Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Meridian - Streaming Sound Quality QNAP vs MC200, and cables!

For those in the U.K., I have found these Universal Networks Cat6a cables to be excellent. They're very well constructed out of very high quality cat7 cable and shielded plugs, individually Fluke tested, and you can buy in custom lengths (at a cost premium) or standard lengths.

FWIW, I am one of 'those' people who can hear differences in analogue cables, but I can't hear any difference whatsoever between well specced/ constructed cable in the NAS->Endpoint, or Switch->Endpoint use scenario. You *may* be able to hear differences in cable between Endpoint-> DSPs, as that is NOT network data but audio data, as mentioned above (technically, SPDIF over AES). Again, though, with a well constructed specced cable, I doubt it. If in any doubt, just use Meridian'a own SpeakerLink cables for that application.

+1 for these Cat6a cables from Universal Networks. Very good customer service as well.
I used them to replace all my ethernet cables and the SpeakerLink cables, not for sound quality but more flexibility in choice for lengths. Soundwise it sounded better than my coiled up 10 mtr SpeakerLink which was an unexpected bonus.

I would not expect a difference in SQ between MC200 and a QNAP, the endpoint makes the difference. Connection MC200 directly to DSP is a nice minimalist solution but not delivering the best SQ.

Some people reported SQ improvement by replacing the wallwarts used on the network devices, in case you have some further urge to tweak.

Cheers,

Thanks guys. I've got some CAT7 off Amazon, some CAT6a from Universal Networks, and some Vodka, Cinammon and Diamond Audio quest cables on loan so will be doing a bunch of testing this week.

Will also be testing the Isol-8 conditioners this week.

I did go for the MC200, so now have a DSP8000SE + 818v3 +MC200 set-up.

This correspondence is most interesting and helpful to me as I am about to purchase, certainly a QNAP drive and some device(s) to use as end point(s). In particular I might buy multiple end points for different zones with a view to covering the whole property.

These will go along with extensions to a fibre based 1Gbps network and the installation at long, long last of FTTP (11 days to go and counting obsessively!!!!!).

There are purchase options within the existing product line up and the soon (sic) to be announced 218 zone controller as well as others yet to emerge from their enveloping shrouds of mystery.

However the outstanding questions, rarely addressed are :

• What withing the range of existing products is likely to be around for the foreseeable future
  
• What are the quantified sound quality differences between various end points
  

Given that some options would incur expenditure of around £8-10K it cannot be sensible to back near term candidates for obsolescence.

Until there is some clarity on these issues I consider any decision financially ill advised.

Best wishes to anyone else floundering in the dark,

Geoff

Geoff,

The second point is easier to answer than the first, I guess the order of performance of endpoints would be something like -

1. Ultra DAC
2. 818v3/808v6
3. 818v2/808v5
4. 861v8

Etc., don't know how far back you need to go or if you intend to run DSPs or analogue speakers.

I'm guessing you don't see the former point discussed very often because who knows when a particular model will be updated, apart from Meridian themselves? Again though, at a guess, I'd say you'd be OK with 818v3/808v6 right now, but I'd put money on 861 being updated sooner rather than later, and some of the G series and MS series getting MQA compatibility soon too.

Geoff asked what are the quantified sound quality differences between various endpoints.

Apart from price differences and differences of opinion between various parties (which I am not aware of having been quantified even if they are subjective) are there quantified differences?

Like Geoff I would be most interested to know what they are. I sometimes liken exotic sound equipment to exotic cars - it comes down to personal preference, but with cars there are some objective measures which can differentiate (though they may not be that important to an individual).

With sound equipment the measured performance of good equipment is so good that I am unclear how one would attempt quantified differentiation except on price. And if you feel good about owning something expensive and hence uncommon then that is ok isn't it?

Objectively quantified? Hm. The only thing I can think of is Meridian's claim of 40% better jitter rejection with their endpoint upgrades.

I would guess that objectively they'd all be reference standard, who can say whether an extra 40% jitter rejection, or any of the other small, incremental improvements are worth it or not to a particular owner?

I'm afraid you might have to go listen and let your ears decide whether it's worth it for your wallet or not!

Greetings all,

I thought I would explain what I mean by "quantified". In development any manufacturer will make measurements to quantify modifications. Within a development cycle extending over months and even years it would be quite impossible to recall how the xyz mod from august 2014 sounded in comparison to this months tweak etc etc. You can't do development in the dark and it is essential to know and record just what was achieved at each stage. Clearly there is a balance to be struck between parameters useful in development and what a purchaser can make use of.

I am only trying to illustrate that there is no shortage of information so a much simplified subset could be made available to customers.

I have deliberately not made reference to Total Harmonic Distortion, Fourier Analysis or Phase Distortion because all that is required is an agreed means of measuring and quantifying what is delivered. It might also be helpful to consider a typical listening area.

We could make a better assessment of bang for buck with some specification of acoustic performance. It does not have to be the customer's sole yardstick. When talking to Meridian Technical (who I find most helpful) I have occasionally been told that item X will sound better than item Y. It really would be nice to have more than a warm feeling before shelling out £5-10K. If different models performing similar functions are sold at different price points there has to be a justification.

Have a good weekend,

Geoff

Thought I’d provide an update on the cable testing!

Set-up was Powerline internet connection, approximate speed 30Mbps into a switch, which was connected to the 818v3 and MC200. Speakerlink cable to DSP8000SE’s.
I tested the network cabling between Powerline & Switch, MC200 & Switch, 818v3 & Switch.

The following sets of cables were used
Audioquest Diamond at $1,260/m
Audioquest Vodka $260/m
Audioquest Cinammon $69/m
IBRA CAT 7 Gold plated $7/m
Universal Networks Cat6a Shielded $5/m

For source we used FLAC/CD quality music on MC200, and Tidal CD quality and MQA.

We spent a couple of hours swapping cables on each connection trying to discern any differences. Without noticing any changes we simply went for an AB comparison between using the top-end Diamonds vs the IBRA for all 3 connections. Lots more testing, blind swaps, multiple music genres.. neither of us could discern any difference at any time.

Not related to cables, we did however, much prefer Tidal MQA to Tidal CD. In general we enjoyed the CD quality sound, but then once we had heard the MQA version, found the CD version rather flat in comparison.

Anyway.. it was totally unscientific, and I can vouch for my hearing being the best, but thought this simple test may help those facing similar choices!

Why am I not surprised?

Most important to me

Good manufacturing quality.
Adequate screening and good 360 degree screen termination.
Effective Cable Strain Relief
Mechanical robustness (especially the connector latching mechanisms).
Tool less reusable termination technique for repair using same wire gauge.
LSOH compliance.
Fluke tested to relevant spec

Hector

That intense cable swapping would drive anyone crazy. I think if you would consider doing something like this again just put the "best" cable loom inplace for a number of days, listen and then on your last day, change to the "inferior" cables in the complete chain and see if you miss anything.

Just swapping a single CAT cable in and out is just too stressful and you approach the problem with A/B testing in general, which is not always 100% useful results. Just check Bob's comments about this.

Or just skip A/Bing "DATA Cables" and go with what Hector said. Way less stressful and cheaper.