Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Guys, Here's an update. To recap I am comparing the SB3 and my Monarchy unit being used as transports. I use an external DAC. Loudness levels --- I did buy the SPL meter from Radio Shack whilst I was in the States. The SPLs via the SB3 and Monarchy transports were identical (using a multi-tone signal, octave spacing from Stereophile Test CD 3). Not surprising. So we can rule that out. Mains supply On the power supply side I have improved the mains filtering. Subjectively I think it's helped the sound all round, but the gap between the SB3 and Monarchy remains. Seems the jury's out on the power supply issue (see JLM's last post and thread SB3 and external DAC - views) and I don't have the time to go there without knowing it's going to solve it. Digital cable - I haven't tried a different digital cable yet. I've been reading several other forum threads on this site and it seems the jitter debate is very alive (see thread SB3 and external DAC - views). I'm not confident enough that a new cable is going to help the SB3 with jitter more than the Monarchy. I know my current cable is a decent one, so although improvements might be possible I don't feel it will cancel the gap in performance between the SB3 and Monarchy, which is my concern. To repeat, the differences are subtle: I think the Monarchy allows the little details to just sit there and be appreciated. The SB3 reproduces those little details when I listen - it's just that I sometime don't notice them until I've first heard the same passage on the Monarchy. The point is that instruments are better separated in the soundstage, meaning the brain can recognise the individual sounds with less effort. The Monarchy seems to have a deeper, wider and less forward soundstage. The Monarchy sounds darker, but this isn't just tone - it has a cleaner, quieter and more dynamic feel, the canvass of little notes is quieter allowing the transient louder notes to stand out more vividly. The Monarchy's bass is more dynamic and has more low-end slam too. (Ultimate frequency extension was measured as very slightly better using the LF test tones.) The Monarchy sounds better on transients - the leading edges of notes sound crisper and more real. In the end the differences are subtle. Each aspect of difference stretches the capabilities of my ears - and more likely, the rest of the hifi system - to characterise precisely in isolation. It would be easy to go into subjective ravings which certain kinds of hifi journalists seem to love, but I'm trying to be as careful as possible. I am very sure that in a less resolving system the differences would be lost, maybe entirely. On the other hand, in a more resolving system (and I admit the newest component in my system is 10 years old - see previous post) they would no doubt be a big problem. I don't know the reason still, but perhaps it can be put down to jitter. I believe Monarchy have some reputation around low jitter. Thanks, Darren -- darrenyeats darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Out of curiosity, have you tried this blind? You may be quite surprised by how what seemed like a very evident difference disappears once you no longer know which source is playing. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
opaqueice, I am going to try that. However, I would point out that I WANT the SB3 to sound better. I've just spent money on it, and I've spent literally weeks ripping my music to FLAC (still not finished). Nothing would make me happier at the moment than for the SB3 to sound better :-) Darren -- darrenyeats darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
darrenyeats;203783 Wrote: opaqueice, I am going to try that. However, I would point out that I WANT the SB3 to sound better. I've just spent money on it, and I've spent literally weeks ripping my music to FLAC (still not finished). Nothing would make me happier at the moment than for the SB3 to sound better :-) Well, I know what you mean, but in my own personal experience when I've fooled myself thinking I heard something, it often wasn't correlated with what I expected or wanted. I think the only reliable approach is simply to eliminate any possibility of bias, rather than attempt the very difficult task of predicting how that bias might affect you. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
jeffmeh;195361 Wrote: The other thing you may wish to try is a linear, regulated power supply with the SB3. Some claim to gain dramatic improvement with this, others claim no difference. Best of luck. My two cents on the power supply issue: they are different in USA and overseas, like for me in France. I got a clue on that point because my first SB was acquired used on eBay, from USA. I must say the original wall wart was not much impressive. As it was not a world wide compatible model (100 to 240V) I had to replace it anyway. Later on, when I bought another unit from a local importer, it came with a much larger and good looking power supply, and I feel it's not only a matter of higher mains voltage. So my opinion is that the possible improvement is also dependant of the country where you live. As a matter of fact, I did some tests with a linear workbench power supply, and found no difference. Your mileage may vary! JLM -- jlmatrat jlmatrat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10656 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Kim Kruse;190984 Wrote: Hi, This just to inform all of you, that a review/test of the Slimdevices Transporter is avaiable in the april number of High Fidelity. Unfurtuately on danish/swedish - but for some still readable! I think all of you will enjoy the review. Regards Kim Kruse Denmark Hej Kim Yes, both High Fidelity and Stereophile has paved the way for accepting streaming in quality audio. High Fidelity started with a test of SB3, then had an article on ripping and storing music. When High Fidelity says its good, then people notice, and vice versa. As an example of Stereophile´s testing, if you look at the Bryston B-100 SST review in the April issue of stereophile you will see that streaming wireless via SB3 was the main source. Comparisons made with a Krell KRC-28 cd transport revealed no audible difference in the digital ouput from the two transports. But I do not quite understand darrenyeats test here, first he says there was maybe an advantage to the SB3 as a transport in comparison to the Monarchy, a bit further down he says the opposite...what exactly caused this difference ? Nothing was changed in the set-up -- Anne Bryston B-100 SST, Squeezebox 3, Stax Signature II, Martin Logan Aeon I. Anne's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Jeffmeh, Yes I use flac. As for sound pressure levels, I don't have a scientific way of measuring it. I didn't change volume levels between comparisons (they sounded pretty much equal although I perceive the Monarchy's tone as darker in the mids and highs). I did my best on that score but in the end this isn't a scientific test, it's one person's opinion...I don't claim it is more. If it helps the differences I've heard were apparent at middle and loud volumes. Anne, You read it right, in that I did change my mind over time. My point is that, at first, I wanted the SB to sound as good. But in the end, after a more lengthy comparison, I've changed my opinion and now I feel the Monarchy sounds better. Let me explain what I am NOT saying. I am not saying the SBv3 as a transport sounds bad. It doesn't! It's just that I hear the Monarchy sounds better overall - but I should say the Monarchy has sounded better than several other CD transports I tried at the time of purchase and since. So, also, I am not saying anything about SBv3 versus CD transports in general. I can only talk about my transport. I don't know the reasons and I would be more than happy for advice on tweaks or possible solutions to make the SBv3 sound better as a transport. Also, if anyone else has a different experience to me I would like to hear it. I want to get the SBv3 sounding the best I can in my set up, and I am open to all ideas no matter how crazy since I gave up long ago trying to figure out why digital audio is such a black art. More opinions are important since as you've pointed out there might be a flaw in my test or some weirdness in my system which changes the result. However, I have been quite honest about what I hear in my set up. Thanks, Darren -- darrenyeats darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Well, dont know what is causing the difference, maybe your dac is sensitive to jitter, and works better with the Monarchy. As for cable, I can recommend this : http://www.signals-superfi.com/stereovox/xv2.html -- Anne Bryston B-100 SST, Squeezebox 3, Stax Signature II, Martin Logan Aeon I. Anne's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
I am going to be away from home for a few days but when I get back I will do some more testing. I will also consider the sound meter, digital cable and power supply as advised. Thanks, Darren -- darrenyeats darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Guys, Very interesting (and long!) thread. I've read the HFN review on the Transporter. I am a Squeezebox 3 owner but I was interested to see what they said about the Transporter. They seem to be saying that using network streaming is not as good as the SPDIF input. Some people on the thread can't accept this result as credible, but I am a bit more open-minded. The more I know, the more I realise there is yet to learn in hifi. I can imagine that streaming and SPDIF might use different circuits, at some stage, within the Transporter player. This might explain the difference. As I understand it, the slim devices players use buffering so I don't see TCP/IP in itself as a problem. Or it might be the reviewer is the problem. I don't know, and neither does anyone else for sure. But I accept it is possible the SPDIF sounds better. So on to personal observations... I am lucky enough to have an outboard DAC in my existing set up so I figured to use the Squeezebox as a transport using SPDIF. My set up is: - Dedicated listening room approx 18x9.5 feet (loft room so end walls are sloped, one with dormer window). - Transports: Monarchy CLD-M401 and Squeezebox v3 - Outboard DAC: Sony DAS-703ES - Integrated amp: Krell KAV-300i - Speakers: PMC AB-1 - Interconnects: Precious Metals throughout - Isolation and room treatments: home-made I've heard better and worse set ups, but this is good enough to discover a few things which I report here. First off, I compared the Squeezebox v3 as a player (using the analogue outputs) and as a transport (using the SPDIF output into my outboard DAC). Here the Squeezebox as a player seemed smooth in the treble, with a friendly mid-range and warm bass. In a word, inoffensive (I mean that as a compliment). Initial impression was good but after a short while it was clear that, in my system, the outboard DAC provided more impactful bass, clearer mid-range, more naturally extended treble, more detail and a better sound-stage. Ok, no surprises, and Transporter owners will have nothing to argue with there :-) Then came comparison between using Squeezebox v3 as a transport and using the Monarchy CD transport, each passing 1s and 0s into the outboard DAC. (I used the same SPDIF cable and SPDIF input in each case.) Here the differences seemed almost nil, with perhaps certain vocals sounding more intelligible through the Squeezebox v3. To be honest the comparison was a bit hurried, using only three tracks, since I was busting to get my new Squeezebox purchase in harness. I can't tell you how pleased I was, since I am totally sold on the idea of having my music collection on computer. I believe very strongly this is the way of the future. In time, all music (all media) will be stored and delivered this way. It is so much more accessible and convenient to do so. I have been using this configuration for the last month and it's been good. A couple of days ago, however, disaster struck. I was getting more and more bothered with the sound of my system (this happens from time to time!). I spent a day playing with the speaker positioning! This culminated in listening to the opening track of Bare by Annie Lennox. I just wasn't getting it, it sounded very clumsy and not in-the-room. I was listening to the track for the very first time (the album belongs to my wife). This is always a good test. It sounded a worse recording than her previous album which spurred me into action. In the end, I swapped out the Squeezebox v3 and put in the Monarchy transport. Bang: some detail, sharpness and soundstage came back that was missing before. The loudness of the vocals had more shading, not just blared out but modulated at times. The recording suddenly wasn't so suspect. Out came more and more discs, and each one proved better on the Monarchy (same comments as for Annie Lennox), from big studio stuff like A.R. Rahman to classics like Innervisions by Stevie Wonder and Peter Gabriel's live Secret World concert. I cannot tell you how sorry I am, since I want to use the computer as a music source! And that Monarchy transport is a pain - it's based on the old Philips laserdisc players and it's big, heavy and a reliability problem waiting to happen. Problem is, the Monarchy and Sony together sound great, and they've beaten off a lot of competitors in my system... So many times I have doubted this combo against newer opposition. But each time they prove they can pull a lot of information out of a red book disc, despite their age. I have no explanation for it. Somewhere along the chain the networked 0s and 1s are not arriving at the SPDIF input of my outboard DAC perfectly. Somehow the CD 0s and 1s, via the Monarchy player, are in better shape. I can only guess the issue is around the SPDIF circuits. HFN alluded to the lack of PLL circuitry within the Transporter. So HFN. What I really wanted to see (from a selfish point of view) was the Transporter being used as a TRANSPORT (the clue is in the name) and not as
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
darrenyeats, You did not mention it, but is it safe to assume that you are streaming from a WAV or lossless file, and that you matched sound pressure levels for the comparison? -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Another classic thread. Someone posts a review of a product owned by a person on here, and the magazine is clearly a rag, their testing is bad, the review sample was off and the reviewer is clearly tone deaf. What is it with some people on forums that they can't stand to have their kit criticised in anyway, shape or form. Frankly, who cares? If you like what you've bought, smile, be happy and stop making the rest of us wonder whether you're still suffering from cognitive dissonance. -- Mr_Sukebe SB+, Behringer 2496DEQ, Bel Canto DAC2, Bel Canto Evo2i, Impulse Ta'us, Coherent cables, Stillpoints Mr_Sukebe's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10609 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Mr_Sukebe wrote: Another classic thread. Someone posts a review of a product owned by a person on here, and the magazine is clearly a rag, their testing is bad, the review sample was off and the reviewer is clearly tone deaf. What is it with some people on forums that they can't stand to have their kit criticised in anyway, shape or form. There's criticism, and there's criticism. In this case, there were clearly errors made by the reviewer. Folk on here are just pointing that out. Frankly, who cares? If you like what you've bought, smile, be happy and stop making the rest of us wonder whether you're still suffering from cognitive dissonance. OK, so we care about accuracy of reviews; you care about our mental well-being. That's very touching. :p R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Hi, This just to inform all of you, that a review/test of the Slimdevices Transporter is avaiable in the april number of High Fidelity. Unfurtuately on danish/swedish - but for some still readable! I think all of you will enjoy the review. Regards Kim Kruse Denmark -- Kim Kruse Kim Kruse's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4978 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Kim Kruse;190984 Wrote: Hi, This just to inform all of you, that a review/test of the Slimdevices Transporter is avaiable in the april number of High Fidelity. Unfurtuately on danish/swedish - but for some still readable! I think all of you will enjoy the review. Regards Kim Kruse Denmark I haven't received mine yet. :( Can you recap what they said? Cheers, /Johan -- johann johann's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10177 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
seanadams;188912 Wrote: Have you considered the possibility that it is complete nonsense? Based on Sean's and other follow-up replies this seems to be the case, as well as the fact that other reviews are much more similar in their praise of the Transporter. Thank you for everybody's input and feedback on my questions. -- Jaco Jaco's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10726 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Jaco;189186 Wrote: Based on Sean's and other follow-up replies this seems to be the case, as well as the fact that other reviews are much more similar in their praise of the Transporter. Thank you for everybody's input and feedback on my questions. You're really going to go with the CEO (or whatever, now!) of the product company's opinion over one of an independent reviewer? I have no particular love for HFN, although I have long liked Townshend equipment, and Max himself. I have not heard his 565, but his earlier multiplayer (747) was terrific, and I would be deeply surprised if it were not comfortably better than the Transporter. The review seemed to give the TP a good showing, and saying it's not as good as a very different product at over twice the price is in no way a damning review. I agree that they may not have seemed to 'get' the idea of the TP, but they do generally seem to have given it a chance to shine, and I see no reason why they would have an axe to grind or other reason for bias. Also, it is never impressive when a CEO rubbishes a non-glowing review publicly, even in a fairly informal forum run by his own company. Sean has suffered a few demerit points in my book here. Adam -- adamslim SB3 into Derek Shek d2, Shanling CDT-100, Rotel RT-990BX, Esoteric Audio Research 859, Living Voice Auditorium IIs, Nordost and Anti-cables http://www.last.fm/user/AdamSlim/ adamslim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7355 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
adamslim;189389 Wrote: You're really going to go with the CEO (or whatever, now!) of the product company's opinion over one of an independent reviewer? Regarding testing methods, yes (assuming the rebuttal is credible). Designers have a right to question the test method, hence the printing of the (otherwise boring) test method in the review. -- Skunk Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
adamslim;189389 Wrote: You're really going to go with the CEO (or whatever, now!) of the product company's opinion over one of an independent reviewer? [...] Also, it is never impressive when a CEO rubbishes a non-glowing review publicly, even in a fairly informal forum run by his own company. Sean has suffered a few demerit points in my book here. Are you really viewing my position as my word against his? I depend on no such credibility to support my arguments. I am speaking in terms of quantifiable, falsifiable statements that anyone can test independently. This reviewer is not. I am happy to explain the science as best I can, and to answer questions about my tests or any other statements I have made. This reviewer is not. I encourage people do use reasonable controls to eliminate well known psychosomatic effects in their listening tests. This reviewer uses no such controls, and expects you take the results of his listing test on faith. You may assign all the demerits you like to me, but it won't make this review any more meaningful. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
seanadams;189397 Wrote: Are you really viewing my position as my word against his? I depend on no such credibility to support my arguments. I am speaking in terms of quantifiable, falsifiable statements that anyone can test independently. This reviewer is not. I am happy to explain the science as best I can, and to answer questions about my tests or any other statements I have made. This reviewer is not. I encourage people do use reasonable controls to eliminate well known psychosomatic effects in their listening tests. This reviewer uses no such controls, and expects you take the results of his listing test on faith. You may assign all the demerits you like to me, but it won't make this review any more meaningful. An excellent and cogent response. -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
seanadams;188912 Wrote: Have you considered the possibility that it is complete nonsense? I have no time for reviewers most of the time, they are rarely qualified and mostly self-elected experts, however they do hold a lot of sway and a review like this damns the Transporter with faint praise. I personally think that traditional HiFi company DACs with USB input where the reviewers feel on safer ground will get better reviews. I also think there is a time window where the Transporter can still make a mark as a reference component. Why not invite the reviewers to do the old double-blind test at Slim HQ? Surely leaving things as they are simply cements the notion that computer-based audio is still not true HiFi and is allowing the reviewers to spread misinformed opinion on your products? Perhaps I have it wrong and it is totally irrelevant to future sales. -- CardinalFang CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
CardinalFang;188962 Wrote: Why not invite the reviewers to do the old double-blind test at Slim HQ? Surely leaving things as they are simply cements the notion that computer-based audio is still not true HiFi and is allowing the reviewers to spread misinformed opinion on your products? Perhaps I have it wrong and it is totally irrelevant to future sales. Odds are they'd either refuse for fear of being exposed, or blame the test conditions when they discover they can't hear the difference between any digital sources. I suppose you could ask them whether they can tell the difference first, while sighted, record their answers, and then try it blind. But this has been done many times, and the results are always the same, and it doesn't change anything... they just blame the stress of undergoing a test for their failure, and go away with their heads still firmly stuck in the sand (or elsewhere maybe...). Anyway, as a company selling a high-end audiophile grade product, I'm not really sure SD (or Logitech) has much to gain from this kind of debunking, which would only alienate the audiophile community. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Hi Sean, Thank you for the informative reply regarding jitter in the Transporter. Given that so much attention is given to the jitter in the design of the Transporter and that the results measured by the Miller test aren't really relevant, then the results of the Hifi News review still begs the following questions: 1. What was the cause of the very noticeable difference between the streaming and DAC modes? Qouted directly from the review: In stand-alone DAC mode the Transporter sounded crisper and musically more insightful and involving, whereas via the network connection leading edges were fudged, tempos dragged and the sound became altogether less gripping. Why this should be I can only speculate on but the difference was plain to hear. 2. Why would there be such a remarkable difference in audio quality of the Transporter vs. the Townshend Audio TA565 CD player? Quoted directly from the review: The TA565 majors on being audio Windowlene, clarifying telling microdynamic and acoustic details which many other players smudge. As, indeed, does the Transporter. In fact the comparison was not unlike that between the Transporter in streaming and DAC modes. [...snip...] You could hear the difference in a split second,... -- Jaco Jaco's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10726 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Jaco;12 Wrote: Hi Sean, Thank you for the informative reply regarding jitter in the Transporter. Given that so much attention is given to the jitter in the design of the Transporter and that the results measured by the Miller test aren't really relevant, then the results of the Hifi News review still begs the following questions: 1. What was the cause of the very noticeable difference between the streaming and DAC modes? Qouted directly from the review: In stand-alone DAC mode the Transporter sounded crisper and musically more insightful and involving, whereas via the network connection leading edges were fudged, tempos dragged and the sound became altogether less gripping. Why this should be I can only speculate on but the difference was plain to hear. 2. Why would there be such a remarkable difference in audio quality of the Transporter vs. the Townshend Audio TA565 CD player? Quoted directly from the review: The TA565 majors on being audio Windowlene, clarifying telling microdynamic and acoustic details which many other players smudge. As, indeed, does the Transporter. In fact the comparison was not unlike that between the Transporter in streaming and DAC modes. [...snip...] You could hear the difference in a split second,... Have you considered the possibility that it is complete nonsense? -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Whether you like the Hifi News review or not is irrelevant to the point, which is, that the measured jitter figures showed a large discrepency compared to the ones measured by Stereophile. This woul obviously result in the lower audio quality picked up by the Hif News reviewer relative to other high end players. I tried to find the official jitter figures from the Transporter's datasheet, but all I could find is the following: Clock signals in Transporter are handled not as ones and zeroes, but as precision analog signals. Specialized crystal oscillators, careful clock management, and linear-regulated logic supplies ensure the lowest possible jitter throughout the system. Whether that translates to a good jitter figure or not isn't clear. Perhaps Slim Devices could tell us what the jitter figures SHOULD be, and also what the manufacturing variance on that figure should be. A 4 to 1 ratio just doesn't sound right to me. If that is the case then there are some serious issues with the jitter reuction in the Transporteer's design. So, would Slim Devices like to enlighten us please??? -- Jaco Jaco's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10726 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Jaco;188391 Wrote: The measured jitter results in the Stereophile test was in the region of 250psec - a third of what was measured in the UK version of the Transporter. For comparison purposes, really good DACS and CD players have jitter figures in the region of 20psec. Excellent points in this post. But on Audioasylum lately, there've been exchanges about jitter measurements in Stereophile. Using the Miller analyzer, they've never measured anything close to 20ps. There's also suggestion that the methodology may produce inexplicable measurement variations. Though the difference between the HiFi News and Stereophile measurements of the Transporter does seem larger than the variations quoted. http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=digitaln=127792highlight=jitter+miller+stereophiler=session= -- RuefulR RuefulR's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1672 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Jaco;188562 Wrote: Perhaps Slim Devices could tell us what the jitter figures SHOULD be Sean Adams measured this and published the results on this forum. Unfortunately a search isn't turning up anything. It was fairly close to Stereophile's measurements. -- Mark Lanctot Mark Lanctot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Phil Leigh;188422 Wrote: As an aside, I'd rather use a Black Sabbath album from 1970 than a modern over-compressed piece of nonsense t assess audio quality. They were recorded using good quality gear and good engineering/mastering processes. As a general principle, I agree. But Black Sabbath's first album was recorded for just 600 quid, so the chances they were using a first class studio seems unlikely. (Mind you, it does sound good - probably because they did it so quick and avoided faffing about with loads of overdubs). And of course, if HiFi News were using the CD remaster of this album as their source, then that has been quite heavily compressed. (Album Replaygain for the remaster is -7.52dB). -- 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=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Please people, before making such wildly speculative conclusions about Hifi News reviews or British Hifi magazines in general, just go read the darn review first! The Hifi News reviews are technically sound. Their review process consists of two independent test tracks: one performed by the reviewers by listening and comparing to other similar equipment, and the other by thoroughly measuring the equipment. The measurements are done by Miller Audio Reseach - you can download the measurements for yourself from http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/avtech/. After all that's been done the reviewers try to correlate what they heard through their listening tests with the independently recorded measurement results. It's usually quite amazing how well the listening tests correlate with the measurement results! Here's an excerpt from the Miller Audio measurement results: Measured via its fixed balanced outputs using both 48kHz an 96kHz/24-bit data, the Transporter emerges as an impressive and slick design that offers an excellent technical performance (low THD and wide S/N), only partially let down by a relatively weak jitter rejection. ...[snip] Measured against this backdrop, the moderate 1000psec jitter is a tad disappointing and, being largely data-induced in nature, looks to be a by-product of the S/PDIF input receiver rather than the DAC itself... After noting that the Townshend CDP sounded much better than the Transporter the reviewer writes the following: This outcome might seem surprising in light of the Transporter's mostly exemplary measured performance, but the results of Paul Miller's jitter test may hold the key. While data-induced jitter can make reproduced music sound bland, in Paul's words, the jitter figures recorded here are moderate, rather than debilitating Then a paragraph later the reviewer writes: But there is still a puzzle here, in that Stereophile's recent review of the Transporter - published after I'd already begun my assessment - elicited much lower jitter figures, despite using the same measurement hardware, and reached more positive conclusions about its sound quality. This may suggest that our review sample wasn't in the rudest of health but, until we test another, we have to assume that it is representative of the 230V incarnation. However that pans out, the conclusion for now has to be that the Transporter, despite its broad capability, attractive design and fine perfomance on the test bench in most respects, doesn't quite deliver on its promise of high-end sound quality. It simply lacks the resolution to mix it with the best of conventional audio. For those that didn't read the Stereophile review of the Transporter, they can find it here: http://www.stereophile.com/mediaservers/207slim/ The measured jitter results in the Stereophile test was in the region of 250psec - a third of what was measured in the UK version of the Transporter. For comparison purposes, really good DACS and CD players have jitter figures in the region of 20psec. So, in my mind the Hifi News review was objective and very honest - that's something that can't be said of many other Hifi magazines! -- Jaco Jaco's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10726 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
That magazine has lost pretty much all credibility in recent years. I have nothing against Black Sabbath but I can't imagine using this to evaluate audio equipment. -- crooner SB3 with Custom Linear Power Supply Lite Audio DAC-60 Tube DAC VPI Scout with Benz Micro Glider M2 Audio Research PH3, SP16L and VS110 Vandersteen 2Ce signatures, 2W subwoofer. crooner's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3379 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Agreed! That rag has lost all of their credibility in recent years. slimkid;185303 Wrote: The fact that somebody would use Black Sabbath to do any kind of audio comparison seriously undermines their credibility. -- crooner SB3 with Custom Linear Power Supply Lite Audio DAC-60 Tube DAC VPI Scout with Benz Micro Glider M2 Audio Research PH3, SP16L and VS110 Vandersteen 2Ce signatures, 2W subwoofer. crooner's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3379 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Phil Leigh;186049 Wrote: No I get it now! The thing we need to hang onto here is that in studios, digital signals move all over the place between (digital desks, ADC's, DAC's, processors, computers / workstations etc etc. Generally these are using not plain SPDIF - but then again they aren't using I2S either!. A master clock is always used to lock everything together. In comparison to what goes on in a studio, the act of playing back two channels of PCM over SPDIF is really REALLY trivial...and yet we agonise over it, without ever thinking what kind of processes have been applied (and yes even in spaced-pair purist classical recordings) before the CD ever got made. (sorry this has turned into a rant) I really think we need to put things back into a realistic perspective sometimes. :0) Hmm, this isn't quite correct. Digital signals are incredibly robust, and moving them around studios or the home or almost anywhere else is really not that difficult. However, what is much more difficult is the process of converting between the digital and analogue domains, where the smallest thing (in particular the clock) can have a 'large' effect. Only one of these processes (ADC) takes place in the studio; the other (DAC) occurs in your home and the quality of your replay will be directly dependent on it. -- 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=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Patrick Dixon;186177 Wrote: Hmm, this isn't quite correct. Digital signals are incredibly robust, and moving them around studios or the home or almost anywhere else is really not that difficult. However, what is much more difficult is the process of converting between the digital and analogue domains, where the smallest thing (in particular the clock) can have a 'large' effect. Only one of these processes (ADC) takes place in the studio; the other (DAC) occurs in your home and the quality of your replay will be directly dependent on it. (It's a bit like flying really, the tricky bits are the take-off and landing, the bit in the middle is usually straightforward - however far you fly.) Patrick - whilst I generally agree, the signals do have to be rendered into analogue for monitoring/mixing... -- Phil Leigh Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Phil Leigh;186281 Wrote: Patrick - whilst I generally agree, the signals do have to be rendered into analogue for monitoring/mixing... For monitoring, but surely not for mixing? -- 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=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Patrick Dixon;186285 Wrote: For monitoring, but surely not for mixing? Sorry - yes that's what I meant! -- Phil Leigh Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Pale Blue Ego;185401 Wrote: I could understand if they claimed they heard better bass definition of airier highs, but tempos dragged? That just seems fishy. What do you expect from a British review? Us British have always tired to make ourselves look cleverer with the way we does speak, you know :) Especially nice sounding original, yet utterly meaningless, metaphors. If you think that's bad, you should listen you some of out wine reviewers lol. -- autopilot *SlimServer:* 6.5.1 (Windows XP) + AlienBBC, SlimScrobbler Last.FM. *Amp:* Cambridge Audio 640a (living room) / Denon MD30 (bedroom). *Speakers:* Mission 701's (living room) / Kef Cresta 1's (bedroom). *Remote:* T-Mobile MDA Vario / Sony PSP / Harmony 525 (IR). *Clients:* 1 Squeezebox 3 + Softsqueeze. 'LAST.FM' (http://www.last.fm/user/domrevans/) autopilot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1763 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Phil Leigh wrote: Patrick Dixon;186285 Wrote: For monitoring, but surely not for mixing? Sorry - yes that's what I meant! So, that won't affect the sound at all, right? R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
pablolie;185834 Wrote: They also clearly say they used a totally vanilla PC and did not optimize anything in the wireless network for the Transporter, and that they'd firmly expect that would make a positive difference on top. They used WAVs for their tests. That's very odd, I wonder why they thought that? -- 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=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
JJZolx;185897 Wrote: That's two reviews within the course of a week that claim the Transporter used as a DAC and fed via S/PDIF sounds better than the Transporter fed via network stream. So what can we deduce from this? We know that the network stream feed *ought* to produce a lower distortion output. It seems entirely plausible that some added distortion due to jitter might actually be euphonic for some people (including experienced reviewers). This could be similar to the fact that some people prefer the sound of vinyl over CD. If a firmware update ever appears that supports digital loopback (whose main purpose would be to allow devices such as room correction modules to be inserted into the path), an interesting experiment would be to compare the Transporter's own SPDIF output fed back into its SPDIF input versus a direct network stream. A couple of nights ago I experienced something peculiar that could be related to this. I don't often listen to classical music, and this was the first time I put some on the Transporter to listen properly. What struck me was that the finale of Pictures at an Exhibition (orchestral version) didn't seem to get as loud as it used to on a CD player. Crystal clear, and with superb resolution, but somehow restrained. I had a similar feeling about Bax's Tintagel. Could this be due to lower distortion (we all know that distortion makes things sound louder)? -- 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=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
The outboard DAC argument via SPDIF is *so* old now it'll never die. Bottom line I think is that a modern CD transport will get the data off the CD effectively error-free, and that stream fed into a good modern DAC over SPDIF (perhaps using a FIFO buffer and/or re-clocking) should be pretty close to a perfect signal. Not as simple as a one-box solution over I2S, but plenty good enough. However, a strong WiFi feed doesn't have the inherent weaknesses of SPDIF and is therefore technically the easier solution to achieve better results. Music may be a creative endeavour and therefore highly subjective, but audio is basically an engineering exercise. My guess would be that under a level-matched blind listening test there would be very little to choose between the two approaches but if any of the options would prove to provide a cleaner signal it would be over WiFi straight to the Transporter. It's just data. I would say those Hifi reviews that prefer the sound of a CD transport are subtley biased against the network solution. The only way to put that bias to the test is to do it blind, horror-of-horrors, otherwise those findings are interesting to read but ultimately valueless. -- GeeZa GeeZa's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5563 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
GeeZa;186020 Wrote: The outboard DAC argument via SPDIF is *so* old now it'll never die. Bottom line I think is that a modern CD transport will get the data off the CD effectively error-free, and that stream fed into a good modern DAC over SPDIF (perhaps using a FIFO buffer and/or re-clocking) should be pretty close to a perfect signal. Not as simple as a one-box solution over I2S, but plenty good enough. However, a strong WiFi feed doesn't have the inherent weaknesses of SPDIF and is therefore technically the easier solution to achieve better results. Music may be a creative endeavour and therefore highly subjective, but audio is basically an engineering exercise. My guess would be that under a level-matched blind listening test there would be very little to choose between the two approaches but if any of the options would prove to provide a cleaner signal it would be over WiFi straight to the Transporter. It's just data. I would say those Hifi reviews that prefer the sound of a CD transport are subtley biased against the network solution. The only way to put that bias to the test is to do it blind, horror-of-horrors, otherwise those findings are interesting to read but ultimately valueless. GeeZa - I agree re: bias against network players in Hi-Fi mags. I'm having some trouble following the rest of your post, since transporting PCM over SPDIF is a totally different kettle of fish to moving TCP/IP packets over Wi-Fi in almost every conceivable way. I'm not clear what you are trying to compare. Are you saying there are two forms of two-box solution: 1) computer+ sb 2) transport+DAC and that linking a computer to an SB via Wi-FI (or cabled ethernet!) is a better quality (more robust/accurate) audio solution? - in which case I agree in the general case but we really aren't comparing apples to apples here... -- Phil Leigh Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Sorry that wasn't clear. I was referencing the age-old one box vs two box Hifi debate which traditionally involved the single box CD player (typically using I2S internally) vs the two box Transport and DAC players (typically linked using SPDIF). Imo it used to be quite common in Hifi mags to prefer the two box approach even though there are very good reasons for the single box units (say the classic Meridian 508.20) to be the more elegant audio solution. Hifi people tend to prefer more boxes and higher price tags. I think this *may* account for the bias towards using the Transporter as a DAC simply because Hifi reviewers might feel more comfortable with a robust mechanical tranport for their data rather than thin air (Wifi). Imho using a computer's Wifi signal as a data transport is almost a faultless audio soltion for two channel data, just not sure everyone sees it like that. So I guess I was saying that the Wifi-Transporter method is more akin to the old one-box player solutions. Hey, at least it's not SPDIF. That probably isn't clear either is it? :-) -- GeeZa GeeZa's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5563 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
GeeZa;186035 Wrote: ... Hifi people tend to prefer more boxes and higher price tags. I think this *may* account for the bias towards using the Transporter as a DAC simply because Hifi reviewers might feel more comfortable with a robust mechanical tranport for their data rather than thin air (Wifi). ... HiFi people as a rule have a fetish for beautifully and robustly built mechanics. The mechanical craft that goes into these devices is admirable, and thus psychoacoustics kicks in - it is pleasing to look at and touch, thus it sounds better to the ears. The more senses are involved, the better. Slim Devices went a long way in making the Transporter pleasing as hardware, supposedly the touch is very satisfying, and Stereo.de remarked on the overall feel of the package. GeeZa;186035 Wrote: Imho using a computer's Wifi signal as a data transport is almost a faultless audio soltion for two channel data, just not sure everyone sees it like that. So I guess I was saying that the Wifi-Transporter method is more akin to the old one-box player solutions in that it's elegant and does away with SPDIF, which is long overdue imo. That probably isn't clear either is it? :-) Indeed. One aspect to this is that one needs to stay uncompromisingly true to what always seems to work at the end of the day in audiophile environments: superb mechanical engineering, uncompromising isolation of clean power to the different, visually modular subsystems, and a full bag of additional secret sauce tricks to make the analog signal that comes out as accurate and musical as conceivable. -- pablolie pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
GeeZa;186035 Wrote: Sorry that wasn't clear. I was referencing the age-old one box vs two box Hifi debate which traditionally involved the single box CD player (typically using I2S internally) vs the two box Transport and DAC players (typically linked using SPDIF). Imo it used to be quite common in Hifi mags to prefer the two box approach even though there are very good reasons for the single box units (say the classic Meridian 508.20) to be the more elegant audio solution. Hifi people tend to prefer more boxes and higher price tags. I think this *may* account for the bias towards using the Transporter as a DAC simply because Hifi reviewers might feel more comfortable with a robust mechanical tranport for their data rather than thin air (Wifi). Imho using a computer's Wifi signal as a data transport is almost a faultless audio soltion for two channel data, just not sure everyone sees it like that. So I guess I was saying that the Wifi-Transporter method is more akin to the old one-box player solutions in that it's elegant and does away with SPDIF, which is long overdue imo. That probably isn't clear either is it? :-) No I get it now! The thing we need to hang onto here is that in studios, digital signals move all over the place between (digital desks, ADC's, DAC's, processors, computers / workstations etc etc. Generally these are using not plain SPDIF - but then again they aren't using I2S either!. A master clock is always used to lock everything together. In comparison to what goes on in a studio, the act of playing back two channels of PCM over SPDIF is really REALLY trivial...and yet we agonise over it, without ever thinking what kind of processes have been applied (and yes even in spaced-pair purist classical recordings) before the CD ever got made. (sorry this has turned into a rant) I really think we need to put things back into a realistic perspective sometimes. :0) -- Phil Leigh Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Phil Leigh;186049 Wrote: ... I really think we need to put things back into a realistic perspective sometimes. :0) Like, 80% of the CDs out there don't even merit to be ripped in FLAC? :-) Seriously, I read somewhere in an audio mag that popular music now basically is mixed to sound good as a 128k MP3, just like in the good ole 60s Motown mixed stuff for it to sound good played on the radio... not the best way to ensure subtleties make it to posterity... I am often shocked how flat and utterly poor some of the unavoidable iTunes popular tunes sound when played over my main system, when they sound plenty good in the car or in the portable device I use in the gym. -- pablolie pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
pablolie;186054 Wrote: Like, 80% of the CDs out there don't even merit to be ripped in FLAC? :-) Seriously, I read somewhere in an audio mag that popular music now basically is mixed to sound good as a 128k MP3, just like in the good ole 60s Motown mixed stuff for it to sound good played on the radio... not the best way to ensure subtleties make it to posterity... I am often shocked how flat and utterly poor some of the unavoidable iTunes popular tunes sound when played over my main system, when they sound plenty good in the car or in the portable device I use in the gym. There's a lot of truth in this. However I find it mostly applies to the music my daughters and wife buy. They like modern stuff - I'm more picky I guess. There are plenty of labels / artists putting out quality product - just don't expect them to necessarily be top of the charts... -- Phil Leigh Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Phil Leigh;186059 Wrote: There's a lot of truth in this. However I find it mostly applies to the music my daughters and wife buy. They like modern stuff - I'm more picky I guess. There are plenty of labels / artists putting out quality product - just don't expect them to necessarily be top of the charts... I entirely agree - there are fantastic jazz recordings out there. Every audiophile should own a copy of Kevin Mahogany's Pride Joy, one of the CDs I'd take onto a lonely island even if I only had a boombox... and the recording is absolutely top notch. Good recordings are a total joy... but there aren't many of them. Even some very enjoyable soft jazz albums (Everette Harp, Marion Meadows, some Rippington's stuff) don't sound different whether they are 320k MP3s or FLACs. Same with older Deutsche Grammophon classical recordings, even. It is inevitable, though, to also play very poorly recorded popular music over our systems - mine at least does that quite regularly. And my wife will pick her latest Fergie CD over my Coltrane Favs playlist every day. :-) -- pablolie pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
GaryB;185590 Wrote: Do you mean to say that listening results have no place in a review? That's certainly not a view I would support. For those of you old enough to remember Stereo Review magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_Review) - towards the end it was only measurements and totally worthless in helping one decide what components were worthwile. Well, they do have a place when they're controlled. If the reviewer thinks there's an audible difference, s/he should do a controlled listening test to make sure, and if it's really there try to describe it both subjectively and by a measurement. For example in a speaker review (where the differences with other speakers are typically easily audible) it can be useful to describe the sound subjectively, to complement and interpret measurements of frequency response. Checking your facts and backing them up with solid sources - that's just basic journalism. Reviewing audio equipment based only on uncontrolled listening impressions is a bit like a newspaper reporter basing a supposedly factual article on their opinion instead of reliable sources. News journalists that do that get fired. shane Wrote: So do you need to understand how it works before you can hear a difference? He didn't say that. He said the notion that the TP as a DAC could sound better than TP as a source is absurd, because he designed and tested the thing and he knows the TP as DAC will have a (slightly) more distorted output. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
AndyC_772;185365 Wrote: Similarly, I don't think anyone can say they have no credibility because they choose to use Black Sabbath as a test track. Don't heavy metal fans get a vote too? Personally I couldn't give a stuff how a system sounds with jazz or classical - if it doesn't reproduce dark electro and industrial music with clarity, depth, power and aggression then it's no good to me. Plaintive cries about how smooth, relaxed or refined it is will fall (metaphorically speaking) on deaf ears - choosing music to suit the equipment is the tail wagging the dog. Fair enough, and I didn't mean to start a war on music tastes. And, certainly, if I was into the listening the crickets in the fields, I would have chosen the gear that presents them in the best possible way. However, this is supposed to be unbiased comaprison of the high level/priced components. Everybody (who is into the music) knows how the piano, bass, human voice or any natural recordable sound sounds. So we know the criteria when it comes to judging the performance of the piece of gear. I don't know how the electric guitar in Black Sabbath (or Pink Floyd) really sounds and neither do you. So, we both can choose the gear that we like best. And likely, they would be different. But we can't credibly claim that one is better than the other only because we like it better in presenting our preffered type of music. So, my point in choosing the type of music in such tests is, since we are testing High Fidelity gear, we have to have a criterion - fidely to what. Again, no hard feelings towards metal fans :) K -- slimkid The sound stage will open up, bass will tighten and the imaging will improve. DVD performance will also increase substantially. slimkid's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8881 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
cliveb;185345 Wrote: This statement calibrates their credibility to zero. There is absolutely no way that the signal emerging from a Transporter fed from one of its SPDIF inputs can possibly be more accurate than from its network interface. So if we are to accept that HiFi News genuinely believed it sounded better that way, then we must conclude that they like a bit of added distortion. What might this have to say about their preference for the Townsend player? Afterthought: Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if the reason for their preferring the SPDIF input turns out to be that they inadvertantly had bitrate limiting switched on in SlimServer? In theory you are right, and it is an indication of their basic lack of technical understanding that they did not question this result and look for errors or bad judgement. However, in practice it is possible that a wired interface introduces noise into a system, noise which will depend on the wires, the way the wires connect and what's hanging on the other end of the wires. Reviewers everywhere seems almost universally technically challenged, unfortunately. (At least when it comes to the digital world.) -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
I do understand that, for many people, their goal when choosing a system is to find one which reproduces sounds in a way that mimics the original as closely as possible. That's absolutely fine and I've no problem with that whatsoever. However, I prefer to assess equipment based on how much I enjoy listening to the sound it makes. The music I listen to is mostly synthesized and/or distorted anyway - there's no real point of reference to say that my system sounds 'right' or 'wrong'. So, when I'm looking to buy a piece of equipment, its ability to reproduce a sound in a way that's absolutely faithful to the original is not a criterion I'd use to judge it. I'm more interested in soundstage depth, bass extension, the ability to separate vocals clearly from a complex mix... but if the same system would make a brass instrument sound like the mating call of an elephant, I couldn't care less. But we can't credibly claim that one is better than the other only because we like it better in presenting our preffered type of music. I disagree, I think that's exactly the way to assess whether or not one piece of kit is better than another. I'd expect a good reviewer to try any system with a variety of music, to then be able to give opinions that will be meaningful to as many readers as possible. -- AndyC_772 AndyC_772's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10472 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
slimkid;185653 Wrote: However, this is supposed to be unbiased comaprison of the high level/priced components. Everybody (who is into the music) knows how the piano, bass, human voice or any natural recordable sound sounds. So we know the criteria when it comes to judging the performance of the piece of gear. I don't know how the electric guitar in Black Sabbath (or Pink Floyd) really sounds and neither do you. K Of course you can know how an electric guitar sounds in a real acoustic. You just have to consider the amplifier as part of the instrument. Musicians certainly do - guitarists put as much care into the choice of amp as of guitar. There are plently of web sites out there discussing the sounds of guitar amps, and how they change with different brands of tubes. This is analogous to saying that you can't really know how a violin sounds, since it won't make any sound without a bow. An electric guitar isn't a complete instrument without an amp, just like a violin isn't a complete instrument without a bow. One of the ways I judge a system is how much it can make an electric guitar sound the same as I hear in, say, a blues club. This is just as important as how it makes the horns or drums sound, or how it makes the violins and piano sound on a classical recording. However, as with any other sound, a guitar can only serve as an audio reference if it's recorded without processing. But that's the same as with any instrument. Even the human voice is not useful as a reference if it's subject to the processing used on most pop recordings. -- bobschneider bobschneider's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10074 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
bobschneider;185676 Wrote: Of course you can know how an electric guitar sounds in a real acoustic. You just have to consider the amplifier as part of the instrument. Musicians certainly do - guitarists put as much care into the choice of amp as of guitar. There are plently of web sites out there discussing the sounds of guitar amps, and how they change with different brands of tubes. Of course you're right ... in '50s or '60s of the last century. However, we are talking Black Sabbath here. Now, try to remember when was it last time you saw heavy metal band playing on the Stratocaster plugged in directly into Mashall/Fender tube amp. Likelier, there will be like 20-ish different gadgets in the signal path before it even reaches the amp if it even goes there rather than directly into the mixer. And the real fun is just starting there. And it's not true that all music gets significantly processed. It would be a cold day in hell before Mr. Karajan lets some sound engineer boost and then clipp highs in his rendetion of Mozart's requiem :) -- slimkid The sound stage will open up, bass will tighten and the imaging will improve. DVD performance will also increase substantially. slimkid's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8881 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
slimkid;185680 Wrote: Of course you're right ... in '50s or '60s of the last century. However, we are talking Black Sabbath here. Now, try to remember when was it last time you saw heavy metal band playing on the Stratocaster plugged in directly into Mashall/Fender tube amp. Likelier, there will be like 20-ish different gadgets in the signal path before it even reaches the amp if it even goes there rather than directly into the mixer. And the real fun is just starting there. And it's not true that all music gets significantly processed. It would be a cold day in hell before Mr. Karajan lets some sound engineer boost and then clipp highs in his rendetion of Mozart's requiem :) Oh, I don't disagree that any music played in a hockey arena will be amplified and processed to the point that it's useless as a reference, whether it's Black Sabbath or Nora Jones. I can't really say when the last time I heard a heavy metal band playing on the Stratocaster plugged in directly into Mashall/Fender tube amp, since I wasn't really into that kind of music even when I was 15. (The Ramones are more my speed when I want to listen to something loud and stupid.) But I understand that certain heavy metal albums have very well recorded drums. I didn't mean to imply that all recordings are processed. Classical generally isn't, other than recording to multitrack rather than 2 mike minimalist. (I count about 16 mikes above the orchestra at the Chicago Symphony at Orchestra Hall, and they aren't there for the live audience) Most jazz and blues is similar. But rock and pop is generally heavily processed, and has been at least since the days of the Beatles. -- bobschneider bobschneider's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10074 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
I much prefer German audio mags to US mags because they're far more pragmatic, and www.stereo.de has been my favorite (it also was my Dad's kinda runs in the family). Plus it's one way to keep my German fluent while I live in California. But enough of that - the March issue http://www.stereo.de/st/seiten/default.asp?seitenid=110 has a 3 page review of the Transporter. It is a *very* favorable review, assigning it 80% in absolute sound reference as a DA converter (100% would be something like Accuphase's new $50k combo of separate CD transport and DA), which is awesome for a $2,000 (surprisingly it seems to sell in Europe for Euro 2,000, I know I'd buy mine in the USA :-) It should also be noted that famed German Burmester's 980 SRC DA converter, a Euro 8,500 piece, scored 81% in their absolute sound test. A very favorable review indeed. They also clearly say they used a totally vanilla PC and did not optimize anything in the wireless network for the Transporter, and that they'd firmly expect that would make a positive difference on top. They used WAVs for their tests. When they let the Transporter go against other systems, they fed the original CD from the TEAC Esoteric player into the SPDIF interface on the Transporter, basically testing if networked or direct sounds best over the Transporter's DA, an interesting twist. They said the choice came down to the preference in flavor, but that purely subjectively the signal fed through the TEAC sounded better (thus disproving many SPDIF jitter theories, I assume... or not!). They also use the Transporter head-on against the Benchmark DAC1 as a DA, and the Transproter beats the DAC1 with more smoothness and agility. The review closes hoping that Slim Devices stays fully committed to advance the high end audio streaming concept under its new ownership, a great compliment by a very pragmatic and outspoken mag. From the lab, they report: linear frequency characteristics, but without deemphasis. Good square and impluse behavior, negligble distortion, very small .1% linearity deviation. Excellent 116dB SNR, and better quantization noise of 98dB in the right channel compared to the left. -- pablolie pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
pablolie;185834 Wrote: When they let the Transporter go against other systems, they fed the original CD from the TEAC Esoteric player into the SPDIF interface on the Transporter, basically testing if networked or direct sounds best over the Transporter's DA, an interesting twist. Um, that's exactly what Hi-Fi News did. They said the choice came down to the preference in flavor, but that purely subjectively the signal fed through the TEAC sounded better (thus disproving many SPDIF jitter theories, I assume... or not!). Given what you said above, is that a signal fed _from_ the TEAC or fed _to_ the TEAC? -- JJZolx Jim JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
JJZolx;185844 Wrote: Given what you said above, is that a signal fed _from_ the TEAC or fed _to_ the TEAC? They compared the PC source to the TEAC Esoteric CD source through the Transporter's DA, among some other tests they did. I thought HiFi News had already explained it. :-) -- pablolie pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
pablolie;185886 Wrote: They compared the PC source to the TEAC Esoteric CD source through the Transporter's DA, among some other tests they did. That's two reviews within the course of a week that claim the Transporter used as a DAC and fed via S/PDIF sounds better than the Transporter fed via network stream. -- JJZolx Jim JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
opaqueice;185301 Wrote: In my opinion reviews based on someone's subjective impressions of audio quality are totally meaningless. On the other hand it sounds as though the parts of the review which are more objective (build quality etc.) are quite positive. Do you mean to say that listening results have no place in a review? That's certainly not a view I would support. For those of you old enough to remember Stereo Review magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_Review) - towards the end it was only measurements and totally worthless in helping one decide what components were worthwile. Getting back to this review, I will admit that the results as presented here do seem a bit odd. I haven't read the actual review as I suspect is true of most commenters. My experience is that the Transporter is a very good transport when feeding an external DAC and very close to a very high end transport. If the reviewer finds a big difference then it suggests there could have been some issues with the way Slimserver was set up. However, it doesn't surprise me to hear that the reviewer preferred an external DAC to the DAC in the Transporter. I had the same opinion. Overall, it was still a rather positive review and should be taken that way. Sure the reviewer found some things to complain about but also found many things to praise and stated that he expected even better in the future. Slim Devices should be pleased - this is good press. ---Gary -- GaryB GaryB's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3169 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
JJZolx;185304 Wrote: I've always valued British audio reviews over most others. Many of the British magazine reviews I've read over the years seem very level-headed in comparison to their American counterparts. They tend to value system synergy and value for dollar, in comparison to the typically gushing, empty reviews published in American rags. You used the word synergy, I consider your opinion questionable ;) You're right about the gushing, empty reviews tho. I've given up on magazine reviews over the last few years. -- SuperQ SuperQ's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2139 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
There also appears to be a review in the April edition of Hi-Fi World (also UK I think). Anybody seen this review? -- clarkc clarkc's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10380 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
seanadams;185293 Wrote: The notion that s/pdif from a CD source could better than local playback is absurd. They don't seem to understand how the thing works. Typical neophobia. :( So do you need to understand how it works before you can hear a difference? -- shane shane's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5723 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
norderney;185285 Wrote: They used a Townshend TA565 Universal Player to compare the Transporter with a CD player. Considering it is a £3000 transport I am not necessarily surprised, but having regard to some of their other comments one has to wonder whether they actually understand the technology. Perhaps one day I'll meet someone with said transport and can then compare it to the Transporter, until then I'm chalking their comments down to bias. -- egd Linux and loving IT! egd's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3425 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
seanadams;185293 Wrote: The notion that s/pdif from a CD source could better than local playback is absurd. They don't seem to understand how the thing works. Typical neophobia. :( Either that, or that there is something you don't yet understand happening. -- 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=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
egd;185337 Wrote: ... Perhaps one day I'll meet someone with said transport and can then compare it to the Transporter, until then I'm chalking their comments down to bias. Well, I think a lot has been made of the Transporter's DA subsystem, which is a top notch design according to what I have read, thus I would think it fair to compare the Transporter to other systems including a high end DA stage. Personally, I would not get the Transporter and use a separate DA, I'd always regard it a finished system. -- pablolie pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
norderney;185285 Wrote: Just received the April 2007 issue of Hi-Fi News and they are reviewing the Slim Devices Transporter this month. It's been many years since I last read a HiFi rag, but way back when I did, HiFi News was probably the best of the bunch (of British mags). Their reviews seemed to be a bit more rational than their competitors'. Alas, it seems they have taken leave of their senses. Via the Townshend player, music was crucially better resolved and the enjoyment factor significantly enhanced. Performance had an infectious vitality that the Transporter only hinted at. You could hear the difference in a split second, even on the raindrops and rolling thunder at the opening of Black Sabbath. Translation: The Townsend player sounded different, and they preferred the sound of the Townsend. Eveyone's entitled to a personal preference. Hi-Fi News also thought that there was no question that the Transporter sounded better via S/PDIF feed than via the wired network connection used for streaming audio from the computer. In Stand Alone DAC mode the Transporter sounded crisper and musically more insightful and involving, where as via the network connection leading edges were fudged, tempos dragged and the sound became altogether less gripping. This statement calibrates their credibility to zero. There is absolutely no way that the signal emerging from a Transporter fed from one of its SPDIF inputs can possibly be more accurate than from its network interface. So if we are to accept that HiFi News genuinely believed it sounded better that way, then we must conclude that they like a bit of added distortion. What might this have to say about their preference for the Townsend player? -- 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=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
the reason for their preferring the SPDIF input I was waiting for a 'golden eared' listener to claim that the S/PDIF cable must be more euphonic than 802.11g and had 'lifted a veil' due to some quantum effect ;-) -- amcluesent amcluesent's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10286 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
I was especially amused by this part of the Hi-Fi News review: In Stand Alone DAC mode the Transporter sounded crisper and musically more insightful and involving, where as via the network connection leading edges were fudged, tempos dragged and the sound became altogether less gripping. Fudged leading edges sound delicious, Are these different from chocolate-covered leading edges? :-) Could someone tell me what tempos dragged means? Maybe the Transporter clock was running a little slow? :-) Ahhh... subjective reviews; love 'em! -- Ron Olsen Ron Olsen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9233 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
In their defence, though, hi-fi is a subjective thing. Certainly there's a correlation between measurable parameters and perceived sound quality, but I don't think too many people choose their expensive setups with an oscilloscope rather than their ears. Similarly, I don't think anyone can say they have no credibility because they choose to use Black Sabbath as a test track. Don't heavy metal fans get a vote too? Personally I couldn't give a stuff how a system sounds with jazz or classical - if it doesn't reproduce dark electro and industrial music with clarity, depth, power and aggression then it's no good to me. Plaintive cries about how smooth, relaxed or refined it is will fall (metaphorically speaking) on deaf ears - choosing music to suit the equipment is the tail wagging the dog. That's one thing that makes me wary of spending a small fortune on a Transporter without hearing it first - that its much applauded improvements in sound won't actually translate into something I prefer listening to. My Denon DVD-2900, for example, sounds too polite and smooth through its internal DAC - so instead I connect it digitally to my Yamaha DSP-A1, through which it rocks. So does my Squeezebox, also connected digitally, so unless I prefer the sound of the Transporter through its analogue outputs, it would be a waste of money. -- AndyC_772 AndyC_772's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10472 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Patrick Dixon;185338 Wrote: Either that, or that there is something you don't yet understand happening. It follows from the basics of the design that it's extraordinarily implausible that the S/PDIF input on the TP could produce a signal with less distortion than the TP functionng as a network player. It would require an elaborate, complicated and highly unlikely mechanism. On the other hand we also know that the odds a given listener will fool themselves into hearing a difference, or would prefer one to the other due to bias, are very high. So there are two explanations for the reviewer's comments, one extremely unlikely and complicated, and one very simple and very likely. Take your pick, and if you choose the first I've got some prime lunar real estate to sell you. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
opaqueice;185369 Wrote: It follows from the basics of the design that it's extraordinarily implausible that the S/PDIF input on the TP could produce a signal with less distortion than the TP functionng as a network player. It would require an elaborate, complicated and highly unlikely mechanism. That is well and good, but bitrate limiting or replaygain is not elaborate, complicated or unlikely. -- Skunk Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Not that I'm cynical or anything but until Naim produce their transporter (and it costs £15k!) , Hi-Fi News is not going rate a network player over a cd spinner... HFN is getting whackier each month as far as I'm concerned. It's almost up there with Hi-Fi World (the funniest audio mag ever - if it's 30 years old, Japanese or anything to do with vinyl it's great. They are generally so biased it's just hilarious. However in their defence they gave the TP a good review). -- Phil Leigh Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Skunk;185377 Wrote: That is well and good, but bitrate limiting or replaygain is not elaborate, complicated or unlikely. I was assuming some basic level of competence on the part of the reviewer. If they are not even able to operate the equipment under review properly we really are wasting our time discussing this. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
opaqueice;185380 Wrote: I was assuming some basic level of competence on the part of the reviewer. That would be a mistake, IMO, given the number of times it comes up on the forums, even from those who might generally be good with technology. I guess we have no way of knowing unless settings were outlined in the review, but it seems more likely than auditory hallucination to me. -- Skunk Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
AndyC_772;185365 Wrote: ... In their defence, though, hi-fi is a subjective thing. ... Amen to that. It is subjective. Plus given the nature of discussions that quite passionately flare up in this forum, I am not quite sure why anyone would go up in arms. Then again, I'd know exactly why. :-) -- pablolie pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
opaqueice;185369 Wrote: It follows from the basics of the design that it's extraordinarily implausible that the S/PDIF input on the TP could produce a signal with less distortion than the TP functionng as a network player. It would require an elaborate, complicated and highly unlikely mechanism. On the other hand we also know that the odds a given listener will fool themselves into hearing a difference, or would prefer one to the other due to bias, are very high. So there are two explanations for the reviewer's comments, one extremely unlikely and complicated, and one very simple and very likely. Take your pick, and if you choose the first I've got some prime lunar real estate to sell you.I prefer to keep an open mind thanks very much. It's easy to think you know all the answers, when in fact you're just stuck in your own paradigm. I haven't read the review, but as it happens, the broad listening conclusions reported above, seem reasonably close to my own. I haven't ever tried using the Transporter as just a DAC though. BTW, for an alternative view on reviews, reviewers and Stereophile's 'lists', this is an interesting read http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html -- 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=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
I could understand if they claimed they heard better bass definition of airier highs, but tempos dragged? That just seems fishy. -- Pale Blue Ego Pale Blue Ego's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=110 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
It's always difficult to describe differences in sound; audio reviewers will be criticised whether they try (and use vague, flowery language), or if they stick to %age grades - neither really helps another. What does help is getting to know a reviewer, his/her preferences and so on. Over the years I've been into this stuff, I've found some reviewers that seem to like the same stuff as me, and that helps. The notion of accepting the word of someone blindly is a bit silly - until you have seen what they have said over the years about equipment that you know, they're pretty useless. Similarly, when a new manufacturer comes on board, I like to remain sceptical until I can spend a fair bit of time myself with the kit (rare now), or it's reviewed by someone I trust. This goes for Slim Devices as much as any - while I love the SB3, it sounds good not great. I think they've done really well with the TP, but they are new and have stuff to learn - they're unlikely to knock the Wadias, Mark Levinsons and dcSs into second place with their first audiophile product. (Given the potentially superior technology in streaming over CD replay, they may do it soon though.) Anyway, when it comes to giving reasonably-priced equipment a fair chance, I'd take HFN over Stereophile any day of the week :) Adam -- adamslim SB3 into Derek Shek d2, Shanling CDT-100, Rotel RT-990BX, Esoteric Audio Research 859, Living Voice Auditorium IIs, Nordost and Anti-cables http://www.last.fm/user/AdamSlim/ adamslim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7355 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
adamslim;185423 Wrote: It's always difficult to describe differences in sound; audio reviewers will be criticised whether they try (and use vague, flowery language), or if they stick to %age grades - neither really helps another. What does help is getting to know a reviewer, his/her preferences and so on. Over the years I've been into this stuff, I've found some reviewers that seem to like the same stuff as me, and that helps. The notion of accepting the word of someone blindly is a bit silly - until you have seen what they have said over the years about equipment that you know, they're pretty useless. Adam That's very true...I've been reading Ken Kesslers reviews for years and I know we don't share the same tastes (in equipment - in music we are very similar!) ...and HFN is still (but only just) the most reliable UK Mag... -- Phil Leigh Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Just received the April 2007 issue of Hi-Fi News and they are reviewing the Slim Devices Transporter this month. They give it a rating of 17 out of 20. Five stars for features, three stars for sound quality, five stars for build quality and four stars for value for money. The overall verdict is as follows: A breath of fresh air in the world of network audio players and a brave step for Slim Devices, which clearly beleives that a new generation of audiophiles can be persuaded to take computer audio delivery seriously, even if hi-fi traditionalists cannot. In so many ways it is admirable but, crucially, it fails the acid test of providing comparable sound quality to the best disc based players. Review system breakdown: Amplifier: DACT stepped attenuator passive pre-amp. Exposure XVIII Mono power amplifiers. Speakers: BW 805S They used a Townshend TA565 Universal Player to compare the Transporter with a CD player. They tested it straming uncompressed PCM files ripped from CD (including apparently some 24/96 material too). Via the Townshend player, music was crucially better resolved and the enjoyment factor significantly enhanced. Performance had an infectious vitality that the Transporter only hinted at. You could hear the difference in a split second, even on the raindrops and rolling thunder at the opening of Black Sabbath. Hi-Fi News also thought that there was no question that the Transporter sounded better via S/PDIF feed than via the wired network connection used for streaming audio from the computer. In Stand Alone DAC mode the Transporter sounded crisper and musically more insightful and involving, where as via the network connection leading edges were fudged, tempos dragged and the sound became altogether less gripping. As was the shortfall between the Transporter, even in DAC mode, and a top flight player like the Townshend Audio TA565. However, they do mention that the Transporter is the first audiophile network music player to support file resolutions and sampling rates up to 24/96. All in all a bit of a disappointing review. Any Transporter owners wish to comment? I currently own a SB1 (which I have had for almost 3 years and have been very happy with). I actually find that my SB1 compares very favourably with my Arcam Diva CD72, and in fact since buying my SB1 I have hardly ever used my Arcam CD player But then obviously my Arcam CD player cannot be compared to the apparently faultless Townshend TA565 Universal Player My amplifier is an Arcam Diva A85 (2001) and my speakers are BW CDM1NT (2003). I have been thinking about upgrading from my SB1 to a Transporter. -- norderney norderney's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=378 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Pardon my french but this is a typical british review ! Read the loads of other reviews, especially the one from Stereophile instead. -- Anne Anne's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
The notion that s/pdif from a CD source could better than local playback is absurd. They don't seem to understand how the thing works. Typical neophobia. :( -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
In my opinion reviews based on someone's subjective impressions of audio quality are totally meaningless. On the other hand it sounds as though the parts of the review which are more objective (build quality etc.) are quite positive. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
The fact that somebody would use Black Sabbath to do any kind of audio comparison seriously undermines their credibility. Comparing S/PDIF and wireless without even mentioning the source of S/PDIF probably means that they are confused between computer networking and using digital soundcard output. This review simply doesn't tell me anything about the intended equipment. K -- slimkid The sound stage will open up, bass will tighten and the imaging will improve. DVD performance will also increase substantially. slimkid's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8881 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
Anne;185287 Wrote: Pardon my french but this is a typical british review ! Read the loads of other reviews, especially the one from Stereophile instead. I've always valued British audio reviews over most others. Many of the British magazine reviews I've read over the years seem very level-headed in comparison to their American counterparts. They tend to value system synergy and value for dollar, in comparison to the typically gushing, empty reviews published in American rags. -- JJZolx Jim JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
