[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
atkinsonrr;158261 Wrote: I would hope that modders could show some empirical, instrumented, improvements. Perhaps there are some modders out there doing that, but I (in my limited experience with the modding community) have not seen it. On the other hand, I wouldnt claim a modder is full of BS simply because all he could say is he performed listening tests and found his mods sounded better. I would take that as information, even if not very compelling information. It would be more compelling if he could substantiate it was done independently, with a variety of equipment, a variety of listeners, there was some control for bias, listening was done over an extended period of time, etc. Of course, most compelling would be if said modder could report results of empirical listening tests. Having a social and not physical science background I believe there is a way to make non-instrumented testing empirical as well. Unfortunately, I dont think we have found it yet. It's especially not compelling when the modder in question uses such things as Bybee filters. There is an easy, empirical, non-intrumented way to do a test - simply do a blind listening test. It's free, fast, and (if done properly) just as reliable and convincing as using a scope. I've never (again, my experience is limited) heard of a modder doing such a test to prove his mod actually makes an improvement. The test should first demonstrate that there is a difference and then - *still blind* - ask which source the listeners prefer. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
jhm731;158250 Wrote: KimR said the Transporter doesn't sound any better than his SB3 off the digital outputs. Actually, what I said was that I couldn't tell the difference between the Transporter digital out and the SB3 WHEN running the SB3 through the $1500 Apogee Big Ben digital processor. This is comparing $1800 worth of stuff (SB3 + BB) to $1700 worth of stuff (Transporter less the free SB3). The Transporter has more controls, displays, and functionality, plus a DAC. Guess what you should buy if you don't alrady have an Apogee Big Ben? The Transporter digital out sounded easily better than the stand-alone SB3 digital out (thanks, Sean). Regards, Kim -- krochat -- SB3 (+linear) - Big Ben - TacT RCS 2.2X - 2xS2150 - Vandersteen 3a Signature + TacT W210 krochat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6579 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
You are write -- my post was poorly worded. I apologize for that. atkinsonrr;158254 Wrote: I appreciate your input here, as I think it may be coming from concern, thinking there was something that he hadnt considered but should probably consider before making a big financial decision. But the above quote sounds like you feel he owes you (or any of us for that matter) a justificaton of why he wants to spend his own money, and that he must explain it in using only THD or jitter specs or someting? I really dont think this is a reasonable request. He's already said that he is doing it based on the track record of his own experience with the modded SB. So, one could say he is doing it out of trust in Boulder Mods. You might argue his trust is misplaced, but I would bet he believes his trust is justified by his own experience. Shouldnt his own experience be the final arbiter? At this point you might say that he was fooled by psycho-acoutic or simply psychological factors. In other words sometimes your own experience can lie. I agree with that. But if he's like most of us (incredibly intelligent!!) people who habit this forum, I again would bet that he did some kind of A-B testing. Is the A-B testing up to a standard that we would all accept? Maybe not. Its obvious you have real passion for finding the truth in audio. But, I dont think you are gonna persuade or change his mind by demanding that he provide all the justification you are demanding. But if we could put some of our collective passion into developing a listening testing scheme that we could all endorse. Now THAT would be worth the energy! -- highdudgeon Relax. It's about the music. highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Guys I've enjoyed the debate and had a bit of fun with the banter but Sean I'm disappointed with your comment: Quote: Originally Posted by GaryG View Post What facts would you like? Lower impedence power supply. Lower noise power supply. Lower noise decoupling caps. Point-to-point wiring to avoid the di-electric loss in the PCB. Better voltage regulation. Lower noise regulators. Regards Gary Yes, please provide real data supporting any of the above! In my eyes, you've done quite a few entries in that list to move from the level of performance of the SB to the TP, including the quality components swap you dismissed (by changing your DAC chip to the 'miracle' DAC). Also, I think it only fair to point out that Wayne made no comment whatsoever on what the modifications to the Transporter would do, I asked him many months ago if he could do anything with the Transporter and he said he would take a look at it, mine's been gathering dust in his workshop for several months as he's been very busy with other work (hence the reason the 30 day trial return wasn't of interest, it's long gone). Truth be told, I don't think Wayne has much interest in modifying the Transporter, it's all surface mount stuff which is a pain to work with. From the user's point of view, modifying equipment that uses SMD has a low value/performance ratio due to the labour costs for the mod, (I experienced that when I had my Meridian G98 modified, www.meridianunplugged.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=70#10). I've spent a lot of time and effort trying to get a PC based music solution to match the quality of the best CD players, it's not easy. Jitter buster's like the Big Ben and Meridian 518 do a good job but as the resolution of your system improves the drawbacks of these approaches becomes audible (I commented on it in this thread, www.meridianunplugged.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000945#02). When I was a young man, electonics was my trade, and even though it's been 20 years since I moved from hardware to software I still find my electronics background a hindrince when it comes to audio, not everything that can be heard is visible on a 'scope or a meter; for example, my mains leads have a Furutech FI-25 gold plug at one end and Oyaide C-046 IEC connector on the other. After audioning the various permuations of plugs and sockets from Furutech and Oyaide Gold-Gold, Gold-Rhodium, Rhodium/Silver/Bronze-Gold etc I found that in my system the Furutech Gold plugs and IEC gave me the best soundstage and dynamics and frequency response that I like but at the expense of a 'gritty', 'splashy' sound and so compromised on the FI-25/C-046 combination. That's just the power cables, my power conditioner has different type of power receptacles, different materials match different equipment, what works for the CD player doesn't necessarily work as well for the amps. At this point I suspect that a few of you think I've lost the plot but if you add up all the small improvements from each tweak the end result is quite marked. For example, I used to use squash balls under all my equipment (42 of them under the Wadia alone to take the weight!), which sit on ClearAudio RDC Super Postion Platform shelves which sit on Mana reference tables, which sit on 6 Mana Soundstages. I tried using Stillpoints in favour of the squashballs but found that I didn't like the shift in frequency response, StillPoints are a little light in the base compared to squashballs although they have a more open sound and don't affect the dynamics of the leading edge of transients. Squashballs unfortunately do affect the leading edge and remove some of the 'attack' of the leading edge and do smear the upper bass, however, I found that by using the Stillpoints with 4 squashballs I got the best of both worlds with only a small change in the frequency response which I was ables to get back by substituting a different mains cable to the CD player. Also, Bybees get a rough-ride on this forum when they can have a dramatic effect on the your system removing the noise and graininess from the music. Used in combination with ERS cloth they can transorm the sound of your kit. Too many people spend time dismissing items based on the markeding guff instead of trying them out for themselves and getting real-world experience, I love watching the look on the faces of non-beliievers when they come round and hear my system, one of my favourite tricks is to switch the digital cable between the Transport and DAC section of the Wadia (a neat little tweak, the external connection sounds better than the internal connection) and watch while they try and figure out how changing a DIGITAL cable can change the sound quality. Anyway, enough of the waffle, I've had an email from somebody offering to let me hear a Transporter so I've taken up the offer. Thanks for your comments guys, if anybody's interested in hearing how it compares let me know.
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
GaryG;158427 Wrote: Guys Anyway, enough of the waffle, I've had an email from somebody offering to let me hear a Transporter so I've taken up the offer. Thanks for your comments guys, if anybody's interested in hearing how it compares let me know. Regards Gary Hi Gary, Good luck with the tests - let us know how it goes. Just make sure you have high quality lossless files for your test (FLAC, WAV or ALAC). I think you must have a very easy listening room to enjoy all the tweaks. In my situation it isn't worth it; I need to fix my room's acoustics first. Tom -- tomsi42 SB3, Rotel RC-1070/RB-1070, dynaBel Exact, Kimber Kable 4TC and Timbre. tomsi42's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2477 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
GaryG;158427 Wrote: For example, I used to use squash balls under all my equipment (42 of them under the Wadia alone to take the weight!), which sit on ClearAudio RDC Super Postion Platform shelves which sit on Mana reference tables, which sit on 6 Mana Soundstages. I tried using Stillpoints in favour of the squashballs but found that I didn't like the shift in frequency response, StillPoints are a little light in the base compared to squashballs although they have a more open sound and don't affect the dynamics of the leading edge of transients. Squashballs unfortunately do affect the leading edge and remove some of the 'attack' of the leading edge and do smear the upper bass, however, I found that by using the Stillpoints with 4 squashballs I got the best of both worlds with only a small change in the frequency response which I was ables to get back by substituting a different mains cable to the CD player. Gary, you are clearly a lunatic of an even higher order than me. This forum would be less without you, so please do post your comments on the TP, modded and not. But perhaps in a new thread with an oddness warning :) Adam -- adamslim SB3 into Derek Shek d2, Shanling CDT-100, Rotel RT-990BX, Esoteric Audio Research 859, Living Voice Auditorium IIs, Nordost cables adamslim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7355 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Gary, thank you for being even wierder than I :-) Now I don't feel so strange putting my TP on acrylic wheels on a microscan table. Hey, it was sitting around, I never even bought it, a dealer friend left it here 10 years ago, every time he is over he says he going to take it but I always give him enough wine to make him forget (maybe I have paid for it after all.it's pretty good wine) -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
I'd like to make an observation about the change in attitude we've seen from Sean. Not very long ago, his postings were just about as friendly as you could possibly hope to read. His tolerance of pretty much every tweak and mod to the SB, no matter how nutty, was absolutely remarkable. Recently, and particularly in this thread, he seems to have become just a little - how do I put this? - pissed off. And I can quite understand why. From what I've been able to gather, Sean has worked his nuts off for several months to engineer the Transporter to be the finest device he could possibly build. It's his baby, and he probably feel very protective towards it. So it's no wonder that when he starts hearing about proposed modifications that, due to his intimate knowledge of how the TP works, he is pretty damn sure are likely to actually degrade it, he's gonna start being just a little less than polite to those who are in some ways threatening his baby. What's more, if a lot of modded Transporters start appearing on the scene, and they turn out to be inferior to the stock item (as it seems Sean is fairly certain they will be), then it's going to hurt the reputation of the Genuine Article(tm). I for one feel for Sean - I get the impression that he would *really* like to let rip, but basic courtesy is making him bite his lip. -- cliveb Performers - dozens of mixers and effects - clipped/hypercompressed mastering - you think a few extra ps of jitter matters? cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
cliveb;158467 Wrote: I'd like to make an observation about the change in attitude we've seen from Sean. Actually, I just stopped taking my pills. :) -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Amen. Now, I will go take some pills. tomjtx;158482 Wrote: Where else would the CEO take the time to respond and explain so much about his product? This is what I love about this company. it's refreshing, Sean, to hear you speak with candor and honesty re. the TP. I would be seriously concerned about modding something that already sounds so good, it's smart to wait and hear if there is a difference. -- highdudgeon Relax. It's about the music. highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
cliveb;158467 Wrote: I'd like to make an observation about the change in attitude we've seen from Sean. Well, I don't see that: Sean has always been proud of his designs and baffled by why people think they need $1000 power cords... But that said, the real change I noticed was that people suddenly started bragging about how insane they are More lighthearted than the usual You need the Widgy3000 or perhaps you are just deaf and can't hear the subtleties and it would be lost on a peon like you that sometimes shows up. (Admittedly not nearly as often here as on a lot of other forums..) Spending money on a Transporter (or a Squeezebox), the associated Other Crap (whether it is an $2000 amp or a $200 receiver), the CDs that the thing always demands (mine says, feed me seymour), and wasting time here is... Insane. But insanity is often good. Or at least better than being boring. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
I have a fully modded and stock Transporter. I haven't done any critical A/Bing, nor do I really intend to, but, for what its worth, they both sound fantastic as transports. Living in Los Altos, I'd be happy to bring them by SD if someone over there wants to compare them. -- 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=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Sleestack;158513 Wrote: I have a fully modded and stock Transporter. I haven't done any critical A/Bing, nor do I really intend to, but, for what its worth, they both sound fantastic as transports. Living in Los Altos, I'd be happy to bring them by SD if someone over there wants to compare them. Who modded your TP and do you know what the mods are? -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
tomjtx;158525 Wrote: Who modded your TP and do you know what the mods are? I'm hoping 'TP' isn't the best nickname we can come up with for the Transporter. :) -- JJZolx Jim JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
JJZolx;158528 Wrote: I'm hoping 'TP' isn't the best nickname we can come up with for the Transporter. :) O yeh, i just got it , sorry... But a good slogan: Wipe away the grunge with TP Sean, I'll let you know where to send the royalties -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
tomjtx;158525 Wrote: Who modded your TP and do you know what the mods are? The mods to Sleestack's TP were done by Aberdeen(mauimods.com). If you're interested, I suggest you contact him directly for more details. PS- Sean, glad to hear you're off the pills. Send the leftovers to George. -- jhm731 jhm731's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
jhm731;158555 Wrote: The mods to Sleestack's TP were done by Aberdeen(mauimods.com). If you're interested, I suggest you contact him directly for more details. PS- Sean, glad to hear you're off the pills. Send the leftovers to George. Yes it was. Anthony does all of my TACT ger and sources. I had him do full mods on one piece for my reference headphone system, whatever that may include. I have much trust in him and his work. He never goes overboard and provides and measurements whenever possible. -- 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=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Mark Lanctot;157893 Wrote: Well yeah, but that's kind of a marketing statement. They couldn't possibly have compared it to every single CD player on the market (or ever made, for that matter). And I'm sure those $10K CD transports I've heard about have something to them. If they didn't beat a device costing 1/5 as much (which includes a high-end DAC, mind you) they'd have some explaining to do. It's also all relative, of course. It's not like that reviewer's opinion is the last word on the Denon or the Transporter for that matter. In fact being compared favourably against a player costing nearly twice as much is a high compliment. I think Mark has it right. When this happens to me, I know most of my bad feelings are coming from the sinking realization that I got fooled by marketing hype. Maybe its less about the transporter and more about kicking yourself. I mean by any objective measure, the TP is still shaping up as a great purchase! Half the price of a Denon, lot more capability, more cache, lots prettier to look at, maybe better built Ya done good man! And who knows, with a bit of educated, systemic-type tweaking, it might be in Meitner territory. -- atkinsonrr Transporter, Quicksilver V4 Monos, Vandersteen Model 5A speakers. SB3, Quad Tube Pre-Amp, Tube Monos, Quad ESLs. Homemade Tripath Digital amps, Carver ALS (original) Speakers with Outboard Crossovers. atkinsonrr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7214 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
One teensy problem: by sending it off to be modded (for what?) before you even bothered listening to it you have voided the warranty and scrapped the 30 home trial. Wouldn't it have made more sense to receive it at home, check it out, and then decide to 1) keep it as is, 2) mod it, or 3) send it back? Sounds like jumping the audiophile gun. GaryG;157903 Wrote: I ordered it shortly after the pre-order started, but hedged my bets on the marketing being over enthusiastic and had it shipped directly to Bolder Cables for Wayne to modify it. Now to avoid getting jumped on by my fellow members my expectations are high, I want to replace my GNSC 'Statement' Wadia 861se with the Transporter as I have ripped my CD collection and don't envision using a CD player. At present I use one of Patrick Dixon's SB+ squeezeboxes feeding the DAC section of the 861se and it's very good but the SB+ lacks a digital input which I need for my AV processor. As an aside, I'll never know for sure as I never got to hear the standard Transporter but from looking at the circuit topology of the Transporter and SB+ my 'gut' feeling is that the SB+ has the better performance of the two. Regards Gary -- highdudgeon Relax. It's about the music. highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
tomjtx;157729 Wrote: It's a flattering review. But it's too bad they didn't have some good files to use. The TP sounds different in my system when I spin a CD on my CDTTP. Interestingly ,it sounds more laid back, a bit less detail and rythymic punch. I could never characterize the TP as laid back when I stream ALAC or AIff from the hard drive. It would be interesting to see what these guys think when they do that. I think they would be even more impressed. Exactly, I read the head-fi review too. Transporters value is in its use as a source, not as a DAC. It can be used as a DAC, but when it is streaming music is when it has the highest performance. Transports seem to have intrinsic jitter, which gets transferred (even increased) via the digital connection to the DAC. I dont think the Transporter has any special jitter reduction built in when in use as a DAC. So if even as a DAC it is close to or resolves better than a Wadia, it will surely beat it when it is streaming. Re: comparisons with other players - many differences can arise in the output stage implementations. With transporter or SB3 one should look for the effects of jitter. Reduced jitter means extremely relaxed sound. The Transporter and the competing player should be compared with the sounds of a common analog setup. Whichever one is closer to the LP, should win (atleast in my books :-) ). -- SoftwireEngineer SoftwireEngineer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7000 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
highdudgeon;158106 Wrote: One teensy problem: by sending it off to be modded (for what?) before you even bothered listening to it you have voided the warranty and scrapped the 30 home trial. Wouldn't it have made more sense to receive it at home, check it out, and then decide to 1) keep it as is, 2) mod it, or 3) send it back? Sounds like jumping the audiophile gun. Can't argue with that. Regards Gary -- GaryG GaryG's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2423 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
If Wayne hasn't begun work on it, you should have him send it to your house -- untouched. Evaluate it, live with it for a couple of weeks, compare to other stuff, etc. Then you'll know what direction will work best for you. Just my $.02. GaryG;158150 Wrote: Can't argue with that. Regards Gary -- highdudgeon Relax. It's about the music. highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Why? Regards Gary -- GaryG GaryG's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2423 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
GaryG;158169 Wrote: Why? Regards Gary I dont mean to answer for HD but IMHO if you 1st live with the stock TP you would then see what improvements the mod makes, and for me , that would be part of the fun. You might also decide the stock TP is so good you dont need to mod it. The Tp sounds so good in my system I' m very happy with it. That doesn't mean to say I wouldn't consider a mod if I heard an improvement. The TP might compare, who knows? The only way to know would be to listen to both and decide, I would think. -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
See Tom's post. You don't even know what a stock Transporter will do. You do know, on paper, some of the things it does: exceptionally low, world class jitter, first-class DAC, etc. So it is worth at least TRYING for a week before voiding your return policy and warranty, isn't it? As for Wayne, I'm sure he can do all sorts of stuff. Now, do you really think he is going to out-engineer their DAC? Dubious. Maybe some output improvement or whatever -- sure, I'm willing to believe that. But believe this: moving your speakers a few inches will probably make more of a difference. In the end, it is your money, of course, and you can and will do whatever you want. But, if you don't think the Transporter will hold up, what makes you think that Bolder will turn it into a magic, best-in-the-world source? Remember: 30 day return policy. Giving it a week or two try should definitely give you an idea, assuming you are technical in nature, as to whether or not a mod is worth it. Then you can make your decision. If you decide the damn thing is not up to par, then just return it. Nothing to get worked up about, but I just don't get your reasoning. Please, take no offense, but it very much sounds like you're into the status and exotica think just as much as you're into audio reproduction. GaryG;158169 Wrote: Why? I've already explained the direction I'm going. Do you really think a standard Transporter is going to compete with a GNSC 'Statement' Wadia 861se? Regards Gary -- highdudgeon Relax. It's about the music. highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
I'm puzzled, as to the suggestions I'm getting. Let's make the following assumption: The standard Transporter matches the 861se. In which case, one would expect the modified Transporter to be better than a standard Transporter, ergo, the modified Transport is better than the Wadia 861se. End result I'm happy. What's the downside for me given that: 1. I'm not bothered about losing the original warranty. 2. I'm not bothered about the 30 day trial period. 3. The cost of the upgrade (currently unknown) is likeley to be less the the resale value of the Wadia. Regards Gary -- GaryG GaryG's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2423 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
GaryG;158186 Wrote: one would expect the modified Transporter to be better than a standard Transporter Why on earth would you expect that? -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Unless you have some facts about why this should be so...you're kind of working off psychological expectations. Again, it just seems silly not to try the Transporter as it is. GaryG;158193 Wrote: Well, I'm only going on my experience with my modified CD player and amps, which sound better than stock. Regards Gary EDIT: Oh, and I forgot to mention my modified Meridian G98 transport, Wadia 27ix DAC, Audio Synthesis DAX Decade DAC, DAX Discrete DAC and a few other bits and bobs. -- highdudgeon Relax. It's about the music. highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
What facts would you like? Lower impedence power supply. Lower noise power supply. Lower noise decoupling caps. Point-to-point wiring to avoid the di-electric loss in the PCB. Better voltage regulation. Lower noise regulators. Regards Gary -- GaryG GaryG's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2423 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
More to the point: modders will have you believe that audio is magical, and that any product can be improved in a few minutes by soldering in certain aftermarket parts (which for some reason original manufacturers don't use - go figure). Slim Devices boringly skips all of the BS and tells you exactly how we design our products for performance, how they measure, and why they sound better. No magic. All verifiable. And performance that is not matched by ANY product that we've been able to find. I haven't tested the 861se, but I have my doubts as to whether the green coloring applied to its flywheel would give them an edge. smirk If you don't believe me, just hook your modded Transporter up to a good ADC or sound card, run an FFT, and you will see that the modded sound you prefer is nothing more than a bunch of added noise and distortion. You can do this at home. You don't have to take my word for it. However if you don't care what you're really hearing, then please ignore this post and just enjoy your modded Transporter! -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Now, here's an interesting comparison: Transporter analogue outputs SB3 feeding Arcam Black Box 50 (via co-ax SPDIF) Which one will sound better? (Currently got the second one set up in my temporary office.) -- Squirrel Squirrel's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5785 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Okay, so tell us what you know about the Transporter (which should be plenty, if you've done your research, because SD has been open about design and results). Tell us, too, about some measurement differences with all these goodies and why, specifically, they should result in anything more than...well...equal or degraded signal? I'm guessing you're paying at least a grand, or close to that, and that you've been told the background will be black, there will be more air, etc. Words are one thing; facts are another; the power of suggestion is powerful indeed. Then again, like I said, it's your money. I'm just baffled by not even bothering to try the Transporter before sending it of to the chop shop. That smacks of me of less interest in the end result then in personal satisfaction. Again, no offense -- I'm the guy with $9k amps kicking around for a year. I did go into it with open eyes, though. But, really, in the end numbers don't lie. Impressive parts list that make little sense to a layman and even littler sense into how and why they are supposed to accomplish something else do lie. GaryG;158198 Wrote: What facts would you like? Lower impedence power supply. Lower noise power supply. Lower noise decoupling caps. Point-to-point wiring to avoid the di-electric loss in the PCB. Better voltage regulation. Lower noise regulators. Regards Gary -- highdudgeon Relax. It's about the music. highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
seanadams;158204 Wrote: And performance that is not matched by ANY product that we've been able to find. Well see, I was wrong. That was not just a flippant marketing statement on the website. Gary, as others on this thread, I'd advise to try it for a week or so before you decide to mod it. I don't believe in the concept of burn-in but for some reason it did sound even better after about a week. And as I stated before, don't take that reviewer's opinion as a universal scale of what's better than what. I mean there's no accounting for taste. Here's what I do know - I just heard Dire Straits' -So Far Away-. I've heard that track so many times over the years but on the Transporter I hear all sorts of little details I've never heard before. Little ticks, subtle small sounds, etc. A reviewer noted that the Transporter seems to be very good at separating sounds, making small little things not get lost in much louder sounds. I have no idea of the technical reason for that, but I feel it's very true. When I was doing comparison tests between the SB3 and the Transporter, when I switched to the Transporter input, I got the distinct impression I was falling forward, especially if I closed my eyes. You remember the Nestea commercial? Like that. It's like the floor opened up. Again, I'm not sure what the technical reasons are for this, but clearly something unusual is going on that my brain is trying to interpret. Try it out for a week. Then you can either mod it or return it under the 30-day guarantee. My guess is, Slim hasn't received many back. -- Mark Lanctot Mark Lanctot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Even if one were to mod the Transporter, it seems to me there aren't that many things to change. Modders tend to first seek out through-hole caps and 8-DIP op amps, but I don't see any on the Transporter (or very few I might have missed them). The earlier poster said something about lower noise decoupling caps? There's not really that much variety with smt caps that I've seen. Assuming they are already COG, X5R, or X7R, what are we really looking to change here? There are some lower noise leaded resistors (Vishay), but I'm guessing the Transporter already has similar ones where appropriate. Maybe Sean or someone else at SD can confirm this. In some cases, especially when components are trimmed, the last thing you want to do is fool with the original design and build by swapping out chips. -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2 interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10 subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Resistors are metal thin-film (lowest thermal noise), and capaitors are polyethylene film, ceramic, or electrolytic depending on the capacity and the application. These are very high quality, high precision passives which are specced for use in measuring instruments. I do not have manufacturer's part info off the top of my head but could dig it up if you're really interested. You can spot the polyethylene caps as they have a shiny fish-scale-like surface. There are used in the active filters among other places, and were found to yield marginally lower noise than than the traditional polystyrene through-hole parts used in high-end designs. This is probably mostly by virtue of them being smaller and surface-mounted. If you can believe that something as miniscule as the thermal energy in a resistor is a critical parameter in achieving Transporter's low noise levels, then it should be pretty obvious that lifting circuitry off the ground plane and hand-wiring around the chassis would be absolutely disastrous. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Disastrous but profitable. seanadams;158224 Wrote: Resistors are metal thin-film (lowest thermal noise), and capaitors are polyethylene film, ceramic, or electrolytic depending on the capacity and the application. These are very high quality, high precision passives which are specced for use in measuring instruments. I do not have manufacturer's part info off the top of my head but could dig it up if you're really interested. You can spot the polyethylene caps as they have a shiny fish-scale-like surface. There are used in the active filters among other places, and were found to yield marginally lower noise than than the traditional polystyrene through-hole parts used in high-end designs. This is probably mostly by virtue of them being smaller and surface-mounted. If you can believe that something as miniscule as the thermal energy in a resistor is a critical parameter in achieving Transporter's low noise levels, then it should be pretty obvious that lifting circuitry off the ground plane and hand-wiring around the chassis would be absolutely disastrous. -- highdudgeon Relax. It's about the music. highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
is there any place in canada where i can audition the transporter? -- Konig Konig's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8490 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
I just want to make it clear (maybe it wasn't in my post) that I'm not arguing for modding. I think boutique should be left for hairdos and fingernails, not capacitors and resistors (curling irons?). -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2 interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10 subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
atkinsonrr;158245 Wrote: Sean-- I have seen you post similar thoughts on other threads. This quote seems to indicate you believe all modders are stupid or disingenuous. I hope you dont mean that, cause I sometimes mod (my own) equipment. I even believe that in some cases, simple component swaps are warranted. I will give you one specific example: switching a run of the mill electrolytic cap at the output of a CD player for a film type. So when you say things that seem to say all modders I feel like the enemy even tho I am a customer of yours and obviously value what you create. If you mean, in this particular case, I feel it ill-advised to modify Transporter in this way for this reason I am all with you, and very interested in what you have to say. Otherwise, I'm just kinda put off. You are absolutely right. I should have qualified that, and I apologize. There most certainly _ARE_ modders who know what they're doing. Indeed, some ideas in Transporter including the super regulators were not only inspired by a modder (Andrew Weekes), but were actually implemented with his personal assistance. Other concepts including some tweaks to control jitter were carefully tested, and some of them were incorporated. What I was objecting to was the blatantly non-scientific, irrational, absurd, deceiving stuff which is easy for those of us with any design experience to spot, but to anyone else looks no more mumbo-jumbo than the real thing. I should also point out that we're not going to immediately sell more Transporters by dissing modders. They are in fact driving sales or us. However, when someone claims pefectly empirical improvements like lower noise power supply with no rationale or data to back them up, I will object. There is always room for improvement, but it's folly to assume that any mod is an improvement. EDIT: and none of this should diminish the fun of tweaking to suit your own taste. However, that is very very different from charging money to upgrade a product while claiming objective improvements which are provably BS. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Gary G. posts that he's having his Transporter modified and the SD's CEO and one of his dealers, highdudgeon (George Day), attack the guy. Why shouldn't he mod it? In the review that started this thread, J.Bray- said of Transporter: “But it isn't,alas, as good as a traditional CD or SACD player of similar price. In back-to-back listening sessions against a Unison Research Unico CD player, which incidentally sells for £100 less than the Transporter, it lacked the punch, presence and sheer excitement on offer from the humble disc spinner. Where the Transporter was clinically accurate, and revealed as much detail, it simply didn't project the music into the room as much as the CD player did.” I'm sure Gary G's modified Wadia sounds a lot better than a Unison Research Unico CD player Then acm said it's doesn't sound as good as his stock Denon 5910. KimR said the Transporter doesn't sound any better than his SB3 off the digital outputs. If all the parts in the Transporter are so good, how could this happen? IMO, it's Gary's unit and he can do whatever he wants to it, and he doesn't owe anyone an explanation. PS- IMO, the SD's Transporter marketing statement- And performance that is not matched by ANY product that we've been able to find. Is pure hype! -- jhm731 jhm731's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
highdudgeon;158213 Wrote: Okay, so tell us what you know about the Transporter (which should be plenty, if you've done your research, because SD has been open about design and results). Tell us, too, about some measurement differences with all these goodies and why, specifically, they should result in anything more than...well...equal or degraded signal? I'm guessing you're paying at least a grand, or close to that, and that you've been told the background will be black, there will be more air, etc. Words are one thing; facts are another; the power of suggestion is powerful indeed. I appreciate your input here, as I think it may be coming from concern, thinking there was something that he hadnt considered but should probably consider before making a big financial decision. But the above quote sounds like you feel he owes you (or any of us for that matter) a justificaton of why he wants to spend his own money, and that he must explain it in using only THD or jitter specs or someting? I really dont think this is a reasonable request. He's already said that he is doing it based on the track record of his own experience with the modded SB. So, one could say he is doing it out of trust in Boulder Mods. You might argue his trust is misplaced, but I would bet he believes his trust is justified by his own experience. Shouldnt his own experience be the final arbiter? At this point you might say that he was fooled by psycho-acoutic or simply psychological factors. In other words sometimes your own experience can lie. I agree with that. But if he's like most of us (incredibly intelligent!!) people who habit this forum, I again would bet that he did some kind of A-B testing. Is the A-B testing up to a standard that we would all accept? Maybe not. Its obvious you have real passion for finding the truth in audio. But, I dont think you are gonna persuade or change his mind by demanding that he provide all the justification you are demanding. But if we could put some of our collective passion into developing a listening testing scheme that we could all endorse. Now THAT would be worth the energy! -- atkinsonrr Transporter, Quicksilver V4 Monos, Vandersteen Model 5A speakers. SB3, Quad Tube Pre-Amp, Tube Monos, Quad ESLs. Homemade Tripath Digital amps, Carver ALS (original) Speakers with Outboard Crossovers. atkinsonrr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7214 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
jhm731;158250 Wrote: PS- IMO, the SD's Transporter marketing statement- And performance that is not matched by ANY product that we've been able to find. Is pure hype! To be clear, I am talking about objectively measurable performance (SNR, jitter, dynamic range etc), which admittedly is not the be-all-end-all of perceived sound quality. However, it's a lot better than nothing! I will happily eat my hat and retract that statement as soon as I can find anything that performs better than Transporter. Also, all of the test data that I post here on the forums includes all the necessary setup information for anyone with similar measuring equipment to independently verify. For example, here is the Transporter smoking the Benchmark DAC1 and the dScope's built-in signal generator in a noise floor and jitter measurement: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28126 I will _never_ expect you to take my word for it. Go ahead and try these tests for yourself - you don't need a $13K analyzer, you can also get useful comparative measurements with a good sound card and the RightMark software. Try blind ABX listening too. If you're going to shoot down my claim as pure hype then I hope you can back up your position. I've done my best to articulate mine. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Here's a quote from modifier/designer Alex Peychev(APLHIFI)'s forum about your smoking measurements: Those guys will never learn. At -60db you will need to go and put your ear on the speaker driver in order to hear something, so who cares about -130db noise floor of your digital source which, for example, is usually brought 60db up with a regular tube amplifier. Here is the puzzling thing; the NWO-2.5 has barely -105db noise floor and barely -86db (0.0056%) THD+N. Note the tube stage is non-NFB. According to Mr. CEO, his Transporter should sound around 2 times better than the NWO-2.5 WOW! To prove your statement isn't pure hype, why don't you contact Mr.Peychev and one of the audio clubs on audiocircle.com and arrange for a shootout with his NWO-2.5? Invite the other modifiers to bring their modified Transporters too. seanadams;158255 Wrote: To be clear, I am talking about objectively measurable performance (SNR, jitter, dynamic range etc), which admittedly is not the be-all-end-all of perceived sound quality. However, it's a lot better than nothing! I will happily eat my hat and retract that statement as soon as I (or anyone else) can find anything that performs better than Transporter. Also, all of the test data that I post here on the forums includes all the necessary setup information for anyone with similar measuring equipment to independently verify. For example, here is the Transporter smoking the Benchmark DAC1 and the dScope's built-in signal generator in a noise floor and jitter measurement: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28126 I will _never_ expect you to take my word for it. Go ahead and try these tests for yourself - you don't need a $13K analyzer, you can also get useful comparative measurements with a good sound card and the RightMark software. Try blind ABX listening too. If you're going to shoot down my claim as pure hype then I hope you can back up your position. I've done my best to articulate mine. -- jhm731 jhm731's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
seanadams;158249 Wrote: However, when someone claims pefectly empirical improvements like lower noise power supply with no rationale or data to back them up, I will object. Your sentence above, said it all for me. If a modder or anyone else is claiming (for example) a reduction in jitter when it can be measured and disproven I hope you do speak up, and thank you for doing so. I agree with your following post, as well. Once you clarified you mean specific measurements when you say Transporter is unsurpassed. If someone is to claim you guilty of hype, then (given your clarification) they should show on what specific measurement and against what specific rival machine you have overstated your claim. I would hope that modders could show some empirical, instrumented, improvements. On the other hand, I wouldnt claim a modder is full of BS simply because all he could say is he performed listening tests and found his mods sounded better. I would take that as information, even if not very compelling information. It would be more compelling if he could substantiate it was done independently, with a variety of equipment, a variety of listeners, there was some control for bias, listening was done over an extended period of time, etc. Of course, most compelling would be if said modder could report results of empirical listening tests. Having a social and not physical science background I believe there is a way to make non-instrumented testing empirical as well. Unfortunately, I dont think we have found it yet. -- atkinsonrr Transporter, Quicksilver V4 Monos, Vandersteen Model 5A speakers. SB3, Quad Tube Pre-Amp, Tube Monos, Quad ESLs. Homemade Tripath Digital amps, Carver ALS (original) Speakers with Outboard Crossovers. atkinsonrr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7214 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
jhm731;158258 Wrote: Here's a quote from modifier/designer Alex Peychev(APLHIFI)'s forum about your smoking measurements: Those guys will never learn. At -60db you will need to go and put your ear on the speaker driver in order to hear something, so who cares about -130db noise floor of your digital source which, for example, is usually brought 60db up with a regular tube amplifier. Here is the puzzling thing; the NWO-2.5 has barely -105db noise floor and barely -86db (0.0056%) THD+N. Note the tube stage is non-NFB. According to Mr. CEO, his Transporter should sound around 2 times better than the NWO-2.5 WOW! To prove your statement isn't pure hype, why don't you contact Mr.Peychev and one of the audio clubs on audiocircle.com and arrange for a shootout with his NWO-2.5? Invite the other modifiers to bring their modified Transporters too. I think I already conceded that measurements aren't everything. However, a lot of people seem to care about jitter and power supply noise, and these are measurable things where we can easily show that x is better than y, and by precisely how many db or whatever. And I never said Transporter sounds 2 times better than anything, so please don't put words in my mouth. In fact, I wouldn't even claim it sounds better than a tube amp, although I can tell you precisely how much better the SNR is, for example. Can I hear stuff 120db down? Nope, I doubt it, but some other people here on the forum have proved that they CAN hear some pretty incredibly tiny sounds, such as the effects of different rounding and dithering algorithms applied to the LSB of a 16-bit signal. Also, have you considered that there could be things you can't consciously hear even at -60db (or even at full volume, eg phase linearity), but which might be absolutely critical to conveying realism? -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
atkinsonrr;157724 Wrote: atkinsonrr;157716 Wrote: Do I dare entertain the thought that this indicates a budding consensus on the relative placement of Transporter? Just taking into account these two 'direct-comparison' reviews (the only ones I've seen), a ranking would shape up like this: Meitner Transporter Wadia (With the understanding that the placement of Wadia might change if a most-recent version was compared.) I'd say that's very very cool terrritory to be in!! Given that ACM reported that his stock Denon 5910 was better than the Transporter I'm not sure the updated list looks so impressive (assuming of course that the Meitner is better than the Denon). Meitner Denon 5910 Transporter Wadia Regards Gary -- GaryG GaryG's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2423 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
GaryG;157769 Wrote: Given that ACM reported that his stock Denon 5910 was better than the Transporter I'm not sure the updated list looks so impressive (assuming of course that the Meitner is better than the Denon). The Denon 5910 retails for $3800, if we're going for the more $$$ = better argument. It's their flagship player. -- Mark Lanctot Mark Lanctot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
acm- If you're interested in upgrading your Transporter or Meridian G68, Mauimods.com (Aberdeen)is the one to contact. It would be interesting to compare an upgraded Transporter to a aplhifi.com upgraded Denon 5910. -- jhm731 jhm731's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Mark Lanctot;157782 Wrote: The Denon 5910 retails for $3800, if we're going for the more $$$ = better argument. It's their flagship player. Mark, take a look at the Slim Devices home page, you'll find the following quote: Transporter's sound quality surpasses even the most exotic compact disc players. Maybe we have different expectations on the meaning of exotic but to me the Denon 5910 isn't exotic, flagship maybe, but exotic, no. Regards Gary -- GaryG GaryG's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2423 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Why not? Because of the brand name? GaryG;157879 Wrote: Mark, take a look at the Slim Devices home page, you'll find the following quote: Maybe we have different expectations on the meaning of exotic but to me the Denon 5910 isn't exotic, flagship maybe, but exotic, no. Regards Gary -- highdudgeon Relax. It's about the music. highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
GaryG;157879 Wrote: Mark, take a look at the Slim Devices home page, you'll find the following quote: Maybe we have different expectations on the meaning of exotic but to me the Denon 5910 isn't exotic, flagship maybe, but exotic, no. Well yeah, but that's kind of a marketing statement. They couldn't possibly have compared it to every single CD player on the market (or ever made, for that matter). And I'm sure those $10K CD transports I've heard about have something to them. If they didn't beat a device costing 1/5 as much (which includes a high-end DAC, mind you) they'd have some explaining to do. It's also all relative, of course. It's not like that reviewer's opinion is the last word on the Denon or the Transporter for that matter. In fact being compared favourably against a player costing nearly twice as much is a high compliment. -- Mark Lanctot Mark Lanctot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
One of the definitions for extoic is: Intriguingly unusual or different; although in the case of Slim Device's marketing my interpretation of that statement was to imply 'the best', in other words the Transporter can rub shoulders with the best CD players. Regards Gary -- GaryG GaryG's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2423 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Mark What it boils down to is I'm too honest for my own good, I ordered my transporter on the basis of the marketing and am disappointed to read about it's relative ranking. Regards Gary -- GaryG GaryG's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2423 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
GaryG;157897 Wrote: What it boils down to is I'm too honest for my own good, I ordered my transporter on the basis of the marketing and am disappointed to read about it's relative ranking. But reading isn't hearing and discerning for yourself what you prefer. This is especially true in audiophilia: if it were as simple as making a This is the best speaker, this is the best amp, this is the best DAC, etc list that was Universally Agreed On, all the Audio forums and magazines would serve no purpose. Maybe an annual this is the cream of the crop list and ignore everything else. People have differing tastes and ears. Use audiophile reviews sparingly and trust yourself and your own ears more. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
GaryG;157897 Wrote: Mark What it boils down to is I'm too honest for my own good, I ordered my transporter on the basis of the marketing and am disappointed to read about it's relative ranking. Regards Gary Has it arrived yet? If not, ignore the relative ranking bit for now. When you have had it in your system for a few weeks, then it's time to comment/rank/rave/brag/swear. -- tomsi42 SB3, Rotel RC-1070/RB-1070, dynaBel Exact, Kimber Kable 4TC and Timbre. tomsi42's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2477 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
I ordered it shortly after the pre-order started, but hedged my bets on the marketing being over enthusiastic and had it shipped directly to Bolder Cables for Wayne to modify it. Now to avoid getting jumped on by my fellow members my expectations are high, I want to replace my GNSC 'Statement' Wadia 861se with the Transporter as I have ripped my CD collection and don't envision using a CD player. At present I use one of Patrick Dixon's SB+ squeezeboxes feeding the DAC section of the 861se and it's very good but the SB+ lacks a digital input which I need for my AV processor. As an aside, I'll never know for sure as I never got to hear the standard Transporter but from looking at the circuit topology of the Transporter and SB+ my 'gut' feeling is that the SB+ has the better performance of the two. Regards Gary -- GaryG GaryG's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2423 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
This looks like a neat comparison: http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=208268 Can´t await mine :) -- Wombat Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
cliveb;154408 Wrote: Let's be blunt about this: it would seem that either dCS or Benchmark are wrong. And they are two of the most highly respected outfits in the business. Thinking about it, I'm inclined to side with dCS, but that doesn't alter the fact that Benchmark know a heck of a lot more about this than I do. Could it be that ASRC has only matured recently? In that tutorial thread which was posted earlier, it was stated that you need to oversample by some enormous factor - 2^20 I think - to get good performance. Then you needed to be clever with a huge array of phases to get it to work right. Designing a chip to do that and implement ASRC well sounded challenging, and I notice the datasheet for the AD1896 is dated 2003 (where as the dCS thing was from 1998 IIRC). Also it does depend on the application - in some cases I would think embedding jitter into the data is a very bad idea (like if you want to do some digital processing later). And certain types of jitter (like something with a strong component below 3 Hz) would not get filtered. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
opaqueice;153738 Wrote: And if the mod is digital only then I _really_ don't see the point without some convincing demonstration that it actually sounds better when connected to a good DAC.I'm not too sure what you're on about, but what we do is to disconnect ALL the SB2/3 output circuitry, and replace it with our own DAC, analogue and digital output circuits together with a linear PSU and plenty of local regulation. I personally have always prefered the analogue outputs of the SB+ to the SB+ fed to an external DAC, but the customer has the choice, and in any event it sounds considerably better that the stock SB2/3. We do convincing demonstrations all the time - otherwise people wouldn't buy them (and we wouldn't have it any other way). -- 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=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
opaqueice;153785 Wrote: I think this takes the prize for most incoherent post - congratulations! It's really very boring to argue with you, so I'll sign off here. ezkcdude, I'm still interested in your response - why do you say it's not true that buffering and re-clocking eliminates input jitter? You don't argue. You just keep telling people that you are right, and that is that. Useless guesses based on what you think the talents and budgets are of various people. Fan-boyism, if there ever was any. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
opaqueice;153738 Wrote: I don't know what's inside the Benchmark - but it's certainly NOT implausible to say a DAC can be jitter rejecting or even immune. If you think it's hype, why don't you back that up with some facts rather than simply making rude assertions? Unless a digital system is using a master/slave clock architecture, it needs to use a PLL to synchronize the transport signal to the DAC. A PLL can reduce jitter in the incoming signal, but has some of its own inherent jitter if the clock in the transport has any difference from the receiving clock. A FIFO buffer can help reduce jitter in this kind of design, but it cannot eliminate it. Do a Yahoo/Google search on asynchronous jitter and see what comes up...this topic has been researched at length by the telecom industry, military, and yes, the audio industry. Pretty much all the credible research says that re-clocking does not eliminate jitter, and in some cases it says that the act of re-clocking can sometimes ADD jitter. Here's an interesting one from said Yahoo search: http://users.verat.net/~rogic2/1541/pdf/ASR_Measurements.pdf#search='asynchronous%20jitter' -- 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=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
PhilNYC;153822 Wrote: Unless a digital system is using a master/slave clock architecture, it needs to use a PLL to synchronize the transport signal to the DAC. A PLL can reduce jitter in the incoming signal, but has some of its own inherent jitter if the clock in the transport has any difference from the receiving clock. A FIFO buffer can help reduce jitter in this kind of design, but it cannot eliminate it. Do a Yahoo/Google search on asynchronous jitter and see what comes up...this topic has been researched at length by the telecom industry, military, and yes, the audio industry. Pretty much all the credible research says that re-clocking does not eliminate jitter, and in some cases it says that the act of re-clocking can sometimes ADD jitter. I think we are talking about two different things. If you read above in this thread, there was a claim (by ezkcdude) that ASRC could significantly reject jitter (or something, I'm not going to go back and check his exact wording). He gave an excellent reference written by a chip designer which describes in great detail (it's about ten pages long) how that works. In a nutshell it is a PLL, but in the digital domain and after upsampling by a huge factor, which allows it to have a bandwidth of around 3 Hz. Apparently that is much better than a more standard approach where one uses a PLL to recover the clock from the S/PDIF directly. However it is also clear that it doesn't not entirely elminate jitter (since it's still using the S/PDIF edges to construct the clock). If done according to his description it's not going to add jitter, except possibly to a signal with very very low jitter to begin with (and then it might increase it slightly). However, there is another, entirely different approach possible, which - as far as I can see - completely and totally eliminates the effects of input jitter. This does not use a PLL at all, because it does not reconstruct the clock from the incoming data stream. As I said above, simply imagine having a huge buffer in your DAC. Now run the audio stream for, say, one hour (the length of a CD). Record the entire thing in the buffer. You now have it stored as a digital sequence which (barring bit errors) is identical to the sequence on the CD, and has nothing at all to do with any jitter in the S/PDIF signal that carried it. Now, after waiting one hour, you get to listen to your jitter-free music as the DAC plays out the data, using its own internal crystal clock (which can be extremely clean). Not very convenient, because you had to wait so long, but this totally eliminates the effects of transport jitter (if not, I'm waiting for someone to tell me why). Now since this is rather inconvenient, you can be more clever and reduce that initial pause to a nearly imperceptible one, and that's what the Lavry does (according to their white paper). This does not use a PLL because it does not reconstruct the clock from the incoming S/PDIF - it uses its own clock - and therefore I fail to see how it can be affected by jitter. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Patrick Dixon;153790 Wrote: I'm not too sure what you're on about, but what we do is to disconnect ALL the SB2/3 output circuitry, and replace it with our own DAC, analogue and digital output circuits together with a linear PSU and plenty of local regulation. I personally have always prefered the analogue outputs of the SB+ to the SB+ fed to an external DAC, but the customer has the choice, and in any event it sounds considerably better that the stock SB2/3. I find it much more plausible that the analogue outs could be improved. What I find especially hard to believe is that the digital outputs are so significantly improved by your mod that you can hear the difference played through a Benchmark. I say that simply because I'd be surprised if there's any perceptible difference between any two transports - say between a $30 DVD player and the SB+ or a $5000 CD player or what have you - when played through a good DAC. I say this because it seems clear that jitter can be entirely or almost entirely eliminated with a good DAC (see my post above). In any case, I'd be very interested to see evidence to the contrary, but that must either be a measurement or a blind test, as we know (from thousands of scientific studies) that non-blind tests are useless for this. Until I see that I wouldn't even consider buying such a mod. After seeing it I would. There are quite a few people that think like I do on this, so purely from a marketing point of view it would benefit you to in fact conduct such a blind test. Given the minimal effort involved, it's interesting (to put it kindly) that this isn't done. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
PhilNYC;153822 Wrote: And here's a pretty good paper by dCS as an overview of jitter as it relates to audio: http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/technical_papers/jitter.pdf An interesting point made in this paper is the claim that asynchronous sample rate conversion (ASRC) embeds incoming jitter into the signal, and that low jitter sources with short cable runs should be used when the receiver employs ASRC. Contrast this to Benchmark's claim (and published measurements) that the DAC1 (which uses ASRC) is immune to incoming jitter - to the extent that you can stick it on the end of a thousand feet of digital interconnect with no ill effects. There are precious few companies around whose literature I would be inclined to accept on good faith, but dCS and Benchmark are two of them. And yet they appear to have diametrically opposed views regarding ASRC. Which leaves me in a bit of a quandry. Anyone care to shed some light on this? -- cliveb Performers - dozens of mixers and effects - clipped/hypercompressed mastering - you think a few extra ps of jitter matters? cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
opaqueice;153828 Wrote: However, there is another, entirely different approach possible, which - as far as I can see - completely and totally eliminates the effects of input jitter. This does not use a PLL at all, because it does not reconstruct the clock from the incoming data stream. As I said above, simply imagine having a huge buffer in your DAC. Now run the audio stream for, say, one hour (the length of a CD). Record the entire thing in the buffer. You now have it stored as a digital sequence which (barring bit errors) is identical to the sequence on the CD, and has nothing at all to do with any jitter in the S/PDIF signal that carried it. Now, after waiting one hour, you get to listen to your jitter-free music as the DAC plays out the data, using its own internal crystal clock (which can be extremely clean). Not very convenient, because you had to wait so long, but this totally eliminates the effects of transport jitter (if not, I'm waiting for someone to tell me why). Now since this is rather inconvenient, you can be more clever and reduce that initial wait from one hour to a nearly imperceptible pause, and that's what the Lavry does (according to their white paper). This does not use a PLL because it does not reconstruct the clock from the incoming S/PDIF - it uses its own clock - and therefore I fail to see how it can be affected by jitter. This is essentially a FIFO buffer (my Dodson DAC does the same thing, albeit with a much bigger buffer than the Lavry), and in this architecture, you need to deal with things like buffer overflow/underflow, because the data is still streaming...and this still requires some cooperation between the incoming clock and the re-clocker. This will still contain some inherent jitter. The only way to truly do it without a master/slave architecture is to completely load the audio data into solid state memory up front, so there is no buffer management required. There is a player that does this called the Nova Physics Memory PLayer... -- 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=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
opaqueice;153831 Wrote: I'd be surprised if there's any perceptible difference between any two transports - say between a $30 DVD player and the SB+ or a $5000 CD player or what have you - when played through a good DAC. I say this because it seems clear that jitter can be entirely or almost entirely eliminated with a good DAC (see my post above).You seem to be following a circular argument - (jitter rejecting) DACs are transport agnostic therefore there is no perceptible difference between transports. Only problem is, in the real world, one can hear the difference. Feel free to try for yourself! -- 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=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
ezkcdude;153858 Wrote: If you're going to keep on with this, at least, you must remember that it is *input* jitter you're talking about. You have not addressed jitter generated in the D/A process (which is not inconsequential). In almost every place (except the one you quoted) I was careful to specify *input* jitter - clearly there will be some jitter in the oscillator used to clock the DAC. But that has nothing to do with the transport, which was my point. Also those clocks are extremely clean. cliveb Wrote: Doesn't this do exactly the same as a PLL with a bandwidth of 0.1Hz? In some vague sense yes - but it's not a PLL, and its characteristics are different. In any case at least for me it's easier to simply think of what happens - if we assume the DAC clock is perfect for a moment, there will be one slightly jittered bit every ten seconds. So one out of every 441,000 sound samples will be very slightly wrong. Precisely which sample it is might depend very weakly on some characteristic of the input jitter, depending on how the algorithm which decides when to adjust the clock works. Another question is whether a real crystal oscillator already has more jitter in it than is caused by these adjustments, in which case this is as good as you'll ever be able to do. PhilNYC Wrote: Well, that might be a semantic difference, because jitter is measured as an average, not regarding each individual rising edge. As the dCS whitepaper describes, we're now talking about Signal-related timing error, not random noise-related jitter. The only reason why you'd have buffer overflow/underflow is because of a difference in the transport and DAC clocks, and this is essentially the same issue that is introduced by PLL's. The bottom line is if you have a system that uses two different clocks, there will be differences, and therefore jitter will be present. EDIT/ADDED: The remaining question is whether it is enough jitter to be audible. Actually jitter has a spectrum - you can measure its RMS average if you like, but that's only one number out of N necessary to fully specify it (where N is the number of bits in the stream, or the times at which each edge arrive). I'm not sure what you mean by the issue that is introduced by the PLL's - actually that's the issue which is *solved* by the PLLs, albiet with some possibility of jitter contaminating the output. Patrick Dixon Wrote: You seem to be following a circular argument - (jitter rejecting) DACs are transport agnostic therefore there is no perceptible difference between transports. Only problem is, in the real world, one can hear the difference. Feel free to try for yourself! I have, and there was no difference. My original suggestion was that you try this as well - evidently you haven't. I'm not sure where you see a circular argument - if DACs are transport agnostic then it follows that transports played through them are indistinguishable. How is that circular? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
cliveb;153833 Wrote: An interesting point made in this paper is the claim that asynchronous sample rate conversion (ASRC) embeds incoming jitter into the signal, and that low jitter sources with short cable runs should be used when the receiver employs ASRC. Contrast this to Benchmark's claim (and published measurements) that the DAC1 (which uses ASRC) is immune to incoming jitter - to the extent that you can stick it on the end of a thousand feet of digital interconnect with no ill effects. There are precious few companies around whose literature I would be inclined to accept on good faith, but dCS and Benchmark are two of them. And yet they appear to have diametrically opposed views regarding ASRC. Which leaves me in a bit of a quandry. Anyone care to shed some light on this? Hi Clive, I understand what he is saying there. He says: DATA JITTER AND ASYNCHRONOUS SAMPLE RATE CONVERTERS Asynchronous sample rate converters can respond to data jitter and process it into the signal, irrevocably. For this reason they should be used with care, and if they have to be used, should be used with low data jitter sources with short cable runs. The point is that ASRC embeds some jitter into the digital sequence itself. So you start with something which, when represented as a string of digits, is identical to the track on the CD. Jitter manifests itself only as small variations in the time at which those bits arrive. But after ASRC you have embedded those timing variations, to some small degree, into the digital sequence representing the sound samples themselves. It's like doing D-A-D', so the jitter in D gets into D' and can never be removed. Of course if you then immediately play out to a DAC that's not a bad thing, but if you stored the digital sequence for later use, or did multiple such conversions, you might run into problems. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
BTW, i've posted in the french forum a little listening review of my new Transporter vs my SB3. For curious frenchies... -- Chander Transporter SB3, Arcam Alpha 8R+8P, Klipsch RF7, Synology CS 406, some QED cables. Chander's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3691 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
ezkcdude;153336 Wrote: That may be true, but it's unlikely to be due differences in transport jitter.So what's it due to then? I've played an SB2/3 and our SB+ into both a Benchmark DAC and a TaCT system, and in both cases the customers could quite clearly hear the difference. The exact same digital files, though the exact same transport mechanism were used in both cases. Since the digital data was identical, the only difference can be the timing of that data - so what they must be hearing is the effects of jitter. -- 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=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Was this a double-blind test? -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2 interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10 subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?page=8675head=0 -- rajacat rajacat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4156 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
I'm *not* saying that. I just don't think it is right to speculate on or debate phenomena for which there is no substantial proof. That's how wars are started. If you had verifiable evidence, then we could start to talk about jitter, power supplies, noise, etc. Until then, it's just mere speculation, and I don't see the point. I understand DBT is not easy to do. When you have two customers (maybe a couple?), couldn't you blindfold one of them while the other watches you switch the source? That should be easy enough. -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2 interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10 subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Patrick Dixon;153632 Wrote: Ahh, OK so we all 'imagined' it. That would be a no. It's not a question of imagining it - that's very naive. When people's medical conditions improve when they take a sugar pill they believe to be an effective medicine, they are not imagining it - they have actually, measurably, improved. If you brought people into your shop where they were surrounded with high-end and expensive gear, told them what they were listening to, added some details about what you had done to improve the SB+, how expensive and effective the new parts were, etc. etc., then of course they would hear a difference. It would take an unusually strong-minded person to say, or even think, otherwise. Try it, just once, blind - it will take you five minutes. Just connect an SB and an SB+ to a Benchmark DAC and turn your back while someone randomly switches from one to the other, and see if you can identify the difference. It would be very interesting if you can - it would prove Benchmark's marketing claims false, among other things. If you are so confident there's a difference, you have nothing to lose. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
ezkcdude;153638 Wrote: I'm *not* saying that. I just don't think it is right to speculate on or debate phenomena for which there is no substantial proof. That's how wars are started. If you had verifiable evidence, then we could start to talk about jitter, power supplies, noise, etc. Until then, it's just mere speculation, and I don't see the point. I understand DBT is not easy to do. When you have two customers (maybe a couple?), couldn't you blindfold one of them while the other watches you switch the source? That should be easy enough. Don't you guys EVER get enough of this? Why don't you slag off all the positive opinions about the Transporter? After all, I haven't heard anything about ABX of the Transporter vs. the SB. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Maybe he's doing that test right now ;) -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2 interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10 subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
P Floding;153643 Wrote: Why don't you slag off all the positive opinions about the Transporter? Nobody's asked me yet, and I'm not trying to denigrate any particular piece of equipment. After all, I haven't heard anything about ABX of the Transporter vs. the SB. Good idea. I would assume (hope) Sean and the gang might have done this quite a bit when they were designing it. -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2 interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10 subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
ezkcdude;153645 Wrote: Nobody's asked me yet, and I'm not trying to denigrate any particular piece of equipment. Good idea. I would assume (hope) Sean and the gang might have done this quite a bit when they were designing it. Huh? You take Seans word on a product's superiority, and trust no-one else? Well, that's a fan-boy... -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
P Floding;153643 Wrote: Don't you guys EVER get enough of this? Why don't you slag off all the positive opinions about the Transporter? After all, I haven't heard anything about ABX of the Transporter vs. the SB. I've never said anything particularly positive or negative about the transporter, as I have no experience with it. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if it's indistinguishable from an SB in a blind test. However I also wouldn't be surprised if it isn't. And that's a box that's been designed from the ground up to be superior to the SB, by experts with a large budget, lots of time, sophisticated measuring equipment, etc. etc. What Patrick is claiming is far harder to believe - that two SBs which differ by a few added parts, going into a jitter-rejecting Benchmark DAC, are easily distinguishable. That's a much stronger statement than saying the analogue outs on a Transporter sound better than those on an SB. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
ezkcdude;153380 Wrote: For those who want to learn more about how asynchronous sample rate conversion (ASRC) is done, and why it is so good at rejecting jitter, there's a great tutorial from a couple of years ago over at diyaudio: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=threadid=28814perpage=10pagenumber=1 I read this tutorial - it's quite interesting and extremely well written. The bottom line though is that this technique differs from the standard DAC technique only in that the bandwidth of the PLL is smaller. In the thread he says it's around 3 Hz, which is pretty small for audio frequency stuff, but I wonder what the comparable number is for a standard S/PDIF PLL. Knowing that would allow one to compare the jitter rejecting capabilities of ASRC to a standard DAC. So this technique does not completely eliminate jitter. Contrast that to the Lavry technique, or any true buffering-and-reclocking technique, which totally eliminates it. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
opaqueice;153649 Wrote: I've never said anything particularly positive or negative about the transporter, as I have no experience with it. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if it's indistinguishable from an SB in a blind test. However I also wouldn't be surprised if it isn't. And that's a box that's been designed from the ground up to be superior to the SB, by experts with a large budget, lots of time, sophisticated measuring equipment, etc. etc. What Patrick is claiming is far harder to believe - that two SBs which differ by a few swapped parts, going into a jitter-rejecting Benchmark DAC, are easily distinguishable. That's a much stronger statement than saying the analogue outs on a Transporter sound better than those on an SB. What a load of absurd nonsense! Why shouldn't it be possible to improve on the SB? Do you really believe the Transporter to be so different? And, if so, in what way would this difference make such a difference to the sound? Also, the Benchmark isn't jitter rejecting. That's just hype. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
P Floding;153646 Wrote: Huh? You take Seans word on a product's superiority, and trust no-one else? Well, that's a fan-boy... Did I say that? It's not about taking someone's word for it. It's about whether the method of testing is rigorous. Was your method of testing rigorous? -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2 interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10 subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
ezkcdude;153659 Wrote: Did I say that? It's not about taking someone's word for it. It's about whether the method of testing is rigorous. Was your method of testing rigorous? Testing of what? -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
opaqueice;153649 Wrote: What Patrick is claiming is far harder to believe - that two SBs which differ by a few swapped parts, going into a jitter-rejecting Benchmark DAC, are easily distinguishable.Depends what you call 'a few swapped parts'. We disconnect all the SB2/3 analogue circuitry and fit our own pcbs and power supply etc etc. Not all mods are the same, but honestly, life's too short ... -- 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=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
P Floding;153675 Wrote: Testing of what? What do you think? -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2 interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10 subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
ezkcdude;153693 Wrote: What do you think? I have no idea. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
P Floding;153698 Wrote: I have no idea. okey doke. I'll spell it out. Testing of how the design of a component affects the signal it produces, which then is eventually amplified and makes speaker cones move back and forth in such a way that the air in between the speakers and your ears vibrates and a perception of sound can be formulated inside your brain. -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2 interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10 subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
ezkcdude;153704 Wrote: okey doke. I'll spell it out. Testing of how the design of a component affects the signal it produces, which then is eventually amplified and makes speaker cones move back and forth in such a way that the air in between the speakers and your ears vibrates and a perception of sound can be formulated inside your brain. Yeah, my method is very rigorous. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
P Floding;153654 Wrote: What a load of absurd nonsense! Why shouldn't it be possible to improve on the SB? Do you really believe the Transporter to be so different? And, if so, in what way would this difference make such a difference to the sound? Also, the Benchmark isn't jitter rejecting. That's just hype. Which part, exactly, is the load of absurd nonsense? Is it the part about how the company which built the SB might have an advantage when it comes to improving it? Especially given a budget of $2000, tons of time, a new architecture, sophisticated measuring tools, etc. etc.? Or is it the part where I said it's harder to believe that two transports connected to a DAC which is hyped for its jitter immunity would sound different then to believe that two analogue sources with very different internals would? I don't know what's inside the Benchmark - but it's certainly NOT implausible to say a DAC can be jitter rejecting or even immune. If you think it's hype, why don't you back that up with some facts rather than simply making rude assertions? Patrick Dixon Wrote: Depends what you call 'a few swapped parts'. We disconnect all the SB2/3 analogue circuitry and fit our own pcbs and power supply etc etc. Not all mods are the same, but honestly, life's too short ... Too short for a five minute blind test? How much time have you spent listening to your SB+? Far more than that, I should hope. And if the mod is digital only then I _really_ don't see the point without some convincing demonstration that it actually sounds better when connected to a good DAC. ezkcdude Wrote: No, no, no. That is not true either. Can you comment on why? I would say the following is a proof of principle - simply record the entire audio stream you're interested in in a big buffer, and then clock it out using a local clock. Not very convenient, since you have to wait a long time before you hear anything, but absolutely zero sensitivity to the input's jitter. Lavry seems to be a clever version of that idea. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
opaqueice;153738 Wrote: Which part, exactly, is the load of absurd nonsense? Is it the part about how the company which built the SB might have an advantage when it comes to improving it? Especially given a budget of $2000, tons of time, a new architecture, sophisticated measuring tools, etc. etc.? Or is it the part where I said it's harder to believe that two transports connected to a DAC which is hyped for its jitter immunity would sound different then to believe that two analogue sources with very different internals would? I don't know what's inside the Benchmark - but it's certainly NOT implausible to say a DAC can be jitter rejecting or even immune. If you think it's hype, why don't you back that up with some facts rather than simply making rude assertions? Too short for a five minute blind test? How much time have you spent listening to your SB+? Far more than that, I should hope. And if the mod is digital only then I _really_ don't see the point without some convincing demonstration that it actually sounds better when connected to a good DAC. Can you comment on why? I would say the following is a proof of principle - simply record the entire audio stream you're interested in in a big buffer, and then clock it out using a local clock. Not very convenient, since you have to wait a long time before you hear anything, but absolutely zero sensitivity to the input's jitter. Lavry seems to be a slightly more clever version of that idea. Rude assertions? Rude against the Benchmark? Get a life.. Electronics is not magic like you seem to believe. It's actually fairly simple stuff. I think you are a bit lost in your beliefs about the state of things. Any competent electronics engineer with a knowledge of digital processing will be able to understand a device like the SB or Transporter. I'm sure the Transporter is very well designed, but it is no big deal to design equally good components for upgrading the SB. So drop the budget BS. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
P Floding;153756 Wrote: Rude assertions? Rude against the Benchmark? Get a life.. Electronics is not magic like you seem to believe. It's actually fairly simple stuff. I think you are a bit lost in your beliefs about the state of things. Any competent electronics engineer with a knowledge of digital processing will be able to understand a device like the SB or Transporter. I'm sure the Transporter is very well designed, but it is no big deal to design equally good components for upgrading the SB. So drop the budget BS. I think this takes the prize for most incoherent post - congratulations! It's really very boring to argue with you, so I'll sign off here. ezkcdude, I'm still interested in your response - why do you say it's not true that buffering and re-clocking eliminates input jitter? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
P Floding;153348 Wrote: There is no pretty much rejection -either source jitter is rejected or it isn't. When you can tell me what PSRR stands for, I'll get back into this conversation (maybe). Until then, you can parse the words any way you want. It doesn't change the bottom line, which is that using AD1896 is one of the best methods for jitter attenuation (o.k.?) short of synching clocks to the transport. This is just a fact, and there is no need to belabor the point further. -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2 interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10 subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
ezkcdude;153380 Wrote: When you can tell me what PSRR stands for, I'll get back into this conversation (maybe). Until then, you can parse the words any way you want. It doesn't change the bottom line, which is that using AD1896 is one of the best methods for jitter attenuation (o.k.?) short of synching clocks to the transport. This is just a fact, and there is no need to belabor the point further. For those who want to learn more about how asynchronous sample rate conversion (ASRC) is done, and why it is so good at rejecting jitter, there's a great tutorial from a couple of years ago over at diyaudio: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=threadid=28814perpage=10pagenumber=1 Power Supply Rejection Ratio? Anyway, what sort of an argument are you putting forward? I'm right so I'm right.. I've read very knowledgable people claim that ASRC embeds the jitter in the new upsampled stream. I've read a fair bit of information technology, and the reasoning behind this conlusion seemed perfectly reasonable to me. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
P Floding;153399 Wrote: Power Supply Rejection Ratio? Anyway, what sort of an argument are you putting forward? I'm right so I'm right.. I've read very knowledgable people claim that ASRC embeds the jitter in the new upsampled stream. I've read a fair bit of information technology, and the reasoning behind this conlusion seemed perfectly reasonable to me. You may be reading, but you are not understanding, or you're just being stubborn. My point about PSRR is that rejection does not have to be all or nothing. It can be quantified. AD1896 rejects practically all of the jitter on the input. Yes, you can always argue that it's not complete rejection. That is correct, but it's just so misleading to say it embeds jitter in the output signal. That makes it sound as if it is done intentionally. Maybe that is what you think, I don't know. What really bothers me is that the truthiness of your comments are likely (nay, typically) enough to convince ~90% of wannabe audiophiles to spend thousands of unecessary dollars. -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2 interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10 subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
ezkcdude;153406 Wrote: You may be reading, but you are not understanding, or you're just being stubborn. My point about PSRR is that rejection does not have to be all or nothing. It can be quantified. AD1896 rejects practically all of the jitter on the input. Yes, you can always argue that it's not complete rejection. That is correct, but it's just so misleading to say it embeds jitter in the output signal. That makes it sound as if it is done intentionally. Maybe that is what you think, I don't know. What really bothers me is that the truthiness of your comments are likely (nay, typically) enough to convince ~90% of wannabe audiophiles to spend thousands of unecessary dollars. Rejection RATIO is, of course, something different to rejects. It's a numer. Doesn't imply infinite rejection, at all. On the contrary. Embedding of jitter is not done intentionally, neither is it something I have invented. It is, claims those who know a lot, a side effect of asynchronous sample rate conversion. ASRC is in effect a digital implementation of a D/A-A/D step. Such as step will pass jitter artifacts through, as you can imagine. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Sorry, but I just cannot continue to argue with you (and your verizon-like army of experts). My good mood from last night is beginning to sour. -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2 interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10 subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/08/slim-devices-transporter-reviewed/ Unfortunately engadget are now compounding the mediocre review, whether this results in lost sales is very debatable, but can't be good for the future of the Transporter. Lose the displays, handles and buttons, put in a cheaper alphanumeric display, apply heavy damping, drop the price and I suspect the reviews will be kinder. You *are* paying a lot for things that don't improve the sound IMHO. -- CardinalFang CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
CardinalFang;153411 Wrote: http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/08/slim-devices-transporter-reviewed/ Unfortunately engadget are now compounding the mediocre review, whether this results in lost sales is very debatable, but can't be good for the future of the Transporter. They're just quoting the other review. -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2 interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10 subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
ezkcdude;153412 Wrote: Sorry, but I just cannot continue to argue with you (and your verizon-like army of experts). My good mood from last night is beginning to sour. Jeezzz.. I really care a lot about keeping you in a good mood. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
ezkcdude;153415 Wrote: They're just quoting the other review. Exactly, and engadget is one of the most highly read tech sites out there. They have a fair amount of influence, perhaps not with audiophiles, but pretty soon it can become common knowledge that a product is mediocre unless some good reviews come along. -- CardinalFang CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
