You can follow eventually Chrissu or Simon S, who use Ndx2 as transport into Chord. Nd5xs2 would be fine too. Your Mac Mini will just serve as a Nas.
No I’m not going that way at all. Audirvana on Mac mini is fine, actually extremely good sound-wise. When it needs replacing there are many options, of which one might have been Melco, another might be Innuos. There is no way I am going to change to streaming music from my store over the network! Store and renderer will remain combined: simple and no network considerations at all.
Yes I recognise that. It is why I might consider Melco, and will consider Innuos, and do have Mac mini with library/rendering software on it, not using as a NAS. There are quite a few other options, I am just keeping an eye on things and will make a decision which piece of jump when the time comes – Which could be this year, next year, or decades time!
Personally I couldn’t be bothered buggering about with a computer. The Melco is a nice, simple comletely fuss-free solution - particularly if like me you also have the D100 optical drive/ripper.
Obviously the Mac Mini is a much cheaper solution, and if you are comfortable with it and don’t recognise any sound quality advantages of dedicated hi-fi devices then no particular reason to change. Of course a non-proprietary solution like that does give greater flexibility as you are free to choose your own software.
I suspect many more and better solutions will come with time. We are in the very early stages of a relatively new technology and things are moving quickly. If you are in a position to take advantage of that then so much the better. Me, I’m pretty much stuck with what I have. Fortunately I truly can’t perceive any shortcomings in performance - although I’m sure I quickly would if I compared to say Dave or a better Melco. There’s the trick I think for me at least - just be satisfied with what I have and stop looking for something better.
1 Like
It was no difficulty at all setting up, though indeeds it was a bit mor hands on than buying and plugging in a black box - it came about originally from a need for a new NAS.
As for developments, I’m not at all convinced there’s much more to come, stores & renderers, just the various refinements we’ve seen with the likes of Melco, Innuos and DCS. Once bit accuracy has been complemented by completely stable clocks and made immune to RF or with superlative RF isolation it will be as good as it can be, and all down to the DAC implementation/filtering etc. what I think will come will be tone controls. Sorry, I mean advanced dsp, to provide some degree of room correction (but cannot do everything), sophisticated sound level linked “loudness” correction, and user selectable compensation for unbalanced recordings. That is something I would buy!
Otherwise I, too, have reached the end game, barring something failing, with the possible exception of DSP and an intent to do some room treatment when some needed building works gave been done. I also am retired with a finite resources for the rest of my life, not that I had infinite when I was working!
Here the review from Hifi Advice. The guy has tried 2 different Melco and compared with a Bryston dac ( with a streaming board) and very expensive dac with a streaming board too ( CH Precision).
Comparison of usb vs Ethernet :
« Still, I don’t feel that all my descriptions so far really do the Melco servers’ performance justice. There’s an aspect to their sound, when playing via the Network connection, that defies audiophile parameters. No matter which server is used, in the context of my current system at least, there’s always a kind of measured quality to USB. Via the Network output, however, both Melco servers sound freer and at the same time rhythmically more assured. Everything seems to be un-blurred, utterly dynamic and transparent but also completely enveloping and free-flowing and entirely fluid and relaxed, but only when the music requires this. The result is decidedly non-technical and can best be described as being utterly musical and wholly involving.
The value of the Melco’s direct Network output really should not be underestimated. This output is freed from all noise and only carries the audio packets and nothing else. The Melco’s can also play over UPnP via the existing Network, meaning that the signal passes all the cabling and switches of the existing Network. Purists might counter that this should not matter since audio over UPnP is not sensitive to jitter, and they are right in that assessment, but apparently, there is more to this. Melco explains that there can be huge amounts of noise on Network connections and that receiving devices can be really sensitive to this. Now whether or not this is all there is to it, or there are other factors that we take into consideration, I don’t really care, as I have conducted the comparisons and can confirm that there is indeed a very large difference in sound between playing direct via the dedicated “player” output and going via the existing Network. Used this way, let’s call it indirect, the server still sounds good, but definitely less spectacularly so, the entire presentation becoming decidedly washed-out, more blurry and less solid in the bass. Actually, after letting this sink in, I noticed that when playing indirect the sound starts resembling USB, meaning that a case really can be made for placing high importance on a dedicated, clean, Network environment.………. »
1 Like
Alternatively you can have the best of both worlds (and thy do sound different) I have the N10 usb out to a Berkeley Audio Design Alpha USB usb/spdif using Shunyata Alpha usb cable and Naim DC1 Coax (also gives CD, D100 playback) and N10 play back to the bnc spdif on the NSX2. The ethernet out goes via a AQ Diamond cables via the S100. I just use the input selection to choose which route, Roon for the ethernet route and the Naim app for the usb (minim) route.
So the comparison reported is the Melco renderer + usb link, against ethernet and a streaming board in each of the two DACs you named. Interesting,
This is significant in my view: no network! But only applicable if someone uses a streamer, or stand-alone renderer, or renderer (“streaming board” in their DAC (making it a streamer).
If choice of DAC giving best sound to their ears or best value for money isn’t a streamer, or doesn’t have the option to convert to one, then it is a question as to which of Melco USB to DAC, or Melco ethernet or USB to Renderer X (which could be the front end of a naim streamer) sounds better.
What I can say is that having read the reviews by Hifi Advice, Hifi News, Hifi Plus, the Ear and another one I don’t remember, in each case the reviewer preferred the Ethernet mode over usb. But it’s not saying that Melco into dac by usb is sounding bad. I just point the preference which is the same for different reviewers and systems.
Here for example the Hifi Plus:
« does the job beautifully. A server needs to achieve the goal of sending music to playback devices efficiently, and robustly. The Melco does these things, but also makes the music sound great, too. It’s a really excellent storage device that works equally well as a USB source and as the music server on a network. I marginally preferred the sound of Ethernet, because it’s a little bolder and direct, but the differences are minor.«
I am not arguing with their findings, but pointing out that it could be the usb connection or Melco’s renderer being less good - and with a stand-for DAC, if the one someone chooses is right fir their ears (at their budget point) the option for ethernet doesn’t exist unless you also get a stand-alone renderer (or use the front end of a streamer) - and then of course you’re adding possibly significant expense compared to just Melco, so not a like-for-like comparison.
And did they in all cases prefer the direct ethernet output from Melco, or the network one? I would by far expect the former in the majority of cases.
I recall reading that review. IMO the reviewer is making a fundamental error.
This statement, IMO, is complete nonsense. Why? Because via the network connection the reviewer is no longer listening to either Melco, but rather to the streaming DAC being used. There is another box in the equation. So to talk of the Melco being superior via the network connection is just rubbish.
The end result may be superior, but that’s another matter. All it really amounts to is that he preferred the sound of both streaming DACs over either Melco. But so what?
Exactly. Another box is needed that is performing a different function, ie. streaming via ethernet. The Melco is not a network streamer.
So the question is do you prefer the sound of Melco to USB DAC or Melco to network streamer/DAC. Not do you prefer the sound of the Melco via USB or ethernet. You are listening to completely different things.
No! In each case the reviewer preferred the sound of the streamer being used over the Melco/DAC. Not the same thing at all.
The first sentence here makes sense. The second one is nonsense, as the reviewer is then listening to a streamer, not the Melco.
In my case what is critical in this context is the DAC I love. And money comes into it (always has). My rendering store through my DAC and rest of system gives a fantastic sound. It is hard to conceive of better. I just need to be sure that when the time comes to replace it I get at least as good, without adding a whole bunch of other variables, limitations and rabbit holes, so avoiding streaming the music over a network is simply not going to happen.
Exactly my view.
The way I understand all this, when using Melco connected directly to the DAC, the Melco is acting as data repository/server and streamer transport. Like the reviewers mentioned, I found the Melco transport function to be inferior. I imagine that if you go up the range - and this was the point of the original post - the streamer transport quality likely will be improved. However, I would guess the quality of server function will be the same comparing an N100 to an N1 (or whatever the latest top of the range Melco model is called). From my experience, it is not just the DAC that is important.
You are right clarifying it. But when you have a dac with a streaming board, you can use it in two ways: as a streamer or only as a dac. In the last case, you need a player , which is the Melco. The streamer is the Melco in that case, connected to an external dac by usb.
So the reviewer in Hifi plus review wrote nonsense too? ( post 28).
You can read the Ear audio review too. It points the same observation.
Inferior to what exactly?
… Inferior to my Innuos Pulsar (Streamer transport).