goldstarst...@gmail.com;417392 Wrote:
>
> The results in fact were quite random! I am more and more convinced
> that perceived differences in components break down on blind testing
> except for speakers.
Yes, I'm not surprised. I have a DAC1, but more for its functionality
as a digital preamp
For a lark we blind tested the SB3 and Benchmark DAC1. The 2 listeners
chose the music and listened non blind at first and were 100% sure they
could here differences. One listener was the DAC1 owner the other was
once a promising violinist so both were the type of person who takes
there music seri
GeeZa;327501 Wrote:
> ...Indeed I still think the SB3 sounds fabulous on its own anyway...
Grenamc;414234 Wrote:
> ...I cannot think of a reason for someone not to go the SB3/DAC route.
> Unless 24/96 becomes a big deal in the next couple years...
I perhaps now have an even less popular opini
I think there is no bad high-end audio gear. Its like with food - do I
like more chocolate or vanilla ice-cream, I like this vine more you the
other one... So every person should find the gear they like the most
and thats hard to achieve.
I also think that many people who are willing to spend
I thought I would take a moment to bring up an old post to add a recent
experience to it. I presently have a ModWright modified Transporter
and I recently was given a chance to A/B it with an SB3/DAC on a fairly
neutral and detailed system. The system in question was a pair of
Linkwitz Orions (w
Tom, this is the weekend I play switcheroo and plug my Transporter
directly into my SAR Labs power amp. I'll give it a couple weeks so
that I adjust.
I'm also gonna d/l a few of the hi rez Chesky material available at
http://www.hdtracks.com/index.php
and give them a whirl.
--
Pneumonic
tomjtx;343860 Wrote:
> I don't remember. I'll have to look when I get home but I think they are
> harmonix gold?
> They are not fancy NOS.
>
> I hadn't listened to that pre amp in years and got it out last year for
> fun but decided not to use it.
>
>
> I have NOS in my DV337 headphone amp and
Pneumonic;343794 Wrote:
> Out of curiosity, Tom.
>
> What tubes are you running in the SF?
I don't remember. I'll have to look when I get home but I think they
are harmonix gold?
They are not fancy NOS.
I hadn't listened to that pre amp in years and got it out last year for
fun but decided not
tomjtx;343786 Wrote:
> That's what I did and when I put back my SF2 pre (like yours) I thought
> the SFpre was too dark, muddy and lacking in detail . My Rowland pre
> was better, but still I prefered the TP direct to amp.
Out of curiosity, Tom.
What tubes are you running in the SF?
--
Pneum
tomjtx;343786 Wrote:
> I thought the TP was bright at first too.
>
> Try listening only to the TP direct to amp for a few weeks until your
> ears become acustomed to the higher resolution and detail the TP
> provides (which some may think is "brightness).
>
>
>
> That's what I did and when I
ralphpnj;343777 Wrote:
> Thanks, Pneumonic
>
> Excellent post. While running comparative listening tests can be fun,
> all the work it takes to set them up is not fun and I really appreciate
> all the hassle you must have gone through to run the tests.
>
> The results don't really surprise me s
Pneumonic;343770 Wrote:
> Here is my experience.
>
> I just recently bought a Transporter so that I could stream the oodles
> of hi-rez needledrops that I have made over the years along with some
> of the 24/96 recordings that I have d/l. I also have a couple of SB3's
> paired up with external D
Thanks, Pneumonic
Excellent post. While running comparative listening tests can be fun,
all the work it takes to set them up is not fun and I really appreciate
all the hassle you must have gone through to run the tests.
The results don't really surprise me since it basically agrees with
what I w
Here is my experience.
I just recently bought a Transporter so that I could stream the oodles
of hi-rez needledrops that I have made over the years along with some
of the 24/96 recordings that I have d/l. I also have a couple of SB3's
paired up with external DAC's. My primary DAC is an oldie gold
Skunk;336959 Wrote:
> But it was an Alanis Morrisette. Like a black fly in your chardonnay,
> mistaken irony :-)
By golly, I'm an idiot. I guess I never looked at the Porsche logo that
closely. Maybe if I could afford one, I would have...
--
ezkcdude
There are 10 kind of people in the world
ezkcdude;336953 Wrote:
> Snap! I was just about to say the same thing until I read your post.
But it was an Alanis Morrisette. Like a black fly in your chardonnay,
mistaken irony :-)
jh901;329962 Wrote:
> I hope you aren't confusing my Stuttgart stud horse with that flimsy
> prancing thing fro
seanadams;329452 Wrote:
> I agree, but find some irony given your choice of avatar.
Snap! I was just about to say the same thing until I read your post.
--
ezkcdude
There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who understand binary
and those who don't.
SHINYMETAL
'*Site*' (http://www.ezd
Sorry I have not been around for a few days. I was just stating what I
have found based on my experience. I am definately not a Linnie,
because I have spent huge dollars on Linn gear and am not happy with
the results all of the time. You can really get me going about lessons
learned with regards t
Phil Leigh;334624 Wrote:
> but squareloop clearly isn't a Linn "cultist", since he has non-Linn
> gear...
hmmm, well , I guess I'll have to let him live then :-)
--
tomjtx
tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.co
but squareloop clearly isn't a Linn "cultist", since he has non-Linn
gear...
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...SB3+Stontronics PSU - Altmann
JISCO/UPCI - TACT RCS 2.2X + Good Vibrations S/W - MF
Triplethreat(Audioc
Themis;334407 Wrote:
> *caughs* He says he prefers the Kinos sound, I don't see what blind
> tests could do against that. Or, you probably mean that you did this
> bind test yourself (the TP vs the Linos dacs) and that you preferred
> the TP ? :)
I meant that in a blind test he likely could not
Themis;334407 Wrote:
> *caughs* He says he prefers the Kinos sound, I don't see what blind
> tests could do against that.
They can do a lot! People can hear quite differently when blind.
Darren
--
darrenyeats
SB3 / Inguz -> Krell KAV-300i (pre bypass) -> PMC AB-1
Dell laptop -> JVC UX-C30 min
tomjtx;334078 Wrote:
> I'll sell you my Transporter for 5,000.00 more than the cost of your
> linn and then I'm sure you will think the TP sounds better.
>
> Do a blind test, it will open your ears.*caughs* He says he prefers the Kinos
> sound, I don't see what blind
tests could do against that
Squareloop;334028 Wrote:
> I will give you my experience. I have the Transporter, and I have
> several SB3's. I have two DACs, although the DACs are built into
> surround processors - a Bryston SP2 and a Linn Kinos. Everytime I try,
> the DAC built into the Transporter is not as good as the DACs
I will give you my experience. I have the Transporter, and I have
several SB3's. I have two DACs, although the DACs are built into
surround processors - a Bryston SP2 and a Linn Kinos. Everytime I try,
the DAC built into the Transporter is not as good as the DACs built
into the Bryston or Linn. An
I hope you aren't confusing my Stuttgart stud horse with that flimsy
prancing thing from Italy!
seanadams;329452 Wrote:
> I agree, but find some irony given your choice of avatar.
--
jh901
FLAC --> ReadyNAS/SqueezeCenter
Living Room:
SB Rcvr | Cary Audio Design CPA 1 | Krell KST-100 | Tot
artbase;329447 Wrote:
> Welcome to analog.
And human ears are analog. As are speakers. All the rest are details
getting the speakers to move.
--
pfarrell
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html
-
jh901;325543 Wrote:
> Why aim for 2nd best when you can have a Porsche!
>
> ;)
I agree, but find some irony given your choice of avatar.
--
seanadams
seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=
Gazjam;324303 Wrote:
> I know the TP can play 24/96 files that the SB3 cant.
>
> But...playing regular FLACs ripped from Redbook CD, is there such a
> great difference?
>
>
Your question can be distilled to a two-parter:
Q: Is there a difference using a DAC other than the SB's [for FLAC from
There's no doubt the Transporter is a lovely bit of kit but whether
it'll sound better to your ears than a SB3 + DAC is kinda difficult to
say. It does give you a premium one-box solution and that in itself
might be worth saving up for. I'm certainly thinking about it. But
y'know, it's not especia
Why aim for 2nd best when you can have a Porsche!
;)
Gazjam;324357 Wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
> I'd like a transporter too..
>
> and a Ferrari..
>
>
> G.
--
jh901
FLAC --> ReadyNAS/SqueezeCenter
Living Room:
SB Rcvr | Creek 6060 (Pre-amp) | Krell KST-100 | Totem Model-1
Bedroom:
Gazjam;324303 Wrote:
> I'm investing in a better DAC (upgrading my Beresford - looking at the
> Stello 100) and (just out of curiosity) I wonder what the difference
> between a setup like this and teh Transporter, playing Redbook CD
> rips.
>
>
> Thanks!The difference between the TP and SB3 is
Gazjam;324303 Wrote:
> I know the TP can play 24/96 files that the SB3 cant.
>
> But...playing regular FLACs ripped from Redbook CD, is there such a
> great difference?
>
The following thread may be of interest:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35068
--
opaqueice
Gazjam;324357 Wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
> I'd like a transporter too..
>
> and a Ferrari..
> and a 16 bedroom house
>
> :)
>
> G.
If you got 16 bedrooms, I doubt one transporter will be enough ;)
To answer to question regarding the outboard DAC, it would be better to
try it in your sys
I thought that the Transporter into a DAC was better than the stock SB3
into the same DAC (in the same system).
"much" means different things to different people with different
systems but I IMHO the Transporter digital output is clearly superior.
--
Nuuk
-
ralphpnj wrote:
> I would say that the sound of an SB3 with high quality outboard DAC
> playing back lossless files ripped from a Redbook CD would be very
> close to the sound of the Transporter playing back the same files.
When I got my TP, I had been using a SqueezeBox into a Benchmark DAC-1.
I
Gazjam;324303 Wrote:
> I know the TP can play 24/96 files that the SB3 cant.
>
> But...playing regular FLACs ripped from Redbook CD, is there such a
> great difference?
>
> I'm investing in a better DAC (upgrading my Beresford - looking at the
> Stello 100) and (just out of curiosity) I wonder
Are you asking if the SB3 + DAC is better than a TP using its own DAC or
is the digital output of a TP better than a Sb3?
--
Rodney_Gold
Sb3/Z-sys RDP1/meridian DSP5500's
TP/X-cans v3/Senns 650's
TP/TACT 2.0/SCM 50a's
TP/Meridian DSP5000's
"The nicest thing about smacking your head against the
Thanks for the reply.
I'd like a transporter too..
and a Ferrari..
and a 16 bedroom house
:)
One can dream
Anyway, :)
I'd be using my SB3 through its digital out into a DAC. I've read
elsewhere in t'interweb that theres not really any difference with
redbook...obviously playing hi-res aud
Any decent digital source will sound pretty much alike (the SB3 is
decent and from what I understand the TP is very decent).
I imagine it would be possible to hear a difference between an SB3
(analogue outs) and Transporter in the right system playing the right
recording. But this difference woul
I know the TP can play 24/96 files that the SB3 cant.
But...playing regular FLACs ripped from Redbook CD, is there such a
great difference?
I'm investing in a better DAC (upgrading my Beresford - looking at the
Stello 100) and (just out of curiosity) I wonder what the difference
between a setup
41 matches
Mail list logo
