My mistake. Or yours? Perhaps you should rip all CDs to WAV at 384kHz, as those files will be even bigger.
If you read around the subject you’ll find just as many people reporting DSD rips of 16/44.1 (and high res) audio sound worse than comparative PCM, and others who prefer it for some limited genre but not most others.
You’re correct in that naim DACs (old and current) don’t have DSD decoding hardware and convert to PCM internally. We’ve always found DSD sounds very flat into naim DACs but the same bit perfect rip sounds much better fed as PCM (whether 16/44.1, 24/88.2 or 24/176.4).
Linn themselves, in their online FAQ, recommend FLAC just above the topic on DSD support. Linn provide all their master quality downloads in FLAC and they explain why.
So whilst both naim and Linn support playback of DSD neither manufacturer has chosen to implement a single bit hardware DAC. Because neither believe DSD is anything other than an interesting niche encoding.
There are plenty posts on these forums about the different presentation of various DAC with DSD. Note different, not necessarily better at all.
It’s your personal choice to convert to DSD and listen that way.
Focussing on the thread subject of Melco rip vs non Melso rip, rather than other file formats, and with reference to my previous suggestion (Download an album from a reputable website, choosing one that is claimed to be simply a downloadable copy of a CD. Create a music CD from it (proper stand alone format playable in any CD player). Rip that CD with both Melco and another ripper, choosing max quality option with the latter and AccurateRip verification if it will. Compare the three files (2 rips and original). Any difference between any?), and considering legality, what is needed is an album that is out of copyright, if that is possible.
Then the three files could be made widely available and multiple people could do listening tests, both on a Melco and not, hopefully with some blind tests to report.
I would never imagine re-doing it. As it’s a huge project which I only could get as far as I am due to COVID. While working I could every now and then slice in a new CD on the side. But even then you need a lot of time. At best you have when you are fully focussed 4 to maximum 5 CD’s the hour. As I am particular about the right tagging and look I also bring every piece of music back it’s original cover while released an it’s original order. For the multiple classical boxes I have this is a real detective work as it’s very often not quite obvious. And then there are of course still classical CD’s which you can’t find in the database and you need to retype the whole content again. And as mentioned I am not 100% done yet… we are easily talking about close to 3.000 hours of which at least 20% are also real work.
But you start and then you also want to finish it.
For what it is worth………I replaced a Uniti Core with a Melco D100. As I had a Roon Nucleus, I fitted a SSD to it. I ripped all my Cd’s in Wav, just like I had done on the Core. As already pointed out, the Melco takes about 3 times longer than the Core on a error free discs. If discs have errors, then longer, my record was 45 minutes for one disc. At this point you have to take into account the ripping software, which is included with Roon, as well as the hardware. I do not know the answer to this, but the Core Wav music sounded superior to the D100/Nucleus Wav music. I have since sold the D100 and purchased another Uniti Core, as I had sold my original Core.
P.S. Before ripping my Cd’s again for my second Core. I compared Wav and Flac rips, which I never did with my original Core. Well to my ears, if there is a difference it is either negligible or there is none. So, all my rips were done in Flac. Obviously, this makes life easier, if at any point in the future, I replace the Core i.e. SSD interchangeably as opposed to Core Wav ripped SSD.
A observation while performing the Flac rips on the Core. The Core seemed to find the correct metadata more easily than when done in Wav. I suppose that the Core metadata software had improved, since the original Wav rips. However, the Nucleus also had a better success rate of finding the correct metadata for the respective disc.
Like I said at the top…….just an observation
I did make more tests on file formats using both files ripped on the Melco N1Z and the same files after being opened/saved through other apps. I also made some files with changed metadata. I then randomized filenames so it was blind. And I could not hear any difference. So as long as the files were normal and sane I don’t think there is any lock-in between the files and the Melco OS. But I understand the Melco docs as there is a lock-in/adaption between the disk-model installed and the Melco-OS.
As for the D100 it is a high quality drive and I am buying one. It is mounted on a solid mechanical platform (reducing read errors). From what I’ve heard it has very good firmware for reading audio disks and a well working secure-mode.
The firmware is important as its is not uncommon the audio-read firmware on data-disk-drives to have errors in handling correctable errors and redbook exceptions (like copy-protection sectors). And you are not guaranteed secure-mode on all drives.
I think the safest bet today to rip an audio CD is a D100. I plan to use it via XLD plus my own software. No free space to put it on the rack with the Melco-server.
From what I’ve learned on AccurateRip I don’t see it with a cheap data-drive as an alternative.
I’ve worked out why I prefer DSD over PCM/WAV/MQA etc
The unvaccinated are more likely to be involved road traffic accidents.
I have refused the covid vaccine.
Maybe or not.
I did ask the head Melco man at a Dealer event a few years ago why there was a difference - given that the compared rips were otherwise identical as measured by error-checks. He did insist that their ripper did extract a more accurate rip - which I still do not believe - but then mentioned something about ‘data-packing’ which seemed to be a low-level storage formatting of otherwise identical accurate ripped files - then quickly changed the subject.
In the end the Melco rips do sound different and IMO better and was one of the most confounding and crazy demoes I had at the Dealer between (1) DBpoweramp rips vs (2) Melco Server rip via cheap USB drive vs (3) Melso Server rip via their own expensice ripper.
We compared rips of the exact same CD that my dealer did at that time and it was clear that for unknown reasons (2) was a lot better than (1) in terms of clarity, lack or murky background and just was more interesting - then (3) was better than (2) by a smaller amount but through the Dealer Statement system it was obviously superior.
Annoying - I borrowed the device and repeated at home - and eventually got one as in context of my system and the fact I was just moving from CD replay via CD555 to streaming via ND555 I wanted to rip my CDs once and the best I could, however that would be done.
No idea what is happening - the conversation did happen a few years back to mass incredulity and I have nothing to say other than whatever is going on I can hear the end-result and it was worth the outlay.
Some friends also interested did do some measurements and as suspected the rip via DB poweramp and Melco were identical in accuracy but there was a small difference in how the low-level data was stored.
It’s weird but I have the same opinion, as does a colleague. We believe rips direct to the Melco with the D100 sound better than via my pc and HP or Samsung drives, then transferred to the Melco.
Is it real, who knows, but we believe it is.
Can you connect any other drive apart from the Melco D100 one to the Melco?
Yes - any commercial USB CD drive.
It was what I was going to use for all my ripping - as recommended by Dealer.
Then literally that day I came to get my Melco Server the parcel delivery man arrived at the Dealer with the then new D100. I asked my Dealer why would I bother to use that when any USB CD drive would do?
He said - I don’t know - lets try it…and that led to the demo…
Dealers network - I wanted to hear Melco Server vs a good commercial NAS - that demo was done before when I heard the Melco as a lot better.
Then the latter thing was the ripper and ripping process. I just wanted a mindless-easy way to rip hundreds of CDs onto the Melco and the use of a USB drive of some kind was the solution my Dealer showed did the job - load press do it and it gets all artwork, etc…what I wanted done - then repeat with next CD…
Yes - I put the data onto a USB pen and onto another friends HiFi with a normal NAS server - and you could still hear that the music was cleaner than when ripped on his own ripper.
Not done any tests on if there is a gradual degradation on every copy of the ‘effect’ - one friend with his melco did say he though over many copies it lost a little - but I’ve not done that test.
There is no loss in data integrity - this is another effect unknown by me - I can just hear the end-result.
Yes - that was my demo test I reported above in example (1) vs (2).
Most of the improvement seems to be the management of the rip via the Melco Server.
Then the better ripper adds another improvement, but I’d say 70% of the improvement was just letting the Melco manage the rip with an ordinary commercial USB drive. That is also what my Dealer did - he ripped via the normal USB CD - then we listened and did teh same again with the same CD ripped via the Melco - all compared back to a rip he did while I had watched on a PC using DBpoweramp (which the Dealer had used until then).
SACD’s used DSD to store the data, Linn launched their CD12 because when SACD was released they felt that CD had matured enough to add the Sondek title to CD.
@Darkebear, your contributions, as always, are most valuable.
This adds weight to the hope that someone can supply copies of files ripped on Melco D100, ripped on another ripper AccurateRip verified, and ideally also the file before making the CD to be ripped (as I suggested earlier), for someone with capability to analyse - F_Z and anyone else.
I bought my Melco N1a in 2017, on offer when they were introducing an upgraded model. At that time they were demonstrating and advising to buy any £20 drive from a computer shop. I got one in Ryman, box branded Hitachi, but the label underneath the drive said LG. I wore two out and was recommended to get the Buffalo BDXL, that was about the same time the D100 was introduced. I found faster rips with less vibration from the drive.
I’m happy at that level, until the last week, trying to rip a seasonal CD with 21 tracks and track 19 sounds like a DJ scratching. I’ve ripped four other discs without problem and if I put the disc in the BDXL, select play rather than import, it plays quite happily, as well as in the car.
