question not answered by Apple. If the brand’s headphones can’t pick up the HIFI, who will? Knowing that Airplay is limited to 16-48. It’s the same issue with Amazon HD.
1 Like
It is not always that simple. Sorry to say. I am sure many will disagree with me on this. I used to be of the same mindset as yourself. That is until I built my current speakers. These speakers have very low distortion and are very dynamic. They are incredibly smooth and have very good drivers with low cone breakups and time alignment. This all matters sometimes more than purely source alone. I would place a large wager that most listeners would take my Atom system playing only from Apple Music vs the Proac tab 10 playing high res. Especially when played at low volume or high volume. If you enjoy what comes out of the speakers then it doesn’t matter what you play from. Having the options is great. I use high res from a hard drive, CD input, tv, airplay. It all sounds great. Not to even mention the variance in production quality of music.
The original Beats Music service was really good with the excellent curated lists for different niche styles - and they were done by people who knew their stuff - some are still there in Apple Music but hard to find and without the curators notes.
And the old Beats Dr Dre Studio headphones are still my favorite when watching movies on the iPad.
This is why I like Roon. Nothing is streaming from my phone or iPad. It’s streaming from the Roon server running on a NUC, connected to my NDX2 via ethernet. The phone or iPad connects to the Roon server and only acts as a controller. I doubt I’d even be tempted by AM unless they can enable Roon integration.
1 Like
Many, many years ago when the little AppleTV2 was released it was fun to play with it and airplay. And with a python-script you could use airplay to request that little AppleTV2 to pull data directly off any HLS or HTTP-server and play any data it would recognize. By just handing a URL over to the AppleTV-device. I played music from our internal HTTP-servers this way.
So one guess is they have the ALAC-files on Apple Music servers saving them via HLS-protocol. Airplay is not very suitable for internet.
My point is that an ios device shouldn’t be a media server for streaming audio to a Naim device. It should only be the controller.
3 Likes
Precisely. And even why have Roon in the chain and play Apple Music directly from the internet to your hi-fi system. The phone or iPad is just a controller. Like Spotify Connect and Tidal Connect.
Consumers will want the flexibility to have access to high resolution music anywhere - home, car, office, walking etc.
I think eventually in that is where we will all end up. It may take a few years.
Can you please explain why an iPhone shouldn’t be used to stream to a Naim player? I have a collection of CD quality/ higher res stuff on a hard drive attached to the atom for when I want to listen at the highest level but if we have friends over, or a small party etc, or the kids use it, we stream from Apple Music. I also use Apple Music to discover new stuff. Why the blanket statement? It has its place. I am not as well off as most on this forum and am not able or prepared to spend the small fortune on tidal or quobuz. so Apple offering CD quality for free is a big bonus for us. These devices offer so many methods of streaming. I highly doubt you could pick the difference between a CD quality track played from within the Naim app and the same file played via airplay. And if you somehow can, as soon as you get anywhere near off axis you have no hope.
4 Likes
Nothing wrong with it, but to get the most out of my system I want the best source I can give it for the majority of listening. I use Spotify when I am out and about or can’t get it on Qobuz or cant find it to buy so not always the best quality for me either but it’s a stop gap until I can get it by other means and won’t ever be my primary source even when they release there hifi tier. As I hate their app it’s a cluttered mess with everything shouting for your attention to play me.
I get my friends to use Roon when they are round as it ends up being a much easier process for us all to be involved in choosing what to listen to as multiple devices can connect at the same time and contribute to same playlist as it’s not the phone /tablet doing the sending. Spotify allows this with their app but it’s flakey and unreliable. You can’t do this using airplay or Chromecast even via Naims app. I dont want to be tied to one device at any time to play music. The device should be there to select music and free from duties of sending the music, battery dies mid music not fun.
That’s a fair argument in response. Personally since buying a Naim streamer and building my new speakers I have found that the outright quality of the file doesn’t seem to bother me as much as it used to. Everything seems to sound really nice. If I get too pedantic about these things it gets in the way of my enjoyment.
1 Like
I will definitely be keen to do some comparisons with Apple Music vs tidal vs hard drive files when it launches.
My earlier comparisons placed Apple Music much better than Spotify lossy playback.
I am another with no interest whatsoever in Apple Music unless its streaming service is integrated into Roon. Of course, I am well aware that Apple will never let this happen, and so any announcements by Apple (or for that matter Amazon) with regard to their streaming services are an irrelevance for me.
In the event of an unwelcome demise of Roon, Tidal and Qobuz as a result of the activities of Apple and/or Amazon, I would likely subscribe instead to Spotify for music discovery and fall back on my local music library for more ‘serious’ music listening.
Of course, even Spotify might not be completely safe from Apple in the event that Apple decides that it wants to dominate the music streaming space, but I’ll cross that bridge when it needs to be crossed.
I don’t think it will go as far as Apple monopolising music streaming. There are enough people who loath Apple to keep that from happening.
So is there any evidence for airplay being a inferior supply of digital bits when comparing files of the same sizes??
I certainly hope that Apple doesn’t achieve a monopoly on music streaming.
However, remember that most (if not all) specialist streaming services including Spotify currently run at a significant loss. It may not take a huge amount of effort by Apple if they so desire, and for whom music streaming would be an extremely small part of their overall product base and revenue, to squeeze their competitors (with the possible exception of Amazon) until their very viability is in doubt.
I suppose it’s not too hard to imagine when you think that a streaming package of Audio and Video might sway the customer base.
Question: Has anyone here done a back to back for high res streaming vs. the current Apple offer? I have tried Spotify (normal) vs. Apple Music and AM sounded much better. I have also tried CD vs AM and there wasn’t a huge difference tbh. I think the only source I have really heard a difference with is vinyl, which is a very different offer anyway so that is expected.
Just curious as to how much of a performance bump to expect when this comes out.
I have also found Apple better than Spotify. I Also agree there is not a huge difference with the streaming they offer now from normal CD quality. I am very interested to hear the new service. I for one do have faith in apples ability to stream files to a high standard.
This is why I asked if there is any evidence that using airplay to stream files delivers inferior quality audio.
It would be good to hear it from a Naim tech or if someone could copy from any other thread where this has been explained by someone in the know. I was under the impression that the jitter clock is handled by the Naim DAC in the streamer so the input should be effectively the same given the same file.
I know Steve said that when multiroom streaming with airplay, one of the devices hogs the clock in order to synchronise audio and can result in degradation of quality but that was multiroom and not individual play.
1 Like
Not every AirPlay is he same.
AirPlay 1 was always streaming with 2 seconds of buffer, so the receiving side could cover small hiccups in sending. (So it was never a synchronous to start with; it just packets being forwarded; sühnende „synchronization for DAC“ is on the last device of the chain.)
Adequate for an cabled LAN and good quality WiFi. And it was built for Macs/iTunes streaming and the limited capacity of receiving devices from 15 years ago.
AirPlay 2 does something similar like the new Naim streaming platform: using much bigger buffer on the receiving side - if appropriate.
So, when having „pre-loadable source“ (any disk, locally stored on the phone, stored in UPnP library or Roon or whatnot), you push several minutes of data to the endpoint.
E.g. for phones this saves a lot of power, since occasional fast transfers use less energy than a „continuous stream“, which AirPlay 1 required. Also, this way iOS devices manage multiple targets in parallel.
(ITunes did this with AirPlay 1; but with a device with comparable „unlimited power“ and only from iTunes; not as system level output offering.)
Of course, if you have a live-stream as source (internet radio, without a „read-ahead buffer“, any live output from any app (like system Leben output on iOS/macOS), streaming services not well integrated, …) the extensive pre-buffering does not work.
So, for the integrated streaming client inside Naim streamers, service + vendor can make sure, the buffering and stuff works reliably according to HW capabilities.
If you use another tech in between, you rely on that one offering he same level of „transport and buffering“.
This may or may not have an impact - depending on network speed/reliability, software involved, …
As I understand, Naim says the larger buffers and non-continuous data sending also helps with reducing electric/electronic noise (most of the times.
Obviously a large buffer on the end devices allows very smooth fast-forward/skip ahead experience. (You can do this from local buffer and pre-load again while already playing.)
Flexibility to use e.g. phones as source is great - huge app universe, audio for video streams, friends can „bring their own“ (music, service, …) without hassle.
But for me „regular/longish“ use with music should be run natively on the streamer - resource and battery hog on the mobile, reduced traffic in the LAN/WiFi, … and the streamer capabilities and integration (here: Tidal, Qobuz, …) is actual used; potentially with benefits for reliability or quality.
But the use cases (people involved, sharing of rooms/music taste, preferred method of control, …) vary very much.
I like the Uniti platform for the flexibility. (With mostly (de facto) standards: digital inputs, UPnP, AirPlay, Chromecast, - some openness and flexibility long term.
That they don’t integrate as much active services as Sonos… well, I guess, they are smaller and have to select carefully, which ones they can and will support.
4 Likes
So it sounds like you know what you’re talking about and if I understood correctly, an atom receiving a stream via airplay 2 should differ very little from any other source feeding the same file? Or have I misunderstood?
Thank you for the reply.