Which network audio player?

[White Lightning]

Hi Guys,

I have just signed up to this, what looks like, wonderful forum. The main reason I signed up right now is that I could use some advice from the audio experts out there before I spent some of my hard earned £££ on a network audio player.

The reason I want a network music player is because I want to move away from CDs and start utilising my NAS box as more of a media server. My budget is about £400 tops. Currently, I have a Technics hifi seperates system, which includes a SU-A600 amplifier, SH-GE70 graphic equalizer, SL-PG490 CD player and ST-G70L. A decent bit of kit in it's day and still sounds fantastic. The amplifier drives a pair of Mission floor standing speakers. I also have a QNAP TS-109 Pro NAS box running a TwonkyMedia server.

I am currently ripping my 350+ collection of CD albums to MP3 file format using 320Kbps. The majority of my collection is rock, hard rock and heavy metal. Although, my wife does like a bit of dance music.

So, that's my setup. I am looking for a network music player to sit between my NAS box and to my Technics amp (which has no digital inputs, it would appear).

I have already spent numerous hours reading reviews of various network players and two that look the best are the Marantz NA7004 and the Pioneer N-50 (or even possibly the N-30). But, there may be others I should be considering (like Denon, Cambridge Audio etc). I would most likely be using a wired Ethernet connection so the lack of a wireless option on the Marantz is not a deal breaker. The Marantz has DAB whereas the Pioneer does not but I am not sure that really matters as some Googling on the subject on internet radio vs DAB seems to suggest internet radio is better quality anyway (and I have checked that you can get Planet Rock on internet radio )

I think the key is which one would be better quality and ultimately I would be most happy with.

So, can anyone help me choose what would be the best option for me to go for ...?

Thank you in advance.

 

[nopiano]

There are far more expert contributors here, but as none has yet plunged in here is my take. The Maratz is very nice but fails by not playing gaplessly.

The Pioneer is a current fave, and you can find it for less than £400, so I would look closely. It has no DAB but why would you want that?

i definitely would suggest you rip at much better quality though.

A left field choice would be the discontinued Sqeezebox Touch, from an eBay near you at c£200.

 

[eggontoast]

Are you likely to want multiroom capability in the future ?

Also before ripping your cd collection in mp3, I would strongly suggest you do a fair bit of research and rip in a loss less format such as FLAC.

 

[fr0g]

My take.

It's a shame the Squeezebox has been discountinued, as that was always my 1st response. But I would look at the Sonos range.

Advantages of such systems include multiroom support, gapless playback, full internet radio, spotify etc support and more of a standard for such things as smartphone apps etc.

As for ripping. 320 Kbps MP3 is as good as anything for listening. The quality of the mastering is important, not bitrate once you get above about 190 Kbps. I don't believe anyone here could tell the difference.

(You can try for yourself if you download Foobar2000 and the ABX comparison tool - It takes minutes to realise that a 256 Kbps MP3 sounds identical to a WAV or a FLAC).

However, if you have the space, then ripping losslessly is sensible, because sometime down the line you may decide to change format. And if you do, a lossless file can simply be transcoded.

Transcoding from one lossy codec to another can and will reduce the quality, possibly to an audible level.

However, I have plenty of stuff only in MP3, and it is not in anyway second best to my main bulk of FLAC files.

 

[BenLaw]

+ 1 for Sonos.

 

[Oldenbroke]

If multiroom is not essential I can vouch for the Pioneer N-50.

Bought it recently and am loving it. Sound is terrific, streams

from desktop (NAS in the pipeline) very well. Internet radio is

a new discovery for me..loads of good rock stations other

than Planet Rock ( which I have it playing at the mo.). Also

use as a DAC to a Pnny blu ray transport - definite

improvement. Very solid and the android app seems to

work pretty well.

 

[eggontoast]

As for ripping. 320 Kbps MP3 is as good as anything for listening. The quality of the mastering is important, not bitrate once you get above about 190 Kbps. I don't believe anyone here could tell the difference.

(You can try for yourself if you download Foobar2000 and the ABX comparison tool - It takes minutes to realise that a 256 Kbps MP3 sounds identical to a WAV or a FLAC).

:roll: Here we go, there's always one on every forum dictating what people can and can't hear.

 

[fr0g]

As for ripping. 320 Kbps MP3 is as good as anything for listening. The quality of the mastering is important, not bitrate once you get above about 190 Kbps. I don't believe anyone here could tell the difference.

(You can try for yourself if you download Foobar2000 and the ABX comparison tool - It takes minutes to realise that a 256 Kbps MP3 sounds identical to a WAV or a FLAC).

:roll: Here we go, there's always one on every forum dictating what people can and can't hear.

I don't see any "dictating". I apologise if your 1st language isn't English, but I did say "I don't believe" which leaves room for someone to prove that assumption wrong. But I have yet to see anyone do that, other than one possible positive test on Hydrogen.

My belief, from personal testing, from other people testing is that you, or anyone cannot tell a full bit rate, modern LAME or similar encoded MP3, or a modern similar AAC from the original. And to my knowledge the only way to test for that is to do an ABX comparison, which can be done in minutes with free software.

Either way, as I said, I would also encourage ripping lossless for reasons I also gave.

 

[John Duncan]

Now that the Squeezebox is gone (we may need to acronymise that), whichever of the Marantz, Denon, Pioneer or Cambridge NP30 you like the look of.

I'm not convinced by Sonos having used it, and further I'm not sure where they're going with hardware (though I'd have a playbar in a flash, genius idea).

 

[bigboss]

I'm not sure where they're going with hardware.

Stereo speakers should be the next logical step to add to their portfolio, like these (even though you can use Play:3 & Play:5 in stereo mode):

http://www.teufelaudio.co.uk/raumfeld-audio-streaming/nr-streaming-high-end-70.html

 

[eggontoast]

I don't see any "dictating". I apologise if your 1st language isn't English, but I did say "I don't believe" which leaves room for someone to prove that assumption wrong. But I have yet to see anyone do that, other than one possible positive test on Hydrogen.

My belief, from personal testing, from other people testing is that you, or anyone cannot tell a full bit rate, modern LAME or similar encoded MP3, or a modern similar AAC from the original. And to my knowledge the only way to test for that is to do an ABX comparison, which can be done in minutes with free software.

Either way, as I said, I would also encourage ripping lossless for reasons I also gave.

You can dress it up how you like but your response is BS, your preaching poor information based on your own listening experience.

People don't have to sit there doing Foobar ABX tests and post there results to prove to some deaf chump on the internet that there is a difference.

 

[paulyboy233]

Rip to FLAC, and buy yourself a Sonos Connect.

 

[fr0g]

You can dress it up how you like but your response is BS, your preaching poor information based on your own listening experience.

People don't have to sit there doing Foobar ABX tests and post there results to prove to some deaf chump on the internet that there is a difference.

If I were to lower myself to your level of debate I might say something I shouldn't, but believe me, there is only one chump in this conversation, and it isn't me.

The "poor information" being spread is that listening to HQ MP3 is somehow second best. It isn't. And no, people don't have to sit there and do the 5 minute test, but it's quite illuminating and somewhat of an epiphany when you do.

And my hearing is excellent too, thanks for your concern.

 

[eggontoast]

If I were to lower myself to your level of debate I might say something I shouldn't, but believe me, there is only one chump in this conversation, and it isn't me.

Is that the best you can do......what's your next line 'I know you are I said you are but what am I'. I thought we were back at school.......only were not learning anything just going over old, mundane ground.

The "poor information" being spread is that listening to HQ MP3 is somehow second best. It isn't. And no, people don't have to sit there and do the 5 minute test, but it's quite illuminating and somewhat of an epiphany when you do.

Um, yes it is second or possibly third at best. For the record I have done the test sometime back when there was a similar debate on a different forum. There was nothing illuminating and I didn't have an epiphany either, it just confirmed what I already knew, you can tell the difference.

And my hearing is excellent too, thanks for your concern.

Unfortunately the results of your Foobar test and postings on this thread would beg to differ.

 

[bigboss]

No point in arguing on this. Just agree to disagree and move on.

I'm personally not too fussed about bitrates (unless they're ridiculously low). When I listen carefully to determine which one's better, I stop enjoying my music! I think higher bitrates (or lossless) can be useful in more complex music where lower bitrates can sound mush. I don't listen to most of them, so not particularly bothered.

 

[eggontoast]

When I listen carefully to determine which one's better, I stop enjoying my music!

This is all too true, some of my most pleasurable listening experiences have been from listening to hissy, crap recordings.

Sometimes with Hi-Fi you do forget to just enjoy the music.

 

[fr0g]

If I were to lower myself to your level of debate I might say something I shouldn't, but believe me, there is only one chump in this conversation, and it isn't me.

Is that the best you can do......what's your next line 'I know you are I said you are but what am I'. I thought we were back at school.......only were not learning anything just going over old, mundane ground.

The "poor information" being spread is that listening to HQ MP3 is somehow second best. It isn't. And no, people don't have to sit there and do the 5 minute test, but it's quite illuminating and somewhat of an epiphany when you do.

Um, yes it is second or possibly third at best. For the record I have done the test sometime back when there was a similar debate on a different forum. There was nothing illuminating and I didn't have an epiphany either, it just confirmed what I already knew, you can tell the difference.

And my hearing is excellent too, thanks for your concern.

Unfortunately the results of your Foobar test and postings on this thread would beg to differ.

We shall have to beg to differ. Both on the validity of what you believe and as to the origins of the schoolboy style ad-hominem.

It would be nice to discuss such things without such petty insults in future.

And remember, nothing is "old ground" really. There are people new to the discussion arriving all the time.

Good day sir.

 

[relocated]

White,

I have recently moved all my cd collection to computer hard-drive [and backup drive] and I have used Apple Lossless because with @ 600 discs I had more than enough room.

Irrespective of what we can and can't hear, I calculated that losing nothing in the beginning of the process was better than having some loss when originating my collection. I calculated that once it is gone it's gone. That doesn't stop us moving music across to limited capacity devices in MP3 when we want to or indeed transcode if Apple Lossless turns turtle in the future.

Welcome to the Forum. I trust that some of the exchanges on page 1 will not put you off the Forum and that you will share your experiences with us as you move through the miriad of choices we have nowadays.

:cheers:

 

[fr0g]

White,

I have recently moved all my cd collection to computer hard-drive [and backup drive] and I have used Apple Lossless because with @ 600 discs I had more than enough room.

Irrespective of what we can and can't hear, I calculated that losing nothing in the beginning of the process was better than having some loss when originating my collection. I calculated that once it is gone it's gone. That doesn't stop us moving music across to limited capacity devices in MP3 when we want to or indeed transcode if Apple Lossless turns turtle in the future.

Welcome to the Forum. I trust that some of the exchanges on page 1 will not put you off the Forum and that you will share your experiences with us as you move through the miriad of choices we have nowadays.

:cheers:

Well said. And as I said also, I recommend ripping losslessly. I dual rip with dbPoweramp to FLAC and MP3 for portable use.

 

[Ragworm]

I dual rip with dbPoweramp to FLAC and MP3 for portable use.

I've recently ripped my CD collection to FLAC using Sony's Media Go. It has a nice feature which is that you can then specify multiple target devices (such as phones and USB sticks) and the encoding to be used for each of them. So I've got FLAC on the PC and NAS and 320kbps on the phone, all from within the same app. Cool!

 

[White Lightning]

Thank you for all the replies and input here.

As it happens, since my first post I have done a lot more reading up on loseless ripping and decided that I am going to start ripping my collection again and this time to FLAC. The reason for this is, as others have said, I can rip loselessly and then convert to whatever format in the future. Also, I have a 1TB HDD in my NAS and have plenty of disk space. I will probably invest in dBpoweramp to do the ripping as it seems to get a lot of praise. The only thing that is a shame is that I was about two thirds of the way through my collection, but hey ho, these things happen.

Now, back to the network players. Firstly, I am not really bothered about multi-room capability. Whilst it is a cool feature I expect to do the majority of my listening to music in our lounge, where the hifi lives. Also, I have quite a nice Creative Labs speaker setup (with a small sub) on my desktop PC upstairs and that is very nice for listening to music whilst upstairs. I had looked at the Sonos gear, and it looks good, but a) I don't need the multi-room capability at this time, b) I don't really like the look of the white boxes and c) I am not sure I want to get locked into their solution.

Having spent a few more hours reading up on everything I was nearly ready to bite the bullet and buy the Pioneer N-30 a couple of nights ago (I decided that spending the extra £140 on the N-50 was really not worthwhile seeing as I was not going to utilise the digital inputs, and I didn't need the features that improve lower quality rips, and the money would be better spent on a sub (which I don't have currently)), but then whilst searching for a promo code for AV-land I stumbled across a "hot deal" for the Pioneer VSX-922 AV receiver at £239, the same price as the Pioneer N-30 network player. I liked the look of this as not only could it access my NAS in the same way as the N-30 but also I could replace my existing Technics amp, graphic equalizer and tuner with just one box. Something the wife really liked the sound of.

So, I started reading up on the VSX-922 and it sounded like a really nice bit of kit for the price. However, I realised after a while that as it is an AV receiver, I was paying more for features which I do not need at this time (and would likely not use) and therefore I am probably comprising somewhat on the audio quality when listening to music. Also, it is not obvious that you can access the media server on the NAS via a smartphone app using this AV receiver and as my wife and I both have Android phones (I have an HTC One X and she has a Samsung Galaxy S3) that was a concern.

Anyway, I then started thinking a bit more outside the box and started thinking about one box that could potentially replace most, if not all, of my existing hifi separates (which to be fair are probably all about 15 years old). This led me to thinking about the Onkyo TX-8050 network stereo receiver. My brother bought one of these last year and having heard it (coupled to some nice floor standing speakers), I have to say I was very impressed with the sound and at £339, it is only £100 more than the Pioneer N-30 and potentially I could get that £100 back if/when I sold my Technics seperates on eBay.

Right now then the Onkyo TX-8050 is probably top of my list. However, I do want my final solution to sound really good. So, I have a question for the audiophiles on here: which of the following would you expect to sound better (assuming the same speakers are used and both are hard wired over Ethernet to my NAS):

a). The Onkyo TX-8050 network stereo receiver.

b). The Pioneer N-30 (or N-50) connected to my Technics SU-A600 stereo amplifier via good old RCA (red/white) cables - this Technics amp has no digital input.

I have read somewhere that ideally you should keep the sound digital for as long as possible, so that logic suggests that a) will sound better and if that is the answer then I think I may have made my choice. The wife would also be very happy to replace 3 (if not 4) seperates with just one - depending on whether I kept my CD player, for the time being.

Finally, don't worry about the 'discussion' over FLAC and MP3, it's all cool and hasn't put me off the forum at all. :cheers:

 

[relocated]

Finally, don't worry about the 'discussion' over FLAC and MP3, it's all cool and hasn't put me off the forum at all.

Well that is good and a shame that you have to redo your ripping, do remember to engage 'error correction' [I'm sure you do, I forgot for the first ripping session :doh: ].

Of your two choices I would go for the Onkyo solution. I have no personal experience of either pieces of gear, they are from similarly respected manufacturers and would see you good service. However, moving on from your old Technics will be a nice step up in quality and one can never under-estimate the brownie points for getting rid of boxes in the partner dept. Quality aside, there is always the consideration of life expectancy of the Technics given that you will probably listen to a lot more music now you have a new and convenient way of listening.

Best of luck with what you decide and keep us up to date.

 

[The Fat Priest]

I am in a similar position, in that I am researching how to have online music storage - I'm buying a house which has got CAT 5 wiring, and as I have been ripping CDs and (more laboriously) vinyl to USB discs for some time it just makes sense. So I'm thinking I will invest in a NAS and a replacement for my very old Denon. I like the Denon small boxes, so a Ceol or a Ceol piccolo might be right up my street, as I can't afford Naim! Or a Marantz.

But one thing which doesn't really seem to ever get considered in What HiFi or in most discussions I have read online is the interface. I don't have a smart phone to control anything, and I realise I may have to invest in one but I'm reluctant to. I had a Squeezebox Touch at one time but sent it back because it didn't do the interface at all well. I prefer using a laptop and a DAC connected to the Denon so I can use VLC as the interface - there's none of this limit of 128 songs in a playlist nonsense. I just want, for example, to let all the Motown I have play in a random order.

So is there any player which has a good interface, straight out of the box, on its remote? Or am I really looking at a NAS, a player and phone or tablet as a controller?

Phillip

 

[bigboss]

I am in a similar position, in that I am researching how to have online music storage - I'm buying a house which has got CAT 5 wiring, and as I have been ripping CDs and (more laboriously) vinyl to USB discs for some time it just makes sense. So I'm thinking I will invest in a NAS and a replacement for my very old Denon. I like the Denon small boxes, so a Ceol or a Ceol piccolo might be right up my street, as I can't afford Naim! Or a Marantz.

But one thing which doesn't really seem to ever get considered in What HiFi or in most discussions I have read online is the interface. I don't have a smart phone to control anything, and I realise I may have to invest in one but I'm reluctant to. I had a Squeezebox Touch at one time but sent it back because it didn't do the interface at all well. I prefer using a laptop and a DAC connected to the Denon so I can use VLC as the interface - there's none of this limit of 128 songs in a playlist nonsense. I just want, for example, to let all the Motown I have play in a random order.

So is there any player which has a good interface, straight out of the box, on its remote? Or am I really looking at a NAS, a player and phone or tablet as a controller?

Phillip

With the popularity of smartphones, a lot of products do not come with a remote. Sonos eventually stopped making a remote controller. It is the best multiroom solution currently.

This is a very good option, with a remote controller.

 

[Fred_Barker]

As for ripping. 320 Kbps MP3 is as good as anything for listening. The quality of the mastering is important, not bitrate once you get above about 190 Kbps. I don't believe anyone here could tell the difference.

(You can try for yourself if you download Foobar2000 and the ABX comparison tool - It takes minutes to realise that a 256 Kbps MP3 sounds identical to a WAV or a FLAC).

:roll: Here we go, there's always one on every forum dictating what people can and can't hear.

I was waiting for that; haha!! - personally, I can't notice any difference, but my age and too many live concerts have taken their toll on my ears!

I ripped most of my CD's years ago and the thought of going all through them to re-rip seems a daunting task!

I don't think that even a £20k hifi could improve the sound quality on some of the tracks that I really like, and they sound like they were recorded on Dictaphone.