You could and most probably will soon be able to use the TACT as a dsp
processor inserted tween the transporters digital output and it's own
DAC. FW40 allowed you to do that but it was withdrawn cos it was a tad
unstable (evidently) In all probability , there would be a difference
tween using the
I have an SB3 with the Bolder digital mods and power supply. I send the
digital signal to a TacT 2.0 pre/DAC.
I know the Transporter is a lot better than the SB3 if you're using
their respective internal DAC's. My question, is the Transporter a step
up from the SB3 if I'm using an exteranl DAC?
ecruz;294050 Wrote:
I have an SB3 with the Bolder digital mods and power supply. I send the
digital signal to a TacT 2.0 pre/DAC.
I know the Transporter is a lot better than the SB3 if you're using
their respective internal DAC's. My question, is the Transporter a step
up from the SB3 if
I am using (and LOVE) the room correction on the TacT.
I was thinking that there probably wouldn't be much difference since
I'm using and external DAC. From what I've heard, the big upgrades to
the Transporter are on the analog side.
--
ecruz
NewBuyer;251721 Wrote:
What is the retail price of that Linn Unidisk?
How did you rip your music files (what program, etc), and what format?
The unidisk sc is a cd multi player , and preamp, i think it cost
around 5000 usd.
Its not like the transporter it still uses its cd drive as
NewBuyer;251721 Wrote:
What is the retail price of that Linn Unidisk?
How did you rip your music files (what program, etc), and what format?
For the test we used waw files,we also compared appel looslees
aiff and heard no audioble difference between the formats.
We used a appel
I don't believe that price is what matters!
I started with the analogue outputs of the transporter and compared it
to the Linn Akurate CD Player. I was surprised that it was difficult to
hear a real diference, maybe the Linn had a better soundstage, but the
rest was not really worth mentioning.
dlhamby wrote:
Since you would not be using the Squeezebox or Transporter audio
outputs, both players should sound identical in Firedog's proposed
architecture.
Why should they?
Differences between digital sources are well-documented.
R.
___
If I understand the original post correctly, Firedog intends to use a
separate DAC to do the actual analog to digital conversion. In this
architecture, the Slim player will pass the digital bit stream to the
DAC which will jitter buffer it, retime it, and do the actual digital
to analog
mofuv;251572 Wrote:
I don't believe that price is what matters!
I started with the analogue outputs of the transporter and compared it
to the Linn Akurate CD Player. I was surprised that it was difficult to
hear a real diference, maybe the Linn had a better soundstage, but the
rest was
Robin Bowes;251603 Wrote:
dlhamby wrote:
Since you would not be using the Squeezebox or Transporter audio
outputs, both players should sound identical in Firedog's proposed
architecture.
Why should they?
Differences between digital sources are well-documented.
R.
I have one foot
Mofuv,
Are you running your digital front end through a preamp and if so what
preamp? Have you tried running the Transporter direct to amp?
To compare transporter, Linn and Scarlatti dac with and without master
clock I used an integrated amp (LUA Sinfonia). Thus I could do double
blind
darrenyeats;251617 Wrote:
I have one foot firmly in the blind testing camp and one in the
open-minded camp.
I think sources can sound different. However, I believe the better
sources sound rather similar and to make unbiased judgements on the
subtle differences between them (are they just
The most important difference between the squeeze box and the
transporter is that the transporter has a world clock input. So if you
are using a high-end dac with an world clock output as master you have
very low jitter. You can also connect both and maybe a separate
upsampler to a sepate world
From my experiments I find that if you take the SB3, change the PSU for
a linear one, and use a good enough external DAC (Something with a
highly rated capability for removing jitter)then the result will stand
comparison with some other very good sources. If you don't want 24/96
playback then I
There's been a lot of talk about linear ps for SB. What are people
using?
--
avta
avta's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1860
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41160
mofuv;251477 Wrote:
The most important difference between the squeeze box and the
transporter is that the transporter has a world clock input. So if you
are using a high-end dac with an world clock output as master you have
very low jitter. You can also connect both and maybe a separate
harmonic wrote:
Thats a very impressiv digital playback system you have there that
system must must cost 4 times as much as the linn akurate cd player.
No wonder it sounds better
Yes, because obviously the more a system costs the better it sounds.
, but the real interresting thing
mofuv;251477 Wrote:
The most important difference between the squeeze box and the
transporter is that the transporter has a world clock input. So if you
are using a high-end dac with an world clock output as master you have
very low jitter. You can also connect both and maybe a separate
Transporter is connected via balanced AES/EBU to the purcell upsampler.
The Ethernet output then links to the dac and from there via balanced
outputs to the A-60 (balanced inputs).
The master clock is connected via BNC to the transporter, the upsamler
and the dac.
--
mofuv
darrenyeats;250989 Wrote:
Personally I like the sound of accuracy. Low distortion and a flat
frequency response sound good to me, although I admit many listeners
find these create a flat, sterile sound. It appears you tend toward the
latter opinion. All these impressions are equally valid
Oh well then here it goes with the tune dem method the linn ikemi beat
then transporter handely.
(tune dem is basicly a method for mesasuring a system , what you do
is simply listen for have well you can follow individuel notes in the
playback the better you can do this the more musical it
harmonic;250799 Wrote:
... linn ikemi beat then transporter handely.
...The transporter was more analytical and darker sounding to and much
less PRAT.
Is this the stock TP or the super tube job?
.
--
haunyack
haunyack;250819 Wrote:
Is this the stock TP or the super tube job?
.
Stock transporter.
I have no experince with the modwright one you are refering to.
I did have a modded one and it dos sound somwhat better but the tune
dem tyhing is the same , but the real shortfall of the
harmonic;250827 Wrote:
Stock transporter...
linn Sony cd players...steril and analytical players you could buy.
Is there a correlation between the two according to your subjective
response?
--
haunyack
haunyack's
harmonic;250827 Wrote:
I remember the sony top of the linn Sony cd players , the had specs no
one could compete with but the where also som of the most steril and
analytical players you could buy.
This is part of the age-old debate between the specification
measurement wonks and the
I full hartly agree.
I was at a hifi show in copenghagen last month, when i walked into the
Gamut Audio room my grilfriend that was with me out of no where said
that sound horrible .
The sound came from the new top of the lin gamut L9 speakers that weigh
in at 115.000 usd.
--
harmonic
haunyack;250828 Wrote:
huh?
Do you believe there's correlation between the two according to your
subjective response?
.
Yes i do, the both measure very good and both sound very analytical
--
harmonic
darrenyeats;250989 Wrote:
Personally I like the sound of accuracy. Low distortion and a flat
frequency response sound good to me, although I admit many listeners
find these create a flat, sterile sound. It appears you tend toward the
latter opinion. All these impressions are equally valid
harmonic;250468 Wrote:
SoftwireEngineer;250466 Wrote:
Phil Leigh;250135 Wrote:
I think linn`s way of doing it by using the orginal master track data
directly into the playback is the way ahead.
I where at a local demo where the compared the Linn klimax DS
redil;250559 Wrote:
harmonic;250468 Wrote:
SoftwireEngineer;250466 Wrote:
Do you have an idea how the Klimax DS compared to the transport/SB3
stuff ?
I have a friend that have have had both the transporter and sb3 in
his linn system.
He sold the transporter
What are you talking about?
I just looked at the moderator log and no one has touched this thread
or any of your posts.
Mike
--
mvalera
Michael Valera
Online Communities Manager
Logitech Streaming Media Systems
slimdevices.com
tomjtx;250176 Wrote:
sgmlaw, you might be surprised by Transporter.
It excells in the very areas you think it will falter.
I second that. I've heard the Transporter in an extremely revealing
chain and I can tell you it won't be easy to find a better DAC no
matter what price tag it has.
sgmlaw;250114 Wrote:
While my ears will be the final judge, I am fully expecting the TP to
sound reasonably dynamic, and somewhat musical, but slightly restrained
at the very bottom and rounded off in the upper midrange and treble, and
not with the same equal measure of tonal clarity and
cliveb;250301 Wrote:
Expectation is a prison. If that's what you expect it to sound like,
that's how it will sound to you.
That sounds like CYA talk. Once invested in their gear, folks often
develop an excessive opinion of it.
Expectations are benchmarks. I've been doing audio for a very
sgmlaw;250305 Wrote:
That sounds like CYA talk. Once invested in their gear, folks often
develop an excessive opinion of it.
Expectations are benchmarks. I've been doing audio for a very long
time and am fairly impartial at this point. If it surprises me, I'll
be the first to say so.
Phil Leigh;250135 Wrote:
sgmlaw;249843 Wrote:
At the end of the day, we're all listening to the modulation of a chain
of power supplies.
Very true...and this chain stretches all the way back to the
microphone, desk, outboard gear, recorder etc...oh and you'll
michel;250280 Wrote:
I second that. I've heard the Transporter in an extremely revealing
chain and I can tell you it won't be easy to find a better DAC no
matter what price tag it has.
The DAC (AK4396) is good, the output stage is forever crippled by cheap
sounding opamps.
--
AudioFrog
SoftwireEngineer;250466 Wrote:
Phil Leigh;250135 Wrote:
sgmlaw;249843 Wrote:
At the end of the day, we're all listening to the modulation of a chain
of power supplies.
I agree about the sub-par equipment in the recording part of the chain.
But the issue
Where does one begin . . .
Let me start by saying that the TP is a $2000 price point device, and
it should not be reasonably expected to contain the parts selection or
execution of a $3000-$5000 DAC. It is performing much more functions
than the latter, and it is an understandable from a
sgmlaw;249843 Wrote:
At the end of the day, we're all listening to the modulation of a chain
of power supplies.
Very true...and this chain stretches all the way back to the
microphone, desk, outboard gear, recorder etc...oh and you'll find
plenty of 5534's and 5532's (or
Thanks for taking the time to post. It was well written and a good
read.
Personally, I have not yet had a chance to demo a good high end DAC in
my home and compare it against my Transporter, so I have no basis to
form an opinion. I know that one day I will demo a higher end DAC and
I look
sgmlaw, you might be surprised by Transporter.
It excells in the very areas you think it will falter. At least it does
balanced through very top tier amps and speakers. I've heard it through
rowland/watt/puppies and have heard it through thiels and several other
combos.
I have compared it with
Hi-
B3 vs Transporter
I want buy one of the devices and connect it by the coax (rca) digital
out to an existing DAC unit of the stereo system I own. The system in
question is of very high quality.
In this case, is there any difference in sound quality between a
Squeezebox and a Transporter?
The transporter has facilities beyond the squeezebox, in particular the
ability to play or pass through 24/96 files, which are now becoming
available for download. Of course if you don't think you want this
facility, then that is of little interest.
I think it would be helpful if you could tell
Were this a straight SB v. TP comparison with nothing more added, then
it is no contest. But I suspect the answer is going to be determined
by the degree of jitter control you can apply after the SB.
I am slowly coming to the conclusion that with sufficient jitter
correction, the SB should be
sgmlaw;249843 Wrote:
...you know that the analog end of things is just as critical as the DSP
sections. While the TP is very good, I can't say it is quite the equal
of some upper tier DACs in that respect...
I wonder if you could please expand upon this a little - what are the
shortcomings
I planned to get SB3 and use it with Lavry DA10 DAC. Recent introduction
of Transporter messed up my plans a bit. New Transporter specs look
highly promising, they claim to make a hard work done with regard to
jitter handling. But I'm wondering how important may it be when used
with DAC that has
48 matches
Mail list logo
