Addendum: (to be fair)
One thing I did not add to my last post and something that is obviously
pertinent when discussing the Transporter, is the matter of sample
rates. I only compared the TP with the Cullen-modded DAC using 44.1/16
(Redbook) sample rates. I did not listen to anything higher v
The A/B comparison was done precisely everything was matched, gain
matched, same cables, etc
.come on, were talking about a bunch of
audiophiles here. Everyone wanted the transporter to sound better
(including me). I was actually auditioning the transporter. All five
of us (not one of use wi
sxr71;429729 Wrote:
> Totally agree with that and is the reason why I don't believe ABX
> testing really works as well as some people believe.
ABX is intended to discover if a listener can detect a difference
between A and B. If so it says nothing about which is the listener's
preference.
AB test
Phil Leigh;427831 Wrote:
> I agree with Newbuyer, but I'd point out that an A/B dealer demo is
> absolutely the worst method of choosing (top-end) gear. You need an
> extended home demo. Our brains and our senses are tuned to identify
> tiny differences - that's what kept the species alive to-da
NewBuyer;427826 Wrote:
>
>
> But if your taste is that you think it sounds subjectively "better",
> than obviously you should buy it and enjoy it!
I agree with Newbuyer, but I'd point out that an A/B dealer demo is
absolutely the worst method of choosing (top-end) gear. You need an
extended
Phil Leigh;427592 Wrote:
> Hmmm... so how carefully was this test done? - were the outputs of the
> TP and DAC level matched to within <0.5dB? If not, the test is highly
> suspect.
>
> ...TP has a theoretically much better implementation than anything
> using SPDIF... component choices and circu
timequest;427581 Wrote:
> I love the Transporter, don't get me wrong. Truth is, immediate A/B
> comparisons on the dealers best system reveled that the Cullen Stage IV
> PS Audio DL-III clearly sounded better than the TP (DAC connected to TP
> A/B with/without) - there's no other way to say i
timequest;427581 Wrote:
> I really want to see if I can mod the Duet receiver with an I2S output.
> Is that doable?
Not much you need to mod, the signals are there.
--
seanadams
seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimde
seanadams;427570 Wrote:
> I think you'd be hard pressed to find a better DAC than Transporter's.
> And even if you did, it would have to support word clock mode to even
> compete on the same playing field (s/pdif is a huge disadvantage). As
> for SB3, duet et al, it's analog outputs are not going
timequest;427566 Wrote:
> Well that's interesting. I was under the impression, from most of what
> I have read, that the digital out sounded better than the analog outs
> (all SM devices), especially when fed through an external (i.e.: better)
> DAC.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a bett
NewBuyer;427564 Wrote:
> These are all the reasons why I feel the SqueezeBox Classic and
> Transporter (analog outs) are the ideal right now. Interface jitter
> issues are -completely- eliminated, the server software is outstanding,
> and these products simply sound fantastic.
Well that's inter
These are all the reasons why I feel the SqueezeBox Classic and
Transporter (analog outs) are the ideal right now. Interface jitter
issues are -completely- eliminated, the server software is outstanding,
and these products simply sound fantastic.
--
NewBuyer
---
duke43j;427428 Wrote:
> Jitter in the digital world is like noise in the analog world; it's
> everwhere. Every component, including cables, contributes to jitter. You
> can't avoid it. Of course, if you don't reduce jitter from wherever it
> comes from (including cables), you will have problems.
duke43j;427428 Wrote:
> Jitter in the digital world is like noise in the analog world; it's
> everwhere. Every component, including cables, contributes to jitter. You
> can't avoid it. Of course, if you don't reduce jitter from wherever it
> comes from (including cables), you will have problems.
Jitter in the digital world is like noise in the analog world; it's
everwhere. Every component, including cables, contributes to jitter. You
can't avoid it. Of course, if you don't reduce jitter from wherever it
comes from (including cables), you will have problems. My point is that
if one uses a
I sent an inquiry to S.N., whose response is not surprising, but does
support the validity of why re-clocking is necessary in reducing jitter.
>From what I interpret from the information I have read recently, the
claims made by the DAC manufacturers are not, shall I say
accurate.
Evidently, even
JezA;427392 Wrote:
>
> -"As for the clocks - within SBs they vary widely - an old SB1 can
> drift as much as 10s on an average length track, whilst I have seen a
> duet with minimal drift. The DS clock is extremely accurate, the SB
> clocks are obviously not as good in some cases."-
True, SB1 h
duke43j;427380 Wrote:
> There is a lot of bad information floating around with respect to hi-fi
> equipment. A digital cable either works, or it doesn't work. If it
> doesn't work you would hear pops, skips or dropouts in the audio. There
> is no way you would hear a change in tonality. A digital
Not all clocks seem to be created equal either.
According to an engineer from Linn Products (admittedly a comptetor,
but he did write a Squeezecenter emulator for Linn's DS range, so may
know what he is talking about):
-"As for the clocks - within SBs they vary widely - an old SB1 can
drift as
There is a lot of bad information floating around with respect to hi-fi
equipment. A digital cable either works, or it doesn't work. If it
doesn't work you would hear pops, skips or dropouts in the audio. There
is no way you would hear a change in tonality. A digital cable carries
1's and 0's. If
Happy to toss in my 2 cents. I'm no audio engineer, but I'm a music
lover, trained musician across quite a few instruments, and have
played/orchestrated/arranged and listened to live music in a variety of
venue types (which I recognize in an audiophile community is very common
of course! I'm alw
timequest;427138 Wrote:
> This is what I want to believe, that the jitter issue is resolved by
> using a good DAC with low jitter measurements. If this was simply the
> case however, then why would the minimum length of the digital cable
> necessarily be a factor; if the DAC would correct any
darrenyeats;427085 Wrote:
> If we take the Benchmark as an example they publish specs showing that
> output distortion doesn't change as input jitter is increased. The
> take-home point is that the measurements (whatever you think of them)
> don't change when the input jitter changes.
>
> http:/
darrenyeats;427088 Wrote:
> I ought to add, if you're worried about jitter, or worried that you
> should be worried, you can always just use the SB3 or TP standalone.
> That avoids the brain-dead S/PDIF interface without needing any clever
> and apparently controversial jitter-killing electronics
I ought to add, if you're worried about jitter, or worried that you
should be worried, you can always just use the SB3 or TP standalone.
That avoids the brain-dead S/PDIF interface without needing any clever
and apparently controversial jitter-killing electronics. Less boxes too!
;)
Darren
--
d
timequest;427061 Wrote:
> I tend to agree, however I continue to read about SB users utilizing the
> Pace-Car re-clocker in conjunction with very high quality modern
> external DACs. Why would this be necessary unless the external DAC
> isnt effective at reducing the jitter it is being fed? Ob
duke43j;426889 Wrote:
> I've been doing some reading on this in my search for an external DAC
> for my own system. I believe that older DAC designs were very
> susceptible to jitter, and reclockers had a useful function in reducing
> the jitter before it reached the DAC. The more modern DAC desig
I've been doing some reading on this in my search for an external DAC
for my own system. I believe that older DAC designs were very
susceptible to jitter, and reclockers had a useful function in reducing
the jitter before it reached the DAC. The more modern DAC designs that
contain asynchronous ra
28 matches
Mail list logo