Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Meridian - Streaming My Mini Review: 861v6, 7200, ID40 & Sooloos

Hi Carl
Many thanks for taking the time to carry out these comparisons and for posting your comments here. Much appreciated

As regards the Sooloos versus the 800 into an 861v6, it's certainly interesting that your preference was for the 800 doing the Upsampling, leading to the Data Stream being in the high Sample rate (88/24) format as early as possible (as per Meridian's recommendation for many years now) and thus reducing the effects of Jitter at the Output and Input Stages

It's interesting that you found this preferable to allowing the 861v6 to carry out the Apodizing. I'll bet that you would have gotten long odds on that particular "result" a week ago.

Carl
Can you clarify if those comments above relate to 44k or 88k material coming from the 800D??

If it was 88k material (as per your Sooloos comparison comments), then do you think that there is a lot more going on within the 861v6 than just Apodizing (as obviously this would not be in play with incoming 88/24 material)?????

I was thinking Ronnie's question was odd until I noticed. Carl Rated 800 at 88K (800 upsampling it I assume) better than 44K out of 800. Which means he preferred Upsampler/Apodizing be defeated in 861V6 and favored the 800 upsampling with no apodizing.

George
I think a better way of expressing this is.......................

The 800 Upsampling results in an 88/24 Data Stream. This higher rate data is less susceptible to Output (at the 800) and Input (at the 861) Jitter at the Output and Input SPDIF Connections, than a 44/16 Data Stream would be

The fact that the Data Stream is encrypted to MHR also helps in this aim

Whether we agree with them or not, Meridian have been saying for years now, that getting the Data into a Higher Sample Rate is very important and largely supersedes any processing downstream (including e.g. Apodizing)

I think we need to be careful to say that Carl is NOT saying that he prefers the (older) Upsampling in the 800 to the Apodizing / Upsampling in the 861v6

I'd be reasonably certain that if Meridian were to replace the older "Upsampling" Algorithm in the 800 with their more up to date Apodizing Algorithm, then Carl would prefer that result

No doubt Carl will revert with his clarification comments

Can you explain your reasoning behind this statement?

D

Because higher rate data is more dense and faster so you can detect smaller timing drifts and re-sync to a narrower timing window.

Hi George, Ronnie,

I must confess I expected that feeding the 861v6 with 44K from the 800D, so that the v6 could apodize, would yield better results. However, this was not the case for me. I do take on board VK`s comment "live acoustic v studio" and admit that I did play more studio productions than live and this may have a baring on what I heard.


Absolutely, the v6 with apodizing when fed with a low jitter signal is definitely superior. If the 800D could output 44K MHR and not just 44K PCM that might have tipped the balance.


I would like to think so


This comment related to native 24 bit 96K DVD-A material from the 800D (which for me is the ultimate standard) compared to Redbook 16/44K material on the Sooloos/ID40. The v6 has closed the gap by boosting the performance of Redbook material to new levels that now approach that of native hi-res material. It`s hard for me to say if the v6 has also improved 96K material, I suspect so but I think my room is now the limiting factor not the Meridian kit. It would have been interesting to have hung on to my v4 for a while to compare the two.

What I can confidently say is that for me there is no doubt that the ID40 which avoids any SPDIF conversions and delivers [arguably] zero jitter PCM audio data directly on to the v6`s internal bus is the most optimum solution for 2 channel Redbook material and I have no doubt for hi-res too.

I do intend to RIP some 2-channel DVD-A 24/96 material and do a some back to back tests with the 800D, but this will not be for a few weeks.

Regards,
Carl

Hi Carl
In looking at the Meridian website page for the iPad Sooloos App, and also at the Screenshots for the App on the Apple Store, it seems like the Control Options are now much wider than they used to be

iPad Sooloos App Screenshot & Features

For example, Swim and Focus are now available, when they weren't available before on the older iPhone app

If you have the time and have an iPad / iPhone / iTouch, I wonder could you do a quick "Compare and Contrast" between the Control Options available thru the Control:10 screen and that available thru the App??

Thanks, and only if you have the time.................

Hi Ronnie,

Unfortunatly I don't have any Apple kit. Though I am tempted to buy an iPad to complement the Control15.

I'll see if anyone in the office has one, if so I'll try to borrow it for a night.

If there is a local Hitchhiker with an iPad who wants to "Have a play" drop me a PM.

Regards,
Carl

Hi All,

I finished my "Mini Review" (at the top of this thread) saying Well I`ve had the C15 a while now connected to the ID40 in my 861v6; and finally I`ve found the time and the inclination to have a listen to the SPDIF and SpeakerLink outputs of the C15.

Sooloos Control 15

So still in my modest room and playing the usual bunch of CDs tracks, I always seem to gravitate to when doing listening tests, on the Control 15 and my 800D this is what my ears tell me.

My order of preference (one might say most optimal setup):

-- 1) Control 15 via ID40 (PCM 44K)

-- 2) Control 15 via SpeakerLink (PCM 88K, Meridian flat cable, upsampled and apodized by C15)
-- 2) Control 15 via SPDIF (PCM 88K, Meridian coax, upsampled and apodized by C15)

-- 3) 800D via SPDIF (MHR 88K, upsampled by 800D)

-- 4) Control 15 via SpeakerLink (PCM 44K, Meridian flat cable)
-- 4) Control 15 via SPDIF (PCM 44K, Meridian coax)
-- 4) 800D via SPDIF (PCM 44K)

All source material was 2-channel 16/44K.
All source connections are to the 861v6 in Trifield mode and HS=Y (L.C.R. calibrated to +3db).
The Control15 has both upsampling and apodizing support but surprisingly always outputs PCM and not MHR.

You`ll notice I ranked the positions 1, 2 and 3 this is because I could not hear any difference between the setups within the same group. Maybe in a better room or with the ears of an 18 year old one might be able to differentiate them but I could not.

What is clear, well at least to me in this context; is that the ID40 outperforms the 800D period! And that the Control15 SPDIF & SpeakerLink outputs are a significant step up in sound quality compared to the earlier Control10s and now rivals that of the 800D for 2 channel playback.

Further Comments

I`ve recently started comparing the 800D spinning a 96/24 2 channel DVD-A against the C15/ID40 playing the same tracks but in FLAC 96/24 format. I have not had that much time in the “seat” with this so it is too early to draw any conclusions; but what I can say is there is a difference, but is very small. I think I need to do a lot more listening for this one. I`ll keep you posted.

Regards,
Carl

PS I`m still waiting for someone to post a comparison an 808.3 against 800D/861v6 combination in an all DSP setup; one of you guy must have a setup to be able to do this.

Great review Carl.

I had similar results that you noted in #2 & #3 above. With my Control:10 (latest version with up sampling), I found the SPDIF and Speakerlink to sound identical.

Now what I would really be interested in would be where the MS600 fits in sound quality wise. I'm hoping my dealer will get in a MS600 for me to demo.

Update,


This may be down to the tracks I selected being mainly studio productions and not live performances or it might be just my ears or the time of night I was listening
I think VK has some thoughts on this.

@VK. If you could suggest some tracks to me, here or via PM if you prefer, I'll happily have another listen.

Regards,
Carl

Carl,

Thanks for the lot of work and info here.

Thinking about your conclusion and look on your preference,
I agree with you that ID40 is the "best" followed by upsampling in the C15(800 and "last" is upsamplng in the v6.
And that all is guilty for new records, not old (not optimised) way to make the A/D conversion when the recording is taken.
And "just" upsample first(in the 800 or C15)
its better then doing apodizing later in the v6--
independent if the first upsampling include apodizing or not?
If so- then apodizing is not better as standard upsampling.

So what do you expect with old sources-the same "ranking"?
If so- then apodizing is not better as standard upsampling even on old records.

Which output of the 800 are you used?

Just try to find a straight logic here
-independent of apodizing/old records or not-
isnt the conclusion from your "mini review" ;-)) that

1)upsampling in the DSP and even "better upsampling technic" in the processor its not as good doing it in/at the source ?(first step)

2)For standard sources "just" buy a HD621-(because upsampling/apodizing in the first step)

3)And want the best-buy C15 and ID40,
because with the ID40 upsampling FIRST is not necessary?

4)So the best is not to but apodizing in the 800,
but install a "network" card similar as the C15 that can correspond with the ID40 in the v6?

5)And take the same conclusion,
but a "network" card in the HD621?

6)Or the final goal and for me the fastest way to jump over the point 4) and 5) install a new "newwork" card in the DSP(even in the top models)?
Thinking so, then it makes sense to have a RJ connection at the speaker.

But WHY making technically unecessary steps between that just frustating customers?
After had and still have all the very bad experiences with M,
I believe the development group is still ahead,
but not the quality of manufactoring and technical service and
absolutly the worstest is the customer service which means management.


Carl,

technically the ID40 and similar card in the C15 "only" avoid the way to transfer the data via SPDIF/AES.
They "just" transfering a file/music different and "open" that different on the other end.
So ALL the story is just to avoid jitter all over?

So why not make a alternate, very basic simple solution here and leave all the SPDIF untouched.
Just make a new controler/digital board in the DSP,
that have a "bigger" buffer and reclock the data.
The "way" of the SPDIF path is here only some mm,
from the regenerated signal to the D/A converter on the same PCB,
and jitter issue here is more a theoretical question I think.


Robert