3, SPDIF/ AES/EBU... all this formats are network framing protocols used to carry data. Yes USB and Ethernet provide more options compared to relatively limited SPDIF at the application level.... but they at the of the day  data framing protocols, and Ethernet gives more control in the access layer over prioritisation of queues. However Ethernet is no more linked to computers than USB.

Simon, I am not disagreeing with you ... perhaps I should have said there is no widely adopted standard for carrying audio data (to a DAC) via Ethernet, unlike USB or SPDIF / AES.

Yes there is Dante, RAVENNA and other AVB / AES67 like protocols.  AFAIK only RAVENNA offers support for anything higher than 24/96 PCM if thats important for people.

I should be more careful with what I write and how I write it especially given I can be pedantic about other people using terms correctly.  I was trying to differentiate between an interface to a DAC such as offered by SPDIF or even USB, and the commonly used Ethernet connections which are not connections to DACs but connections to computers within DACs.    :-)

(Is that written a bit better?  Or maybe I'm digging deeper)

Eloise posted:

nbpf posted:

I am not sure that Naim has been providing long term support on such long time scales for their servers. When did the US and the HDX receive their last system updates?

As Claus said - support is different from adding features.  What features "sold" as working on the HDX and US don't work?  The difficulty for Naim might be in keeping the required nServe app working as Apple / Android (is there an Android app?) move forward.  The "issue" for Naim is that (afaik) the underlying design of the HDX (and UnitiServe) was developed by a third party - Netstream - who appear to have abandoned the design (which was based on Windows XP Embedded also abandoned by Microsoft).

...

Of course none of this overrides the fundamental comment which is what you are talking about is not long term support, but long term adding functionality.  Yes, I would love for my NAC-N 272 to get a new streaming board which supports Roon and Airplay and Chromecast and can have a HDMI ARC connections ... but not being able to upgrade doesn't stop the NAC-N 272 working as it always has.  I see that situation as the same as my Arcam AVR400 - that can't be upgraded to offer HDMI 2 with 4k support and Dolby Atmos that the new AVR380 has ... but it doesn't stop the AVR400 working the same as it always had, or Arcam still supporting it.

I was not really thinking in terms of adding features but rather of improving features. For example, Schiit has made it possible for users of their DACs to upgrade their USB interfaces from gen 3 to gen 5. Similarly, microRendu users have been able to upgrade their boards from 1.3 to 1.4.

Providing an upgrade perspective for single components of a modular system is a way of binding users and preserving value. Adding functionalities is also a means of archieving these goals. In many components of the classic range, Naim has been doing very well in terms of offering both hardware upgrades and adding functionalities via firmware upgrades. Where they have been doing less well is in the domain of servers, possibly also because, as you point out, their development was outsourced up to a certain extent.

My fear is that, for highly integrated components, it will become increasingly difficult to offer upgrade perspectives (both improving and adding features) as done in the past. Hence my preference for solutions based on a clearcut separation of concerns between digital to analog conversion and support for Roon, internet streaming services, Airplay, CA, etc. These are two very different concerns which are better supported with two different devices.

Eloise posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Ethernet is much an interface to a DAC as USB2/3, SPDIF/ AES/EBU... all this formats are network framing protocols used to carry data. Yes USB and Ethernet provide more options compared to relatively limited SPDIF at the application level.... but they at the of the day  data framing protocols, and Ethernet gives more control in the access layer over prioritisation of queues. However Ethernet is no more linked to computers than USB.

Simon, I am not disagreeing with you ... perhaps I should have said there is no widely adopted standard for carrying audio data (to a DAC) via Ethernet, unlike USB or SPDIF / AES.

Yes there is Dante, RAVENNA and other AVB / AES67 like protocols.  AFAIK only RAVENNA offers support for anything higher than 24/96 PCM if thats important for people.

I should be more careful with what I write and how I write it especially given I can be pedantic about other people using terms correctly.  I was trying to differentiate between an interface to a DAC such as offered by SPDIF or even USB, and the commonly used Ethernet connections which are not connections to DACs but connections to computers within DACs.    :-)

(Is that written a bit better?  Or maybe I'm digging deeper)

Hi Eloise, I am simply debating with you. .. however real-time audio via Ethernet has been a significant part of my professional life in recent years  and of course we use RTP rfc 3550 and rfc 4571 which are specifically framing protocols standards for audio and video. These protocols are used extensively globally.for conveying audio and video via networks. There is also the lighter weight HTTP TCP data transfers  for audio which from memory is used by our standard or profiled UPnP  streaming DAC/players.

You see I see no difference on these interfaces for these DACs as they do the same function, they convey and receive frames of audio data... I think it’s a case of more of what one is familiar with and  used to, and of course until recently Ethernet interfaces for consumer DACs was unusual.

But I agree in Hi-Fi circles Ethernet enabled DACs are often referred to as streamers where there is a DAC incorporated, or a transport with no DAC but frame protocol conversion... but I just think that is contemporary convention in terms.

I would guess they have to update the line, it seems they have never gotten a successful firmware update out the door for the Classic units for general release after a year of trying. I think it's like a lot of tech based things, the old architecture has just hit end of life. Doesn't mean it doesn't sound good or can't be in service for quite some time, but things move on. I for one would really like to see the tech that they have in the Uniti get moved up into the separates. I would consider upgrading my beloved 272 if a new unit came out in that slot that had much better tech and at least the same sound quality.

Whether it's *very soon* or not, of course the other streaming models have to be changed, architecturally, to match the new Uniti range. It makes no economic or strategic sense not to do so. Naim will then stop developing the current range beyond basic patching. That much is inevitable. If it were me, I would aim for that in the Spring.

In terms of 'look', it will be interesting to see whether that's an adaptation of the Uniti design, but front-facing for racks, or closer to the current Classics.

For me personally, I want to see the future of the 272, the most recent of the 'old' products and therefore likely to be the last upgraded. If that sounds as good as the current 272 but with Uniti architecture, I will be making an investment.