Melco v Aurender

[johnsap]

How is Melco in comparison to TotalDAC Server?

Take a look at this:

http://devialetchat.com/showthread.php?tid=431&page=9

Guillaume

Guillaume,

For your personal experience, will you place totaldac server in the middle similar to
N1Z 10/10, totaldac d1 8.5/10 and N1A 8/10
?

Thank you

[Rufus McDufus]

There is still no gapless playback with the current Melco firmware (2.01) with USB. I believe this is a problem specifically when connected to Devialet and not other DACs. I seem to remember being told it's due to be fixed in the next firmware - I could be wrong about that. The gap is quite short, maybe 1/10 -1/5 of a second but obviously still noticeable.

[GuillaumeB]

For your personal experience, will you place totaldac server in the middle similar to
N1Z 10/10, totaldac d1 8.5/10 and N1A 8/10

Yes I still think that score stands. The totaldac and N1A are very close performance-wise although they do sound a bit different if that makes sense! The totaldac might be a bit more detailed. Whereas the Melco has a bit more of that analogue source sound about it.

The d1 server is due a hardware upgrade (new Cubox quad core) which apparently improves the SQ so it's possible the gap between N1Z and d1 server will close a little. I won't know until I do the upgrade obviously.

Guillaume

[Yippedidou]

Very interesting read, thanks to you that made that comparison. I bought an Aurender X100L some while ago and I absolutely love it. I come from a Mac Mini server with JRiver/JRemote and before that, Naim streamers (SU). For me, what was the decider between the different server was the application. To be honest, the Aurender App. - Conductor they call it - is a marvel. Not once in the 5 months I have the X100 did it crash. JRiver (JRemote) is no way as stable as this. For me, the application is very important. Sound wise, I find that it is still a little bit behind AIR but hey, AIR doesnt work in my system so.... Neverthless, the sound is very close to AIR most of the time ( I run 8.1.1 with DPM and SAM at 50% - to me it sounds pretty much like 7.1.3 ).

Decided to go the server route because I want to listen to music and not always play with computers and software bugs. I'm not an IT guru, I'm just a music lover.

I'm also very very fortunate to own a great USB cable, Locus Design Essentia, which I got just before Lee passed away ( for those who know the story ). Its a fantastic cable and I'm holding to it like a jewel. I heard many USB cable but unfortunately not the Sarum nor the Total Dac which I would really like to hear.

Thanks again for the inteesting thread.

[PhilP]

I was interested to read this thorough review of the Melco N1A written by Mike Spragg (regular on the Linn Forum) which includes a product strip-down.  He makes some interesting comments about the components used, construction (wiring layout), myth busting and there's a helpful warning about drive configuration.

His comments on the lack of sonic benefits compared to a standard NAS (when connected either directly via ethernet cable or via LAN) tie-in with those made by Andrew Everard in Hi-Fi News.  The disappointment is that Mike didn't try the USB output which is where others including Andrew Everard and our illustrious Devialet Chat review team apparently heard substantial benefits.

http://www.empath-e.com/external/MelcoReport.pdf


This thread on the Linn Forum about the Melco (though a few months old) is also worth skimming:

http://forums.linn.co.uk/bb/showthread.php?tid=29333

[Rufus McDufus]

I have read this too. It's not telling us too much that we don't already know. The N1A does use commodity parts of course. He doesn't mention what's going on with the OS - i.e. there's some packet filtering on ethernet I believe and some other things - nothing that's necessarily innovative and probably mainly open source stuff - but not commonly used on other storage/transports. Yes, it did make me self-doubt my decision to get one a bit, but I listen to the thing and it takes those worries away! I haven't tried ethernet-only. I have a feeling the ethernet-only benefits are going to be a lot more marginal than USB. A lot of Linn owners are really liking them though.
It's interesting the cabling inside could potentially be optimised a bit - e.g. separate power and data cables. Pimp my Melco!

[PhilP]

I have read this too. It's not telling us too much that we don't already know. The N1A does use commodity parts of course. He doesn't mention what's going on with the OS - i.e. there's some packet filtering on ethernet I believe and some other things - nothing that's necessarily innovative and probably mainly open source stuff - but not commonly used on other storage/transports.  Yes, it did make me self-doubt my decision to get one a bit, but I listen to the thing and it takes those worries away!    I haven't tried ethernet-only. I have a feeling the ethernet-only benefits are going to be a lot more marginal than USB. A lot of Linn owners are really liking them though.
It's interesting the cabling inside could potentially be optimised a bit - e.g. separate power and data cables. Pimp my Melco!

 

I would assume that the Aurender largely uses standard off-the-shelf components too. Given that it costs £1095 more than the Melco (in the UK) and even though the construction quality seems significantly better there must be presumably be an even larger profit margin for someone.  I guess the UK distributors dCS must take a significant cut

Guillaume's rather negative comments on Aurender SQ don't tie-in at all with what I heard in my system and what I understand Foxman heard with the same unit (N100 rather than N100H) in his and I guess we're both pretty critical of poor SQ... It will be interesting to hear what people make of the Aurender v Melco comparison that Oxford Audio plan.  Both units will presumably be well run-in by then so no excuses for the loser

[GuillaumeB]

Guillaume's rather negative comments on Aurender SQ don't tie-in at all with what I heard in my system and what I understand Foxman heard with the same unit (N100 rather than N100H) in his and I guess we're both pretty critical of poor SQ... It will be interesting to hear what people make of the Aurender v Melco comparison that Oxford Audio plan.  Both units will presumably be well run-in by then so no excuses for the loser

Not sure that I meant my comments to be quite so negative! I found the sound of the N100H initially impressive and I loved the control point and the overall package. It was only upon critical listening that I felt we had lost some of the magic of the Melco (as we played some of the same tracks again the differences became more and more noticeable, for e.g. in the bass frequencies, with the Aurender sounding less defined/lighter). Analysing it more I came to the conclusion that perhaps the Aurender sounded more digital and I tried to describe what I meant. It did seem to improve over time which also led to the conclusion that perhaps the unit needed more running in.

We played the Melco for a good hour or so before going to the Aurender, so we got quite used to the Melco sound first. Possibly this coloured my observations of the Aurender; because the Melco was so analogue sounding did that make the Aurender more digital sounding? Certainly going back to the Melco after the Aurender was quite a big improvement. 

Guillaume

[PhilP]

Not sure that I meant my comments to be quite so negative! I found the sound of the N100H initially impressive and I loved the control point and the overall package. It was only upon critical listening that I felt we had lost some of the magic of the Melco (as we played some of the same tracks again the differences became more and more noticeable, for e.g. in the bass frequencies, with the Aurender sounding less defined/lighter). Analysing it more I came to the conclusion that perhaps the Aurender sounded more digital and I tried to describe what I meant. It did seem to improve over time which also led to the conclusion that perhaps the unit needed more running in.

We played the Melco for a good hour or so before going to the Aurender, so we got quite used to the Melco sound first. Possibly this coloured my observations of the Aurender; because the Melco was so analogue sounding did that make the Aurender more digital sounding? Certainly going back to the Melco after the Aurender was quite a big improvement. 

Guillaume

Fair enough I have no axe to grind either way.  I enjoyed listening to the Aurender but if the Melco sounds better and is a lot cheaper then great.

Out of interest - you awarded the N1A 8/10 for SQ.  What mark would you give the Aurender? Presumably a point or so less?   

[GuillaumeB]

Out of interest - you awarded the N1A 8/10 for SQ.  What mark would you give the Aurender? Presumably a point or so less?   

Something like that. It would be good to hear it again in my setup after it has been properly run in, I'd feel more comfortable scoring it then. I'd also like to have a play with Aurender's Tidal integration too, something we didn't have a chance to do.

Guillaume