http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?page=8675&head=0
--
rajacat
rajacat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4156
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450
___
I'm *not* saying that. I just don't think it is right to speculate on or
debate phenomena for which there is no substantial proof. That's how
wars are started. If you had verifiable evidence, then we could start
to talk about jitter, power supplies, noise, etc. Until then, it's just
mere speculati
ezkcdude;153631 Wrote:
> Was this a double-blind test?
Ahh, OK so we all 'imagined' it.
--
Patrick Dixon
www.at-tunes.co.uk
Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90
View this thread: h
Was this a double-blind test?
--
ezkcdude
DIY projects page:
http://www.ezdiyaudio.com
System:
SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step
Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz
anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer
He's n
ezkcdude;153336 Wrote:
> That may be true, but it's unlikely to be due differences in transport
> jitter.So what's it due to then?
I've played an SB2/3 and our SB+ into both a Benchmark DAC and a TaCT
system, and in both cases the customers could quite clearly hear the
difference.
The exact sam
BTW, i've posted in the french forum a "little" listening review of my
new Transporter vs my SB3. For curious frenchies...
--
Chander
Transporter & SB3, Arcam Alpha 8R+8P, Klipsch RF7, Synology CS 406, some
QED cables.
C
CardinalFang;153418 Wrote:
> Exactly, and engadget is one of the most highly read tech sites out
> there. They have a fair amount of influence, perhaps not with
> audiophiles, but pretty soon it can become "common knowledge" that a
> product is mediocre unless some good reviews come along.
It's
Just to be curious, i've read on Trustedreviews their review of my
Synology CS406 NAS and it's also pretty funny. No comparaisons,
estimations, R/W tests, speed tests, heat tests, etc. In fact, they've
simply took the Synology manual and copy it for their so-called and
misnamed "review". How do
ezkcdude;153422 Wrote:
> P, one suggestion. Go to the diyhifi forum and see what happens when you
> make this argument there.
What "argument"?
--
P Floding
P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?us
P Floding;153416 Wrote:
> Jeezzz.. I really care a lot about keeping you in a good mood.
P, one suggestion. Go to the diyhifi forum and see what happens when
you make this argument there.
--
ezkcdude
DIY projects page:
http://www.ezdiyaudio.com
System:
SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconn
ezkcdude;153415 Wrote:
> They're just quoting the other review.
Exactly, and engadget is one of the most highly read tech sites out
there. They have a fair amount of influence, perhaps not with
audiophiles, but pretty soon it can become "common knowledge" that a
product is mediocre unless some g
ezkcdude;153412 Wrote:
> Sorry, but I just cannot continue to argue with you (and your
> verizon-like army of experts). My good mood from last night is
> beginning to sour.
Jeezzz.. I really care a lot about keeping you in a good mood.
--
P Floding
CardinalFang;153411 Wrote:
> http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/08/slim-devices-transporter-reviewed/
>
> Unfortunately engadget are now compounding the mediocre review, whether
> this results in lost sales is very debatable, but can't be good for the
> future of the Transporter.
>
>
They're jus
http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/08/slim-devices-transporter-reviewed/
Unfortunately engadget are now compounding the mediocre review, whether
this results in lost sales is very debatable, but can't be good for the
future of the Transporter.
Lose the displays, handles and buttons, put in a cheape
Sorry, but I just cannot continue to argue with you (and your
verizon-like army of experts). My good mood from last night is
beginning to sour.
--
ezkcdude
DIY projects page:
http://www.ezdiyaudio.com
System:
SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step
Attenuators (RCA-di
ezkcdude;153406 Wrote:
> You may be reading, but you are not understanding, or you're just being
> stubborn. My point about PSRR is that rejection does not have to be all
> or nothing. It can be quantified. AD1896 rejects practically all of the
> jitter on the input. Yes, you can always argue tha
P Floding;153399 Wrote:
> Power Supply Rejection Ratio?
> Anyway, what sort of an argument are you putting forward?
> I'm right so I'm right..
>
> I've read very knowledgable people claim that ASRC embeds the jitter in
> the new upsampled stream. I've read a fair bit of information
> technology,
ezkcdude;153380 Wrote:
> When you can tell me what PSRR stands for, I'll get back into this
> conversation (maybe). Until then, you can parse the words any way you
> want. It doesn't change the bottom line, which is that using AD1896 is
> one of the best methods for jitter attenuation (o.k.?) sho
P Floding;153348 Wrote:
>
> There is no "pretty much" rejection -either source jitter is rejected
> or it isn't.
When you can tell me what PSRR stands for, I'll get back into this
conversation (maybe). Until then, you can parse the words any way you
want. It doesn't change the bottom line, whi
ezkcdude;15 Wrote:
> Can I inject a wee bit of real information here? Most of the DAC's that
> claim to eliminate input jitter do so for a very good reason - they use
> a chip which actually pretty much does that (AD1896). Now, what they
> don't tell you is that the chip costs ~$17.00 and is
krochat;153334 Wrote:
> The TacT RCS 2.2X uses the same AD1896, and the TacT users can tell you
> that the RCS is sensitive to changes in cables and digital sources -
> otherwise the SB3 would be good enough!
That may be true, but it's unlikely to be due differences in transport
jitter.
--
ez
ezkcdude;15 Wrote:
> Most of the DAC's that claim to eliminate input jitter do so for a very
> good reason - they use a chip which actually pretty much does that
> (AD1896).
The TacT RCS 2.2X uses the same AD1896, and the TacT users can tell you
that the RCS is sensitive to changes in cable
Can I inject a wee bit of real information here? Most of the DAC's that
claim to eliminate input jitter do so for a very good reason - they use
a chip which actually pretty much does that (AD1896). Now, what they
don't tell you is that the chip costs ~$17.00 and is really very easy
to implement,
95bcwh;153309 Wrote:
> My statement refers to stock SB only. I have done quite an extensive
> comparison between modified squeezebox vs traditional audiophile CD
> player, see this thread:
> http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25988&highlight=modified
Ah, that was you.My complements o
opaqueice;153296 Wrote:
> You seem to have entirely missed the point - transport jitter is
> irrelevant for these DACs.
>
No. I said that people may use coax when they should be using Toslink,
thus needlessly degrading the sound of "these DACs".
BTW, "these DACs" are very rare. Some may claim
My statement refers to stock SB only. I have done quite an extensive
comparison between modified squeezebox vs traditional audiophile CD
player, see this thread:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25988&highlight=modified
rajacat;153190 Wrote:
> A SB with mods and a good linear powe
P Floding;153270 Wrote:
> I believe most people stay away from Toslink due to it's measured jitter
> performance. Doing so, of course, may be a mistake.
You seem to have entirely missed the point - these DACs are independent
of the transport jitter.
Robin Bowes Wrote:
>
> Adjusting the clocki
opaqueice wrote:
>
> The adjustments in the Lavry clock can not be audible if what they say
> in the white paper is true. They only ajust the clock (by a tiny
> amount) once every couple of *seconds* - so that induces a distortion
> in sounds of frequency less than 1 Hz. If you can hear that I'd
opaqueice;153260 Wrote:
> The adjustments in the Lavry clock can not be audible if what they say
> in the white paper is true. They only ajust the clock (by a tiny
> amount) once every couple of *seconds* - so that induces a distortion
> in sounds of frequency less than 1 Hz. If you can hear th
Patrick Dixon;153248 Wrote:
> There have been other DACs that use this approach, the problem is that
> they do seem to sound different with different transports, which
> implies that the frequency adjustments of the read clock are audiable.
> It's also possible to design PLLs with fairly long ti
Patrick Dixon;153248 Wrote:
> There have been other DACs that use this approach, the problem is that
> they do seem to sound different with different transports, which
> implies that the frequency adjustments of the read clock are audiable.
> It's also possible to design PLLs with fairly long ti
opaqueice;153222 Wrote:
> The concept is simple - you just record the incoming stream of bits in a
> buffer, and then play it out through the DAC using your own clock.There have
> been other DACs that use this approach, the problem is that
they do seem to sound different with different transport
Patrick Dixon;153203 Wrote:
> Please explain (using the laws of physics and engineering) how a 'jitter
> rejecting' DAC does actually, in reality, remove jitter!
It's explained quite clearly in the Lavry white paper, which was posted
here a while back. I can dig it up if you can't find it.
The
DACs with jitter rejection, like the Lavry, should sound the same no
matter what the transport is (and no matter what PSU is used for the
transport). That conclusion is based on the laws of physics and solid
engineering, so it's credible, and there is zero evidence to the
contrary (I haven't list
I run a standard SB3 with a linear PSU into an Audio
Research/Krell/Wilson-Benesch system and the sound quality is
excellent. I use an external DAC (Audio Synthesis DAX Discrete) and the
sound is as good as my Theta CD. Neither get close to vinyl but that is
a different story!
--
Heuer
95bcwh;153165 Wrote:
> Because squeezebox is not good enough.
A SB with mods and a good linear power supply is a superb transport. I
have a stock unit with an inexpensive power supply and it easily
surpasses the SQ of my CDP. I have read review after review by people
with high end systems that h
It's not good enough to serve as a transport? Is your opinion based on
listening experience or technical expertise?
--
ezkcdude
DIY projects page:
http://www.ezdiyaudio.com
System:
SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step
Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 12
ezkcdude;153157 Wrote:
> O.k., so why not just use a SqueezeBox?
Because squeezebox is not good enough.
--
95bcwh
95bcwh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4358
View this thread: http://forums.sli
kbelinski;153096 Wrote:
> Yes. It could be use as a digital source selector. But more importantly,
> many audio enthusiasts prefer outboard DAC. I think digital-out only
> transporter will have its market.
O.k., so why not just use a SqueezeBox?
--
ezkcdude
DIY projects page:
http://www.ezdi
kbelinski;153096 Wrote:
> Yes. It could be use as a digital source selector. But more importantly,
> many audio enthusiasts prefer outboard DAC. I think digital-out only
> transporter will have its market.
Sorry. I misread your statement. I'm just coming of 5 days in the ER
with multiple shots o
Yes. It could be use as a digital source selector. But more importantly,
many audio enthusiasts prefer outboard DAC. I think digital-out only
transporter will have its market.
--
kbelinski
kbelinski's Profile: http://forum
That's what I hope for too..
kbelinski;153079 Wrote:
> I wish Slim Devices could make a digital-out only SB/Transporter with
> both AES/EBU XLR and SPDIF RCA inputs.
--
95bcwh
95bcwh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices
ezkcdude;153082 Wrote:
> What would be the purpose of this?
My thought exactly. Digital source selector?
--
Sleestack
*headphone:* singlepower sds-xlr at, classe sacd2, hd650
*2 channel:* tact rcs 2.2.xp w/ full aberdeen mods, bel canto oneref.
1000 monoblocks x 4,teac esoteric p-03/d-03,
What would be the purpose of this?
--
ezkcdude
DIY projects page:
http://www.ezdiyaudio.com
System:
SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step
Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz
anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer
H
I wish Slim Devices could make a digital-out only SB/Transporter with
both AES/EBU XLR and SPDIF RCA inputs.
--
kbelinski
kbelinski's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1039
View this thread: http://f
Manelus;153058 Wrote:
> Don't give much credit to that Review.
> Transporter outperforms my CD player (Consonance Opera Droplet), way
> more expensive.
> I think Transporter is a great value for money.
Did you actually read the review?
--
rajacat
--
Don't give much credit to that Review.
Transporter outperforms my CD player (Consonance Opera Droplet), way
more expensive.
I think Transporter is a great value for money.
--
Manelus
Manelus's Profile: http://forums.slimde
topa;153009 Wrote:
> I wish I could find something (some DAC) to rival my Ikemi! I find my
> ShekDac to be quite good on most recordings but really bad on "noisy"
> or compressed tracks which the Linn made enjoyable. It just didn't
> matter what disc you threw at the Linn, it was ALWAYS enjoyable
topa;153009 Wrote:
>
> ezkcdude:
> DIY? Which DAC Chip? Output stage or not? What does it do better than
> the ShekDac?
Just take a look at my website. It's kind of a DIY blog. Also, I've
sent out some boards to several DIYers, and I'm waiting to hear
feedback from them on it. Basically, what
topa;153009 Wrote:
> Yepp, whole lotta different DACs out there, and yepp, NOS DACs aren't
> all the same. But the tendency is there, as they don't oversample,
> which has characteristic advantages and then again not.
>
> ezkcdude:
> DIY? Which DAC Chip? Output stage or not? What does it do be
Yepp, whole lotta different DACs out there, and yepp, NOS DACs aren't
all the same. But the tendency is there, as they don't oversample,
which has characteristic advantages and then again not.
ezkcdude:
DIY? Which DAC Chip? Output stage or not? What does it do better than
the ShekDac?
I wish I
topa;153000 Wrote:
> Adam,
> Densen Dm10 it is, and it's been a dream come true with the Kans. I've
> had all types of systems in many price regions (upto B&W N804 and
> System Audio Sa2k) with Linn/Naim/Exposure and now Densen but this
> system now is where I said: "that's it!!!".
>
> Other fro
I'm sure it is disappointing to read a lukewarm review when you just
plopped down a one or two week's paycheck. By the same token, the first
good reviews will cheer you guys right up.
--
ezkcdude
DIY projects page:
http://www.ezdiyaudio.com
System:
SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->
Adam,
Densen Dm10 it is, and it's been a dream come true with the Kans. I've
had all types of systems in many price regions (upto B&W N804 and
System Audio Sa2k) with Linn/Naim/Exposure and now Densen but this
system now is where I said: "that's it!!!".
Other front ends: Linn Ikemi and Rega P25 T
topa;152977 Wrote:
> I have a Densen Amp here, with Linn KanII speakers. Presently, I am also
> using a DAC (NOS by Derek Shek) to make the SB3 listenable, and am
> gathering information wether to buy a Benchmark or Lavry DAC or go for
> the Transporter.
I know the Densen (DM-10 at least) and t
For "lower priced" DACs, the DA7.2 here gets my vote:
http://www.diykits.com.hk/dac.html
(fwiw, this is not sold as a kit, despite the domain name of the
site)...
--
PhilNYC
Sonic Spirits Inc.
http://www.sonicspirits.com
---
topa;152977 Wrote:
> Hi!
> Well of course the situation is different with an external DAC! I was
> talking about the sole SB3 with analogue out!
> I have a Densen Amp here, with Linn KanII speakers. Presently, I am
> also using a DAC (NOS by Derek Shek) to make the SB3 listenable, and am
> gather
tomsi42;152925 Wrote:
> How is your setup? Your description of the SB3 does not fit with my
> experiences. I have tried a stock SB3 with a home made PSU through an
> Electrocompaniet DAC and that sounded very musical.
>
Hi!
Well of course the situation is different with an external DAC! I was
JJZolx;152953 Wrote:
> Absolutely agree about the displays. The second one was indulgent at
> best.
When I read about the Transporter, I too was sceptical about the value
of the second display. At the time it seemed to me that a single
double-width display would be more useful (but probably too
CardinalFang;152944 Wrote:
> Having said all that, it appears to be a fairly balanced review and I do
> have to agree with the comments on the appearance, the displays just
> don't tally with a lot of audiophile's ideas of design, mine included.
> I'd prefer to shave a few hundred off the price a
Mike69;152883 Wrote:
> Just found this
>
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=3645
He's not an audio reviewer by trade it seems and there's a lot of
missing information that it would be nice to have read (other equipment
used, listening environment, more on the music used for review
cliveb;152917 Wrote:
>
> Tip for Slim Devices: when sending out Transporters for review, be sure
> to glue some lead sheeting to the insides of the case :-)
Due to Restriction On Hazardous Substances I would recommend Dynamat.
--
Skunk
I should also mention that despite the Transporter's weight, it is very
solidly built. This is thick aluminum and it's constructed and
supported well, there's very little bend on the rear panel when you
plug or unplug connectors.
Also this ain't exactly an amp we're considering here! The histor
topa;152921 Wrote:
> The SB3 is not bad for the price, even surprisingly detailed, but still
> far away from "musical". It does not have weight to its sound at all,
> and narrows down the dynamic range of the (already narrowed down)
> original CD. And that is exclusivly using FLAC here.
I agree,
topa;152921 Wrote:
> Chander:
>
> I cannot judge the Transporter, there is none to be heard around here.
> I am reluctant to buy without testing, for resons meantioned above. The
> SB3 is not bad for the price, even surprisingly detailed, but still far
> away from "musical". It does not have wei
cliveb;152917 Wrote:
> Tip for Slim Devices: when sending out Transporters for review, be sure
> to glue some lead sheeting to the insides of the case :-)
Yes, exactly. While the aluminum looks great with an anodized black
finish, it's a very light metal. I can confirm the shipping box is
surp
Chander:
I cannot judge the Transporter, there is none to be heard around here.
I am reluctant to buy without testing, for resons meantioned above. The
SB3 is not bad for the price, even surprisingly detailed, but still far
away from "musical". It does not have weight to its sound at all, and
nar
Mike69;152883 Wrote:
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=3645
The thing that most struck me about the review was that the first
criticism he made was that the Transporter was a lot lighter than he
would expect for the price, and then revealed that he has a prejudice
against lightweig
Just ridiculous ! And with what equipment the Transporter was tested ?
An Ipod ?
Just look at the evaluation of the sound quality : SB3 and Transporter
have the same, 8/10; pretty funny, isn't it...
OK, i really enjoy my SB3 and there is no doubt that the sound quality
is already very good. B
Sounds to me like the reviewed didn't volume match the two systems and
the CD player was simply louder.
-Ben
--
Ben Diss
Ben Diss's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4289
View this thread: http://fo
The review is spot on with what I feared:
The Transporter being thin & uninvolving instead of musical. Basically
same as the SB3 only even more detail.
--
topa
topa's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?user
Thanks for posting this. Obviously the enthusiast community will be
disappointed if any review is not raving about it, but I think the
review is fair, reasoned and a balance of good and bad. Ultimately, he
says its improved on the Sb3 but he doesnt feel its excellent value.
When the transporter wa
adamslim;152890 Wrote:
> Interesting, although I'm not sure how much I trust a review (even by,
> err, TrustedReviews.com)that doesn't mention the equipment it was
> tested with. Doubtless the Transporter owners here will have comments
> ;)
>
> Adam
To me, it seems that the tester only had the
Mike69;152883 Wrote:
> Just found this
>
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=3645
Interesting, although I'm not sure how much I trust a review (even by,
err, TrustedReviews.com)that doesn't mention the equipment it was
tested with. Doubtless the Transporter owners here will have c
101 - 174 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
