Auralic Aries vs Aurender X100 vs Melco N1Z

[Umetaro]

I totally agree with you, amabrok. Usability is one of the key factors and X100 sounds attractive on this point.
If you would compare Mac Mini with the three players, what would be your rating in terms of sound quality?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In my system I use Macbook Pro and Air WiFi and it sounds better than Auralic Aeris but lags behind both Aurender and Melco


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks. This information is greatly helpful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stigmater]

Thanks a lot for the review and for time you spent.
Since a lot of Devialet owners here still using Mac Mini or Mac books as music servers it would be nice finally to understand where streamers such Aurender and Auralic stands compared to Mac's in SQ difference.
Don't get me wrong its only a suggestion , i really appreciate the work that has been done .

[amabrok]

Very Pro-Like. You deserve a big thank you and Much Appreciated the effort and also a honest write up. This will be very helpful. My little shortlist can be arranged based on your finding .

Thanks Jnan. It is my pleasure and glad to be of help


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amabrok]

Thanks a lot for the review and for time you spent.
Since a lot of Devialet owners here still using Mac Mini or Mac books as music servers it would be nice finally to understand where streamers such Aurender and Auralic stands compared to Mac's in SQ difference.
Don't get me wrong its only a suggestion , i really appreciate the work that has been done .

Makes sense Srltigmater.

I already commented on that a couple of messages above. In the group test in terms of sound quality Melco scored 10, Aurender 9 and Auralic Aeris 6. If I add Mac/Air WiFi to the list then I would give it a score of 7.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stigmater]

Thanks, good enough for me to switch my mac mini for Aurender

[PhilP]

Excellent work Amabrok. A very clear, no-nonsense evaluation!

It seems clear both from your evaluation and that of Guillaume, Rufus and others that dedicated and unfortunately fairly expensive streamers provide the best SQ for streaming ripped or downloaded music. Can't wait for a Totaldac v. Aurender shoot-out

Unfortunately, streaming from Qobuz now comprises the majority of my listening and of the three you reviewed only the Aries supports that service - apparently at lower SQ than my Mac which makes it a non-starter...

All I'm looking for is a high quality streamer that will stream Qobuz and/or Tidal now and which doesn't have an optical drive or internal HDD (for reliability reasons).

[amabrok]

Excellent work Amabrok. A very clear, no-nonsense evaluation!

It seems clear both from your evaluation and that of Guillaume, Rufus and others that dedicated and unfortunately fairly expensive streamers provide the best SQ for streaming ripped or downloaded music. Can't wait for a Totaldac v. Aurender shoot-out

Unfortunately, streaming from Qobuz now comprises the majority of my listening and of the three you reviewed only the Aries supports that service - apparently at lower SQ than my Mac which makes it a non-starter...

All I'm looking for is a high quality streamer that will stream Qobuz and/or Tidal now and which doesn't have an optical drive or internal HDD (for reliability reasons).

A TotalDac vs Aurender would be interesting indeed.

FYI, Aurender now has Tidal integration but still in beta and it does not work properly. I hope that in time it will be as reliable as the rest of the operation of the Conductor App.

I agree with you regarding optical drives and the possible impact on sound quality but looking on how Melco and Aurender implemented built-in storage makes me confident that it is possible to have built-in storage without comprise on SQ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PhilP]

FYI, Aurender now has Tidal integration but still in beta and it does not work properly. I hope that in time it will be as reliable as the rest of the operation of the Conductor App.

I agree with you regarding optical drives and the possible impact on sound quality but looking on how Melco and Aurender implemented built-in storage makes me confident that it is possible to have built-in storage without comprise on SQ

Having worked for a large s/w company in the past I'm definitely not interested in helping to de-bug s/w for my hi-fi

If an HDD fails in an Aurender whats the procedure for replacing it?  Is this something that a consumer can do (including restoring from back-up) or does it have to go back to a dealer/manufacturer?  I would much prefer to have an external an HDD or SDD.

Thanks.

[EricDH]

Amabrok presented such an elaborate review, that there is not much to add for me....   

After the session we came to more or less the same conclusions on build quality and sound quality. I can't comment on operation, since I didn't operate the system. Having said that, I have to admit that it took me more effort to come to reliable conclusions than Amabrok. Maybe that was because the system and most of the music were new to me, or maybe Amabrok simply has better ears

Also for me, the Melco was the best of the three. The Melco sounded most organic, with the right tonal balance. The Aurender has a bit brighter tonal balance. The two are very close however, and I would definitely go for the Aurender based on the flawless operation. The Auralic Aries was clearly behind the Melco and Aurender. Cymbals sounded a bit smeared in comparison, and the whole sound was less organic. I would still give it a 7 though (instead of the 6 from Amabrok), but that may very well be owner's pride...       There was one aspect of sound quality that I could not really assess, and that is soundstage. Normally, the exact 3D positioning of instruments in the soundstage, and the overall sense of soundstage, are very important for me (which made me choose for Wadia + Chord Electronics + B&W Nautilus 803 + MIT cabling in my system in the Netherlands). But since I was listening outside the sweet spot, I can't really say anything about that; it seems to me that being in the sweet spot is quite important with planar loudspeakers like the MLs.

Which one would I choose, based on our shootout? Clearly the Aurender. I have the Auralic now, and I won't upgrade immediately. But quality-wise, the Aurender would definitely fit better in my system. And if you look at the differences in both build quality and sound, the Aurender is definitely worth the higher price ($3500 vs $1500). To me, the Melco, although presenting the overall best sound, doesn't warrant the higher price.

[amabrok]

Amabrok presented such a elaborate review, that there is not much to add for me....   

After the session we came more or less to the same conclusions on build quality and sound quality. I can't comment on operation, since I didn't operate the system. Having said that, I have to admit that it took me more effort to come to reliable conclusions than Amabrok. Maybe that was because the system and most of the music were new to me, or maybe Amabrok simply has better ears

Also for me, the Melco was the best of the three. The Melco sounded most organic, with the right tonal balance. The Aurender has a bit brighter tonal balance. The two are very close however, and I would definitely go for the Aurender based on the flawless operation. The Auralic Aries was clearly behind the Melco and Aurender. Cymbals sounded a bit smeared in comparison, and the whole sound was less organic. I would still give it a 7 though (instead of the 6 from Amabrok), but that may very well be owner's pride...       There was one aspect of sound quality that I could not really assess, and that is soundstage. Normally, the exact 3D positioning of instruments in the soundstage, and the overall sense of soundstage, are very important for me (which made me choose for Wadia + Chord Electronics + B&W Nautilus 803 + MIT cabling in my system in the Netherlands). But since I was listening outside the sweet spot, I can't really say anything about that; it seems to me that being in the sweet spot is quite important with planar loudspeakers like the MLs.

Which one would I choose, based on our shoutout? Clearly the Aurender. I have the Auralic now, and I won't upgrade immediately. But quality-wise, the Aurender would definitely fit better in my system. And if you look at the differences in both build quality and sound, the Aurender is definitely worth the higher price ($3500 vs $1500). To me, the Melco, although presenting the overall best sound, doesn't warrant the higher price.

Well summarized Eric!

Thanks for sharing your views and also thank you for working with me on this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk