Melco re-visit Pt 03 - Alan Ainslie audio interview

thanks for this link Dan, very interesting...

enjoy

ken

Don't know what's going on, I can only get 1:30mins into this and then the audio cuts off and refuses to resume.  Actually, it is probably because I am trying to listen to it via a computer, which of course has no concept of data timing or packet order.

:-)

Still seems fine here I can click along any part of the 17 mins?

http://www.theaudiophileman.co...on-show-report/c22he

Interesting link Dan. I found Alan very responsive and helpful when i had a few questions in the first couple of days of ownership. I'm still over the moon with mine, a tad disappointed that no app has appeared as yet but it's still been one of my best purchases. 

There are a few good takeaways from the interview, and also naturally some sales chatter, but apart from earning a living with Melco I feel Alan comes across as really wanting to make a product that will do as it says and present an alternative, and offering up improved playback would come with this it seems. Caveats being the price naturally. His answer that SSDs cost as much as an N1A to make for the N1Z (hence that price), as they are made custom by Buffalo, is either sales chatter again or that is what they cost for the way they wish to make them?

Although a big part of the Melco sales is ease of use perhaps, as the Melco and my system keep running in the Melco keeps improving little by little for me, today I am hearing the songs again (some Rolling Stones 24/172 & 24/96) and fresh nuances continue to pop through on tracks I have played a thousand times.

Like you James I am happy with the purchase, and if Alan is correct in the long term planning and updating it appears to have some life in it too.

Indeed an interesting piece of information. Just sad that I bought the 4TB version while they now get a 6TB version with improved power supply. If I would have known, I would have waited.

while I am still very happy with my Melco and I don't regret buying it...

From recent FB question :

Hi Dan, There is a common view that all the unnecessary Ethernet traffic impacts on audio quality. Melco achieves isolation from this traffic initially by having all that traffic on the LAN port and isolating the dedicated Player port. That eliminates unnecessary traffic but the Melco is still connected to the Ethernet. So in order to be able to disconnect totally from the Internet and avoid all risk of pollution and interference, we then have the Direct Mode. With this connection there is nothing attached to the LAN port and no possibility to influence the system from outside. The Network Connected Player still needs an IP address which is given by the Melco, and there are no switches or other IT devices in the system. If iPod control is required a Travel Router is simply connected to the LAN port for iPod connectivity, but still no outside influences. We hope this answers your question!

They run Twonkey? 

And MinimServer, although via instructions direct from Simon.

Dan43 posted:

And MinimServer, although via instructions direct from Simon.

I have that running as well. They soon will come out with their own server which is then also capable of transcoding, that's at least the word out on the street. Still have to see if and when they deliver.

Alan told me they are working on Asset when I met him at the Bristol show.

Keith

Their FB page mentions their App/Server is in beta now and to watch this space. Yes transcoding and capability to playback library while in Direct Mode, how they achieve this mind I know not :-) 

I've also got Minimserver working on mine, courtesy of Simon on the Minimserver forum. Seems fine but I'm not convinced it's any better than the built-in one. What's supposed to be the advantages? I've been using Kinsky on my iPad as the control app. but yesterday I picked up a cheapo Acer tablet so I could use BubbleuPnP which, I was assured, was better. It certainly works fine, and the Acer itself is amazing value, but again, don't think it's any better than Kinsky. It'll be interesting to see what Melco's own version brings to the party.

Dan43 posted:

From recent FB question :

Hi Dan, There is a common view that all the unnecessary Ethernet traffic impacts on audio quality. Melco achieves isolation from this traffic initially by having all that traffic on the LAN port and isolating the dedicated Player port. That eliminates unnecessary traffic but the Melco is still connected to the Ethernet. So in order to be able to disconnect totally from the Internet and avoid all risk of pollution and interference, we then have the Direct Mode. With this connection there is nothing attached to the LAN port and no possibility to influence the system from outside. The Network Connected Player still needs an IP address which is given by the Melco, and there are no switches or other IT devices in the system. If iPod control is required a Travel Router is simply connected to the LAN port for iPod connectivity, but still no outside influences. We hope this answers your question!

This unfortunately appears nonsense to me - in order to do as you say the Melco would need to set up a new subnet and route between them - that way you would be able to remove broadcast traffic arriving from the non Melco subnet. The Melco however simply acts, from what I can see, as a regular layer 2 switch - and so layer 2 frames (Ethernet traffic) will gladly move across it as per the functionality required of a regular switch. Also because we are using Multicast discovery for UPnP - a routable subnet would have added complications of additional multicast routing functionality required of the Melco (if it were acting as a router with it own subnet) - even if would work at all with DLNA/UPnP which I am not convinced it would. Talk of the internet and 'interference from it 's complete poppy cock on the home switched LAN.... unless, perhaps badly being paraphrased, the original respondent appears to be talking rubbish.

So I think the question should be responded on FB with can you give me specific examples of network frame traffic which will be removed by the Melco over and above what a regular switch would provide?

Now if the Melco were acting as some sort of filtering Network Bridge - it could reduce ARP requests etc travelling from one segment to another - but again where does one configure this? As this could stop a network working properly if not careful... and again ARP requests are relatively infrequent... and again nothing to do with the internet

Simon

tonym posted:

I've also got Minimserver working on mine, courtesy of Simon on the Minimserver forum. Seems fine but I'm not convinced it's any better than the built-in one. What's supposed to be the advantages? I've been using Kinsky on my iPad as the control app. but yesterday I picked up a cheapo Acer tablet so I could use BubbleuPnP which, I was assured, was better. It certainly works fine, and the Acer itself is amazing value, but again, don't think it's any better than Kinsky. It'll be interesting to see what Melco's own version brings to the party.

I'm not sure any advantage comes from it just the option should you choose, plus Minim will transcode FLAC-WAV if again that was a preference. I have found Twonky to fine for my needs mostly in this version of the software on this equipment, so yes it will be interesting to see what their own home-brew brings to the party as such.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Dan43 posted:

From recent FB question :

Hi Dan, There is a common view that all the unnecessary Ethernet traffic impacts on audio quality. Melco achieves isolation from this traffic initially by having all that traffic on the LAN port and isolating the dedicated Player port. That eliminates unnecessary traffic but the Melco is still connected to the Ethernet. So in order to be able to disconnect totally from the Internet and avoid all risk of pollution and interference, we then have the Direct Mode. With this connection there is nothing attached to the LAN port and no possibility to influence the system from outside. The Network Connected Player still needs an IP address which is given by the Melco, and there are no switches or other IT devices in the system. If iPod control is required a Travel Router is simply connected to the LAN port for iPod connectivity, but still no outside influences. We hope this answers your question!

This unfortunately appears nonsense to me - in order to do as you say the Melco would need to set up a new subnet and route between them - that way you would be able to remove broadcast traffic arriving from the non Melco subnet. The Melco however simply acts, from what I can see, as a regular layer 2 switch - and so layer 2 frames (Ethernet traffic) will gladly move across it as per the functionality required of a regular switch. Also because we are using Multicast discovery for UPnP - a routable subnet would have added complications of additional multicast routing functionality required of the Melco (if it were acting as a router with it own subnet) - even if would work at all with DLNA/UPnP which I am not convinced it would. Talk of the internet and 'interference from it 's complete poppy cock on the home switched LAN.... unless, perhaps badly being paraphrased, the original respondent appears to be talking rubbish.

So I think the question should be responded on FB with can you give me specific examples of network frame traffic which will be removed by the Melco over and above what a regular switch would provide?

Now if the Melco were acting as some sort of filtering Network Bridge - it could reduce ARP requests etc travelling from one segment to another - but again where does one configure this? As this could stop a network working properly if not careful... and again ARP requests are relatively infrequent... and again nothing to do with the internet

Simon

I've been watching the Melco "stuff" and clearly I do not know nearly enough technology to know what could do what. 

I think there is a mode where the server is connected 'directly' to the network player by a patch cord and thus that part of the connection is not on the home network(??)  But in other modes, it appears that the Melco server is on the home network in place of the typical nas server, and (supposedly) something about the way it handles network traffic makes it "sound better."

Dan

Thanks for this link. Just listened and find it very interesting to say the least.  I'm going to give Melco  look. 

Bart posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Dan43 posted:

From recent FB question :

Hi Dan, There is a common view that all the unnecessary Ethernet traffic impacts on audio quality. Melco achieves isolation from this traffic initially by having all that traffic on the LAN port and isolating the dedicated Player port. That eliminates unnecessary traffic but the Melco is still connected to the Ethernet. So in order to be able to disconnect totally from the Internet and avoid all risk of pollution and interference, we then have the Direct Mode. With this connection there is nothing attached to the LAN port and no possibility to influence the system from outside. The Network Connected Player still needs an IP address which is given by the Melco, and there are no switches or other IT devices in the system. If iPod control is required a Travel Router is simply connected to the LAN port for iPod connectivity, but still no outside influences. We hope this answers your question!

This unfortunately appears nonsense to me - in order to do as you say the Melco would need to set up a new subnet and route between them - that way you would be able to remove broadcast traffic arriving from the non Melco subnet. The Melco however simply acts, from what I can see, as a regular layer 2 switch - and so layer 2 frames (Ethernet traffic) will gladly move across it as per the functionality required of a regular switch. Also because we are using Multicast discovery for UPnP - a routable subnet would have added complications of additional multicast routing functionality required of the Melco (if it were acting as a router with it own subnet) - even if would work at all with DLNA/UPnP which I am not convinced it would. Talk of the internet and 'interference from it 's complete poppy cock on the home switched LAN.... unless, perhaps badly being paraphrased, the original respondent appears to be talking rubbish.

So I think the question should be responded on FB with can you give me specific examples of network frame traffic which will be removed by the Melco over and above what a regular switch would provide?

Now if the Melco were acting as some sort of filtering Network Bridge - it could reduce ARP requests etc travelling from one segment to another - but again where does one configure this? As this could stop a network working properly if not careful... and again ARP requests are relatively infrequent... and again nothing to do with the internet

Simon

I've been watching the Melco "stuff" and clearly I do not know nearly enough technology to know what could do what. 

I think there is a mode where the server is connected 'directly' to the network player by a patch cord and thus that part of the connection is not on the home network(??)  But in other modes, it appears that the Melco server is on the home network in place of the typical nas server, and (supposedly) something about the way it handles network traffic makes it "sound better."

I can't add to Simons post with any true knowledge, as a self taught practitioner I can say or add  that the Direct Mode does allow for the cleanest delivery via the Player port. Once set, if using a N272 as an example, you have a signal being sent through 1 single network cable directly to the Streamer, with zero interference from anything else (either via your online and connected network traffic or other connected equipment)

Alan mentions this in his interview and it might be better for me to extrapolate his comments and put them here, as I am learning some new information alongside everyone else.

If the Melco is set to Network Mode, everything becomes available, but you can isolate a new network to support this playback by removing all the home connected network from the equation and having just the N1A and Streamer/HiFi in this new closed network (but it is removed from the connected network for say Internet Radio)

EDIT : I must confess to not probably using quite the correct terminology above as it seems some words in this world can mean one or two of similar things, so apologies if incorrect above. Plus Melco have asked me to email them some questions to reply to :-)

In my setup, the data goes from the Synology, through a switch, and then into the 272. If one substitutes the nas for the Melco, the only difference seems to be that the switch is removed from the equation. Can removing the switch be worth the price of the Melco?

Hungryhalibut posted:

In my setup, the data goes from the Synology, through a switch, and then into the 272. If one substitutes the nas for the Melco, the only difference seems to be that the switch is removed from the equation. Can removing the switch be worth the price of the Melco?

You'll only be able to answer this question by trying one HH.

I guess the question was more rhetorical. I've certainly no intention of trying one. I've done all the Hifi buying I'm going to do for the foreseeable. Somehow I suspect that the Melco is just a flash in the pan, which will disappear down said pan in due course. I might be wrong of course, but my system sounds wonderful as it is, beyond what I thought I'd ever have, so I'm happy to leave well alone.

That said, I'm (academically) interested in why it sounds better, if indeed it does. I've done the fancy wires, fiddling about with power supplies and earthing, and my Synology does what it needs to do. It was said that the UnitiServe was better than a bog standard nas, but it's not, and I don't see why the Melco would be any better either. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

I guess the question was more rhetorical. I've certainly no intention of trying one. I've done all the Hifi buying I'm going to do for the foreseeable. Somehow I suspect that the Melco is just a flash in the pan, which will disappear down said pan in due course. I might be wrong of course, but my system sounds wonderful as it is, beyond what I thought I'd ever have, so I'm happy to leave well alone.

That said, I'm (academically) interested in why it sounds better, if indeed it does. I've done the fancy wires, fiddling about with power supplies and earthing, and my Synology does what it needs to do. It was said that the UnitiServe was better than a bog standard nas, but it's not, and I don't see why the Melco would be any better either. 

I respect that you might not be interested in spending further money on upgrading and are fine where you are. However if you think it's similar to a normal nas you owe yourself a A-B comparison, and you will get the difference within 3 seconds. Ears don't lie..

HH, did you find that the Synology + its server functionality was better than when you were using Unitiserve? sorry, i digress i little :-(

enjoy

ken

Bert Schurink posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

I guess the question was more rhetorical. I've certainly no intention of trying one. I've done all the Hifi buying I'm going to do for the foreseeable. Somehow I suspect that the Melco is just a flash in the pan, which will disappear down said pan in due course. I might be wrong of course, but my system sounds wonderful as it is, beyond what I thought I'd ever have, so I'm happy to leave well alone.

That said, I'm (academically) interested in why it sounds better, if indeed it does. I've done the fancy wires, fiddling about with power supplies and earthing, and my Synology does what it needs to do. It was said that the UnitiServe was better than a bog standard nas, but it's not, and I don't see why the Melco would be any better either. 

I respect that you might not be interested in spending further money on upgrading and are fine where you are. However if you think it's similar to a normal nas you owe yourself a A-B comparison, and you will get the difference within 3 seconds. Ears don't lie..

It's like anything Bert - no harm in trying something out. I can see Nigel's point though. If he's reached a good place then that's a good place to stop and just enjoy his system. I must admit from an Ethernet perspective, apart from Simons comments regarding optimised TCP/IP stacks, i struggle to see what the Melco would bring over a well optimised network / NAS setup (although judging by some of the recent posts on here, there is optimised and there is a complete other level of optimisation...) but as you and others have said, who use it in this mode, it does make a difference. 

ken c posted:

HH, did you find that the Synology + its server functionality was better than when you were using Unitiserve? sorry, i digress i little :-(

enjoy

ken

Yes, much better. Easier to maintain, to back up, and sounds better too.