Melco and Sonos ?

SongStream posted:

Mayor West posted:

Will be interested to hear how it sounds James. Currently thinking of a Mac Mini but don't know whether to save harder for a Melco instead.

It's only my view of course, but I think there are much better things to save for than a Melco NAS.  My view is that Melco are either misguided and believe their product is justifiable, or they perceive high-end audio consumers as idiots with too much money, and who have a phobia of personal computers.  They have produced a NAS with a few gimmicks in a casing that resembles hifi, and claims not have any of the inherent problems that people associate with computers.  Simple as that for me.   Most NAS drives don't have the problems people associate with computers, and that's because they are generally given minimal work to do, but underlying technology and components are by no means far removed from a low-end PC.  

Thanks for your thoughts SongStream. As James points out however, I would just rather have had someone do the hard work for me that's good to go straight from the box i.e. a source with on board storage that simply provides the digital data to an outboard DAC of my choice.

In addition, the Melco would prevent me from tinkering! If you google 'digital audio review aurender n100h', you should find a review of the Aurender N100H (what appears to be a very similar product the Melco) in which the author points out that for all the modifications you can faff around doing and spending on a MacMini to improve sound, your spend can end up being as much as the Aurender anyway. So I would rather just save the hassle and buy a Melco/Aurender type product.

Mayor West posted:

SongStream posted:

Mayor West posted:

Will be interested to hear how it sounds James. Currently thinking of a Mac Mini but don't know whether to save harder for a Melco instead.

It's only my view of course, but I think there are much better things to save for than a Melco NAS.  My view is that Melco are either misguided and believe their product is justifiable, or they perceive high-end audio consumers as idiots with too much money, and who have a phobia of personal computers.  They have produced a NAS with a few gimmicks in a casing that resembles hifi, and claims not have any of the inherent problems that people associate with computers.  Simple as that for me.   Most NAS drives don't have the problems people associate with computers, and that's because they are generally given minimal work to do, but underlying technology and components are by no means far removed from a low-end PC.  

Thanks for your thoughts SongStream. As James points out however, I would just rather have had someone do the hard work for me that's good to go straight from the box i.e. a source with on board storage that simply provides the digital data to an outboard DAC of my choice.

In addition, the Melco would prevent me from tinkering! If you google 'digital audio review aurender n100h', you should find a review of the Aurender N100H (what appears to be a very similar product the Melco) in which the author points out that for all the modifications you can faff around doing and spending on a MacMini to improve sound, your spend can end up being as much as the Aurender anyway. So I would rather just save the hassle and buy a Melco/Aurender type product.

 

I'm not sure that is less faff with a product such as a Melco.  The Mini took about 10 hours in the first year of use. Subsequently, about 2 hours pa.  BTW, the Melco does need firmware updates and has a support page.

Jude2012 posted:

I'm not sure that is less faff with a product such as a Melco.  The Mini took about 10 hours in the first year of use. Subsequently, about 2 hours pa.  BTW, the Melco does need firmware updates and has a support page.

Fair enough. We'll see how this topic unfolds. Will probably be a case of letting the ears decide in the end!

For those evaluating  a Melco for Ethernet streaming it would be interesting to compare to using various Ethernet noise isolators and/or a high quality low EMI switch or even extensive common mode filters/chokes clamped on the Ethernet lead ... the effects people describe so far on its use are similar to using devices with a lowered electrical noise floor. Perhaps the Melco really helps when you use cheap/noisy consumer switches and NAS/UPnP media servers? If so I can't help feeling there is a certain irony there....

There was a thread on another forum where someone evaluated a Melco against a LAN isolator (I have one saved in my Amazon basket in case I decide to have a go myself one day, approx £110 with shipping). The conclusion was they were very close and the Melco won by a very small amount.

Graham, do you know if they used common mode ferrite chokes as well on the Ethernet cable? and which isolator were they using as there is variation here as well, was it optical? If not it might simply have provided enhanced galvanic isolation (DC to LF) as required by the medical industry.

Simon

PS is it the Acoustic Revive in your shopping basket? If so FWIW I didn't get on with it.. I found a quality switch (PSU and NIC transformers) coupled with chokes on the Ethernet lead produced a better result for me

nbpf posted:

Jason posted:

nbpf posted:

Jason posted:

I have heard the cheaper of the two Melco units used in the context of a Naim 500 series system, and I heard improvement characteristics similar in nature to the addition of a super lumina cable. 

Jason, the improvements were with respect to what? What was the setup without Melco? Thanks, nbpf

nbpf,

Quieter backgrounds, better high frequency control and generally slightly more refined presentation with the Melco in place, as I say, akin to the sort of improvement a super lumina cable brings really.  It was only a quick demo, one track with it, one track without it, so difficult to quantify how much better - but there were differences.  IIRC, it was demoed with NDS, 555DR, 552/500 into Focal Sopra 1 (the stand mount).

Thanks Jason! The reason I was asking is that, in another Melco thread, it was mentioned that the positive impact of the Melco on sound quality critically depends on the files to be replayed to be stored on the Melco. If the Melco is used as a bridge between a NAS and a streamer, some of the advantages are apparently lost. Thus, depending on which were exactly the setups with/without Melco, you might have heard an improvement that can be further improved or one that can partially vanish. This also partially explains my concerns about the upgradeability of the drives. Best, nbpf 

Sorry nbpf,

I was talking generally in relation to the effect of the Melco, I haven't explained this very clearly!

I did hear the System played without a Melco, then with the Melco placed in line between a NAS and streamer and then with the Melco having the same files stored on itself and played direct from that, in effect removing the network and playing locally.  It was only one track on each setup,  but the change with Melco in line was clearly audible and the change with Melco "serving" was the most beneficial.

The effect was kind of cumulative as we progressed.  The two steps from first putting it in place produced the same changes but the last step just gave more of it.

Hope that makes sense!

Jason.

Simon

Yes, it was the Acoustic Revive. I can't remember all the details about chokes etc, just the high-level summary.

Interesting that you didn't get on with it. It's an area I might look but at the moment my KDS sounds pretty stunning

Graham

james n posted:

Cheers Jason / Bert for the replies - It's going to be used as a USB source in my main lounge system to feed my amp. The interest with Sonos and whether i could use the Melco was just in regard to rationalising my music storage rather than needing to use my NAS as well (which holds my main iTunes library that my Sonos system presently uses).

Now just need to decide black or silver 

Hi James,

Sounds ideal!  I seem to remember being told by Alan Ainslie at the Signals show, before I heard it, that whilst the Melco can be very effective used by Ethernet, it was optimised for USB.  Don't hold me to that, but you may find it even more beneficial if you are using it via USB.

Jason.

Jason posted:

nbpf posted:

Jason posted:

nbpf posted:

Jason posted:

I have heard the cheaper of the two Melco units used in the context of a Naim 500 series system, and I heard improvement characteristics similar in nature to the addition of a super lumina cable. 

Jason, the improvements were with respect to what? What was the setup without Melco? Thanks, nbpf

nbpf,

Quieter backgrounds, better high frequency control and generally slightly more refined presentation with the Melco in place, as I say, akin to the sort of improvement a super lumina cable brings really.  It was only a quick demo, one track with it, one track without it, so difficult to quantify how much better - but there were differences.  IIRC, it was demoed with NDS, 555DR, 552/500 into Focal Sopra 1 (the stand mount).

Thanks Jason! The reason I was asking is that, in another Melco thread, it was mentioned that the positive impact of the Melco on sound quality critically depends on the files to be replayed to be stored on the Melco. If the Melco is used as a bridge between a NAS and a streamer, some of the advantages are apparently lost. Thus, depending on which were exactly the setups with/without Melco, you might have heard an improvement that can be further improved or one that can partially vanish. This also partially explains my concerns about the upgradeability of the drives. Best, nbpf 

Sorry nbpf,

I was talking generally in relation to the effect of the Melco, I haven't explained this very clearly!

I did hear the System played without a Melco, then with the Melco placed in line between a NAS and streamer and then with the Melco having the same files stored on itself and played direct from that, in effect removing the network and playing locally.  It was only one track on each setup,  but the change with Melco in line was clearly audible and the change with Melco "serving" was the most beneficial.

The effect was kind of cumulative as we progressed.  The two steps from first putting it in place produced the same changes but the last step just gave more of it.

Hope that makes sense!

Jason.

Thanks James! That makes sense to me and is in line with what I read in another thread in this forum: for top performance, the files shall be stored on the Melco. I can imagine that reducing the length of the wired connection between the Melco and a streamer may also help reducing nois but I have very little understanding in this area. Best, nbpf

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

For those evaluating  a Melco for Ethernet streaming it would be interesting to compare to using various Ethernet noise isolators and/or a high quality low EMI switch or even extensive common mode filters/chokes clamped on the Ethernet lead ... the effects people describe so far on its use are similar to using devices with a lowered electrical noise floor. Perhaps the Melco really helps when you use cheap/noisy consumer switches and NAS/UPnP media servers? If so I can't help feeling there is a certain irony there....

Simon, is it conceivable that a short, direct connection between UPnP server and streamer can help reducing noise? Best, nbpf

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

For those evaluating  a Melco for Ethernet streaming it would be interesting to compare to using various Ethernet noise isolators and/or a high quality low EMI switch or even extensive common mode filters/chokes clamped on the Ethernet lead ... the effects people describe so far on its use are similar to using devices with a lowered electrical noise floor. Perhaps the Melco really helps when you use cheap/noisy consumer switches and NAS/UPnP media servers? If so I can't help feeling there is a certain irony there....

The Melco does initially look to be a very attractive device, and indeed I noticed most exhibitors at the last Signals show were using one in their demos, but looking a bit deeper & breaking its construction down I can't help feeling something similar could be put together with a bit of care on a DIY basis at significantly less cost.

tonym posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

For those evaluating  a Melco for Ethernet streaming it would be interesting to compare to using various Ethernet noise isolators and/or a high quality low EMI switch or even extensive common mode filters/chokes clamped on the Ethernet lead ... the effects people describe so far on its use are similar to using devices with a lowered electrical noise floor. Perhaps the Melco really helps when you use cheap/noisy consumer switches and NAS/UPnP media servers? If so I can't help feeling there is a certain irony there....

The Melco does initially look to be a very attractive device, and indeed I noticed most exhibitors at the last Signals show were using one in their demos, but looking a bit deeper & breaking its construction down I can't help feeling something similar could be put together with a bit of care on a DIY basis at significantly less cost.

I certainly agree, but for those who do not feel confident doing the work themselves or simply do not want to do the work themselves, the Melcos could be a very interesting proposition. They also come in a nice case. If only ... see my other posts in this thread!

Anyway, the Melcos seem to be products that many Naim users have been looking at with quite a lot of interest. Hopefully Naim takes this interest into account in planning their upcoming products.

As I reported in https://forums.naimaudio.com/to...e-and-andrew-everard, setting up a system that works essentially like a Melco using existing open source standards is almost straightforward.

I think that Naim could easily take advantage of such standards and of their know-how to build a better Melco and to more easily integrate internet streaming services in their products.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

nbpf posted:

For additional information on the Melco (but not specifically in connection with Sonos) you could also check http://forum.minimserver.com/showthread.php?tid=2032 Best, nbpf

Well reading that thread, there really is some misinformation. There is NO SUCH MEANINGFUL THING as TCP data jitter at the network level for UPnP media .. TCP uses a different system of windowing and sequencing rather than a stream of timed datagrams (as with UDP as used with voip telephony for example).. therefore for someone to mention one of the key advantages of the Melco is reducing the data  jitter in the network has me scratching my head and erring to the suspicious. I do hope the poster had misunderstood what he had been told.

BTW a Sonos can work directly with a NAS as a file player and it also connect to a UPnP Media Server running on a NAS or elsewhere 

Right, no TCP jitter but jitter in general can be, HW side. This can  be removed with opto isolation, better power supplies, grounding, re-clock , ethernet cables etc... So, in bad setup Melco can make a difference, similar way than doing this with separate improvements.

Gandalf_fi posted:

So, in bad setup Melco can make a difference, similar way than doing this with separate improvements.

That's kind of what I found out when reviewing the Melcos for HFN: they offered no benefit over my existing opto-isolated NAS set-up, but when I deliberately hobbled the system by using the NAS through my main data network to the player, comparisons showed the Melco straight to the player sounded somewhat better.

nbpf posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

For those evaluating  a Melco for Ethernet streaming it would be interesting to compare to using various Ethernet noise isolators and/or a high quality low EMI switch or even extensive common mode filters/chokes clamped on the Ethernet lead ... the effects people describe so far on its use are similar to using devices with a lowered electrical noise floor. Perhaps the Melco really helps when you use cheap/noisy consumer switches and NAS/UPnP media servers? If so I can't help feeling there is a certain irony there....

Simon, is it conceivable that a short, direct connection between UPnP server and streamer can help reducing noise? Best, nbpf

nbpf, possibly if all the noise was just coming from a switch - which isn't likely and also such a setup is not really practical as the streamer would not be able to directly access any other device or the internet via the LAN

Gandalf_fi posted:

Right, no TCP jitter but jitter in general can be, HW side. This can  be removed with opto isolation, better power supplies, grounding, re-clock , ethernet cables etc... So, in bad setup Melco can make a difference, similar way than doing this with separate improvements.

Trying to understand what you are driving at here - are you taking about electrical RF EM noise modulating circuity such as digital clock power supplies etc? If so yes - exactly - but this is more a benefit regarding reducing RFI generally from all sources rather than specifically focussing on simply ethernet or USB?

Simon

Andrew Everard posted:

Gandalf_fi posted:

So, in bad setup Melco can make a difference, similar way than doing this with separate improvements.

That's kind of what I found out when reviewing the Melcos for HFN: they offered no benefit over my existing opto-isolated NAS set-up, but when I deliberately hobbled the system by using the NAS through my main data network to the player, comparisons showed the Melco straight to the player sounded somewhat better.

interesting.... kind of what I suspected.

Just using a switch and extensive use of ferrites I've been able to achieve a situation where I can't distinguish playback via the NAS from playback via a USB stick plugged into the front of my ND5 XS.  My conclusion is that my network and NAS are functioning as efficiently as required for my playback system, and I wouldn't actually benefit from any additional "audiophile" hardware.

Simon,

Can you describe in what way the Acoustic Revive didn't work for you? Was there no difference or did it make the sound worse?

Thanks

Graham

Huge posted:

Just using a switch and extensive use of ferrites I've been able to achieve a situation where I can't distinguish playback via the NAS from playback via a USB stick plugged into the front of my ND5 XS.  My conclusion is that my network and NAS are functioning as efficiently as required for my playback system, and I wouldn't actually benefit from any additional "audiophile" hardware.

Graham Russell posted:

Simon,

Can you describe in what way the Acoustic Revive didn't work for you? Was there no difference or did it make the sound worse?

Thanks

Graham

 

Graham, on my setup it seemed to slightly soften/take life out of the audio or not make any difference at all.. Depending on where I put it.. I also found it sometimes interfered with my RPi link negotiation when powering up when I used between my RPi and switch.. So right now I am not using it... But it might make more a difference if I used between a noisy switch and my NDX..

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Gandalf_fi posted:

Right, no TCP jitter but jitter in general can be, HW side. This can  be removed with opto isolation, better power supplies, grounding, re-clock , ethernet cables etc... So, in bad setup Melco can make a difference, similar way than doing this with separate improvements.

Trying to understand what you are driving at here - are you taking about electrical RF EM noise modulating circuity such as digital clock power supplies etc? If so yes - exactly - but this is more a benefit regarding reducing RFI generally from all sources rather than specifically focussing on simply ethernet or USB?

Simon

 

Yes, I mean RF noise & current noise. This is general issue, can be ethernet or USB.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Graham Russell posted:

Simon,

Can you describe in what way the Acoustic Revive didn't work for you? Was there no difference or did it make the sound worse?

Thanks

Graham

 

Graham, on my setup it seemed to slightly soften/take life out of the audio or not make any difference at all.. Depending on where I put it.. I also found it sometimes interfered with my RPi link negotiation when powering up when I used between my RPi and switch.. So right now I am not using it... But it might make more a difference if I used between a noisy switch and my NDX..

 

Simon, thanks for the info.

Graham - i've got a medical grade Ethernet isolator that i've used to good effect on both my old Linn and Naim streamers. You're welcome to borrow it when i see you. 

James