Sign the petition! - An XS Series Streamer
Posted by: Alonso on 30 October 2010
Sign the petition!
http://www.petition.co.uk/an-xs-series-naim-streamerOk Guys I dont know if Naim "listen" to these things but I thought, why not express our interest in such a product anyway!
You can leave your comments after signing the petition and I will forward it to Naim (the signatures and comments) once signatures reach some sort of critical mass...
The idea is basically a XS Series (Mid Range) streamer without amplification and price according to the range.
Some of us feel that the Uniti and Classic ranges are pretty well taken care of, but not the 'guys in the middle' who already have a system set up and would like to integrate a streamer a-la-Sonos but do not wish to give in the compromises of the Uniti all-in-one ethos (nor pay for amp sections) and at the same time want to stick to the brand we all love!
You can read this thread, where it all started
https://forums.naimaudio.com/ev...8019385/m/6312918537Posted on: 01 November 2010 by pcstockton
quote:
Didn't know the Serve played Internet radio
Didnt know that people really wanted 128kbps, glitchy, garbled, music for their mega dollar, source-first systems.
Posted on: 01 November 2010 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
Why on earth can't Naim just put the network connectivity and UPnP renderer functionality from elsewhere in the range inside the current Naim DAC.
Really glad I got my deck before it acquired a noise ridden Ethernet interface and UPnP - we are in the 21st Century you know - a nice APT-X BT interface would have been great, of course, but the last thing I want is UPnP streamer cluttering up the superb DAC. S/PDIF works just fine for me.
Lets keep the streamer separate from the DAC so those of us who don't want UPnP and have no need for it do not have to have it. I can quite happily use Airplay if want to play something from my server or direct from my laptop without any need for IP networking.
Now if Naim made a CD transport with (or without) an Airplay capability to feed the DAC I'd join the queue. However, as that's unlikely, I think Naim's current range has most bases covered - only a decent Dolby-S cassette deck is missing.
Posted on: 01 November 2010 by totemphile
quote:
Originally posted by pcstockton:
quote:
Didn't know the Serve played Internet radio
Didnt know that people really wanted 128kbps, glitchy, garbled, music for their mega dollar, source-first systems.
Touché
But isn't this likely to change, i.e. might some Internet radio stations not transmit hires programmes / music in future? Possibly there are some that do this already? The NDX offers an optional FM/DAB tuner module. Personally I would like to see that in the "NDXS" as well. Partnered with the nDAC it should be good enough for what it is. The request, and petition, is for an XS range NDX, so IMHO it's not about squeezing out the last Bit of sonic performance in all areas. To have Internet radio is a nice to have. Lot's of people are looking for a like for like replacement of their Sonos, SB, etc. It would fit the bill and top it - it could still stream hires files and with the DAC this then get you into serious source first territory again
Posted on: 01 November 2010 by likesmusic
ROTF .. So .. an ethernet interface is noise ridden, and UPnP doesn't belong to the 21st century .. so why do Naim include these features in the NDX, and other recent products? Is the NDX noise ridden? Is it cluttered up by UPnP? Are the other new products similarly defective? I'm not proposing they drop the DAC, so that people like you can go on the way you do; I'm just proposing a variant with the functionality that I suggested.
Don't disagree with you about Airplay - I think it would be a wonderful addition (to an ethernet connected DAC!) but can't imagine Naim have the courage to incorporate it - it would make far too many people far too happy apart from anything else.
Posted on: 01 November 2010 by David Dever
quote:
s this merely an artificial dividing line created by the marketing dept?
No-completely different platform and codebase.
Besides–I'm all for standards compliance; I feel myself that this would encourage lazy filesystem organization on user NAS volumes that wastes system resources, sorry. I HATE n-deep music filesystem trees with a passion.
Posted on: 01 November 2010 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
ROTF .. So .. an ethernet interface is noise ridden, and UPnP doesn't belong to the 21st century .. so why do Naim include these features in the NDX, and other recent products? Is the NDX noise ridden? Is it cluttered up by UPnP? Are the other new products similarly defective? I'm not proposing they drop the DAC, so that people like you can go on the way you do; I'm just proposing a variant with the functionality that I suggested.
Don't disagree with you about Airplay - I think it would be a wonderful addition (to an ethernet connected DAC!) but can't imagine Naim have the courage to incorporate it - it would make far too many people far too happy apart from anything else.
> so why do Naim include these features in the NDX, and other recent products?
Sorry I have no answer to that - Naim would need to answer that. I've never got UPnP to work reliably whereas one mouse click on each version of iTunes brought Aiplay to life.
I've not heard the NDX. but it is not really a product for me. Perhaps if the DAC XS had plug-in cards so you could buy the features you need would be better.
I find an Apple Laptop far more convenient for keeping downloaded music in order and it is simple to connect to the nDAC using a hiFace. It is also sounds pretty good when you avoid its optical interface. All the noisy stuff like Ethernet is in the laptop and isolated from the nDAC. It would be great if I could plug the USB cable in to the nDAC, but alas that doesn't work. A BT APT-X interface would make my century.
ATB Rotf
Posted on: 01 November 2010 by Aleg
quote:
Originally posted by David Dever:
quote:
s this merely an artificial dividing line created by the marketing dept?
No-completely different platform and codebase.
Besides–I'm all for standards compliance; I feel myself that this would encourage lazy filesystem organization on user NAS volumes that wastes system resources, sorry. I HATE n-deep music filesystem trees with a passion.
David
But you don't have to have that n-deep music filesystem tree experience. The HDX and UnitiServe have their meta-database that allows great navigation.
You can't say that the navigation of the Serve and HDX is flawed because it directly connects to the NAS on a CIFS/SMB network level?
There really is no need for a UPnP middle layer in Naim's products when you take the server codebase as starting point.
Regarding compliance to standards, the CIFS/SMB network protocol is as standard as any standard can be, it is incorporated in virtually every operating system by default, and is much, much, much more robust and standardised than UPnP will be for a while yet.
-
aleg
Posted on: 02 November 2010 by likesmusic
ROTF - you say that in your configuration all the 'noisy stuff is in the laptop and isolated from the DAC'. But that same laptop will be pumping switching power supply rubbish onto the mains very close to your DAC, not to mention radiating electical noise, as well as quite probably making mechanical noise. So, is that really isolated? And in any case I can't see why an ethernet/UPnP interface feeding the buffer inside the DAC should be inherently any noisier than the current s/pdif+processor arrangement. Nonetheless I agree with you about iTunes/Airplay - it makes life easy and pleasurable for many people, and it would be wonderful for the Naim DAC to be able to live naturally on an Airplay network. I guess we have to dream on.
Posted on: 02 November 2010 by Hook
quote:
Originally posted by Aleg:
quote:
Originally posted by David Dever:
quote:
s this merely an artificial dividing line created by the marketing dept?
No-completely different platform and codebase.
Besides–I'm all for standards compliance; I feel myself that this would encourage lazy filesystem organization on user NAS volumes that wastes system resources, sorry. I HATE n-deep music filesystem trees with a passion.
David
But you don't have to have that n-deep music filesystem tree experience. The HDX and UnitiServe have their meta-database that allows great navigation.
You can't say that the navigation of the Serve and HDX is flawed because it directly connects to the NAS on a CIFS/SMB network level?
There really is no need for a UPnP middle layer in Naim's products when you take the server codebase as starting point.
Regarding compliance to standards, the CIFS/SMB network protocol is as standard as any standard can be, it is incorporated in virtually every operating system by default, and is much, much, much more robust and standardised than UPnP will be for a while yet.
-
aleg
Agreed 100%. Granted UPnP is more "open" in that the ISO/IEC standard is being evolved under the vendor-independent UPnP forum. But with no offense to Apple fans, and even though MS controls the standard, CIFS is equally ubiquitous. The fact that is higher performance, more secure and less buggy is just gravy.
And if file tree organization is an issue that prevents Naim from considering CIFS support, I would bet that the vast majority would be willing to live with a Naim published restriction that says only collection_name/artist/album shares will be discovered. And no worries if I am missing out on any extra Naim-generated meta-data. It is a small price to pay not to have to re-rip 1000 CDs!
Hook
Posted on: 02 November 2010 by likesmusic
quote:
Originally posted by ghook2020:
And if file tree organization is an issue that prevents Naim from considering CIFS support, I would bet that the vast majority would be willing to live with a Naim published restriction that says only collection_name/artist/album shares will be discovered.
Hook
I'd vote against that too! What on earth has the file-structure of a disc got do do inherently with how you view, store or retrieve things from your music collection? I'd like to be able to store my music files however I fancy, and retrieve them based on any number of arbitrary views, classifications and attributes that I fancy. If you don't mind. Thank you. Seeing as how it's my music.
Posted on: 02 November 2010 by Aleg
quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
quote:
Originally posted by ghook2020:
And if file tree organization is an issue that prevents Naim from considering CIFS support, I would bet that the vast majority would be willing to live with a Naim published restriction that says only collection_name/artist/album shares will be discovered.
Hook
I'd vote against that too! What on earth has the file-structure of a disc got do do inherently with how you view, store or retrieve things from your music collection? I'd like to be able to store my music files however I fancy, and retrieve them based on any number of arbitrary views, classifications and attributes that I fancy. If you don't mind. Thank you. Seeing as how it's my music.
You wouldn't have to.
Naim has in it's server codebase a meta-database that it uses to navigate its music library.
-
aleg
Posted on: 02 November 2010 by likesmusic
Why should I navigate my music the way someone else wants to? I'd like to navigate it any way I please, thank you very much, seeing as how I paid for it. Since I can't get at or usefully use, modify, enhance or enrich the 'meta-database' (whatever that is), so what!?!! Imagine buying a bookcase that forced you to store your books in a pre-ordained 'meta-sequence'!
Posted on: 02 November 2010 by David Dever
quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
Why should I navigate my music the way someone else wants to? I'd like to navigate it any way I please, thank you very much, seeing as how I paid for it. Since I can't get at or usefully use, modify, enhance or enrich the 'meta-database' (whatever that is), so what!?!! Imagine buying a bookcase that forced you to store your books in a pre-ordained 'meta-sequence'!
Most bookcases are only one book deep, two if you're sloppy or out of space. QED.
Considerations given to the sequential order are distinct from their access level–in other words, any good library management should permit direct access without additional n-levels of physical organization.
Nobody stores closed boxes of books inside other boxes for general browsing, as this defeats the point of immediate presentation via a bookshelf.
Posted on: 02 November 2010 by David Dever
quote:
Naim has in it's server codebase a meta-database that it uses to navigate its music library
...that is explicitly generated from the file tags, or, stored as metadata blobs upon disc ripping, or, guestimated based on hierarchical file structure (/artist/album/files).
Posted on: 02 November 2010 by likesmusic
quote:
Originally posted by David Dever:
Considerations given to the sequential order are distinct from their access level–in other words, any good library management should permit direct access without additional n-levels of physical organization.
Nobody stores closed boxes of books inside other boxes for general browsing, as this defeats the point of immediate presentation via a bookshelf.
Absolutely. I think using directory structures to organise things is silly; you don't make your socks pants by putting them in a different drawer. But I don't want to be bound by anyone elses view of my data either; I want to maintain my own views. So I don't like the idea of being locked into any vendors arbitrary fixed library view either. Maybe I want many different trees. Maybe I want to write SQL queries. Maybe I want to use pictures. And I certainly want to store my rips the way I choose, which was why I took objection to ghook saying that "the vast majority would be willing to live with a Naim published restriction that says only collection_name/artist/album shares will be discovered.". Not me!
Posted on: 02 November 2010 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
Maybe I want to write SQL queries.
I was with you up until then - nobody wants to write SQL - but some of us have to do so to keep the wolf from the door. I like the way the Sooloos organises music shame it is so expensive.
Posted on: 02 November 2010 by likesmusic
ROTF - It's OK, I was just being a smart-arse. Though I do suppose now and again I'd like to know what albums I've got on which only musicians that have also played with Miles play ..
Posted on: 02 November 2010 by Aleg
quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
ROTF - It's OK, I was just being a smart-arse. Though I do suppose now and again I'd like to know what albums I've got on which only musicians that have also played with Miles play ..
IMO, the requirements you state are much more something like database software for cataloging and organizing your music collection, than it is for just selecting some music to play.
A product like OrangeCD music catalogue or Helium Music Manager seems to fit your bill.
That kind of software is much more than I would expect from a company like Naim to develop for their servers.
-
aleg
Posted on: 02 November 2010 by Hook
quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
...And I certainly want to store my rips the way I choose, which was why I took objection to ghook saying that "the vast majority would be willing to live with a Naim published restriction that says only collection_name/artist/album shares will be discovered.". Not me!
Hi Likesmusic -
My exact words were "if file tree organization is an issue that prevents Naim from considering CIFS support, I would bet that the vast majority would be willing to live with a Naim published restriction..."
By editing out the first part of my sentence, you make it sound like I was trying to speak on behalf of the entire forum. By saying "I would bet that", hopefully you can understand that I was only speaking on behalf of myself, and merely offering up my opinion.
The point I was trying to make was a simple one. If the only two choices for moving to a Naim streaming solution are 1) re-rip all of my CD's or 2) adhere to a more basic directory structure, then I would definitely choose the latter. And I still believe that the vast majority of forum members would make the same choice. But feel free to disagree.
Also, I was trying to get Dave to elaborate on his initial comment where he seemed to be making a connection between overly complex tree structures and Naim's decision not to support CIFS. That's all.
Just for the record, I do agree that Naim's discovery process should be independent of how we organize our music folders. But then again, if Naim can provide lots of different views based on metadata, then doesn't most of the motivation for creating lots of different subfolders go away?
Hook
Posted on: 02 November 2010 by jlarsson
By using UPnP Naim customer-support do not have to support how users mess about with their files. That problem is moved to the UPnP-server supplier (or dealer). The price to pay is the compatibility mess of UPnP. If UPnP wasnt such a mess third-party database software could integrate that way.
The problem with this server-based view of the world is that it will be hard to keep up with new music services on the net as they need to be implemented on the server. Like why doesnt the Serve/HDX support radio or why is there no spotify or last.fm from the NDX. That is why Airplay is attractive.
Add to this better metadata now being supported - like Apple now saying AppleTV and so on will better support iTunesLP and iTunesExtra. Or extra metadata for radio as available from various iPad-software (and soon Mac-software as we will have an app-store model for mac).
Competing with this will be a challenge. Or providing interfaces and possibilities for third party developers to integrate their solutions with the server products (HDX/Serve). Is anything published by Naim on how to best talk UPnP with their boxes? Or any other protocol that could be used?
Better metadata also add to the listening experience.
Posted on: 03 November 2010 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
Originally posted by jlarsson:
... The price to pay is the compatibility mess of UPnP. If UPnP wasnt such a mess third-party database software could integrate that way.
... That is why Airplay is attractive.
+1
I think you have hit the nail on the head
C'mon Naim - the future is Airplay.
Posted on: 03 November 2010 by likesmusic
Yep, start a petition for Airplay suppport. I'll sign that!
Posted on: 03 November 2010 by David Dever
quote:
Also, I was trying to get Dave to elaborate on his initial comment where he seemed to be making a connection between overly complex tree structures and Naim's decision not to support CIFS. That's all.
I don't speak for Naim Audio–however, it's worth pointing out that folder browsing support can be had from a variety of UPnP servers (Asset and Twonky, for example), and that this is the appropriate place for the presentation of remote data (from a consistency perspective) than to have each network media client present remote data (via SMB/CIFS) in its own unique way.
Posted on: 03 November 2010 by GreenAlex
I think I would disagree on this one, David.
UPnP servers do have some advantages. But imho they have more disadvantages.
UPnP servers always have to update their database whereas SMB/CIFS is real-time.
UPnP servers almost always also require a central server, be it a notebook, a dedicated server or any other kind of computer. This adds to electrical bills and is an unecessary waste of energy.
In addition, CIFS/SMB will only show you folders that are actually present. So if you have e.g. 4-5 external HDDs you will only be able to see the ones that are turned on. UPnP will show you files that are actually not currently available.
Of course SMB/CIFS also requires some kind of server, but unlike UPnP this server can be a very basic one and could even be a basic router/modem which is running 24/7 anyway at no extra cost.
The server does not have to do any work except connect the disk to the network whereas a UPnP server has to actively update it's database and provide a GUI/layout to the client. Far more demanding than SMB/CIFS.
From my personal experience with multimedia-clients such as linux based satellite receivers, UPnP on the client side will also be far more demanding on the system. SMB and CIFS need far less resources.
And you are not limited by any server-software and it's features. You have full control over how your files are archived simply by creating the proper folder-structure. And if you want additional sorting features you can work with symlinks.
Only advantage a UPnP server has, and again, this is extremely memory and cpu-hungry, is on-the-fly transcoding.
Posted on: 03 November 2010 by Aleg
quote:
Originally posted by GreenAlex:
I think I would disagree on this one, David.
UPnP servers do have some advantages. But imho they have more disadvantages.
UPnP servers always have to update their database whereas SMB/CIFS is real-time.
UPnP servers almost always also require a central server, be it a notebook, a dedicated server or any other kind of computer. This adds to electrical bills and is an unecessary waste of energy.
In addition, CIFS/SMB will only show you folders that are actually present. So if you have e.g. 4-5 external HDDs you will only be able to see the ones that are turned on. UPnP will show you files that are actually not currently available.
Of course SMB/CIFS also requires some kind of server, but unlike UPnP this server can be a very basic one and could even be a basic router/modem which is running 24/7 anyway at no extra cost.
The server does not have to do any work except connect the disk to the network whereas a UPnP server has to actively update it's database and provide a GUI/layout to the client. Far more demanding than SMB/CIFS.
From my personal experience with multimedia-clients such as linux based satellite receivers, UPnP on the client side will also be far more demanding on the system. SMB and CIFS need far less resources.
And you are not limited by any server-software and it's features. You have full control over how your files are archived simply by creating the proper folder-structure. And if you want additional sorting features you can work with symlinks.
Only advantage a UPnP server has, and again, this is extremely memory and cpu-hungry, is on-the-fly transcoding.
+1
-
aleg
