Melco v Aurender

[Confused]

Quick update - with Nick (cc1) we heard an Aurender X100 against the N100H (I think the same one as we listened to in this test) yesterday at Oxford Audio Consultants. Devialet 200 & Atohm GT1. The N100H has had quite a lot more running since we last listened, into the hundreds of hours.
Well The X100 smoked the N100H. X100 sounded full and rather lovely. N100H was still thin-sounding and lacking in bass.  USB cable was definitely in the right output. Something odd going on here. Maybe there's a magic setting, or it needs more running or there's something wrong with it?

Anyhow I can't really judge how the X100 would fare against the Melco N1A but I think it would be pretty close. Without direct comparison I couldn't say which is better.

That's interesting, and actually quite annoying from a consumer POV. The X100 was, it seemed, the one if you needed a large amount of storage and other outputs. The N100, as it started out was presumably supposed to be the same, except no disk and only USB. The N100H now gets the disk. But should there be that much disparity (X100 'smoked' the N100H), or is this a duff N100H? Rufus / Nick, I'm sure your on the case and personally I look forward to any more depth to this quandary you can give in the future.

When I spoke to OAC's Alasdair yesterday, he appeared to be forming the view that there is indeed a problem with this particular N100H, something they planned to investigate further.