Guys,
Here's an update. To recap I am comparing the SB3 and my Monarchy unit
being used as transports. I use an external DAC.
Loudness levels
---
I did buy the SPL meter from Radio Shack whilst I was in the States.
The SPLs via the SB3 and Monarchy transports were identical (using a
Out of curiosity, have you tried this blind? You may be quite surprised
by how what seemed like a very evident difference disappears once you no
longer know which source is playing.
--
opaqueice
opaqueice's Profile:
opaqueice,
I am going to try that. However, I would point out that I WANT the SB3
to sound better. I've just spent money on it, and I've spent literally
weeks ripping my music to FLAC (still not finished). Nothing would make
me happier at the moment than for the SB3 to sound better :-)
Darren
darrenyeats;203783 Wrote:
opaqueice,
I am going to try that. However, I would point out that I WANT the SB3
to sound better. I've just spent money on it, and I've spent literally
weeks ripping my music to FLAC (still not finished). Nothing would make
me happier at the moment than for the
jeffmeh;195361 Wrote:
The other thing you may wish to try is a linear, regulated power supply
with the SB3. Some claim to gain dramatic improvement with this, others
claim no difference.
Best of luck.
My two cents on the power supply issue: they are different in USA and
overseas, like
Kim Kruse;190984 Wrote:
Hi,
This just to inform all of you, that a review/test of the Slimdevices
Transporter is avaiable in the april number of High Fidelity.
Unfurtuately on danish/swedish - but for some still readable!
I think all of you will enjoy the review.
Regards
Kim
Jeffmeh,
Yes I use flac. As for sound pressure levels, I don't have a scientific
way of measuring it. I didn't change volume levels between comparisons
(they sounded pretty much equal although I perceive the Monarchy's tone
as darker in the mids and highs). I did my best on that score but in
the
Well, dont know what is causing the difference, maybe your dac is
sensitive to jitter, and works better with the Monarchy.
As for cable, I can recommend this :
http://www.signals-superfi.com/stereovox/xv2.html
--
Anne
Bryston B-100 SST, Squeezebox 3, Stax Signature II, Martin Logan Aeon I.
I am going to be away from home for a few days but when I get back I
will do some more testing. I will also consider the sound meter,
digital cable and power supply as advised.
Thanks, Darren
--
darrenyeats
darrenyeats's
Guys,
Very interesting (and long!) thread.
I've read the HFN review on the Transporter. I am a Squeezebox 3 owner
but I was interested to see what they said about the Transporter.
They seem to be saying that using network streaming is not as good as
the SPDIF input.
Some people on the thread
darrenyeats,
You did not mention it, but is it safe to assume that you are streaming
from a WAV or lossless file, and that you matched sound pressure levels
for the comparison?
--
jeffmeh
jeffmeh's Profile:
Another classic thread.
Someone posts a review of a product owned by a person on here, and the
magazine is clearly a rag, their testing is bad, the review sample was
off and the reviewer is clearly tone deaf.
What is it with some people on forums that they can't stand to have
their kit criticised
Mr_Sukebe wrote:
Another classic thread.
Someone posts a review of a product owned by a person on here, and the
magazine is clearly a rag, their testing is bad, the review sample was
off and the reviewer is clearly tone deaf.
What is it with some people on forums that they can't stand to have
Hi,
This just to inform all of you, that a review/test of the Slimdevices
Transporter is avaiable in the april number of High Fidelity.
Unfurtuately on danish/swedish - but for some still readable!
I think all of you will enjoy the review.
Regards
Kim Kruse
Denmark
--
Kim Kruse
Kim Kruse;190984 Wrote:
Hi,
This just to inform all of you, that a review/test of the Slimdevices
Transporter is avaiable in the april number of High Fidelity.
Unfurtuately on danish/swedish - but for some still readable!
I think all of you will enjoy the review.
Regards
Kim
seanadams;188912 Wrote:
Have you considered the possibility that it is complete nonsense?
Based on Sean's and other follow-up replies this seems to be the case,
as well as the fact that other reviews are much more similar in their
praise of the Transporter. Thank you for everybody's input and
Jaco;189186 Wrote:
Based on Sean's and other follow-up replies this seems to be the case,
as well as the fact that other reviews are much more similar in their
praise of the Transporter. Thank you for everybody's input and feedback
on my questions.
You're really going to go with the CEO (or
adamslim;189389 Wrote:
You're really going to go with the CEO (or whatever, now!) of the
product company's opinion over one of an independent reviewer?
Regarding testing methods, yes (assuming the rebuttal is credible).
Designers have a right to question the test method, hence the
adamslim;189389 Wrote:
You're really going to go with the CEO (or whatever, now!) of the
product company's opinion over one of an independent reviewer?
[...]
Also, it is never impressive when a CEO rubbishes a non-glowing review
publicly, even in a fairly informal forum run by his own
seanadams;189397 Wrote:
Are you really viewing my position as my word against his? I depend on
no such credibility to support my arguments.
I am speaking in terms of quantifiable, falsifiable statements that
anyone can test independently. This reviewer is not.
I am happy to explain
seanadams;188912 Wrote:
Have you considered the possibility that it is complete nonsense?
I have no time for reviewers most of the time, they are rarely
qualified and mostly self-elected experts, however they do hold a lot
of sway and a review like this damns the Transporter with faint praise.
CardinalFang;188962 Wrote:
Why not invite the reviewers to do the old double-blind test at Slim
HQ? Surely leaving things as they are simply cements the notion that
computer-based audio is still not true HiFi and is allowing the
reviewers to spread misinformed opinion on your products?
Hi Sean,
Thank you for the informative reply regarding jitter in the
Transporter. Given that so much attention is given to the jitter in the
design of the Transporter and that the results measured by the Miller
test aren't really relevant, then the results of the Hifi News review
still begs the
Jaco;12 Wrote:
Hi Sean,
Thank you for the informative reply regarding jitter in the
Transporter. Given that so much attention is given to the jitter in the
design of the Transporter and that the results measured by the Miller
test aren't really relevant, then the results of the Hifi
Whether you like the Hifi News review or not is irrelevant to the point,
which is, that the measured jitter figures showed a large discrepency
compared to the ones measured by Stereophile. This woul obviously
result in the lower audio quality picked up by the Hif News reviewer
relative to other
Jaco;188391 Wrote:
The measured jitter results in the Stereophile test was in the region
of 250psec - a third of what was measured in the UK version of the
Transporter. For comparison purposes, really good DACS and CD players
have jitter figures in the region of 20psec.
Excellent
Jaco;188562 Wrote:
Perhaps Slim Devices could tell us what the jitter figures SHOULD be
Sean Adams measured this and published the results on this forum.
Unfortunately a search isn't turning up anything.
It was fairly close to Stereophile's measurements.
--
Mark Lanctot
Phil Leigh;188422 Wrote:
As an aside, I'd rather use a Black Sabbath album from 1970 than a
modern over-compressed piece of nonsense t assess audio quality. They
were recorded using good quality gear and good engineering/mastering
processes.
As a general principle, I agree. But Black
Please people, before making such wildly speculative conclusions about
Hifi News reviews or British Hifi magazines in general, just go read
the darn review first! The Hifi News reviews are technically sound.
Their review process consists of two independent test tracks: one
performed by the
That magazine has lost pretty much all credibility in recent years.
I have nothing against Black Sabbath but I can't imagine using this to
evaluate audio equipment.
--
crooner
SB3 with Custom Linear Power Supply
Lite Audio DAC-60 Tube DAC
VPI Scout with Benz Micro Glider M2
Audio Research
Agreed!
That rag has lost all of their credibility in recent years.
slimkid;185303 Wrote:
The fact that somebody would use Black Sabbath to do any kind of audio
comparison seriously undermines their credibility.
--
crooner
SB3 with Custom Linear Power Supply
Lite Audio DAC-60 Tube DAC
VPI
Phil Leigh;186049 Wrote:
No I get it now!
The thing we need to hang onto here is that in studios, digital signals
move all over the place between (digital desks, ADC's, DAC's,
processors, computers / workstations etc etc.
Generally these are using not plain SPDIF - but then again they
Patrick Dixon;186177 Wrote:
Hmm, this isn't quite correct.
Digital signals are incredibly robust, and moving them around studios
or the home or almost anywhere else is really not that difficult.
However, what is much more difficult is the process of converting
between the digital and
Phil Leigh;186281 Wrote:
Patrick - whilst I generally agree, the signals do have to be rendered
into analogue for monitoring/mixing...
For monitoring, but surely not for mixing?
--
Patrick Dixon
www.at-tunes.co.uk
Patrick Dixon;186285 Wrote:
For monitoring, but surely not for mixing?
Sorry - yes that's what I meant!
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread:
Pale Blue Ego;185401 Wrote:
I could understand if they claimed they heard better bass definition of
airier highs, but tempos dragged? That just seems fishy.
What do you expect from a British review?
Us British have always tired to make ourselves look cleverer with the
way we does speak, you
Phil Leigh wrote:
Patrick Dixon;186285 Wrote:
For monitoring, but surely not for mixing?
Sorry - yes that's what I meant!
So, that won't affect the sound at all, right?
R.
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
pablolie;185834 Wrote:
They also clearly say they used a totally vanilla PC and did not
optimize anything in the wireless network for the Transporter, and that
they'd firmly expect that would make a positive difference on top. They
used WAVs for their tests.
That's very odd, I wonder why
JJZolx;185897 Wrote:
That's two reviews within the course of a week that claim the
Transporter used as a DAC and fed via S/PDIF sounds better than the
Transporter fed via network stream.
So what can we deduce from this? We know that the network stream feed
*ought* to produce a lower
The outboard DAC argument via SPDIF is *so* old now it'll never die.
Bottom line I think is that a modern CD transport will get the data off
the CD effectively error-free, and that stream fed into a good modern
DAC over SPDIF (perhaps using a FIFO buffer and/or re-clocking) should
be pretty close
GeeZa;186020 Wrote:
The outboard DAC argument via SPDIF is *so* old now it'll never die.
Bottom line I think is that a modern CD transport will get the data off
the CD effectively error-free, and that stream fed into a good modern
DAC over SPDIF (perhaps using a FIFO buffer and/or
Sorry that wasn't clear. I was referencing the age-old one box vs two
box Hifi debate which traditionally involved the single box CD player
(typically using I2S internally) vs the two box Transport and DAC
players (typically linked using SPDIF).
Imo it used to be quite common in Hifi mags to
GeeZa;186035 Wrote:
... Hifi people tend to prefer more boxes and higher price tags. I think
this *may* account for the bias towards using the Transporter as a DAC
simply because Hifi reviewers might feel more comfortable with a robust
mechanical tranport for their data rather than thin air
GeeZa;186035 Wrote:
Sorry that wasn't clear. I was referencing the age-old one box vs two
box Hifi debate which traditionally involved the single box CD player
(typically using I2S internally) vs the two box Transport and DAC
players (typically linked using SPDIF).
Imo it used to be quite
Phil Leigh;186049 Wrote:
...
I really think we need to put things back into a realistic perspective
sometimes. :0)
Like, 80% of the CDs out there don't even merit to be ripped in FLAC?
:-) Seriously, I read somewhere in an audio mag that popular music now
basically is mixed to sound good as
pablolie;186054 Wrote:
Like, 80% of the CDs out there don't even merit to be ripped in FLAC?
:-) Seriously, I read somewhere in an audio mag that popular music now
basically is mixed to sound good as a 128k MP3, just like in the good
ole 60s Motown mixed stuff for it to sound good played on
Phil Leigh;186059 Wrote:
There's a lot of truth in this. However I find it mostly applies to the
music my daughters and wife buy. They like modern stuff - I'm more
picky I guess. There are plenty of labels / artists putting out quality
product - just don't expect them to necessarily be top
GaryB;185590 Wrote:
Do you mean to say that listening results have no place in a review?
That's certainly not a view I would support. For those of you old
enough to remember Stereo Review magazine
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_Review) - towards the end it was
only measurements and
AndyC_772;185365 Wrote:
Similarly, I don't think anyone can say they have no credibility
because they choose to use Black Sabbath as a test track. Don't heavy
metal fans get a vote too? Personally I couldn't give a stuff how a
system sounds with jazz or classical - if it doesn't reproduce
cliveb;185345 Wrote:
This statement calibrates their credibility to zero. There is
absolutely no way that the signal emerging from a Transporter fed from
one of its SPDIF inputs can possibly be more accurate than from its
network interface. So if we are to accept that HiFi News genuinely
I do understand that, for many people, their goal when choosing a system
is to find one which reproduces sounds in a way that mimics the original
as closely as possible. That's absolutely fine and I've no problem with
that whatsoever.
However, I prefer to assess equipment based on how much I
slimkid;185653 Wrote:
However, this is supposed to be unbiased comaprison of the high
level/priced components. Everybody (who is into the music) knows how
the piano, bass, human voice or any natural recordable sound sounds. So
we know the criteria when it comes to judging the performance of
bobschneider;185676 Wrote:
Of course you can know how an electric guitar sounds in a real acoustic.
You just have to consider the amplifier as part of the instrument.
Musicians certainly do - guitarists put as much care into the choice of
amp as of guitar. There are plently of web sites
slimkid;185680 Wrote:
Of course you're right ... in '50s or '60s of the last century.
However, we are talking Black Sabbath here. Now, try to remember when
was it last time you saw heavy metal band playing on the Stratocaster
plugged in directly into Mashall/Fender tube amp. Likelier, there
I much prefer German audio mags to US mags because they're far more
pragmatic, and www.stereo.de has been my favorite (it also was my Dad's
kinda runs in the family). Plus it's one way to keep my German fluent
while I live in California.
But enough of that - the March issue
pablolie;185834 Wrote:
When they let the Transporter go against other systems, they fed the
original CD from the TEAC Esoteric player into the SPDIF interface on
the Transporter, basically testing if networked or direct sounds best
over the Transporter's DA, an interesting twist.
Um, that's
JJZolx;185844 Wrote:
Given what you said above, is that a signal fed _from_ the TEAC or fed
_to_ the TEAC?
They compared the PC source to the TEAC Esoteric CD source through the
Transporter's DA, among some other tests they did.
I thought HiFi News had already explained it. :-)
--
pablolie;185886 Wrote:
They compared the PC source to the TEAC Esoteric CD source through the
Transporter's DA, among some other tests they did.
That's two reviews within the course of a week that claim the
Transporter used as a DAC and fed via S/PDIF sounds better than the
Transporter fed
opaqueice;185301 Wrote:
In my opinion reviews based on someone's subjective impressions of audio
quality are totally meaningless. On the other hand it sounds as though
the parts of the review which are more objective (build quality etc.)
are quite positive.
Do you mean to say that
JJZolx;185304 Wrote:
I've always valued British audio reviews over most others. Many of the
British magazine reviews I've read over the years seem very
level-headed in comparison to their American counterparts. They tend
to value system synergy and value for dollar, in comparison to the
There also appears to be a review in the April edition of Hi-Fi World
(also UK I think). Anybody seen this review?
--
clarkc
clarkc's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10380
View this thread:
seanadams;185293 Wrote:
The notion that s/pdif from a CD source could better than local playback
is absurd. They don't seem to understand how the thing works. Typical
neophobia. :(
So do you need to understand how it works before you can hear a
difference?
--
shane
norderney;185285 Wrote:
They used a Townshend TA565 Universal Player to compare the Transporter
with a CD player.
Considering it is a £3000 transport I am not necessarily surprised, but
having regard to some of their other comments one has to wonder whether
they actually understand the
seanadams;185293 Wrote:
The notion that s/pdif from a CD source could better than local playback
is absurd. They don't seem to understand how the thing works. Typical
neophobia. :(
Either that, or that there is something you don't yet understand
happening.
--
Patrick Dixon
egd;185337 Wrote:
... Perhaps one day I'll meet someone with said transport and can then
compare it to the Transporter, until then I'm chalking their comments
down to bias.
Well, I think a lot has been made of the Transporter's DA subsystem,
which is a top notch design according to what I
norderney;185285 Wrote:
Just received the April 2007 issue of Hi-Fi News and they are reviewing
the Slim Devices Transporter this month.
It's been many years since I last read a HiFi rag, but way back when I
did, HiFi News was probably the best of the bunch (of British mags).
Their reviews
the reason for their preferring the SPDIF input
I was waiting for a 'golden eared' listener to claim that the S/PDIF
cable must be more euphonic than 802.11g and had 'lifted a veil' due to
some quantum effect ;-)
--
amcluesent
I was especially amused by this part of the Hi-Fi News review:
In Stand Alone DAC mode the Transporter sounded crisper and musically
more insightful and involving, where as via the network connection
leading edges were fudged, tempos dragged and the sound became
altogether less gripping.
Fudged
In their defence, though, hi-fi is a subjective thing. Certainly there's
a correlation between measurable parameters and perceived sound quality,
but I don't think too many people choose their expensive setups with an
oscilloscope rather than their ears.
Similarly, I don't think anyone can say
Patrick Dixon;185338 Wrote:
Either that, or that there is something you don't yet understand
happening.
It follows from the basics of the design that it's extraordinarily
implausible that the S/PDIF input on the TP could produce a signal with
less distortion than the TP functionng as a
opaqueice;185369 Wrote:
It follows from the basics of the design that it's extraordinarily
implausible that the S/PDIF input on the TP could produce a signal with
less distortion than the TP functionng as a network player. It would
require an elaborate, complicated and highly unlikely
Not that I'm cynical or anything but until Naim produce their
transporter (and it costs £15k!) , Hi-Fi News is not going rate a
network player over a cd spinner...
HFN is getting whackier each month as far as I'm concerned. It's almost
up there with Hi-Fi World (the funniest audio mag ever - if
Skunk;185377 Wrote:
That is well and good, but bitrate limiting or replaygain is not
elaborate, complicated or unlikely.
I was assuming some basic level of competence on the part of the
reviewer. If they are not even able to operate the equipment under
review properly we really are wasting
opaqueice;185380 Wrote:
I was assuming some basic level of competence on the part of the
reviewer.
That would be a mistake, IMO, given the number of times it comes up on
the forums, even from those who might generally be good with
technology.
I guess we have no way of knowing unless
AndyC_772;185365 Wrote:
... In their defence, though, hi-fi is a subjective thing. ...
Amen to that.
It is subjective. Plus given the nature of discussions that quite
passionately flare up in this forum, I am not quite sure why anyone
would go up in arms. Then again, I'd know exactly why. :-)
opaqueice;185369 Wrote:
It follows from the basics of the design that it's extraordinarily
implausible that the S/PDIF input on the TP could produce a signal with
less distortion than the TP functionng as a network player. It would
require an elaborate, complicated and highly unlikely
I could understand if they claimed they heard better bass definition of
airier highs, but tempos dragged? That just seems fishy.
--
Pale Blue Ego
Pale Blue Ego's Profile:
It's always difficult to describe differences in sound; audio reviewers
will be criticised whether they try (and use vague, flowery language),
or if they stick to %age grades - neither really helps another.
What does help is getting to know a reviewer, his/her preferences and
so on. Over the
adamslim;185423 Wrote:
It's always difficult to describe differences in sound; audio reviewers
will be criticised whether they try (and use vague, flowery language),
or if they stick to %age grades - neither really helps another.
What does help is getting to know a reviewer, his/her
Just received the April 2007 issue of Hi-Fi News and they are reviewing
the Slim Devices Transporter this month.
They give it a rating of 17 out of 20.
Five stars for features,
three stars for sound quality,
five stars for build quality
and four stars for value for money.
The overall
Pardon my french but this is a typical british review ! Read the loads
of other reviews, especially the one from Stereophile instead.
--
Anne
Anne's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10071
View this
The notion that s/pdif from a CD source could better than local playback
is absurd. They don't seem to understand how the thing works. Typical
neophobia. :(
--
seanadams
seanadams's Profile:
In my opinion reviews based on someone's subjective impressions of audio
quality are totally meaningless. On the other hand it sounds as though
the parts of the review which are more objective (build quality etc.)
are quite positive.
--
opaqueice
The fact that somebody would use Black Sabbath to do any kind of audio
comparison seriously undermines their credibility.
Comparing S/PDIF and wireless without even mentioning the source of
S/PDIF probably means that they are confused between computer
networking and using digital soundcard
Anne;185287 Wrote:
Pardon my french but this is a typical british review ! Read the loads
of other reviews, especially the one from Stereophile instead.
I've always valued British audio reviews over most others. Many of the
British magazine reviews I've read over the years seem very
85 matches
Mail list logo
