Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Meridian - Systems Why has the Meridian Music Server die?

This just shows how good Meridian disc spinners are!!!

A Benchmark is a Benchmark after all.

Cheers, Chris

I would encourage anyone here to go to their local Meridian dealer who has a Meridian Processor (G68 / 861) feeding a pair (or more) of D5200`s, or even better D8k`s. Bring along a few of your favourite CD`s, preferably any with full range Female Vocals, Jazz Instruments, Operatic Vocals or well produced Classical music

Ask the Dealer to set up first a $200 Player. Listen to a few select CD`s

Then try a $1,000 player of some description with the same CD`s

Then try a Meridian player (G08, G98, G91, G98, 800DVD or 808) again with the same CD`s

Form YOUR OWN conclusions about whether you think the Source has a role to play

There are many here, and elsewhere, who think the Source doesn`t matter. Equally there are many here, and elsewhere, who can hear a difference with different sources into the same Meridian Processor and speakers. (Remember that the argument of “Bias” or “Non Objective” listening, is an argument that can be levelled at people on BOTH sides of the fences)

Go listen and decide for yourself. But go with open ears, unprejudiced by others` comments on here (positive or negative)

Whatever you decide is obviously the best for you (but not necessarily for everyone else)

When I upgraded from 598DP to G98 I did a double blind test with identical CD's (REM Automatic for the people) synchronised with both spinners running into G68 then DSP33's(l/c/r)/M33's(r). Connections were via equivalent methods - can't remember if it was MHR out or Aux out and I was able to swap sources with a touch of the MSR.

Long and short of it - the G98 was able to extract more background information from the disc than the 598 could. Totally reproducible and even noticed by my wife when I simply asked her, can you hear any difference, and she didn't have any idea what difference she was expecting to hear. But the difference was subtle, and you did have to listen out for it, but when you heard the difference, there was no doubting the audible difference.

So for me, I believe that there are differences in digital transports but not as much of a difference as going from CD to DVD-A that I also compared at the same time.

I agree absolutely with Ian. As I said on another thread here, when I upgraded from a 506 to my 596 the improvement was staggering. Rich rounded bass, more open sound, etc. This was using CDs through the same 562V/565 (etc) set up. I guess a G98 goes even better.....

I only use the front end as transports so I can't compare the analogue outputs on these spinners, but there is certainly a difference with transports. I suspect that the choice of laser assembly, tray, power supplies, etc all make a subtle difference.

I completely agree with RHurley's post. Everybody should try and form their own opinions.
I tried the squeezebox 3 for about a month on my humble DSP5k pair along with both a 507 and a G08 (used as transports). I have no supernatural hearing, my ears are getting old too (and my left vs right ear audiogram is slowly becoming more and more unbalanced) - and the simple fact that I tried should clear the missconception issue. But, as far as I am conecerned, my personal and subjective evaluation has led me to give up the SB3 (and, mind you, it is after all an unexpensive piece of kit, unlike ripping which I still find expensive timewise). It definitely has usability advantages, but soundwise I still prefer spinning on the M players.
I am aware that others may reach a different conclusion, I see no problem in that - I am just saying that we should all try for ourselves to see what we like best.

So, you would expect, therefore, that M could make a very fine client/streaming player that would sound better than a standard SB/Sonos etc for the same reasons that they made possibly the best CD players.

Here's to that !
But I have to say that I share the opinion stated in this thread that M would probably not do an open solution (just the client). I might be wrong, though.

I can't argue with subjective experiences. But M. and other high end producers are hopefully dealing with science and industry, not emotional whims and vague impressions best explained by psychology. I have yet to hear any plausible theory from anyone why there should be any differences as long as the (digital) parameters are exactly the same. There has been lots og pesuedo-scientific mumbo jumbo, though - although not from M.

The very advantage dealing with digital is the level of predictasbility. That's why I like M. They reduce the unpredictable factors by keeping the signal digital as long as possible. Why so few others do it that way (very few active, "digital" speakers out there) can possible be explained by the fact that people really don't want correct sound - they want a sound they like. While M. strives to be true to the source, others paint their own picture. Which is perfectly legitimate. But I prefer the producers and musicians to do the work...

The sole purpose of my argument is to offer an explanation why I don't belive that M. will enter the compter/server/wireless distribution market. While shuffling through the label choices on my DS700s I came across "PC". I think that says a lot...

In the December issue of Absolute sound ( Download for $10 ) respected veteran journalist Robert Harley concludes that the Sooloos and Qsonics music servers both sounds significantly better than an Esoteric P03 CD transport - all using the Esoteric D03 DAC. In fact, while the two servers sounded identical, the Esoteric differed. My own conclusion: To build a CD transport as accurate as a $700 PC's hard drive would be prohibitively expensive...

What if a bit perfect copy of the original is not the best? Imagine a copy sounding better than the original.

Meridian, masters of psychoacoustics, might just know a thing or two about this. Maybe it is their special sauce. There are certainly many instances that playing something on a piece of Meridian kit sounds better than the original - DAB on the F80 for starters. If they can do it to poor quality digital broadcast radio, then I am sure they can tinker with a CD or DVD somehow. What about the 518? Widely accepted as improving the quality of the input - maybe it is more than resolution enhancement.

GuyNextDoor

I'm not sure that your argument is consistent???

On the one hand you say things like



and then you say that the "respected" journalist has found (like other posters here) that there are differences between digital sources???



Can you offer a "scientific" and non "pesuedo-scientific mumbo jumbo" explanation of Robert's findings?? Something that can't be explained by "psychology"

Or is Robert plain wrong and is his reputation at risk???

By the way, the Soolos and QSonix Music Servers tested range from $12,000 to $25,000+. Not exactly a $700 PC!!!!!!!

Again, as these Servers are outputting a Digital Signal to an external DAC, and "everything is in the digital domain", why should they sound "different" (never mind "better") than a $100 Chinese CD Player or $x,000 Esoteric CD Player??

My F80 is my first and only piece of Meridian kit, so feel free to tell me to STFU here, but..

If you're playing music back from a music server, I would imagine you want the source material i.e. the data pulled from the CD to be as close to the original as possible. This is what PC drives are good at because they can take their time if there is an error etc. because it isn't time critical.

If there is any "special sauce" to be added presumably you want this to be added further down the line?

Tbh I've never had a DAB radio before, but I'm staggered how good it sounds on this F80 despite constantly being told "DAB is [censored]". If it's because of Meridians processing then that can only be a good thing, but I'm curious how much is down to their processing and how much is down to any voodoo they have (or haven't) done with the DAB receiver itself.

I was looking at Linn's Klimax DS, it's quite interesting because if I understand the specs correctly although it's a �10k player, it depends on a �20 CD/DVD drive and bog standard ethernet cable as a source.

There are programs around that take many passes to extract info from a CD. I use iTunes and you would think that this would give me an exact copy of what is on the disc (obviously before conversion to whatever format you are going to store the data in). But there are other programs on the market, that take their time, and I understand that these make a more accurate copy. So, even using a PC, you can get different quality extracts from exactly the same CD.

As for when the special source is to be added. Its a bit like Spaghetti Bolognese - there is room for both the bolognese and worcestershire sauce. Try importing a digital photo into photoshop - apply a few filters (the L&P). Now do the same, but correct (the bolognese) the exposure first. Then apply the same filters. I bet that optimising the photo first is better - not least because you have information available to you (exposure information) that may be lost or buried further down the line. Now I realise that CD's do not contain meta data, but I am sure that alot of information about the track can be determined at the point that it is read from the disc, and if necessary, corrected. This information would not be available further down the line.

Guess what I am having for tea tonight ! Nope, wrong.