QNAP TS-559 Pro Turbo NAS Review

Audio_ELF · June 8, 2010

Chris ... (or anyone)

Reviews of NAS like the QNAP (and previously the Thecus) are great, but have you ever tested "simple" NAS drives like the WD MyBook World or Lacie Network space. The kind of device thats basically a HDD in a box with network hardware. It seams (to me anyway) that if your aim is to get the disks out the listening room, you don't need much more for audio use - these are available with single disc (or some cases mirrored pair) offering 1TB / 1.5TB even up to 2TB which covers most (I would think) people's music storage requirements.

Obviously with such devices you need to think about a manual backup strategy - but then we know RAID doesn't prevent against data loss except drive failure.

I guess really this is a question for another place / thread - just wondered if you (or anyone) had an opinion. Surely (for most users) the QNAP and similar are vastly over specified.

Eloise

Audio_ELF · June 8, 2010

PS. If you can't recommend the QNAP - is there a device you do recommend?

The Computer Audiophile · June 8, 2010

Hi Eloise - I'm also reviewing a NAS from Synology right now that has two drives. It's expandable via eSATA to six drives (I believe) and all the drives can be part of one RAID group.

This product may be of more interest to you.

Hoover · June 8, 2010

Hey Chris,

Thanks for the review on the QNAP NAS. Hopefully I'm not the only one who's looked at all these options on the internet and wondered what the differences actually are and which ones actually perform as advertised! I am very interested in your upcoming review of the Synology NAS as that is one I was looking at purchasing. Thanks for steering me clear of this one!

Todd

ukiro · June 8, 2010

I was looking at this product as well, but ended up with another option — The Netgear ReadyNAS NVX. I did a small write-up on my choice and initial impressions <a href="http://ukiro.com/2010/05/12/digital-domestic-decisions/">on my blog</a>, if anyone is interested.

One and a half · June 8, 2010

in the initial stages, there was flakey software which didn't quite stick. A firmware upgrade from a 1.000 to the latest version fixed that.

Drive setup, RAID6 went smooth for four disks, my error to unplug the unit while formatting, caused it to have a hernia, but it recovered by itself easily enough.

Wizards, detections copying files behave like another local drive, good access speeds, no latency on startup. I find Robocopy is very fast, or Rich tools the copy facility with GUI works with aplomb. I have not come across the ' or " errors, as many of docs that reside on the server including music have these characters in their filenames.

The 419P has been operating for 5 months now hasn't missed a beat yet.

Once a minor problem sticks, all others tend to pile up behind it, a similar experience with an Apple Airport Express readily comes to mind.

We've all bought gadgets or technology that didn't make up the hype or expectations, and somehow it's "your" fault for making the wrong choice.

The Computer Audiophile · June 8, 2010

Hi one and a half - Thanks for chiming in with a good experience about your QNAP NAS. My review is a single data point among many available on the Internet.

Dave Clark · June 9, 2010

Drobo FS... not much else to say.

thelefthead · June 9, 2010

Hi Chris,

Sorry, I may have committed some crime of etiquette. I didn't sign any name to my post. Noticed a reply to "one and a half" but no reply to my own comment. My name is Kelly. I'm quite sincere in my intent to challenge you and not insult you, so please let me know if and how I may have missed the mark.

Thanks,

Kelly

Duke Weber · June 9, 2010

I have a similar QNAP, the TS-439 with four Seagate 1T disks and I was also ready to toss it over the side in frustration. A call to tech support was a pleasant surprise. The tech used a remote desktop service called Teamview and solved many of the problems on the spot.

An update to the firmware solved the rest, and it's been humming along quietly since then. Not exactly plug'n'play, but it's been solid.

The Computer Audiophile · June 9, 2010

Hi Kelly - Thanks for the input. You certainly didn't offend me. I've been called every name in the book. I see where you are coming from, but I don't necessary agree with what you're saying. I encourage all feedback from readers as there is always something to be gained when one's ears are open and one's mouth is shut :~)

I respect your opinion on my credibility and that of other writers. There is no argument from me here, as one establishes credibility with people in any number of ways. Every reader is different. To some (former) readers I have no credibility and to others I have a lot of credibility. Again, it's a personal choice.

"You had a shot at credibility with this one. "

I didn't set out to establish credibility by publishing a negative review. I simply called a spade a spade.

I don't agree with your analysis about computer equipment not "counting." The usual undertone of skeptics (not you personally) is that reviews have a lot to do with advertising dollars. If you look at it this way, QNAP is definitely a company I would like to bring on board as an advertiser. QNAP could sell many products to CA readers. In fact QNAP contacted me about reviewing the product. I think this goes a long way toward "counting." "An audio component that can affect sound quality" isn't a prerequisite in my opinion.

You mentioned only stuff, "from some unknown company who has done something unusual" may receive a negative review in the traditional magazines. Please stop me if I'm putting words in your mouth, but I believe this statement has something to do with the l lack of possible advertising dollars from the unknown company.

"But if you are going to try to separate yourself from the lemmings in audiophile review land - you still have some work in front of you."

Again, I can't argue with your opinion. Separating factors are different for everyone as well. When I am contacted by those in "audiophile review land" to explain computer audio concepts and technologies I take that as a compliment and something that separates my knowledge from theirs. I don't consider writing a negative review of "An audio component that can affect sound quality" a major separating factor. I pick and choose every component I review. If I didn't want to review the QNAP I wouldn't have reviewed it. When it comes to audio components I work with the manufacturers and distributors to select a product I like, my readers are interested in, and I believe will perform well. This greatly reduces the chances I will get a dud in here. Back in the day I would simply send a bad product back to the manufacturer, but I don't think that benefits the CA readers very much. They need to know when something doesn't cut the mustard.

OK, I've rambled on quite a bit and likely didn't address your points in the way you had in mind. We probably are talking right past each other on this one. Again, I appreciate your honest comments and constructive criticism. I hate to say it, but I took your comments much more serious since you pointed out some very positive things about the site etc... It's good to know you like something and not others.

Thanks Kelly :~)

agentsmith · June 9, 2010

I have a T219P and have had very good experience with it. Hardware is rock solid and it is very quiet and oozes quality compared to my previous NAS from Buffalo and especially compared to the Thecus which is a slow, sluggish and buggy plastiky noise maker with support that did not answer email and no firmware update to fix their bugs.

Installing Slim Server on the QNAP was uneventful and performance better than a dedicated laptop with 4GB RAM.

I have not tried all features like one touch backup, I seem to recall that it did not work too well, but I did not pursue much further since I ended up using their web based backup interface which works well.

Their print server is a little strange with my HP printer, requiring me to reset the printer most time before I print so the print driver may not match too well.

But overall it is a good machine with good industrial design and built quality. I did find a couple of glitches but the other NAS I tried were much much worse.

Just my alternate view

Joe Fonebone · June 10, 2010

I am running the relatively new ReadyNAS NVX Pioneer. Is that the one you are referring to? If so, have you found any way to reduce fan noise. Although the performance is excellent, my NAS sounds like a jet aircraft.

ukiro · June 10, 2010

Hi Joe,

Yes that's the unit I have. I agree that fan noise is a little on the loud side. Mine is in a separate room so I haven't bothered tinkering with it yet. Replacing the fan is probably the best option for noise reduction – I think it's a 120mm fan, so look for reviews on computer hardware sites, or even customer reviews at NewEgg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010090573%201372726538&name=120mm

You'll want to look at noise measurements as well as airflow throughput.

The drives themselves make noise too, and my favorites are Samsung. They measure very similar to other drives in terms of noise, but have a sound frequency profile that is less annoying. I'm running Western Digital now though, whose "green" drives are nice too.

donny1132 · June 10, 2010

Jeg er enig 100% det er en stor arbejdsplads holde op det store arbejde Underbart information jag älskar denna webbplats hålla uppe den god arbete!

Alan Sircom · June 11, 2010

Having worked on several magazines that use percentage scores, star ratings, globes and similar systems, they have a nasty habit of creating more problems than they solve. Here's some of the reasons why:

- There's an inevitable confusion over price-vs-ratings, even if you include a 'value' rating. Is a five-star $1,000 amplifier better or worse than a four-star $2,000 amplifier?

- Realistically, a star rating system creates a three-tier reaction in the readership. Five-star - 'good'. Four-star - 'meh'. Everything else - 'toast'. This comes about because star ratings allow people to avoid reading the bulk of the review, or at least skimming through anything lower than five stars

- Horribly mis-matched systems built out of a collection of five-star and 'award winning' components are an almost inevitable result, especially as dealers will use the five-star and award winning status of a product to dictate their stocking policy

- No matter how you try to design a ratings system, it invariably creates a lowest common denominator attitude in the reviews and readers alike. The 'five stars for value, four stars for performance' tend to dominate tests, because people can't help feel like they are buying a bargain. OTOH, the 'one star for value, five stars for performance' product might be the best-sounding thing on the planet, but is dismissed because it is expensive. Unfortunately, the distinction between value and worth is commonly too subtle for a simple rating schema

Audiophile magazine reviews can read too congratulatory toward the products they review. I initially tried to change that in my magazine, but it seems that in today's audio market, even the slightest hint of criticism of a product is often read as almost complete and utter damnation. In some respects, where star ratings create a three-tier review schema, audiophile reviews are entirely digital in nature - a product is praised, or dies.

AFAIK, this hyper-sensitivity to negative comments in readers is unique to audio; when I used to write reviews in photography, saying a lens was "basically good, but suffered mild pincushioning at the extreme end of the telephoto range" was taken at face value. It was not read as "never, under any circumstances should you buy this lens", which seems to be the prevailing take on critical comments read in audio reviews.

thelefthead · June 11, 2010

Hi Chris,

Thanks very much for your thoughtful reply. Your point regarding a negative review of a tech component being just as valid as a negative review of an audio component is rock solid. It is indisputable that the inherent conflict of interest in reviewing products from companies that may or may not choose to advertise with you is present- and you faced it down with integrity.

So, while I still feel that there is something not right in the world of audio reviews, I'll see if I can't find another review of yours to complain about. ;-)

I think Alan Sircom really speaks to the issue that led to my initial comment. There is something different about the way audio products are reviewed from any other tech - but at the end of the day it is all just tech. In the case of audio it is tech that can really create a fantastic experience under the right circumstances - but photographers could argue something similar.

Alan's comments point to two issues I hadn't considered fully before. If the argument in Alan's comments is followed to conclusion, they imply that there simply is no valid way for reviewers to compare one audio product to another.

But maybe the more interesting implication is that the fundamental issue is that many readers seeking reviews have so little faith in their own perceptions that they value the review over what they themselves would hear if they listened to the components - so negative comments are blown out of proportion constraining what reviewers can actually say in their reviews.

Food for thought for me.

Thanks again,

Kelly

Duke Weber · June 11, 2010

The Lifetime Achievement Award for Bogus Review has to go to Stereophile magazine. I recall that a few years ago they reviewed an ultra expensive amp that actually started smoking during the test, but they ignored that as a minor point and poured praise (instead of fire retardant) on the damn thing.

Does anyone recall exactly what/when that was?

SteveM · June 14, 2010

Chris,

I'm curious as to whether you encountered your file-copying problems while using a Mac. I recently had similar problems copying files from Macs running OS X 10.6.3 to a cheap d-link DNS-321. After doing some research, I found a site saying that the problem was with the OS and that the glitch is supposed to be fixed in OS 10.6.4 (the next maintenance release, currently in advanced beta). The site also recommended a freeware program called muCommander, which was able to transfer the balky files.

The Computer Audiophile · June 14, 2010

Hi SteveM - Thanks for the information. I can't recall if I tried the copy on other operating systems. Fortunately I still have the NAS here as QNAP and I are trying to figure out what is going on. I'll give the copying a shot on other operating systems.

daglesj · June 15, 2010

Been using my QNAP for nearly a year now. Was simple to setup and worked a treat. First thing I did (as I do for any computer gear) was hunt for new firmware and software and that all worked very nicely.

Using Seagate 1TB 5900rpm drives for all my data needs.

I'm always amazed with folks that buy expensive gear and never think to look for updates and soldier on using the old software. Also the QNAP forum is a great place to get help if you need it. You will get help there unlike some forums like Seagates etc.

Been using it for streaming movies, music, storage, Joomla, SQL server, web test server, print server you name it. Its never skipped a beat. Transfer speeds on my modest network are around 35MBps.

Even the girlfriend uses it and likes it.

I would recommend QNAP over 'toy' NAS boxes from the major HDD manufacturers.

SteveM · June 15, 2010

Thanks Chris. I am curious about the answer. Just because someone said somewhere that it was the Mac OS doesn't mean it is necessarily so. On the other hand, I had no problems copying to the same NAS from a Windows 7 machine.

pacwin · June 15, 2010

First off Linux based hardware NAS are atypical for any user let alone computer audiophiles. They are I'm afraid geek territory and really not suitable for your average consumer. QNAP really markets these at SME businesses.

I have been using the QNAP 659 PRO for a few weeks and it has been so far very functional, easy to use and flexible, mines quiet as a mouse, goes to sleep when no one's using it and generally purrs away nicely. I havent messed around with it from a MAC yet but if you are a Windows 7 user you should also add the NFS tools that are Windows 7 features and enable NFS services on the NAS and mount your drives using the NFS mount command. This is more effective reliable than SMB and you can set NFS permissions from the files and folder properties from your Explorer app. You have other options settable around caching as well.

I was surprised that only superficial (i.e I could have read this from the QNAP the datasheet) mention was made of two aspects of a NAS that are essential for operating as a file serving platform for a computer audiophile: its ability to reliably supply a file from a file share to a media player and the ability to stream media to a DNLA or UPNP media renderer. QNAP NAS and supplied applications do this particulalrly well but I would have expected some discussion of these audio capabilities in your review. In particular I would have liked to have seen some reportage on large high bit rate files (I have for exammple some SACD Analog rips at 192/24 stored as WAVE64 and 6GB in size (whole album)) and how well the NAS coped with supplying an uninterrupted stream of data. That is how good was it at either buffering a file from a file share or streaming a file using DLNA/UPnP. Also you could have tried Wired versus Wireless as well or tried multiple streams of uadio to see how well it coped. How about a little play with Foobars file caching capability? Or test it out as DLNA renderer? I realise there are other devices and software in the chain and its not all up to the NAS but this is a computer audiophile site and this is a NAS for review.

So Chris while you were disappointed in your QNAP' s dysfunctional copy button I was actually disappointed in your review. Pretty much all we got was this.

"The TS-559 ships with an iTunes server and Twonky UPnP media server. Enabling these is also involves a couple mouse clicks."

h128 · June 15, 2010

I have been using QNAP 430 Pro for about a year now. I'd like to list a couple of reasons why I like it.

1. It is very quiet. I have it sit on my desktop only 3 feet from me I can't even hear the fan.

2. QNAP comes up with new firmware update frequently about once every two months. And their support forums are quite good.

3. Rich feature sets. Actually this might turn against QNAP because it maybe too intimidating for audiophile users. As pacwin stated it, QNAP really markets these at SME businesses.

4. Reliability. It is on 24/7. It worked from day one and never failed.

Sugarbear · June 15, 2010

Chris,

I've only been a around here for a very short while but I'm surprised at the amount of comments like pacwin's where folks are just plain ungrateful and borderline rude, expecting you to cater to their every whimsical question in your reviews. This is especially since you provide far more detail and thoroughness than many other reviewers bother themselves with.

Well, thanks for your review, thanks for your dedication to this corner of the audiophile hobby, and thanks for the gracious way you receive these kinds of comments.

QNAP TS-559 Pro Turbo NAS Review

User Feedback

Recommended Comments

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites