sbjaerum;136661 Wrote:
> Will this change be applied also for the first production batch?
>
> Steinar
Yes - the boards have already been made so we will rework them.
--
seanadams
seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimd
seanadams;136660 Wrote:
> That's basically it, with the further point I just thought of: adding
> passive attenuation would be a bad idea unless the source Z in low.
> Really it looks like 100Ω is the way to go - since nobody's
> rooting for 1K, I'm going to change it.
Will this change be appli
DCtoDaylight;136620 Wrote:
> So to summarize, a 100R load wouldn't hurt the Transporter, but might
> cause distortion problems for people using a poorly thought out adapter
> scheme, and a 1k load might cause problems for people using correct (but
> probably long) cabling, with gear having modera
But, the thing is this: sure, it's got 24/96 capability but not a
lot of stuff is in that realm. I take that as a minor consideration.
Word clock: who cares? If you have a DAC that properly re-clocks and
does away with jitter, like the Lavry Blue or DA10, then you don't need
or care about
Hiroyuki Hamada;136650 Wrote:
> I would also look into the digital only version.
>
> Hiroyuki
>
> On Sep 15, 2006, at 11:37 PM, krochat wrote:
>
> >
> > highdudgeon;136641 Wrote:
> >> I think that would be callled a Squeeze Box. Used that into your
> DAC
> >> and you're done.
> >
> > Well, no
krochat;136646 Wrote:
> Well, not quite - the Transporter supports higher resolution files
> (96/24) than the Squeezebox (48/24), and also has AES/EBU digital
> outputs. I, for one, would be very interested in a digital-output-only
> Transporter for (say) $795.
+ word synch.
--
Sleestack
*he
I would also look into the digital only version.
Hiroyuki
On Sep 15, 2006, at 11:37 PM, krochat wrote:
highdudgeon;136641 Wrote:
I think that would be callled a Squeeze Box. Used that into your DAC
and you're done.
Well, not quite - the Transporter supports higher resolution files
(96/24)
philipi wrote:
Given that my system is all digital (meridian) well as digital as is
possible...
Would there be any chance of a Digital Only version of the Transporter?
Possibly at a lower cost?
I'm just a customer, not someone from SlimDevices, but having it be high
priced makes it better for
highdudgeon;136641 Wrote:
> I think that would be callled a Squeeze Box. Used that into your DAC
> and you're done.
Well, not quite - the Transporter supports higher resolution files
(96/24) than the Squeezebox (48/24), and also has AES/EBU digital
outputs. I, for one, would be very interested
philipi;136639 Wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Given that my system is all digital (meridian) well as digital as is
> possible...
>
> Would there be any chance of a Digital Only version of the Transporter?
> Possibly at a lower cost?
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Philip
Would be nice, but I can't wait. I probaly won't
I think that would be callled a Squeeze Box. Used that into your DAC
and you're done.
--
highdudgeon
SB3->Lavry DA10->Nuforce 9.02s->Harbeth Monitor 30s/Skylan stands.
Simple and satisfying. In a larger room, I would move back to larger
speakers, subs, and probably RCS.
Hi,
Given that my system is all digital (meridian) well as digital as is
possible...
Would there be any chance of a Digital Only version of the Transporter?
Possibly at a lower cost?
Thanks!
-Philip
--
philipi
philipi'
I would imagine the Transporter merits a "class A" -- if it doesn't get
it, then something is wrong. Let's see: state of the art DAC (can't
wait for comparisons) and bit-perfect transport.
As for the Class D thing, well, that's just snobbery. The SB is better
than CD players costing far more.
joncourage;136621 Wrote:
> What I don't really understand is a Class D award after JA saying that
> he could barely tell the difference from a component that (I'm
> guessing) got a Class A or B.
>
> I honestly think it's based on a reluctance to assing a more glowing
> rating to a device that a)
joncourage;136621 Wrote:
> What I don't really understand is a Class D award after JA saying that
> he could barely tell the difference from a component that (I'm
> guessing) got a Class A or B.
The class-to-dollars correlation is shockingly high in Stereophile.
The Transporter should be a sho
What I don't really understand is a Class D award after JA saying that
he could barely tell the difference from a component that (I'm
guessing) got a Class A or B.
I honestly think it's based on a reluctance to assing a more glowing
rating to a device that a) is less expensive by an order of magn
So to summarize, a 100R load wouldn't hurt the Transporter, but might
cause distortion problems for people using a poorly thought out adapter
scheme, and a 1k load might cause problems for people using correct (but
probably long) cabling, with gear having moderatly low input impendance
(like the P
andy_c;136585 Wrote:
> I don't know what it puts out in that condition. I'll guess 5 Volts
> peak. Into 100 Ohms, that's 50 mA peak. There's not a whole lot of
> op-amps that can put out that kind of current.
True, but the concern is not what it can successfully drive to ffull
amplitude, but
Patrick Dixon;136583 Wrote:
>
>
> Balanced really only makes sense in a domestic environment if you have
> active speakers and a long run between the pre and power amps.
Perhaps in you setups, but I can think is quite a few other situations
where they are necessary. In one of my audio rooms,
Well that just proves so many things...
Anyone with ears that work can refute that.
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/sh
Stereophile has awarded the SB a class D performance in the Digital
Processors category, along with Apple Airport Express and Echo PC sound
card. There is no lower classification than D, but class D is higher
than no award at all!
In the rating's summary paragraph JA faulted the analog section's
richidoo;136567 Wrote:
> The SB analog stage sounds very good at full volume. Reducing SB volume
> reveals the noise that has been there all along, but does not reduce
> the quality of the music. Regardless of noise level, the music is still
> not being colored by an external preamp, just as it i
seanadams;136534 Wrote:
> Although the op amps could easily drive, say 100R, by using a 1K output
> Z you ensure that the signal from the side you want is not distorted
> because the other side is "working too hard" to drive a short at the
> end of the cable.
Well, suppose someone put one of the
Pat Farrell;136578 Wrote:
>
> Plus a lot of the justification for $1000 interconnects goes away if it
>
> was balanced.
Oh, I don't think it really makes any difference - "$1000"
interconnects are all about marketing a premium product to a small
market. People pay stupid amounts of money for j
Patrick Dixon;136573 Wrote:
> But isn't the point of balanced to drive long cable lengths? Unbalanced
> is just fine for normal 0.8m stuff. Pro audio and domestic hi-fi are
> just not the same thing!
Almost all of my gear is set up using balanced connections from source
all the way to amps. I
Patrick Dixon wrote:
But isn't the point of balanced to drive long cable lengths? Unbalanced
is just fine for normal 0.8m stuff.
The point of balanced is to be immune to noise, or at least noise that
hits both strands of the signal
carrying wire.
Many audiophiles like monoblock amps becau
But isn't the point of balanced to drive long cable lengths? Unbalanced
is just fine for normal 0.8m stuff. Pro audio and domestic hi-fi are
just not the same thing!
--
Patrick Dixon
www.at-tunes.co.uk
Patrick Dixon's P
A poll associated with this post was created, to vote and see the
results, please visit http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19817
Question: S
TiredLegs;136458 Wrote:
> In my own testing, the SB3's analog output is significantly worse than
> digital out through two different DACs I've tried. So, based on your
> statement, it would seem to me that SB3 digital -> external DAC -> amp
> should produce the best sound quality.
The SB analog
Sorry I caught this cool thread a little late...
Way back when, like a year or more ago, we discussed the volume control
algorithm and decided it was up to par and had no bad effect on the 16
bit output. I assume similar or better software will be used in
Transporter volume control, so the digita
I'd have thought what mattered is the low pass filter break point formed
by the output stage/input stage [resistive] impedance and the cables
[capcitance] impedance (plus any input capacitance of the power amp).
Even if the output stage impedance = input stage impedance as long as
the LPF break p
Sean's reply in a new thread at
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27445
--
ChrisOwens
Christopher Owens
QA Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(650) 210-9400 x717
ChrisOwens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/mem
Most of the SD people that post here are on the engineering team, so
they keep us away from CEDIA! :) We are busy with launching
Transporter and getting 6.5 ready to ship, as you guessed.
I'm sure Sean will pop up here when he gets a chance, because he's the
one that designed and specced the out
I think the general rule of thumb that most audiophiles make is that the
input impedance of an amplifier should be at least 100x the output
impedance of the preamp/source that preceeds it. For many amps, 1kohm
output impedance of the Transporter should be fine, but there are many
amps out there t
I've been talking with AKM about the question of what is the "right"
impedance for a balanced output.
They use 1K because in practice, it is very common for someone to
unwittingly connect a passive balun connector to the end of a balanced
cable in order to drive an RCA input. These adaptors hav
JohnSwenson;136360 Wrote:
> My current preamp is a DIY model that I would say is on par with
> commercial ones in the $4k to $10K range. Using the SB3 direct to the
> power amp, even with the digital volume control, sounds significantly
> better than using the preamp.
Just to be sure I'm understa
A poll associated with this post was created, to vote and see the
results, please visit http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19817
Question: S
atkinsonrr;136231 Wrote:
> Yes, I agree. Can someone from SD contribute here? Seems you could
> easily put this concern to rest.
Just btw - CEDIA is this week (started yesterday, ends on Sunday), so
I'm guessing that the folks from SD are all busy with activities there
launching the Transpor
highdudgeon;135958 Wrote:
> Alas, the problem then becomes one of attenuation. The Lavry has a
> range of 0-56 for volume control. It is analog. They recommend 40,
> which seems high, for use with domestic audio products.
>
> Okay, I've tried it in the past, and it was okay. However, it me
I got a digital cable for $15 and plugged my SB3 into a very old Linn
Numerik DAC. Money well spent in my opinion.
--
the_twin
the_twin's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5324
View this thread: http
the_twin;136315 Wrote:
> In the end what is best is what you prefer, not the opinion of some self
> appointed expert.
Thanks for making such a meaningful contribution to the thread and
responding to my first post!
I carried out blind listening of both and must admit I was amazed at
how much bet
atkinsonrr;136354 Wrote:
> ... one has power amps that are unusually low in sensitivity or
> unusually high in impedance.I think you mean unusually LOW in (input)
> impedance!
--
Patrick Dixon
www.at-tunes.co.uk
Patrick
42 matches
Mail list logo
