Phil Leigh;136362 Wrote:
> I was specifically talking about the digital volume, not the
> attenuators. I don't know where they are in the circuit, so they may or
> may not affect output impedance.
The issues are connected, since relying on digital volume means using
the analogue attenuation. The
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
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
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
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
P Floding;136303 Wrote:
> Ehh, actually no!
> They are not totally separate things. The reason is that the
> Transporter has internal jumpers to set output signal attenuation. The
> recommendation is to set the jumpers so maximum volume won't damage
> your speakers.
>
> However, if more attenuat
Sorry to all if I caused a tempest in a teapot here. Being not overly
technically endowed I rely on forums like this to learn and understand,
so I am grateful for all the input. I hope it was helpful for some
others as well.
I checked the specs on my power amps (Quicksilver V4's) and their in
Sorry, I think a short answer I wrote injected a bit of confusion...
There was a question about the Transporter sounding like a passive
pre-amp, a concern sometimes caused by the highish output impedance a
passive can have. I had a brain fart, and mentioned the transporters
digital domain volume
Phil Leigh;136244 Wrote:
> Oh for goodness sake...
> Volume control in the digital domain is nothing to do with output
> impedance/loading. They are totally separate things.
> One is analogue the other is digital.
> You'll be fine. Enjoy your transporter.
Ehh, actually no!
They are not totally s
atkinsonrr;136237 Wrote:
> In response to a related post of mine re: length of interconnect cables,
> DCtoDaylight said this:
>
> "It's been reported elsewhere, that the Transporter controls the volume
> in the digital domain, or before the DAC. As a result it cannot suffer
> from the high outp
In response to a related post of mine re: length of interconnect cables,
DCtoDaylight said this:
"It's been reported elsewhere, that the Transporter controls the volume
in the digital domain, or before the DAC. As a result it cannot suffer
from the high output impedance issues that passive pre's
PhilNYC;136184 Wrote:
> This does seem kind of high...I've seen cdps with balanced output
> impedances at around 200ohms. Hopefully Sean or someone else from SD
> will chime in here...
Yes, I agree. Can someone from SD contribute here? Seems you could
easily put this concern to rest.
I bel
cliveb;136101 Wrote:
> One thing that did surprise me about the Transporter is that the
> impedence of its balanced output is quoted as 1kOhm. Does that strike
> you as unusually high? In my experience balanced outputs are usually
> 100 ohms or less. Can you think of any reason for this? Slim Dev
Patrick Dixon;136085 Wrote:
> ... but the transporter/SB3 is not the same as a passive pre. It has an
> active, low impedance output stage.
One thing that did surprise me about the Transporter is that the
impedence of its balanced output is quoted as 1kOhm. Does that strike
you as unusually high
Surely there are a couple of things at play here - the input impedance
of the power amp and it's overall gain.
A 3V pp input would produce an 84V pp output at the speakers with a
power amplifier with a fairly typical gain of +29dBs. But if the input
impedance of the power amp is too low (or the
atkinsonrr;135995 Wrote:
> Oh oh NOW I'm really worried, as I have a Transporter on order. One big
> selling point for me was the ability to get rid of a seperate preamp!
>
> I am confused by Phil's comment, cause I thought I read elsewhere that
> the Transporter puts out 4.7 volts peak to pe
atkinsonrr;135995 Wrote:
> Oh oh NOW I'm really worried, as I have a Transporter on order. One big
> selling point for me was the ability to get rid of a seperate preamp!
>
> I am confused by Phil's comment, cause I thought I read elsewhere that
> the Transporter puts out 4.7 volts peak to pe
PhilNYC;135269 Wrote:
> FWIW, I have no intention of using the built-in volume control...I
> believe an active preamp is too important for most amps
Oh oh NOW I'm really worried, as I have a Transporter on order. One
big selling point for me was the ability to get rid of a seperate
preamp!
I agree a pre-amp may be necessary, but the DAC's I have all put out
signals of ~2 volts, which is plenty to clip the amps I have. I
assumed the Transporter was similar, but that may be a bad assumption!
I must admit, I haven't actually measured the output of my SB3, as I'm
currently using it's
DCtoDaylight;135713 Wrote:
>
> As others commented, I could indeed disable the internal volume
> control, and use an external one, but "simpler is better". I would
> prefer to just run the Transporters output directly to a power amp. Why
> add more boxes if you don't really need them?!
As I
Man, don't log on for a day and a lot of new posts!
My comment/complaint about digital/pre-dac volume control stands. The
Burr-Brown/TI PGA2310/2311 were exactly the devices I was thinking of.
My Sonic Frontiers Line3 uses the Crystal Semi version, and sounds
pretty good to my ears! I -have-
SD: Can you answer the rest of my questions?
--
Firebat
Firebat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3410
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27158
_
PhilNYC;135368 Wrote:
> Although it is quite a bit easier to do via the BNC and AES/EBU outputs
> (if your DAC has these kinds of inputs...mine does, so I'm happy...!).
>
> And if your DAC has a word-clock output, it will be even better...
agreed - I wish my dac had these features.
--
Phil L
Phil Leigh;135362 Wrote:
> Bravo! - although preserving that low jitter across a spdif cable is
> still a challenge...
Although it is quite a bit easier to do via the BNC and AES/EBU outputs
(if your DAC has these kinds of inputs...mine does, so I'm happy...!).
And if your DAC has a word-clock
PhilNYC;135310 Wrote:
> Because if the Transporter really measures jitter at 35ps at the SPDIF
> output, it would be considered to be one of the best jitter-performing
> transport in its $2K price class (and the clear leader in that respect
> among network music servers)...so for those of us usin
ted_b;135277 Wrote:
> NoI was saying that IF the poster was NOT going to use the analog
> outs (i.e the DAC and well-designed analog stage) or NOT going to use
> the supposedly well-designed volume pot, why buy the thing?
> Obviosuly, the value in this $2k product is the DAC and well-intend
JJZolx;135254 Wrote:
> What you seem to be saying is that the biggest reason anyone would buy
> the $2000 Transporter over the $300 SB3 is for a bloody volume control.
> ???
>
> Or explain this: If one _were_ going to run the analog output into a
> preamp, why in the hell would you want another
ted_b;135217 Wrote:
> If the digital volume control is noiseless then great! If the DAC is
> high-quality, then great! My point: the poster told a prospective
> Transporter buyer that he/she could diasbale the volume control, and
> even come out digitally if they want. I simply said, why bothe
ted_b;135217 Wrote:
> My point: the poster told a prospective Transporter buyer that he/she
> could diasbale the volume control, and even come out digitally if they
> want. I simply said, why bother with a $2k Transporter if that's how
> you are going to use it.
What you seem to be saying is tha
ted_b;135181 Wrote:
> Phil,
> Hi. I agree about Wadia using a great high quality very expensive
> digital volume control. it costs lots of money to do this right. So
> don't expect it at $2k...that's part of my point. It's a noisy
> solution. The Benchmark DAC gets good reviews when it bypas
If the digital volume control is noiseless then great! If the DAC is
high-quality, then great! My point: the poster told a prospective
Transporter buyer that he/she could diasbale the volume control, and
even come out digitally if they want. I simply said, why bother with a
$2k Transporter if t
ted_b wrote:
> PhilNYC;135174 Wrote:
>> At $2K, there's no way SD would be able to put in a high-quality analog
>> volume control that would be significantly better than the digital
>> volume control (assuming the Transporter oversamples and extends words
>> to 24-bit, the amount of "distortion" i
PhilNYC;135174 Wrote:
> At $2K, there's no way SD would be able to put in a high-quality analog
> volume control that would be significantly better than the digital
> volume control (assuming the Transporter oversamples and extends words
> to 24-bit, the amount of "distortion" introduced by bit-s
ted_b;135111 Wrote:
> Let's see$2k and you're saying don't use the volume control cuz it's
> digital and will lop off bits, and/or don't use the DAC, just come out
> digitally to another DAC somewhere. Why bother? It becomes a larger
> version of the SB3 then. I believe a big attraction to
ted_b;135111 Wrote:
> If both of these aspects are suboptimal ...Everything in this world is
> suboptimal ... except me of course.
--
Patrick Dixon
www.at-tunes.co.uk
Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.c
For digital controlled anolog attenuators, the Burr Brown PGA2310 or
PGA2311 are not too bad. These are updated versions of the older
Crystal/Cirrus Logic CS3310s. If the pre DAC digital volume control
is the actual design in the transporter, it's very sad.
--
Firebat
---
JJZolx;135105 Wrote:
> If you feel it's a suboptimal design, don't use the digital volume
> control. Either run the analog outs into a preamp or an integrated or
> else use the digital outs. It's no worse of a design than any of the
> hundreds of ultra-high-end players and transports that have
DCtoDaylight;135099 Wrote:
> Bad Designer! Bad Designer!
>
> Why on earth would you put the volume control in the digital side?
> Well ok, I know why, it's really cheap to do it that way.
> It also means as you turn the volume down, you turn the distortion
> up. IMHO, it's just the wrong place
Bad Designer! Bad Designer!
Why on earth would you put the volume control in the digital side?
Well ok, I know why, it's really cheap to do it that way.
It also means as you turn the volume down, you turn the distortion
up. IMHO, it's just the wrong place to do it. There are very
good digital
The remote actually fits perfectly in your hand and your thumb easily
reaches all of the buttons. It might look odd but it is very
functional and comfortable.
--
Firebat
Firebat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/me
1) Digital ie pre-DAC
2) Yes
5) Gosh that's horrible! How on-earth would it fit in my hand?
--
Patrick Dixon
www.at-tunes.co.uk
Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90
View this thread
seanadams Wrote:
> Transporter has attenuation jumpers so you CAN properly connect it
> straight to an amp.
>
> Yes, but only for 2-channel PCM.
>
> No hard limit, but beyond three or four the loading might become a
> concern.
Wonderfull, 2-ch PCM, only have 2 speakers anyway :)
I was thinkin
Sean,
Congratulations on the exciting new product (I guess products). I
was particularly interested in the answers to the questions raised by
Kim yesterday but I guess it got buried with the huge traffic. I
would like to repeat the questions here and wait for your answers.
Thank you ve
Deaf Cat Wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> Just wanted to check - I'm sure I read somewhere that the SB2 & 3
> produced even better sound if the volume was fixed and a good pre amp
> was used, rather than using the SB variable volume into a power amp.
> I guess from all the added bits and bobs in the transport
How strange those are the same (nearly 4393instead of 4396) dacs as used
by those, said el chipo by many "experts", Behringers units, pro sound
card etc. How can they be put in a high end (high price) product? A
hint, maybe because they are very good?
But seriously those DACs have a voltage outpu
I just looked more closely at the specs for AK4396, and it appears that
it is not a current output DAC. Why was the decision made to go for
this DAC, as opposed to a current output DAC such as PCM1794? I would
think at this price point, you should get the absolute best money can
buy, since DAC chi
1st off, congrats on the new product the tranporter at least looks and
specs great, can't wait to hear one.
Q1, I notice it has a Digital input? Could you elaborate a little on
the function? I will assume at the very least it can be used for
external transports or digital outs from other sources
Hiya,
Just wanted to check - I'm sure I read somewhere that the SB2 & 3
produced even better sound if the volume was fixed and a good pre amp
was used.
I guess from all the added bits and bobs in the transporter this volume
fixed vs variable thing is no longer an issue to fussy ears?
And for th
ackcheng Wrote:
> If linear power supply is used. Does that mean there will be 220V
> version and 110V version?
No, one model for both. It measures the line voltage using an ADC, and
uses a relay to configure the primary windings accordingly.
--
seanadams
-
If linear power supply is used. Does that mean there will be 220V
version and 110V version?
--
ackcheng
ackcheng's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=133
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.co
rupped Wrote:
> Are both the analog outputs hot? Yes, and separately driven.
> I have one amp for my "real" system that takes balanced and would like
> to feed the other amp concurrently with the RCA outs. Please advise.
Go for it! We've added hardware attenuation jumpers for the RCA outs,
so
Trying to figure out if I can sell my fancy pants pre amp to fund a
Transporter (don't take any grief over the name, it has many cool
meanings to me). Are both the analog outputs hot? I have one amp for my
"real" system that takes balanced and would like to feed the other amp
concurrently with the
seanadams Wrote:
> In case you're wondering, the reason for announcing early and pushing
> for pre-orders is mainly to get a handle on manufacturing requirements
> - this is the first time we've had two siginficantly different
> products.
I very much like the early announcement as it affects the
Sean,
The Transporter spec sheet implies it will support up to 96kHzx24 bit
sample rate:
"Sample rates: 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 96kHz
Audio format: linear PCM, 16 or 24 bits per sample"
Q1: Will 96kHz x 24bit streaming from the server be supported?
Q2: If so, when? 6.5 or some later release?
Q2: If so
ackcheng Wrote:
> Do you mean the SRP for the transporter is 1999? SO if we order now, we
> basically get SB3 for free?
Yes. The reason we don't call it "free" is because we charge you for
the SB3 when it ships (immediately). Then it's subtracted from the
Transporter price, charged separately wh
Do you mean the SRP for the transporter is 1999? SO if we order now, we
basically get SB3 for free?
--
ackcheng
ackcheng's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=133
View this thread: http://forums.slimde
mkozlows Wrote:
> 1. Will this require a new version of SlimServer to work (6.5?), or
> will it work with the current version?
Yes, 6.5 will be required. Transporter support in the server, plus a
new transporter-capable softsqueeze will be checked in soon, so the
server will get plenty of "bak
58 matches
Mail list logo
