Thoughts on Mac software with 'Qute

EyeConnect 1.6.5 seems to work ok (I believe there are problems with the current 1.6.7) but is still a little slow for my liking. Connection has been an issue on one occasion. Should I be getting artwork on my iPhone as well? Mac Mini is also connected via optical link so I use that a lot as the Remote App is so much better (Where do I get a HiFace from?). Still determining which gives the better sound quality.

Qute is fantastic but uPnP has not impressed me at all.

Regards

Neil

Use an old PC and build yourself a Vortexbox server - linux - free and a huge improvement on Eyeconnect.

Vortexbox streams to Mac really well but the UPnP server MinDLNA is excellent and will give you album art as well.

Tog

Larry,

Welcome to the forum.

UPNP software can be the issue (I gave up on Twonky and moved to EyeConnect + Playback), hoqwever the Qute's dreadful 802.11g wireless reception is more likely the culprit.

I stopped using this and instead connect via CAT6 to an 802.11n Apple Airport Express used as a wireless bridge. The Airport Express has much better wireless reception and bandwidth and never drops the connection. As a result, the Qute has been rock solid ever since. You also gain the bonus of sufficient bandwidth to cope with wireless streaming of hi-res audio.

Oh, and Max works well for me for rips and FLAC conversion.

John

John,

Thanks. I was beginning to think that perhaps a large part of what I am seeing is in fact an issue with the wireless network I have rather than the server software. Like, I get occasional dropouts, which I suspect is wireless related. I think you've pointed me into the right direction.

I have 5 Apple Airport Expresses all arranged in a long WDS string. I suspect I have probably stringed things out to far and occasionally the whole thing comes down. And, fyi, the units are all G from around 3 years or so. The music however doesn't go that far. Its either going straight from the MBP to the 'Qute or through just one Airport Express.

I was thinking of moving to N units, also hoping that reception would improve within my house with newer units. But thought to hold off since the 'Qute is G. But, it didn't occur to me that I could be running N and then just plug the Ethernet cable into the 'Qute and effectively run the 'Qute at N speeds. I think I like that.

WRT ripping. I sort of like XLD but then do a redundant FLAC to FLAC rip with Max to get the music into nice neat iTunes-like directories. I am having difficulties getting metadata loaded in my first generation Max rips. Basically because I haven't spent the time understanding the software. But I have nearly 2k CDs to rips and I think/know Naim has a nice solution there.

Thanks much and also for the welcome.

-Larry

Hi All

I am loving my UnitiQute but I'm getting increasingly annoyed/frustrated with the poor uPnP function and the occasional dropout! I am led to believe that this is down to the 802.11g module fitted in the Qute.

I live in an Apple environment running a new dual band Airport Extreme. I cannot wire the Qute so it is used wirelesly. I realise I can get an Airport Express and improve my wireless connection but I am a little reluctant to do so. The whole idea of the Qute is that it is an all-in-one unit so I do not want to start adding other boxes (even small ones!). Why did the Qute not ship with 802.11n wireless capabilities? It is the standard and has been round for a while now. Will Naim be offering an upgrade to 802.11n that will cost me £XXX. It should have come as standard! Please explain someone.

Regards

Neil

Hi Neil - I have asked the same question a few times, particularly as the extra OEM costs for an 802.11n chip would be just a few cents.

One response is that Naim believe wired to be better (Linn take this to it's logical extreme and have wired only), however wireless will be the only option for many users and the extra range and stability offered by 802.11n would be a boon for many users. It would also solve most of the issues reported with the Qute.

It is a strange decision.

Hi John

It is baffling. Would the 'n' module offer more RFI than the 'g' module? I'm no expert but no response from mods yet. I just don't want to bridge it - why should I? It completely goes against the idea of the Qute. Will I be able to have the 'n' module fitted? And at what extra cost?

Is this Naim rushing to market before they are really ready as some others have commented previously on other products? I have issues with my Squeezebox Radio that Logitech are being very slow to sort out, but I have confidence in Naim (which is part of the reason I swapped my Transporter/CB Nait2 for the Qute) and I expect them to sort these problems out.

Wired is the preference - wifi is there for convenience.


Tog

Tog

I get that but why not make the wireless as good as you can (802.11n)?

quote:

however wireless will be the only option for many users and the extra range and stability offered by 802.11n would be a boon for many users. It would also solve most of the issues reported with the Qute.

It is just very frustrating that I will have to pay for a mod or end up 'bridging'.

Neil

Try ethernet over power - Powerline

Tog

Sorry, not sure I understand what you are suggesting.

Instead of wired Ethernet or wifi try using Ethernet plugs - netgear make them.

Tog

So, if I may ask my incredibly stupid questions:

If I have a multi-unit Airport Express network and they all bridge together, can I plug a NAS, such as the Netgear ReadyNas Duo, into the Ethernet socket of one of the Airport Expresses?

I would then presume that via Bonjour the NAS will join my network and I will "see" the NAS in the Finder of my MBP as a shared volume. Correct?

If I then plug the Qute into the Ethernet socket of a different Airport Express, in the same network, can I then presume my Qute will find the music on the NAS?

If this works, I have then effectively gotten my Qute to operate at N protocol speed rather than the G that's in the box. Correct?

Thanks and please pardon my simple questions.

-Larry

Hi Larry

I believe so in my limited knowledge. Give it a go and let us know. I am awaiting an Airport Express to link to my Qute to act as a bridge to my Extreme (something I did not want to do but in the interests of unbroken sound...).

Did you Google Ethernet Plugs as Tog suggested above? Ugly but interesting. Anyone else using them?

Neil

I have not pursued using my electrical system as a means to distribute a network because once upon a time my home was divided into two separate homes with two entirely electrical boxes, hence it would not work efficiently for me. I still have the two boxes as a legacy.

I am aware of the approach however and the reports I've heard are positive.

quote:

Originally posted by LD Haber:
John,

Thanks. I was beginning to think that perhaps a large part of what I am seeing is in fact an issue with the wireless network I have rather than the server software. Like, I get occasional dropouts, which I suspect is wireless related. I think you've pointed me into the right direction.

I have 5 Apple Airport Expresses all arranged in a long WDS string. I suspect I have probably stringed things out to far and occasionally the whole thing comes down. And, fyi, the units are all G from around 3 years or so. The music however doesn't go that far. Its either going straight from the MBP to the 'Qute or through just one Airport Express.

I was thinking of moving to N units, also hoping that reception would improve within my house with newer units. But thought to hold off since the 'Qute is G. But, it didn't occur to me that I could be running N and then just plug the Ethernet cable into the 'Qute and effectively run the 'Qute at N speeds. I think I like that.

WRT ripping. I sort of like XLD but then do a redundant FLAC to FLAC rip with Max to get the music into nice neat iTunes-like directories. I am having difficulties getting metadata loaded in my first generation Max rips. Basically because I haven't spent the time understanding the software. But I have nearly 2k CDs to rips and I think/know Naim has a nice solution there.

Thanks much and also for the welcome.

-Larry

Larry are you being serious on this one? I would love to know the actual reason you have not just run a lead?

quote:

Originally posted by John Bleasdale:
Hi Neil - I have asked the same question a few times, particularly as the extra OEM costs for an 802.11n chip would be just a few cents.

One response is that Naim believe wired to be better (Linn take this to it's logical extreme and have wired only), however wireless will be the only option for many users and the extra range and stability offered by 802.11n would be a boon for many users. It would also solve most of the issues reported with the Qute.

It is a strange decision.

Interesting that you say that the extra range and stability of 802.11n would be a boon for many users ... the last 802.11n router box I looked at "suggested" a range of 1,800ft (in free air) just how big is your house?

The problem with wireless networking is - well - wireless networking itself. In some respects I think LINN did a very sensible thing by forcing the use of a wired connection and not putting wireless on their kit.

The simple statement is that almost all the problems I get through to me are either issues with 3rd party UPnP applications or issues that end up being to do with wireless networking.

802.11n is unfortunately *NOT* the answer - greater range just brings more routers into contention for the same radio bandwidth and use of the 5GHz band seems to be the exception rather than the rule. (I run either wired or 802.11a at home and have no problem streaming full bitrate DVD movies to my laptop which generally tend to be a higher bitrate than hi def audio.)

The "answer" is actually to have *LESS* range - 802.11a is supposed to be 50m tops (in free air) which gives you far less contention for the same airspace and you get a much better QOS.

There are some very good wireless access points out there too, the Pakedge WAP-W3 is one we use out there which is fantastic but at around £400 for a Wireless Access Point most people gulp and walk away, however we have many NaimNet installations that use them and as an "Enterprise" WAP they just work and work exceptionally well. One of my colleagues was using an Airport Extreme (and a couple of Airport Express to fill in the dead areas) in his house and still getting patchy coverage. Dropping in a WAP-W3 has (he claims) transformed his WiFi into something solid and usable.

I have an NDX and a UnitiQute here at home and they can work *PERFECTLY* wireless (if I switch down to 2.4GHz of course - probably in part due to the WAP-W3 I'm sure) but I use them wired ... why? Because I know that even if they're working perfectly now - all I need is an external source of interference (the neighbours son to hook up his PS/3 wireless to his parents router and start streaming movies from lovefilm maybe?) and that could change.

With a wired connection you are essentially guaranteed bandwith and hence that is the preferred connection (our servers are all wired Ethernet) - as Tog has rightly said elsewhere, WiFi is for convenience if it is appropriate and works in your location.


Anyway - must get into work now, Santas Elves came yesterday evening to pick up lots of presents for good little boys and girls ... According to them Rudolph's been muttering something about "couldn't people ask for lighter presents", "unions" and "wanting a payrise" but they're ignoring him as apparently ever since he got his own song he's become a real egotistical pain...

It's our last day before Xmas and the Naim Xmas party today ... starts at midday and ends whenever the last person drops! (Yes, the Naim summer barbecue was well received on here but the Naim Xmas bash is always a cracker... :-D) So as this is hopefully my last post on here before Xmas it just remains for me to say thanks to all you guys out there on the forums and to all the people at Naim for giving me another year doing something that - although frustrating at times - I truly love!

Phil

Thanks for the response Phil and have a great time.

Regards

Neil

quote:

Larry are you being serious on this one? I would love to know the actual reason you have not just run a lead?

Garyi,

Yes I am serious and the reason I am not running a lead is that my house is a 1840 antique in Charleston SC's historic district with difficult to deal with plaster walls and original plaster moldings compounded by original heart pine bare wooden floors and I would prefer to avoid marring all these with wires laying about. Hence my desire to get as much out of wireless as I can manage.

Well I would advise a stronger wireless access point and one tip I did pick up is put it up high in the loft. In general the ceailings of the house are much 'weaker' than the walls, so the coverages can get ouot there far better.

Although I don't use them I would have said the home plug things might be a bette roption for you?

I think you are right about putting things up in the loft (attic). There are fewer obstructions to impede the signal as well. I think I will look into that.

the home plug thing doesn't work because years before me, my house's electrical system was totally subdivided into two completely separate sets of circuits to facilitate the house being divided for two different households. Although the house has been restored, the two sets of circuits remain.

quote:

Originally posted by LD Haber:

quote:

Larry are you being serious on this one? I would love to know the actual reason you have not just run a lead?

Garyi,

Yes I am serious and the reason I am not running a lead is that my house is a 1840 antique in Charleston SC's historic district with difficult to deal with plaster walls and original plaster moldings compounded by original heart pine bare wooden floors and I would prefer to avoid marring all these with wires laying about. Hence my desire to get as much out of wireless as I can manage.

...unfortunately you may find that the construction of the property may hinder decent wireless coverage in itself - one of the downsides of WiFi unfortunately.

Phil

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:
Well I would advise a stronger wireless access point and one tip I did pick up is put it up high in the loft. In general the ceailings of the house are much 'weaker' than the walls, so the coverages can get ouot there far better.

Remember that this depends on the aerial(s) on your router / access point ... if they have limted vertical dispersion (which most do) then putting the router / access point "up high" can mean that your property then falls outside its coverage and you get a much weaker signal (but your neighbours get a good signal from you).

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:
Although I don't use them I would have said the home plug things might be a bette roption for you?

Maybe but they don't work well (if at all) across circuit breakers and are also susceptible to mains borne noise...

Phil

Larry the Airport Extreme is very good and would do better than lots of Expresses on my opinion.

Neil

quote:

Originally posted by badlyread:
Larry the Airport Extreme is very good and would do better than lots of Expresses on my opinion.

Neil

Hi Neil,

The Airport Extreme is definitely better than the Express but also still definitely "consumer grade"...

Take a look at a company called "Pakedge" - their WAP-W3 is *EXCELLENT* and they also do a proper flush-ceiling-mountable version that has the correct dispersion pattern on the antennae. Not cheap but if they fix the problem then...?

Phil