My Qute will now be downgraded, sigh!

That feeling typically goes both ways.

I run J River in Full Screen so how would I even know what I was using for an OS?

What is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO dreadful about it?  You are so dramatic.

Forget it, I dont care.

It's evil, admit it and repent.

I asked Richard this same question a couple of days ago...

https://forums.naimaudio.com/di...3648/reply/lastReply#lastReply

Why is the OS important?

Why choose USB?

They are connected and relevant, at least for me.  Firstly, I get the distinct feeling with Microsoft's products that a large committee, or possibly many independent committees designed their offerings. Unconnected, haphazard, made for those who enjoy being able to look inside and modify, improve, etc.  Apple deny you those opportunities.  It is designed to work straight out of the box.  I like that, others don't, but good luck to them. The world is a big place and there is plenty of room.

USB can be implemented across all platforms.  With a MacBook there are three methods of extracting digital audio - leaving aside the latest offering, Thunderbolt.  We have Firewire, USB and an optical digital output.  The fastest of these is Firewire, with USB second and the optical a poor third. Firewire and USB are two way channels.  So it is possible to use this to control the rate at which the digital stream is output to the device.  This has obvious advantages as far as jitter reduction goes.  Together with galvanic isolation, computer hash/noise is markedly reduced.  I have experienced this for myself. It helps reduce listener fatigue, makes the performance much more enjoyable. So apart from USB being faster and preferable anyway to optical, it has this additional advantage of helping to reduce jitter.  This is why I chose this method.

UPNP can only be implemented (with difficulty) on the Mac by using external software.  Perfectly acceptable and normal to a Windows user.  They are well used to having to do this anyway to get Windows to function (ducking quickly here), but an Apple user expects to have all the major programs in place.  He can add extra ones, such as Aperture, upgrades to iPhoto, Garageband, etc, but the device will give a reasonable account of itself out of the box.  

To say that the OS is unimportant is akin to saying that a PA system can make announcements as well as a top of the range Naim system. To a first approximation for speech that might be true, but most want more than just clear speech. Likewise I want more than just a bare bones OS; I want the fluidity and reliability of my MacBook.  I do not have to constantly update my virus software (what virus software?), constantly receive a string of security updates, with restarts.  When I received my first ever security update a few days back, no restart was required. It just works. The distance between Apple and Microsoft is about to get even greater with the latest versions of IOS5 and Lion.

But the big elephant in the room as far as PC owners is concerned is the forthcoming rise of the iPad. Once experienced, few will enjoy the equivalent of going from a Bentley back to a Ford Cortina. 

So to sum up:  A USB digital output is superior to optical, in my opinion. Apple software is superior to Microsoft's, again in my opinion.  Thus my choices.

Richard

Richard,

When I read your post last night I was tempted to write a defence of Naim, as I am thoroughly enjoying my NS01/nDAC.

On reflection, I actually think you have written them a huge complement.

Leaving aside OS and USB and thinking about the Qute, you have bought the equivalent of the Naim Music Centre.

You have replaced the main amps with a 250 - and still thought the pre-amp section good enough to continue with.

You are now replacing the DAC section with a stand-alone device, and still think the pre-amp & renderer good enough to continue with.

Speaks volumes for the quality of the Qute to me.

Personally my complaint with current Naim is their following ion the footsteps of Meridian, and packaging wierd and wonderful functionality in one box, so that I now have Naim DACs across multiple products.

I wouldn't include the Qute in this, which IS a one box complete solution.

Would I want a DAC with a volume control? No, that is why I have a pre-amp.

Out of interest did you catch last months HiFi News? There were a couple of interesting articles looking at the issues of using USB as a high quality music interface.

M

Hi Mr Underhill - I certainly was NOT intending to criticise Naim.  On the contrary, I am a firm believer in the Naim philosophy regarding SQ.  If any criticism was implied, it is only to bemoan the fact that they do not at present offer a one box solution that meets my needs.  Many other manufacturers do, so I have no choice but use their products. 

The Qute is quite superb, but omits an USB asynchronous input.  Hence my trying different products to achieve my own needs. 

I had read last months (June) Hi Fi News articles on USB.  I found Jim Lesurf's article on his investigation of the digital equivalent of wow and flutter especially intriguing.  For those interested here is a link to his tests:

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Lin...3/TimeForChange.html

The link given in his article was wrong.  

Paul Miller's comment that these results suggest that even a high-Q PLL will strugle and fail to recover the data was very intriguing.  We all know the old philosophy that once data is lost (whether in the analog or the digital domain) it is gone forever. It does explain Naim's reluctance to go down the USB route.  But does not explain how other manufacturers have accepted this challenge and apparently surmounted it. 

I suspect it also goes some way to explain the subjectively audible SQ differences people have experienced between nominally similar setups. We all perceive sound differently. Some are more attuned to tonal differences. I might be more tolerant of those, but do find jitter to be very annoying - literally.  I get irritated very quickly by digital jitter. Others may not find it so bad. 

I agree that Naim do indeed have a wonderfully varied package of DACs in different boxes. Something to suit everyone - well almost everyone. I still want a good sounding VFM DAC with several inputs, including asynchronous USB, and a volume control.  

Richard

For a UQ simply using the MF V-Link gives superb results - it also has the advantage over an on-board async USB in that it keeps that part away from the DAC - whatever it works really well and removes the need to stray from a Naim DAC, assuming like me that be what you want to achieve. The V-Link can sit out of sight behind the Fraim. There are no drivers required it just plugs in and works - you simply set the System Preferences for Sound Output to V-Link on the Mac (which is what I assume you must also do for any direct connection to a DAC). [Yes, Naim, sorry to go on about this device, but if you made one I wouldn't need to stray; and my point be that this little gadget adds the async USB to Naim DACs in a way that many crave].   

Of course, if you prefer not to use the DAC in the UQ then it be different - however the V-Link only adds one neat little box with no analogue audio circuits, whereas adding a Chord DAC for example would add a sensitive box that would need a Fraim shelf of its own to give its best. 

I'd be very surprised if anybody preferred the sound of the optical out from the Mac over the V-Link, but if you use a full blown intermediate DAC with USB input then that's different: only one I've heard with my UQ be the entry level Chord and it be good, but I prefer V-Link/Naim UQ DAC.

Richard, you may well prefer the Northstar DAC to V-Link/Naim UQ DAC - not something I've ever heard so I don't know which I prefer. V-Link/Naim UQ DAC is great, but I wish the Apple computer I use was a bit (make that a lot) quieter in terms of fan noise. Similarly I think DHT likes his M2Tech DAC. As always, I don't believe any of these is best; it'll be in the ears of the beholder (behearer) and as long as you achieve a happy sound then it's a winner. 

Interesting that a hi-fi journalist be trying to explain the differences if he manages it then he'll be lynched, for be it not like in the great late Douglas Adam's book that we truly do not wish to know otherwise there would be nothing to debate - now there's a deep thought.  

All the best, Guy

I can certainly appreciate why you might prefer apple style control solutions, but I don't think it follows that async USB is the way to go. Wouldn't streaming over your network and control via iTunes (ie Airplay) be a much better solution than tethering a DAC to your apple  via USB?  After all, USB is a dreadful way of sending muiscal data to a DAC as it introduces an enormous amount of jitter; asynchronous USB is just somewhat less dreadful as it reduces the jitter in the recovered clock, but transimitting data over a network doesn't introduce any jitter whatsoever, since there's no embedded clock signal to recover. So isn't Airplay the thing you should be pushing naim for, rather than async USB?

My personal opinion is USB was not designed for audio, by its nature its on a hub which for a lot of users means a minimum of a keyboard attached as well.

My feelings arebourne out of the use of a USB hidef capable dac. It can be powered from the mains which I guess will help as USB also provides power, but it still sounded shite.

I just cannot see how a transfer system not designed for audio, with other devices on its hub and delivering power as well can possible sound better than say optical designed for the task.

If ones network is up together then UPNP would surely be the way forward.

Tog - you and me both with reagard to streaming.

I like my iPad too, I really enjoy it and my iPhone  with Apple TV, streaming my video from  my iphone or iPad to my living room flatscreen with no wires and fuss is great.

IMO it is with audio where Apple have lost the plot with usability, why they don't support metadata or album art on WAV files within AppleTV/iTunes or even support FLAC  I really don't know - its as if  they are trying to be awkward to make a point Anyway becacue of it I have turned my back on Apple for audio and have migrated to easier more user friendly audio streaming and audio file management solutions on other platforms.

Simon