Addendum: (to be fair)
One thing I did not add to my last post and something that is obviously
pertinent when discussing the Transporter, is the matter of sample
rates. I only compared the TP with the Cullen-modded DAC using 44.1/16
(Redbook) sample rates. I did not listen to anything higher
The A/B comparison was done precisely everything was matched, gain
matched, same cables, etc
.come on, were talking about a bunch of
audiophiles here. Everyone wanted the transporter to sound better
(including me). I was actually auditioning the transporter. All five
of us (not one of use
Phil Leigh;427831 Wrote:
I agree with Newbuyer, but I'd point out that an A/B dealer demo is
absolutely the worst method of choosing (top-end) gear. You need an
extended home demo. Our brains and our senses are tuned to identify
tiny differences - that's what kept the species alive to-date.
sxr71;429729 Wrote:
Totally agree with that and is the reason why I don't believe ABX
testing really works as well as some people believe.
ABX is intended to discover if a listener can detect a difference
between A and B. If so it says nothing about which is the listener's
preference.
AB
NewBuyer;427826 Wrote:
But if your taste is that you think it sounds subjectively better,
than obviously you should buy it and enjoy it!
I agree with Newbuyer, but I'd point out that an A/B dealer demo is
absolutely the worst method of choosing (top-end) gear. You need an
extended home
duke43j;427380 Wrote:
There is a lot of bad information floating around with respect to hi-fi
equipment. A digital cable either works, or it doesn't work. If it
doesn't work you would hear pops, skips or dropouts in the audio. There
is no way you would hear a change in tonality. A digital
Not all clocks seem to be created equal either.
According to an engineer from Linn Products (admittedly a comptetor,
but he did write a Squeezecenter emulator for Linn's DS range, so may
know what he is talking about):
-As for the clocks - within SBs they vary widely - an old SB1 can
drift as
JezA;427392 Wrote:
-As for the clocks - within SBs they vary widely - an old SB1 can
drift as much as 10s on an average length track, whilst I have seen a
duet with minimal drift. The DS clock is extremely accurate, the SB
clocks are obviously not as good in some cases.-
True, SB1 had
I sent an inquiry to S.N., whose response is not surprising, but does
support the validity of why re-clocking is necessary in reducing jitter.
From what I interpret from the information I have read recently, the
claims made by the DAC manufacturers are not, shall I say
accurate.
Evidently, even
Jitter in the digital world is like noise in the analog world; it's
everwhere. Every component, including cables, contributes to jitter. You
can't avoid it. Of course, if you don't reduce jitter from wherever it
comes from (including cables), you will have problems. My point is that
if one uses a
duke43j;427428 Wrote:
Jitter in the digital world is like noise in the analog world; it's
everwhere. Every component, including cables, contributes to jitter. You
can't avoid it. Of course, if you don't reduce jitter from wherever it
comes from (including cables), you will have problems. My
duke43j;427428 Wrote:
Jitter in the digital world is like noise in the analog world; it's
everwhere. Every component, including cables, contributes to jitter. You
can't avoid it. Of course, if you don't reduce jitter from wherever it
comes from (including cables), you will have problems. My
These are all the reasons why I feel the SqueezeBox Classic and
Transporter (analog outs) are the ideal right now. Interface jitter
issues are -completely- eliminated, the server software is outstanding,
and these products simply sound fantastic.
--
NewBuyer
NewBuyer;427564 Wrote:
These are all the reasons why I feel the SqueezeBox Classic and
Transporter (analog outs) are the ideal right now. Interface jitter
issues are -completely- eliminated, the server software is outstanding,
and these products simply sound fantastic.
Well that's
seanadams;427570 Wrote:
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a better DAC than Transporter's.
And even if you did, it would have to support word clock mode to even
compete on the same playing field (s/pdif is a huge disadvantage). As
for SB3, duet et al, it's analog outputs are not going to
timequest;427581 Wrote:
I really want to see if I can mod the Duet receiver with an I2S output.
Is that doable?
Not much you need to mod, the signals are there.
--
seanadams
seanadams's Profile:
timequest;427581 Wrote:
I love the Transporter, don't get me wrong. Truth is, immediate A/B
comparisons on the dealers best system reveled that the Cullen Stage IV
PS Audio DL-III clearly sounded better than the TP (DAC connected to TP
A/B with/without) - there's no other way to say it,
duke43j;426889 Wrote:
I've been doing some reading on this in my search for an external DAC
for my own system. I believe that older DAC designs were very
susceptible to jitter, and reclockers had a useful function in reducing
the jitter before it reached the DAC. The more modern DAC designs
timequest;427061 Wrote:
I tend to agree, however I continue to read about SB users utilizing the
Pace-Car re-clocker in conjunction with very high quality modern
external DACs. Why would this be necessary unless the external DAC
isnt effective at reducing the jitter it is being fed?
I ought to add, if you're worried about jitter, or worried that you
should be worried, you can always just use the SB3 or TP standalone.
That avoids the brain-dead S/PDIF interface without needing any clever
and apparently controversial jitter-killing electronics. Less boxes too!
;)
Darren
--
darrenyeats;427088 Wrote:
I ought to add, if you're worried about jitter, or worried that you
should be worried, you can always just use the SB3 or TP standalone.
That avoids the brain-dead S/PDIF interface without needing any clever
and apparently controversial jitter-killing electronics.
darrenyeats;427085 Wrote:
If we take the Benchmark as an example they publish specs showing that
output distortion doesn't change as input jitter is increased. The
take-home point is that the measurements (whatever you think of them)
don't change when the input jitter changes.
timequest;427138 Wrote:
This is what I want to believe, that the jitter issue is resolved by
using a good DAC with low jitter measurements. If this was simply the
case however, then why would the minimum length of the digital cable
necessarily be a factor; if the DAC would correct any
Happy to toss in my 2 cents. I'm no audio engineer, but I'm a music
lover, trained musician across quite a few instruments, and have
played/orchestrated/arranged and listened to live music in a variety of
venue types (which I recognize in an audiophile community is very common
of course! I'm
There are a couple of threads here, and many elsewhere, regarding
re-clocking - specifically, the Empirical Audio Pace-Car. My question
has to do with an external DAC and the role it plays with reducing
jitter. If you have a good DAC with very low jitter measurements,
doesnt it already do some
25 matches
Mail list logo
