Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 55
  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    126
    I am pretty interested in Bluesdoc's question....

    I have SB3 + Perpetual Technology P1/P3 & it sounds very good.

    Now purely on aesthetics, the transporter appeals -looks great to me & love idea of dual display..... but ú1300 is hard for me to justify.

    ...but if it sounded better I could persuade the mrs -esp if selling exising dac combo....

    People hear differences in CD transports....so how many have directly substituted the Transporter for the SB3 in a system with external DAC to see if they can hear a difference?

    Please note that I accept the internal DAC may be wonderful, but if I thought the Transporter was a better ...er transporter I might take the plunge & decide after auditioning whether to stick with external DAC or not...

    Neale
    SB Touch, Perpetual Technologies P1-A / P3-A, Naim82 pre + 4xNaim135 powers, Martin Logan SL3's....(+ 2 more SB3's & 2 SB2's around the hus)

  2. #22
    I think it really comes down to personal taste and the type of sound you prefer.

    In my system the Transporter sounds distinctly different to SB3 plus lavry, benchmark or Belcanto DAC2. Out of these 3 combos I would say the SB3 plus the Belcanto DAC2 sounds the closest to the Transporter tone wise.

    My gut feel is the SB3 plus Lavry is probably the most accurate but not as engaging as the Transporter. The Transporter really comes into it's own when attached direct to power amps.

    I also wonder at times if the Transporter has a little midrange smearing/bloom, this only becomes evident as I increase the volume and I wonder if it is my room starting put it's footprint on the sound. I would be interested to hear others thoughts here.

    If you can live without analog in's the Transporter makes an excellent preamp/dac/transport combo.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by opaqueice View Post
    To answer part of your question, on a technical level it's almost certainly a bad idea to connect the transporter to an external DAC. The reason is that any S/PDIF connection will induce jitter into the digital signal, so the external DAC will be receiving a much noisier signal than the internal DAC of the Transporter (or SB, for that matter). Given that the TP was carefully engineered to maximize its fidelity without (much) concern for cost, it's highly unlikely that any external DAC will be able to overcome the significant disadvantage of a jittery input to even match the TP's performance, let alone exceed it.

    A few DACs are claimed to be immune to input jitter. This is probably the case (for example for the Lavry), but then you are only guaranteed an equal playing field for a $1000 DAC vs. $2000 TP. Still doubtful that the external DAC wins, and you've spent significantly more than on the TP alone. Furthermore in this case the TP as a transport is a total waste - you should simply use a SB (or a $30 universal disc player, for that matter).
    On a technical level you can amend things by SLAVING the transporter via word clock. This is better than a transporter + dac without word clock sync.

    And i believe there are quite a number of dacs that when clocked, can exceed the performance of TP. for example the emm labs.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    534
    And, hey, they're only over $10k. Lavry makes a $9k unit, if you're looking at things like that. Before you get there, though, you'd better make damn sure you have out-of-this-world speakers and electronics. Out of this world.

    As for the technical level thing, how about getting technical and explaining why? Dan Lavry has an excellent white paper on jitter on his site. The Transporter's DAC has exceptionally low jitter. I strongly doubt whether, in a normal to pretty high-end system, you could tell any difference at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Konig View Post
    On a technical level you can amend things by SLAVING the transporter via word clock. This is better than a transporter + dac without word clock sync.

    And i believe there are quite a number of dacs that when clocked, can exceed the performance of TP. for example the emm labs.

  5. #25
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    10

    SB3/DAC/Transporter?

    LOL....I am so glad I asked this question (my first posting!) and so happy to see there is total unanimity <G>. It reassures me that I was not missing something obvious to all. And that there is still room for subjective experience. Once my head stops spinning from the excellent comments, I'll have to make some decisions. I am not convinced yet that the best SQ wouldn;t be from the Transporter and a decent quality (around $1000-1200) DAC, but I wouldn;t refuse to spend less than that if the SQ was as good. I also hate to give up my older Conrad-Johnson preamp, although its not doing too much... other than adding nostalgia, an additional set of interconnects, and the analogue volume control. (I'm currrently using an older CJ Amp and older B & W speakers, but auditioning newer everything). Oh, and while SQ is important, so is domestic acceptability. Thanks, and please keep the excellent advice on this subject coming.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    534
    These things are subjective, as you see, despite underlying technical issues that are objective indeed.

    Here's my take on it: a SB3 is good. From what I understand, modded SB3s are equal or somewhat better. According to Tom, some mods approach the Transporter. Anyway, the Transporter is a lot better than the SB3. The SB with a high performance, studio-grade, jitter-eliminating DAC like the Lavry is a lot better than a SB3. In fact, I would say it is more or less comparable to the Transporter, the difference being one of nuance. The SB3 and Transporter through a Lavry sound the same -- like a Lavry.

    So, from a purely economic perspective, you could go with a SB3 and, say, a Lavry. However, the Transporter gives you far more functionality (extra inputs, etc.) and far greater aesthetics. These are important to some people. I like having four analog outputs (good for subs and mains), extra inputs, and the real good looks of the things. That, of course, and knowing that I'm getting performance just as good as from any DAC under $10k...in which, if there were a difference, it is not one that I could detect in my room. If these are NOT priorities...

    Quote Originally Posted by bluesdoc View Post
    LOL....I am so glad I asked this question (my first posting!) and so happy to see there is total unanimity <G>. It reassures me that I was not missing something obvious to all. And that there is still room for subjective experience. Once my head stops spinning from the excellent comments, I'll have to make some decisions. I am not convinced yet that the best SQ wouldn;t be from the Transporter and a decent quality (around $1000-1200) DAC, but I wouldn;t refuse to spend less than that if the SQ was as good. I also hate to give up my older Conrad-Johnson preamp, although its not doing too much... other than adding nostalgia, an additional set of interconnects, and the analogue volume control. (I'm currrently using an older CJ Amp and older B & W speakers, but auditioning newer everything). Oh, and while SQ is important, so is domestic acceptability. Thanks, and please keep the excellent advice on this subject coming.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by highdudgeon View Post
    These things are subjective, as you see, despite underlying technical issues that are objective indeed.

    Here's my take on it: a SB3 is good. From what I understand, modded SB3s are equal or somewhat better. According to Tom, some mods approach the Transporter. Anyway, the Transporter is a lot better than the SB3. The SB with a high performance, studio-grade, jitter-eliminating DAC like the Lavry is a lot better than a SB3. In fact, I would say it is more or less comparable to the Transporter, the difference being one of nuance. The SB3 and Transporter through a Lavry sound the same -- like a Lavry.

    So, from a purely economic perspective, you could go with a SB3 and, say, a Lavry. However, the Transporter gives you far more functionality (extra inputs, etc.) and far greater aesthetics. These are important to some people. I like having four analog outputs (good for subs and mains), extra inputs, and the real good looks of the things. That, of course, and knowing that I'm getting performance just as good as from any DAC under $10k...in which, if there were a difference, it is not one that I could detect in my room. If these are NOT priorities...
    Actually, from an economic perspective the best option would be an analog modded SB with the Sonicap Platinum upgrade but without the Bybees ($$$$$), megabuck powercord and with an upgraded linear power supply but not the top of the line ($$750). I believe that this combination will provide SQ approaching a stock TS or possibly, depending upon system synergy and taste, equal or superior SQ. All this for about $600. Some even prefer the small form factor of the SB to the relatively large size of the rack mounted TP. The use of $1000+ dacs like the Lavry cause the TP to be considered a luxury item. Definitely, not for the parsimonious audiophile.

    From what I have been able to deduce, most prefer the modded SB analog SQ to the digitally modded SB/dac of choice SQ.

    Raja
    Last edited by rajacat; 2006-12-12 at 23:48.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    534
    As for the aesthetics, that is a personal choice. I personally prefer elegant looking components. As for sound, that is personal, too. I prefer not to void warranties, if possible, and I, along with others, strongly doubt any mod is going to match the output of a lavry, benchmark, or mytek. Those units are reasonably priced, too, for what they are. But that's me. Tom concluded that over two grand worth of mods was not quite up to Transporter status.

    Quote Originally Posted by rajacat View Post
    Actually, from an economic perspective the best option would be an analog modded SB with the Sonicap Platinum upgrade but without the Bybees ($$$$$) and with an upgraded linear power supply but not the top of the line ($$750). I believe that this combination will provide SQ approaching a stock TS or possibly, depending upon system synergy and taste, equal or superior SQ. All this for about $600. Some even prefer the small form factor of the SB to the relatively large size of the rack mounted TP.

    From what I have been able to deduce, most prefer the modded SB analog SQ to the digitally modded SB/dac of choice SQ.

    Raja

  9. #29
    Senior Member opaqueice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    A place where something is or could be located; a site.
    Posts
    1,815
    Quote Originally Posted by jhm731 View Post
    How many DACs have you tested with the Transporter to reach this conclusion?
    None - I don't have a TP.

    PhilNYC seems to think his Dodson DAC is better than the Transporter's DAC.

    Sleestack doesn't think it's total waste to use the TP as a transport. He uses TPs as transports in his systems.
    The one thing which is totally obvious is that people's opinions of how things sound vary tremendously, which means they are an extremely unreliable guide. Therefore I prefer to winnow down the number of options I consider using logic and reason, and then go listen to it and see if I like it, rather than rely on "so-and-so prefers such-and-such."

    There are two possibilities for a TP connected to an external DAC (I'm ignoring the wordclock option, which I agree is superior but requires a very expensive DAC):

    1) TP connected to a DAC which is immune to jitter (if you don't believe such DACs exist move to option 2).
    In this case the transport is totally irrelevant sound-wise, so one should use the source which is most convenient/cheapest/prettiest, which is probably not the TP.

    2) TP connected to a non-jitter-immune DAC.
    In this case the DAC is receiving a noisy signal and has an additional disadvantage before it can even equal the TP. Of course there may be DACs out there that can do this, or that simply have analogue stages that sound better to some people, but that would be the exception rather than the rule.
    Last edited by opaqueice; 2006-12-13 at 03:14.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by highdudgeon View Post
    And, hey, they're only over $10k. Lavry makes a $9k unit, if you're looking at things like that. Before you get there, though, you'd better make damn sure you have out-of-this-world speakers and electronics. Out of this world.

    As for the technical level thing, how about getting technical and explaining why? Dan Lavry has an excellent white paper on jitter on his site. The Transporter's DAC has exceptionally low jitter. I strongly doubt whether, in a normal to pretty high-end system, you could tell any difference at all.
    http://forums.slimdevices.com/showth...highlight=sync

    At least on technical grounds, this user (wslam) is reporting less jittery sound from a word clock sync. Whether or not one can discern it is up to your ears though.

    for the why part go to http://www.lessloss.com/ (having majors in physics and math helps alot too bad i didnt)
    and read the "What you should know before buying a DAC" section.
    Last edited by Konig; 2006-12-13 at 03:28.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •