[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: 1K Balanced impedance
sbjaerum;136661 Wrote: > Will this change be applied also for the first production batch? > > Steinar Yes - the boards have already been made so we will rework them. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27445 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: 1K Balanced impedance
seanadams;136660 Wrote: > That's basically it, with the further point I just thought of: adding > passive attenuation would be a bad idea unless the source Z in low. > Really it looks like 100Ω is the way to go - since nobody's > rooting for 1K, I'm going to change it. Will this change be applied also for the first production batch? Steinar -- sbjaerum sbjaerum's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=237 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27445 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: 1K Balanced impedance
DCtoDaylight;136620 Wrote: > So to summarize, a 100R load wouldn't hurt the Transporter, but might > cause distortion problems for people using a poorly thought out adapter > scheme, and a 1k load might cause problems for people using correct (but > probably long) cabling, with gear having moderatly low input impendance > (like the Pass labs gear). > > Good engineering is allway's about deciding on the best trade offs! > Personally, I prefer to keep output impedances low, and would lean more > towards dropping the resistance, but I guess my vote doesn't really > count, because my Transporter will either be used in my large system > (so there will be a pre-amp between it and the 5m balanced cables > running to the amp rack) or in my small system (where the whole > shebang, speaker to speaker is only 2 m wide!). > > Cheers, Dave That's basically it, with the further point I just thought of: adding passive attenuation would be a bad idea unless the source Z in low. Really it looks like 100Ω is the way to go - since nobody's rooting for 1K, I'm going to change it. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27445 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Digital only version of Transporter?
But, the thing is this: sure, it's got 24/96 capability but not a lot of stuff is in that realm. I take that as a minor consideration. Word clock: who cares? If you have a DAC that properly re-clocks and does away with jitter, like the Lavry Blue or DA10, then you don't need or care about a word clock. These things are the darlings of mastering studio types. They know something about audio. Think about it. AES/EBU? Silly and pointless if you're running a two foot cable, as I am, into a re-clocking DAC. Not necessary. Yes necessary for really long studio runs. And, think about JA's review. The SB, as a transport into a DAC (and the Lavry is arguably more advanced than a Levinson, however cheaper it is), is close to perfection and indistinguishable from a kilo-buck transport. I can see buying the Transporter. Everything in one box, it looks cool, and I am sure it will sound terrific. But a "high end" digital box? That's silly. Throw your money at a proper DAC and, more importantly, better speakers. However, a $300 SB3 and a $855 Lavry DA10 (Bayview Pro Audio, check it out!) is bound to be the sonic equal or superior to the Transporter, although aesthetically and in terms of convenience nowhere close. Cheaper, though, and cheaper buys you more CDs or a speaker upgrade. -- highdudgeon SB3->Lavry DA10->Nuforce 9.02s->Harbeth Monitor 30s/Skylan stands. Simple and satisfying. In a larger room, I would move back to larger speakers, subs, and probably RCS. highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27458 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Digital only version of Transporter?
Hiroyuki Hamada;136650 Wrote: > I would also look into the digital only version. > > Hiroyuki > > On Sep 15, 2006, at 11:37 PM, krochat wrote: > > > > > highdudgeon;136641 Wrote: > >> I think that would be callled a Squeeze Box. Used that into your > DAC > >> and you're done. > > > > Well, not quite - the Transporter supports higher resolution files > > (96/24) than the Squeezebox (48/24), and also has AES/EBU digital > > outputs. I, for one, would be very interested in a > digital-output-only > > Transporter for (say) $795. > > > > > > -- > > krochat > > > -- > > > -- > > krochat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php? > > userid=6579 > > View this thread: > http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27458 > > > > Likewise. I have significant money invested in my DAC, I like it and don't want to replace it. Also, could care less about the knobs and buttons on the front of the unit - I'm way too lazy to get up and fidget with them. Basically, what I want is a SB to the nth degree of audiophility. Better chassis, and whatever they did to make the digital output of the Transporter "better" than the SB. Price-point-wise I would have liked the option of something between the SB and the Transporter. Figgered since others were comfortable driving from the backseat I'd throw in my order as well -- joncourage joncourage's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2837 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27458 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Digital only version of Transporter?
krochat;136646 Wrote: > Well, not quite - the Transporter supports higher resolution files > (96/24) than the Squeezebox (48/24), and also has AES/EBU digital > outputs. I, for one, would be very interested in a digital-output-only > Transporter for (say) $795. + word synch. -- Sleestack *headphone:* singlepower sds-xlr at, classe sacd2, hd650 *2 channel:* tact rcs 2.2.xp w/ full aberdeen mods, bel canto oneref. 1000 monoblocks x 4,teac esoteric p-03/d-03, epiphany 12-12s (waiting for my 20-21s), tact w210 corner load subs *5.1 channel:* tact tcs mkii w/ aberdeen power supply, tact boz 216/2200 (x5) w/ aberdeen power supply, tact adc6 w/ full aberdeen mods, denon 5910, bel canto pl-1a, eggleston andra ii (x5), velodyne dd-15, pioneer elite pro 1130hd Sleestack's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27458 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Digital only version of Transporter?
I would also look into the digital only version. Hiroyuki On Sep 15, 2006, at 11:37 PM, krochat wrote: highdudgeon;136641 Wrote: I think that would be callled a Squeeze Box. Used that into your DAC and you're done. Well, not quite - the Transporter supports higher resolution files (96/24) than the Squeezebox (48/24), and also has AES/EBU digital outputs. I, for one, would be very interested in a digital-output-only Transporter for (say) $795. -- krochat -- -- krochat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php? userid=6579 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27458 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Digital only version of Transporter?
philipi wrote: Given that my system is all digital (meridian) well as digital as is possible... Would there be any chance of a Digital Only version of the Transporter? Possibly at a lower cost? I'm just a customer, not someone from SlimDevices, but having it be high priced makes it better for many (most?) audiophiles. The number of people who want a Transporter is already pretty small, the savings would be small, I don't see the point. Plus the number of people who care about cost when they have extensive audiophile digital systems is far too small to care about, let alone target a product towards. The cost of most electronics goods is the cost of the engineering, not the cost of the parts. Not having any analog stuff is just not going to make a difference. And any difference is costs to SD is likely to be eaten by the cost of having two sets of shipping cartons, the cost of customer support when the wrong unit gets put in the wrong box and shipped to a customer expecting the other flavor. If the Transporter was priced like a Meridian control unit, maybe it would make a difference, but there simply are not that many folks putting that much money into Stereo. 90 inch TV screens in rooms with ramped floors, sure. All just IMHO. YMMV -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Digital only version of Transporter?
highdudgeon;136641 Wrote: > I think that would be callled a Squeeze Box. Used that into your DAC > and you're done. Well, not quite - the Transporter supports higher resolution files (96/24) than the Squeezebox (48/24), and also has AES/EBU digital outputs. I, for one, would be very interested in a digital-output-only Transporter for (say) $795. -- krochat krochat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6579 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27458 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Digital only version of Transporter?
philipi;136639 Wrote: > Hi, > > Given that my system is all digital (meridian) well as digital as is > possible... > > Would there be any chance of a Digital Only version of the Transporter? > Possibly at a lower cost? > > Thanks! > > -Philip Would be nice, but I can't wait. I probaly won't use the analog outs on my Transporters. -- Sleestack *headphone:* singlepower sds-xlr at, classe sacd2, hd650 *2 channel:* tact rcs 2.2.xp w/ full aberdeen mods, bel canto oneref. 1000 monoblocks x 4,teac esoteric p-03/d-03, epiphany 12-12s (waiting for my 20-21s), tact w210 corner load subs *5.1 channel:* tact tcs mkii w/ aberdeen power supply, tact boz 216/2200 (x5) w/ aberdeen power supply, tact adc6 w/ full aberdeen mods, denon 5910, bel canto pl-1a, eggleston andra ii (x5), velodyne dd-15, pioneer elite pro 1130hd Sleestack's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27458 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Digital only version of Transporter?
I think that would be callled a Squeeze Box. Used that into your DAC and you're done. -- highdudgeon SB3->Lavry DA10->Nuforce 9.02s->Harbeth Monitor 30s/Skylan stands. Simple and satisfying. In a larger room, I would move back to larger speakers, subs, and probably RCS. highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27458 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Digital only version of Transporter?
Hi, Given that my system is all digital (meridian) well as digital as is possible... Would there be any chance of a Digital Only version of the Transporter? Possibly at a lower cost? Thanks! -Philip -- philipi philipi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7128 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27458 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Squeezebox Class D!
I would imagine the Transporter merits a "class A" -- if it doesn't get it, then something is wrong. Let's see: state of the art DAC (can't wait for comparisons) and bit-perfect transport. As for the Class D thing, well, that's just snobbery. The SB is better than CD players costing far more. -- highdudgeon SB3->Lavry DA10->Nuforce 9.02s->Harbeth Monitor 30s/Skylan stands. Simple and satisfying. In a larger room, I would move back to larger speakers, subs, and probably RCS. highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27452 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Squeezebox Class D!
joncourage;136621 Wrote: > What I don't really understand is a Class D award after JA saying that > he could barely tell the difference from a component that (I'm > guessing) got a Class A or B. > > I honestly think it's based on a reluctance to assing a more glowing > rating to a device that a) is less expensive by an order of magnitude > than other devices in higher classes; b) is "techie" in nature, and > doesn't have any tubes. A shame, really. Stereophile should take a > more courageous stance. To heck with whether they piss off their > high-end advertisers. > > But as said, at least it's a start. For that we should be appreciative > of JA's efforts. Wasn't the favorable comparison with respect to the SB3s digital output? I think the original post points out that the Class D rating was attributable to the analog outs. Knowing some of the products that get a B or C rating, I don't think the Class D rating should be viewed as negative unless one relates it to a school grading system. -- Sleestack *headphone:* singlepower sds-xlr at, classe sacd2, hd650 *2 channel:* tact rcs 2.2.xp w/ full aberdeen mods, bel canto oneref. 1000 monoblocks x 4,teac esoteric p-03/d-03, epiphany 12-12s (waiting for my 20-21s), tact w210 corner load subs *5.1 channel:* tact tcs mkii w/ aberdeen power supply, tact boz 216/2200 (x5) w/ aberdeen power supply, tact adc6 w/ full aberdeen mods, denon 5910, bel canto pl-1a, eggleston andra ii (x5), velodyne dd-15, pioneer elite pro 1130hd Sleestack's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27452 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Squeezebox Class D!
joncourage;136621 Wrote: > What I don't really understand is a Class D award after JA saying that > he could barely tell the difference from a component that (I'm > guessing) got a Class A or B. The class-to-dollars correlation is shockingly high in Stereophile. The Transporter should be a shoo-in for at least Class B; if they make a $10K ultra-luxe version, it's got Class A written all over it. -- mkozlows mkozlows's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=62 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27452 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Squeezebox Class D!
What I don't really understand is a Class D award after JA saying that he could barely tell the difference from a component that (I'm guessing) got a Class A or B. I honestly think it's based on a reluctance to assing a more glowing rating to a device that a) is less expensive by an order of magnitude than other devices in higher classes; b) is "techie" in nature, and doesn't have any tubes. A shame, really. Stereophile should take a more courageous stance. To heck with whether they piss off their high-end advertisers. But as said, at least it's a start. For that we should be appreciative of JA's efforts. -- joncourage joncourage's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2837 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27452 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: 1K Balanced impedance
So to summarize, a 100R load wouldn't hurt the Transporter, but might cause distortion problems for people using a poorly thought out adapter scheme, and a 1k load might cause problems for people using correct (but probably long) cabling, with gear having moderatly low input impendance (like the Pass labs gear). Good engineering is allway's about deciding on the best trade offs! Personally, I prefer to keep output impedances low, and would lean more towards dropping the resistance, but I guess my vote doesn't really count, because my Transporter will either be used in my large system (so there will be a pre-amp between it and the 5m balanced cables running to the amp rack) or in my small system (where the whole shebang, speaker to speaker is only 2 m wide!). Cheers, Dave -- DCtoDaylight DCtoDaylight's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7284 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27445 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: 1K Balanced impedance
andy_c;136585 Wrote: > I don't know what it puts out in that condition. I'll guess 5 Volts > peak. Into 100 Ohms, that's 50 mA peak. There's not a whole lot of > op-amps that can put out that kind of current. True, but the concern is not what it can successfully drive to ffull amplitude, but rather how low of a resistance it takes to actually damage it if it _tries_ to drive it. AKM advises there's no chance a 100R load would damage it (in fact, this is a typical resistance used for RCA outs) - the issue was that you'd get some (probably not a lot) distortion in the case of improper balun wiring, due to additional load when listening to one leg of the output while the other is drawing a lot of current. I haven't actually tried this but it makes sense... anyway, it's only an issue if someone hooks it up in a very wrong way. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27445 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: 1K Balanced impedance
Patrick Dixon;136583 Wrote: > > > Balanced really only makes sense in a domestic environment if you have > active speakers and a long run between the pre and power amps. Perhaps in you setups, but I can think is quite a few other situations where they are necessary. In one of my audio rooms, my speaker setup sits at one of the room. The Transporter will be in that setup. 20 ft across the room, I have a headphone setup that accepts and outputs balanced signals. I can run an analog signal directly from the Transporter to that headphone setup rather than having to get another Transporter for that setup. right now I use the SB3 coax out into my Esoteric D-03, and use XLR outs that run across the room to the headphone setup. -- Sleestack *headphone:* singlepower sds-xlr at, classe sacd2, hd650 *2 channel:* tact rcs 2.2.xp w/ full aberdeen mods, bel canto oneref. 1000 monoblocks x 4,teac esoteric p-03/d-03, epiphany 12-12s (waiting for my 20-21s), tact w210 corner load subs *5.1 channel:* tact tcs mkii w/ aberdeen power supply, tact boz 216/2200 (x5) w/ aberdeen power supply, tact adc6 w/ full aberdeen mods, denon 5910, bel canto pl-1a, eggleston andra ii (x5), velodyne dd-15, pioneer elite pro 1130hd Sleestack's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27445 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Squeezebox Class D!
Well that just proves so many things... Anyone with ears that work can refute that. -- Phil Leigh Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27452 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezebox Class D!
Stereophile has awarded the SB a class D performance in the Digital Processors category, along with Apple Airport Express and Echo PC sound card. There is no lower classification than D, but class D is higher than no award at all! In the rating's summary paragraph JA faulted the analog section's performance for the class D rating. His review mentioned the stock power supply as a potential liability in analog performance. While never intended to be a high end source component, SB has made its way into the audio mainstream and cracks the door open for the Transporter to hit this year, with plenty of time for reviews and consideration for next year's Recommended Components. Congratulations to Slim Devices for receiving their first Stereophile Recommended Components Award! -- richidoo richidoo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3097 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27452 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Anyone care to take a guess as to how much one may have to spend on a pre-amp to impr
richidoo;136567 Wrote: > The SB analog stage sounds very good at full volume. Reducing SB volume > reveals the noise that has been there all along, but does not reduce > the quality of the music. Regardless of noise level, the music is still > not being colored by an external preamp, just as it is not using an > external DAC with a VC. My testing of the SB3's analog outputs was all done at full volume, and as stated before, the SB3's analog output was significantly worse than running its digital output through outboard DACs. In other words, the SB3's internal DAC was not nearly as good as either of the external DACs I tested it against. (In all the tests I did, the final line level analog signal was sent through a preamp before the amp.) The point of my post was that if JohnSwenson was saying in his post that the analog output of the SB3 straight to amps was better than sending that output through his high end preamp, then he should be able to get even better sound quality by sending the SB3's digital output through an external DAC. -- TiredLegs TiredLegs's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6201 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27275 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: 1K Balanced impedance
seanadams;136534 Wrote: > Although the op amps could easily drive, say 100R, by using a 1K output > Z you ensure that the signal from the side you want is not distorted > because the other side is "working too hard" to drive a short at the > end of the cable. Well, suppose someone put one of these adapters at the RCA input of a preamp. Also suppose that the Transporter was cranked up to maximum gain. I don't know what it puts out in that condition. I'll guess 5 Volts peak. Into 100 Ohms, that's 50 mA peak. There's not a whole lot of op-amps that can put out that kind of current. Seems like you'd need something along the lines of a Buf634 to do that. I wouldn't be worried so much about the distortion of the unused side of the differential output so much as the thermal issues from putting out such high current. That's a strong argument for using 1k. OTOH, if you put a big disclaimer stating in no uncertain terms that such adapters should never be used, better performance driving long cables would probably be possible. My system has 30 ft interconnects (single-ended) to monoblocks on the floor behind my speakers. If I were to attempt that with a balanced connection straight from transporter to power amp, I'd be happier with 100 Ohms than 1k. -- andy_c andy_c's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3128 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27445 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: 1K Balanced impedance
Pat Farrell;136578 Wrote: > > Plus a lot of the justification for $1000 interconnects goes away if it > > was balanced. Oh, I don't think it really makes any difference - "$1000" interconnects are all about marketing a premium product to a small market. People pay stupid amounts of money for jewelry and art too. Balanced really only makes sense in a domestic environment if you have active speakers and a long run between the pre and power amps. -- Patrick Dixon www.at-tunes.co.uk Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27445 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: 1K Balanced impedance
Patrick Dixon;136573 Wrote: > But isn't the point of balanced to drive long cable lengths? Unbalanced > is just fine for normal 0.8m stuff. Pro audio and domestic hi-fi are > just not the same thing! Almost all of my gear is set up using balanced connections from source all the way to amps. In some case those are for setups where I need long runs, but not always. -- Sleestack *headphone:* singlepower sds-xlr at, classe sacd2, hd650 *2 channel:* tact rcs 2.2.xp w/ full aberdeen mods, bel canto oneref. 1000 monoblocks x 4,teac esoteric p-03/d-03, epiphany 12-12s (waiting for my 20-21s), tact w210 corner load subs *5.1 channel:* tact tcs mkii w/ aberdeen power supply, tact boz 216/2200 (x5) w/ aberdeen power supply, tact adc6 w/ full aberdeen mods, denon 5910, bel canto pl-1a, eggleston andra ii (x5), velodyne dd-15, pioneer elite pro 1130hd Sleestack's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27445 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: 1K Balanced impedance
Patrick Dixon wrote: But isn't the point of balanced to drive long cable lengths? Unbalanced is just fine for normal 0.8m stuff. The point of balanced is to be immune to noise, or at least noise that hits both strands of the signal carrying wire. Many audiophiles like monoblock amps because they can put the amps near the speakers, and so they run longish interconnects from the preamp to the amps, and short speaker cables. They are way longer than a meter or two. Plus a lot of the justification for $1000 interconnects goes away if it was balanced. Granted, doing an all balanced design for the preamp and amp (and DAC, etc.) would add costs, and the XLR connectors are more expensive than RCA plugs. But if you could cut down the rationale for using mega dollar interconnects, couldn't you afford a little more for the connectors? A great Neutrik costs as much as $5 for the plug, and the jack might be as expensive as $10. > Pro audio and domestic hi-fi are > just not the same thing! Agreed, but the music that is being reproduced is recorded by pro audio folks. I'm boggled that audiophiles are so illinformed about what the state of the art is in recording studios. -- Pat Farrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.bioinformatx.com ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: 1K Balanced impedance
But isn't the point of balanced to drive long cable lengths? Unbalanced is just fine for normal 0.8m stuff. Pro audio and domestic hi-fi are just not the same thing! -- Patrick Dixon www.at-tunes.co.uk Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27445 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: A photo of your Squeezebox setup (please)
A poll associated with this post was created, to vote and see the results, please visit http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19817 Question: Should there be a new forum for photos? - yes - no - maybe Glad to see another SLI-80 fan on the forum! I think it is a great match for the SB. My pictures coming. Rich -- richidoo richidoo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3097 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19817 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Anyone care to take a guess as to how much one may have to spend on a pre-amp to impr
TiredLegs;136458 Wrote: > In my own testing, the SB3's analog output is significantly worse than > digital out through two different DACs I've tried. So, based on your > statement, it would seem to me that SB3 digital -> external DAC -> amp > should produce the best sound quality. The SB analog stage sounds very good at full volume. Reducing SB volume reveals the noise that has been there all along, but does not reduce the quality of the music. Regardless of noise level, the music is still not being colored by an external preamp, just as it is not using an external DAC with a VC. -- richidoo richidoo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3097 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27275 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter questions
Sorry I caught this cool thread a little late... Way back when, like a year or more ago, we discussed the volume control algorithm and decided it was up to par and had no bad effect on the 16 bit output. I assume similar or better software will be used in Transporter volume control, so the digital volume control is not an issue. The real problem in using the SB direct to amp is the analog stage is noisy, and the analog noise is not attentuated with the digital volume control. I am assuming, maybe to my peril, that one of the reasons for making the Transporter is to improve the analog output stage over that of SB, and thus eliminate the need for external DAC for many high end users. The Transporter's traditional rack form and sophisticated power supply scheme should help it be quieter, along with balanced outs and talk of better analog stage design in itself. Adding internal analog attenuators will help S/N for direct to amp connection but quieting the analog stage to that of a true high end component will be the real benefit of the Transporter for me, as I am already very happy with SB performance except for the noise which precludes direct to amp connection. Rich -- richidoo richidoo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3097 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27158 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: 1K Balanced impedance
I'd have thought what mattered is the low pass filter break point formed by the output stage/input stage [resistive] impedance and the cables [capcitance] impedance (plus any input capacitance of the power amp). Even if the output stage impedance = input stage impedance as long as the LPF break point is high enough should be OK. Hence a passive pre with a 100K pot has a max ouput impedance of 25K [pot in the middle]. If this drives a cable of say 100pF/m - gives a -3dB point of 64kHz for a 1m cable, but 6kHz for a 10m cable. [You probably want much less than -3dB at 20-30K] So 1K should be fine as long as the cable capacitance is low enough - i.e. it is a relatively short enough. So if the target LPF break point is -0.1dB at 20kHz, it is -3dB at ~130kHz, which would equate to ~12m for my theoretical 100pF/m cable if I have done the maths right(!) [input impedance >>1K] -- Triode Triode's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27445 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter questions
Sean's reply in a new thread at http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27445 -- ChrisOwens Christopher Owens QA Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 210-9400 x717 ChrisOwens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4240 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27158 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter questions
Most of the SD people that post here are on the engineering team, so they keep us away from CEDIA! :) We are busy with launching Transporter and getting 6.5 ready to ship, as you guessed. I'm sure Sean will pop up here when he gets a chance, because he's the one that designed and specced the output stage of the Transporter. You should bear in mind that the only unit I know much about is my prototype I've been working with for the last few weeks, so it's possible the production boards may vary slightly, but the outputs are driven by LM5534-like op-amps. So, as a couple people have said, it's not "passive" in any sense of the word I'm familiar with. I've mostly been using 2-meter balanced cables in my work without problems, and would be really surprised if you encountered problems with even relatively long cable runs. I don't have a lot of experience with "audiophile" gear, but the balanced outs have been working well for me with the studio gear I use. -- ChrisOwens Christopher Owens QA Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 210-9400 x717 ChrisOwens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4240 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27158 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: 1K Balanced impedance
I think the general rule of thumb that most audiophiles make is that the input impedance of an amplifier should be at least 100x the output impedance of the preamp/source that preceeds it. For many amps, 1kohm output impedance of the Transporter should be fine, but there are many amps out there that have input impedances in the 20k-90kohm range (eg. the Pass Labs X.5 series amps and Bel Canto eOne amps have a 22kohm input impedance, Cary amps are around 90kohms, etc). -- PhilNYC Sonic Spirits Inc. http://www.sonicspirits.com PhilNYC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=837 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27445 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 1K Balanced impedance
I've been talking with AKM about the question of what is the "right" impedance for a balanced output. They use 1K because in practice, it is very common for someone to unwittingly connect a passive balun connector to the end of a balanced cable in order to drive an RCA input. These adaptors have one leg tied to ground, beacuse that's what you want if you're driving a balanced _input_. Although the op amps could easily drive, say 100R, by using a 1K output Z you ensure that the signal from the side you want is not distorted because the other side is "working too hard" to drive a short at the end of the cable. The counterpoint to this is that if someone wants to drive an unbalanced input, they should really be using our RCA outs instead of fiddling with adaptors, so maybe it's a non issue and we should be using 100R instead. I doubt that 1K could be "too high" for driving any typical amplifier, including tube amps. However, we have an opportunity to change it... open to ideas here. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27445 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Anyone care to take a guess as to how much one may have to spend on a pre-amp to impr
JohnSwenson;136360 Wrote: > My current preamp is a DIY model that I would say is on par with > commercial ones in the $4k to $10K range. Using the SB3 direct to the > power amp, even with the digital volume control, sounds significantly > better than using the preamp. Just to be sure I'm understanding this correctly, you're using the analog outputs of the SB3 connected straight to your amps, not digital output through an external DAC then analog to the amps? In my own testing, the SB3's analog output is significantly worse than digital out through two different DACs I've tried. So, based on your statement, it would seem to me that SB3 digital -> external DAC -> amp should produce the best sound quality. -- TiredLegs TiredLegs's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6201 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27275 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: A photo of your Squeezebox setup (please)
A poll associated with this post was created, to vote and see the results, please visit http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19817 Question: Should there be a new forum for photos? - yes - no - maybe Thanks! I modified the back of the cabinet so it is open for the top six inches and the front door is always open when I'm listening; it seems to do the trick. I have a low noise fan rig that was built for the rear of the cabinet but the airflow without is sufficient to keep the amp at a normal temp. -- FZfan FZfan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3994 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19817 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter questions
atkinsonrr;136231 Wrote: > Yes, I agree. Can someone from SD contribute here? Seems you could > easily put this concern to rest. Just btw - CEDIA is this week (started yesterday, ends on Sunday), so I'm guessing that the folks from SD are all busy with activities there launching the Transporter -- PhilNYC Sonic Spirits Inc. http://www.sonicspirits.com PhilNYC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=837 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27158 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter vs. Lavry et al for analog output
highdudgeon;135958 Wrote: > Alas, the problem then becomes one of attenuation. The Lavry has a > range of 0-56 for volume control. It is analog. They recommend 40, > which seems high, for use with domestic audio products. > > Okay, I've tried it in the past, and it was okay. However, it means > using the SB3 volume at far from maxed out. > > Problems? Huh? I use a Lavry DA-10 with my SB3. I locked the digital out on full, disabled the analog out and use the output level of the DA-10 as the volume control. I set my amp gains with the DA-10 output on 55. If I want it loud 40-45 is usually about right. For normal listening, 25-30 is good. -Ben -- Ben Diss Ben Diss's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4289 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27359 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 DAC vs Arcam Alpha 10 DAC
I got a digital cable for $15 and plugged my SB3 into a very old Linn Numerik DAC. Money well spent in my opinion. -- the_twin the_twin's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5324 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27403 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 DAC vs Arcam Alpha 10 DAC
the_twin;136315 Wrote: > In the end what is best is what you prefer, not the opinion of some self > appointed expert. Thanks for making such a meaningful contribution to the thread and responding to my first post! I carried out blind listening of both and must admit I was amazed at how much better my old CD player was, (comparing CD to FLAC) but having read back through the posts on this site I see that the sound of a SB3 is comparable to a budget CD player so it's no surprise really. I guess it explains why so many squeezebox owners have modified their units and have seen dramatic improvements in sound quality, hence the introduction of the Transporter. However I suspect benh's SB3 could well sound better than the Arcam 10 because the function of the DAVE module was to provide surround sound. -- Warren Warren's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7466 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27403 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter questions
atkinsonrr;136354 Wrote: > ... one has power amps that are unusually low in sensitivity or > unusually high in impedance.I think you mean unusually LOW in (input) > impedance! -- Patrick Dixon www.at-tunes.co.uk Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27158 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
