Skip to main content

Neet Airstream - Review

For some time I've been using an Apple Airport Express to relay music from my computer to another room to plug into an old fashioned sound system that hasn't heard of Wifi. The setup works well, but it's overkill as the Aiport is a fairly expensive piece of kit that can do far more.

I needed to redeploy the Airport Express for a more heavy duty use, so I looked for a good, low priced alternative to do the job - and settled on the Neet Airstream. It's a little black puck, squarish with rounded corners. It feels fairly lightweight, but seems reasonably well made. The setup process was not brilliantly described in the manual, but is reasonably straightforward, and once it was up and running it simply appeared as an AirPlay device available to computers or phones via the Wifi. The sound seems fine - I'm very happy.

There are a couple of small niggles. The biggest one is that it doesn't come with a power supply. It assumes that there is either a USB outlet on your sound system (there isn't on mine) or that you provide your own power supply. Luckily, most people have the odd spare phone power supply with a USB socket and an old Apple one worked fine.

The second issue was that setup. First you sign a phone or computer into the device's own Wifi, then connect the Airstream into your Wifi network. This can be done either by downloading an app to your phone, or (as I did) by simply typing in the device's address to a browser, after which a click of the appropriate button allows you to log it into your Wifi. It reboots and job done. The only reason it seems more difficult than it is, is because the manual describes this process as 'bridging to the internet', which feels like it's trying to do something completely different. If it had said 'add to your Wifi network' or similar, there would be no confusion.

Overall, though, does the job nicely at a good price.

Update - I now recommend Cobblestone - see review.

Comments

  1. How did you find the audio quality of the Neet compares to your AirPort express?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was no obvious difference - though I only tend to use it to relay background music into the dining room, so I haven't tested its hifi credentials.

      Delete
  2. I have this unit connected to my 1990s Linn amp and the sound quality is good. I do have one small(ish) problem. I can load iTunes up on my laptop and then use my iPhone to play the music wirelessly to the AirStream from my laptop. That's great. HOWEVER, if I want to stream directly to the AirStream from my iPhone , I'm finding I have to go into the phone settings and connect to the AirStream wifi; and then I can stream directly but I can't access the internet anymore.
    I've been through all the settings on the AirStream setup but cannot get it to simultaneously act as a wifi access point as well as stream music - it's as if it can only receive and not transmit.
    Am I doing something wrong or is this just how it works?
    If it's behaving as it should then could I, as an alternative, hard wire the Airstream to a dedicated WAP and would that give me the access to the router (internet) at the same time as streaming?
    It's more a frustration than anything but any help will be very much appreciated.
    Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to admit I've now abandoned the AirStream and replaced it with a Cobblestone, which works with AirPlay, so is trivial to stream to from an iPhone - see http://brianclegg.blogspot.com/2019/06/review-cobblestone-streaming-music-with.html

      Delete
  3. Brian, thanks for your prompt response - at just shy of £40 I might just follow your lead and give this cobblestone a go. Reviews are quite promising in the main. Shame that I can't achieve what I need (want?) from the AirStream as it's otherwise a pretty good bit of kit but needs must... Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're welcome! I know what you mean about the Airstream, but it was getting increasingly difficult to get to work with my technology, and having Airplay does make things so much easier. I've certainly been pleased with the Cobblestone.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope