opaqueice;199866 Wrote:
> Absolutely. Ideally we will do an A/B of an SB3/TP, both analogue outs
> and digital to a DAC, but that depends in part on the patience of my
> host...
>
>
I'd love to see your report as well. You seem pretty level headed and
don't get caught up in all the hype.
--
This thread seems a good place to ask about my own setup--I hope it is
not off-topic:
I have a stock SB3 with stock power supply (wireless connection to
Slimserver) connected via coax cable to an external Upsampler/DAC, a
dCS Purcell/Delius combination. The rest of the system is quite
revealing a
opaqueice,
Do you have balanced inputs on your amp?
If so, would you throw that into the mix?
In blind testing with levels matched I and a friend compared xlr > rca
and we identified a difference every time. It was more than a subtle
difference.
Less grain , smoother highs, more natural soundin
tomjtx;199863 Wrote:
> opaqueice,
>
> I would be interested to hear your impression of transporter.
> Will you post on that?
Absolutely. Ideally we will do an A/B of an SB3/TP, both analogue outs
and digital to a DAC, but that depends in part on the patience of my
host...
Patrick Dixon Wrote:
opaqueice;199856 Wrote:
> You heard distortion at -120 dB - very interesting. Under what
> circumstances, may I ask?
>
> Let me point out that the absolute threshold of human hearing, by a
> 20-year-old in the most sensitive range, is 3 or 4 dB SPL. Therefore
> to make any noise - let alone di
opaqueice;199851 Wrote:
> Distortion st -120 dB? No.
>
> Benchmark DAC 1? Yes.
>
> Transporter? I'm auditioning one tomorrow.
>
> Have you?
opaqueice,
I would be interested to hear your impression of transporter.
Will you post on that?
--
tomjtx
Patrick Dixon;199852 Wrote:
> Yup - all of those and many more as it happens.
You heard distortion at -120 dB - very interesting. Under what
circumstances, may I ask?
Let me point out that the absolute threshold of human hearing, by a
20-year-old in the most sensitive range, is 3 or 4 dB SPL.
opaqueice;199828 Wrote:
> 325xi, now you'll have to decide if you care more about having a
> ridiculously low noise floor and slightly more jitter, or ridiculously
> low jitter and slightly more noise.
You're making me feeling like Buridan's ass...
--
325xi
---
opaqueice;199851 Wrote:
> Distortion st -120 dB? No.
>
> Benchmark DAC 1? Yes.
>
> Transporter? I'm auditioning one tomorrow.
>
> Have you?
Yup - all of those and many more as it happens.
--
Patrick Dixon
www.at-tunes.co.uk
--
seanadams;199825 Wrote:
> You're begging the question. First you say you must have a DAC that
> "fixes" jitter from an s/pdif source. I am telling you that Transporter
> doesn't have such a mechanism and that it is of arguable benefit anyway.
> That is not to say that it does a poor job of recove
Patrick Dixon;199848 Wrote:
> Have you ever heard *any* of this stuff?
Distortion st -120 dB? No.
Benchmark DAC 1? Yes.
Transporter? I'm auditioning one tomorrow.
Have you?
--
opaqueice
opaqueice's Profile: htt
opaqueice;199828 Wrote:
> They will sound exactly the same :-).
>
> -135 db noise floor versus -130 db? Please. This stuff is far, far
> below the level of audibility.
>
> The issue here isn't how good these things sound. It's engineering for
> engineering's sake - knowing you own the best s
seanadams;199818 Wrote:
>
> As you can see the skirts on yellow (TP S/PDIF) trace are ever so
> slightly wider than those of the Benchmark, in red. So what? That's
> mice nuts - look at how much better Transporter's SNR is! Which do you
> think would actually sound better?
They will sound exact
325xi;199813 Wrote:
> Sean, I appreciate having word clock link, I agree with you this is the
> ultimate solution, and I have no bias towards ASRC - I'm just saying
> that too much of gear has no word clock input to take advantage of
> that. And since word clock is the only option offered to end-
Skunk wrote:
> I don't think you should spend $1k for an ASRC chip. Just live with it
> and forget jitter exists. If you really care about the particular
> source so much, have someone add clock input capability.
Good suggestion, since jitter doesn't exist except in magazines and 'net
forums as a
Here is a test I did a while ago which illustrates the difference
between Transporter and other DACs with respect to jitter. This is a
10KHz sine wave:
http://www.slimdevices.com/temp/transporter_vs_benchmark.gif
The Dscope analyzer is running from its internal clock.
Transporter is shown runnin
Skunk;199811 Wrote:
> I used to be in the tire business, so I'm in my element now :-)
>
> To use your analogy we'd also have to assume that one could buy
> after-market tires that would allow the car to be very good in snow as
> well. People who need it all year, and enjoy the highest level of
>
seanadams;199810 Wrote:
> I don't follow how you came to that conclusion. It is an incredibly good
> DAC and you would be hard pressed to find anything with better SNR,
> lower distortion, etc. However, Transporter makes no apologies for not
> resampling, so if you have your heart set on ASRC, ge
325xi;199808 Wrote:
> Well, it's like making a very good car that can run only with summer
> performance tires. It might be fine with some that can have another car
> for every day of week, but would limit possible use of it for many.
I used to be in the tire business, so I'm in my element now :
325xi;199801 Wrote:
> The problem is that if it does nothing with jitter it renders itself as
> pretty much useless as an outboard DAC for real world dirty SPDIF,
> which is a pity.
I don't follow how you came to that conclusion. It is an incredibly
good DAC and you would be hard pressed to fin
Skunk;199807 Wrote:
> And you are in turn saying your gear's lack of said input is a design
> fault of the Transporter, when actually it's the only foolproof way one
> should market somethng as being 'immune' to jitter ;-)
Well, it's like making a very good car that can run only with summer
perf
325xi;199804 Wrote:
> Hey, that isn't nice - you're saying if I don't have all my gear with
> word clock input I don't care about music? ;)
And you are in turn saying your gear's lack of said input is a design
fault of the Transporter, when actually it's the only foolproof way one
should market
Skunk;199803 Wrote:
> IMO the clock output capability, combined with a hard drive source for
> most critical listening, suggest that the Transporter WAS in fact
> designed to be totally immune to jitter- for those who really care
> about it anyway...
Hey, that isn't nice - you're saying if I don
opaqueice;199794 Wrote:
> If you want a DAC that's immune to input jitter, you should probably buy
> one that was designed with that goal in mind - which the Transporter was
> not. The Benchmark DAC 1 for example claims to be totally immune to
> jitter, and measurements back that up.
I don't th
opaqueice;199794 Wrote:
> If you want a DAC that's immune to input jitter, you should probably buy
> one that was designed with that goal in mind - which the Transporter was
> not. The Benchmark DAC 1 for example claims to be totally immune to
> jitter, and measurements back that up.
I asked ab
325xi;199775 Wrote:
> Sean,
> What was the reason behind such a decision, considering that word clock
> is less then widely available feature... It appears there's no option to
> use Transporter as outboard DAC with real world quality SPDIF source if
> I don't have word clock input on the source
325xi;199775 Wrote:
> It appears there's no option to use Transporter as outboard DAC with
> real world quality SPDIF source if I don't have word clock input on the
> source - am I right?
I don't think so. He said if you want to use the Transporter's clock,
rather than the built-into SPDIF timin
seanadams;199651 Wrote:
> When used as an outboard DAC, you must use Transporter's word clock
> output capability if you want to get all the benefits of its internal
> clock. If the clock is recovered from S/PDIF, there is no added
> processing mechanism (such as ASRC) to reduce jitter, so you wo
seanadams wrote:
> I just didn't see the thread. There is nothing really top secret about
> how we achieve low jitter,
You left out designed and engineered by smart, talented and good looking
people.
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
___
audi
When used as an outboard DAC, you must use Transporter's word clock
output capability if you want to get all the benefits of its internal
clock. If the clock is recovered from S/PDIF, there is no added
processing mechanism (such as ASRC) to reduce jitter, so you would be
limited by the quality of
I just didn't see the thread. There is nothing really top secret about
how we achieve low jitter, although measurements indicate that
Transporter's implementation is far better than most. Typically an
oscillator will measure 25-50 ps cyc-cyc RMS whereas ours is 11 ps.
Then everything else in the c
Total silence on the subject, interesting...
Is it a trade secret, or?..
--
325xi
325xi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5661
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=349
325xi;199347 Wrote:
> Sorry if this was discussed already, I did search, but found no clear
> answer...
>
> After Lavry DA10 got busted, I started to consider other options for my
> next DAC, and of course Transporter is on my list.
>
> I know its own internal jitter is very low, but what I wan
Sorry if this was discussed already, I did search, but found no clear
answer...
After Lavry DA10 got busted, I started to consider other options for my
next DAC, and of course Transporter is on my list.
I know its own internal jitter is very low, but what I want to know,
specifically, is what ji
34 matches
Mail list logo
