Melco. What hypothesis am I testing if I demo it?

Streaming Audio
1

FrenchRooster and I have been having a fun debate on and off about melco’s media library server products in a couple of threads. I have personally been in denial about the technology to improve the sound given I have already got a NAS and 24x7 server live and am tech literate, though he and others have heard differences. FR rightly points out I should also use my ears before pronouncing judgement. And he is quite right. And I definitely don’t want to deny what he or others are hearing. That would be wrong. So I have promised to listen.

Firstly let me say upfront for someone wanting an out of the box nas, server, ripper etc who doesn’t have the knowledge or inclination to replicate all this using separately bought technology I absolutely get it. Totally. However given I have already done all this, what is the basis for any potential sound improvement? I will always take improvements if they are reasonably priced, so I need to know where to prioritise this in the upgrade roadmap.

Rather than divert any more threads, I thought I would start a thread to guide me on what actually would be the basis for any improvement if/when I demo. I would like a clear hypothesis to test and guide me in more precise testing to reveal the maximum information for all. That would be a scientific approach - devise a series of tests that get to the bottom of what is the basis of the improvements in sound that people have heard.

The hypothesis I think would have to involve one or some combination of the following:
1. It has server software on it that bit streams music files to my streamer better than other software like twonky, asset, roon etc.
2. The nas features when providing file access to server software sound better than a traditional NAS like synology at a data level
3. It has a network switch capability that changes the noise profile of the network in the last leg as the lan connects to my streamer.
4. This network switch capability works to improve sound no matter where in my network I deploy it
5. The shielding of the pc components inside reduces the impact of noise on my hifi and network and that shielding is beneficial no matter where I deploy the device eg it works equally well when deployed to my study several rooms and switches away from my hifi.

Am I missing any hypotheses that could explain what is going on?

So I looked much more closely at the melco via its manual and a few reviews. It appears to be is a combined linux based NAS and single port network switch. Its seems to come bundled with twonky server and minim server which are both open source upnp servers. It has a control app bundled. It is not powerful enough to run roon or for that matter do any serious transcoding or dsp type processing as far as I can tell.

On one above I can see no special software that bit streams music to my NAS any differently to roon or asset. Can anyone else set me straight on this? So I will discount hypo 1 as being not relevant.

On hypo 2 - NAS features - if I were to deploy it next to my synology NAS, switch on the melco’s smb share to roon and a/b test it against my synology nas through my existing switches and ethernet cables I would be able to isolate if this capability of melco makes a difference. I am highly skeptical based on what I know of smb and nas technology but prepared to give it a go.

On 3/4 - the network switch - that is my most likely suspect for any improvement or change in sound. I know from my own testing that dedicated switches and different types of switch on the last leg change the character of the sound with my Linn DS. If people are using the melco as the last or second to last leg I can totally believe the whole device is acting like a giant EQ in their systems. Any changes to that setup in its position as last leg switch like new hard drives will likely change the noise shape. It’s also what one of the reviewers said that it was only when they used the network out from the melco into their streamer they heard benefits.

So how to test for this effect? Well I have options. I can put the melco in as the last switch and stream from roon sourced from my NAS and a/b against my last switch. If there are differences, its the network switch in the melco that is changing the sound.
I could also switch on wifi on my soon to be linn kdsm. The hypothesis would be that I can no longer hear any difference when i swap the melco in or out anywhere in my network compared to ethernet last leg from the melco.
Any other obvious tests?

On hypo 5 above - thats easy to test. I can install the melco in my office and simply a/b melco and its bundled twonky server against my nas and roon server. For the purposes of a test I would be prepared to power down the nas and server or at least pull out the network cables to my network. Forgive me if I do hear a difference here that I try to recreate the effect with twonky server installed on my own server and first raise a software defect against linn/roon’s RAAT implementation if I hear a difference again.

Have I missed any fundamental understanding of how melco works? When I get round to it I would like to make sure I test things thoroughly. And also prioritise doing all this against other beneficial upgrades.

All the best to all.

3 Likes
2

Sounds like a strong expectation weighing on this test, which is not recommended if you are tying to adopt a scientific methodology.

Is your aim to improve SQ or to try to work out how digital server technologies influence SQ in hifi streaming?

If the former, try a range of ways a new server affects SQ.

If the latter, prepare for a lifetime of testing and research that will be very unlikely to reach a comprehensive set of conclusions.

3 Likes
3

True. I don’t want that to happen. Though, like many of us I have trained myself to a/b test with enough precision to guide my own hifi expenditure choices. Btw that comment referred specifically to a test that melco’s smb share could sound different to a synology nas smb share so I can perhaps be forgiven that phrasing. But happy to test even that with an open mind. Bfn.

4

I think you are getting bogged down in a lot of technical stuff totally unnecessarily. Fair enough if you find it interesting, but it won’t make any difference to what you hear.

But to answer your question - “What hypothesis am I testing if I demo it?” the answer is your hypothesis that it won’t/shouldn’t/can’t sound any better. That’s simple enough to test - just listen.

Don’t over-complicate the issue. Establish if you can hear a difference. If you can, then pontificate on the reasons for it, if you want to, at your leisure. If you can’t then you needn’t bother!

I guess you might be thinking along the lines of, “if the Melco sounds better, then can I replicate that by fettling my network in one way or another?” Personally I doubt it very much as the Melco is designed from the ground up to do one thing optimally. Unlike typical IT components. You might get some of the way there if you’re prepared to experiment and put in the required time and money, but it’s highly unlikely that you’ll replicate the performance of a dedicated music server with standard IT components. And in the end, why bother when there’s a much simpler and neater solution?

2 Likes
5

Thanks PJL

6

Have you a dealer that can borrow you a Melco?
I wouldn’t bother with the entry level one. It sounds slightly better than a Uniticore.
The middle range, the N50 38, should be interesting to compare to your Nas.
Maybe I read to quickly, but you wrote that the Melco has a single port. It has another dedicated streamer port .
Then the set up has to be network mode, not direct.
The N1 38 is the top of the range. I found no one here with a 500 series system that didn’t found the middle and top Melco uplifting very noticeably the sound vs a common Nas.
2 members prefer however the Innuos Statement with their Nd555.

9 Likes
7

Good summary FR.

2 Likes
8

Thanks my friend.

1 Like
9

What I have. A really substantial and fundamental improvement on my previous N100/Plixir PS.

My dealer told me that it’s the sweet spot in the range and the next model up (N5) isn’t really that much better in terms of upgrading to. If one wants a worthwhile improvement then it’s the top of the range N1.

2 Likes
10

I’ve had a basic Melco for over 8 years now. To me the main result was that the bass was more controlled than playing from a NAS and it sounded less boomy.

1 Like
11

Start with Melco website. look though the FAQ but look especially at the Blog, far down you will find three short articles. You will find a lot of how they think by reading them. ”Ethernet vs. USB DAC”, ”Top five tips getting the best from your Melco” and ”What makes Melco special”.

The other thing is High Numbers is not everything. It is not about oversampling and all that, it just adds noise and other problems. I use the MagnaHiFi streamer that comes with a Farad power supply and use their Gentooplayer installer. I also use the JPLAY for iOS controller that, believe it or not, improves both the user interface and the sound of UPnP.
You dont need anything more than a ripped 44/16 CD, it should give you a very nice time.

2 Likes
12

We have a Unitiserve chassis running Ubuntu 16 bit , a Synology DS220 (both running Asset) and a a naim UnitiCore.

Via uPNP into our NDX2 transport via Ethernet they all sound the same.

3 Likes
13

I strongly suspect that option 3 is the likely effect at work here where there is a beneficial impact on sound.

1 Like
14

Option 4 is incorrect. In purely digital terms - and you probably know this as you appear to be network-savvy - it makes no difference at all where you place a switch in a network. In non-technical terms, it just takes data packets in through one of its ports, asks which other ports are connected to devices looking for data, transfers it, checks it got there, resends if it didn’t - and repeat. Data in, data out.

In sound quality terms, it’s not only the sequence of your network nodes that matters, it’s the physical distance between them; well, specifically between any switch deployed for audio optimisation purposes (rather than as a port replicator) and a streamer. This distance should be as short as possible because the switch is here to minimise the amount of upstream RFI noise accompanying the data which is forwarded downstream to the streamer.

From a tech (digital) network engineering perspective this makes no sense as the data reaching the streamer is identical; but from an audio perspective it’s vital that the switch-to-streamer leg is short as this gives less opportunity for environmental RFI to sneak in a the last leg ie into the cable connecting the switch to the streamer.

Those with Melco model familiarity will need to explain how this applies to any specific model, but I thought it was important to clarify that your hypothesis 4 is already proved false before you start! Your ears will prove this if you position a switch just before your streamer and connect it first via a 10m cable and then by a 50cm cable.

Hope this helps.

PS, I use a Synology NAS connected to my router and the router connects via 8m of Cat6A to a switch just behind my streamer and rest of hifi system.

2 Likes
15

Thanks agreed and yes thats close to what I do, I have a 48 port Ubiquiti switch in my office which is wired with 10-15m run to ubiquiti 8 port enterprise pro under the stairs where the broadband comes in. Synology NAS and hp desktop pro in the office house my roon server and music files. 3 Ubiquiti wifi APs scattered around the house are ethernet connected.

I have a second dedicated 8 port Ubiquiti switch in the hifi room connected via a 6m run and the linn ds is connected to this switch via a dedicated Ubiquiti poe powered flex mini. This combination sounded better than an old netgear switch I had been using for my last leg. I was delighted to get the last non unifi switch out of the network. It makes managing the setup so much easier when it is all unifi gear.

Edit - i also did try to put a 6m ethernet cable as the last leg and it sounded worse. Picking up rfi noise I assumed.

Edit 2 - I did put a liberal scattering of rfi ferris chokes on the network - not the last leg, worrying particularly about the APs and the long runs. I hear mixed views on their impact on packet loss across the network but Simon had previously indicated they should be fine. If it was a commercial network deployment I understand why they would be frowned upon.

1 Like
16

When you’ve done, how about adding a Melco D100 CD ripper, and exploring the reason why rips done with it apparently sound better than rips on other devices, even when both are confirmed by AccurateRip to have identical music data?

1 Like
17

Just to add once the linn kdsm arrives I will be testing ethernet v optical v wifi as the last leg. If wifi works at least equally well, thats likely the direction I will prefer to get rid of all these network interference issues.

1 Like
18

I thought we were done with this. It’s explained perfectly well on the other thread - no mystery.

19

One thing at a time and lets perhaps keep this thread clear of that discussion :pray:

20

I don’t recall seeing any explanation of the cause, in that thread - there were plausible suggestions but they were only that, nothing examining whether any indeed are true of what is happening in the case of D100 rips played on Melco. t I will go back and look at the latest contributions, any discussion to continue there.