PDA

View Full Version : Transporter II form factor



Suprlite7
2008-02-20, 10:05
I can see from photos in the Transporter system gallery that the Transporter looks more the part of an audiophile component than the SB3 or the Duet but I would like to offer a recomendation. I am a convert to Bel Canto's systems and love their sound and form factor. An under-the-hood inspection of the Transporter shows a lot of empty space that could be placed in a much smaller enclosure. Small is good. The Trends TA-10.1, Peter Daniel's Patek and the Winsome Labs Mouse amp among others have busted the big is better paradigm in high end audio. Bel Canto's Reference 1000's are award winning amps and also half (or more!) the size of traditional amps. No longer do we need to have mass to have superior audio. I recommend the next Transporter be 1/2 its present size which could easily be done without sacrificing any of the elements within.

My two cents from the peanut gallery.

4mula1
2008-02-20, 11:13
The Transporter isn't an amp nor does it contain any high power amp circuits. It's job is to decode the music fed to it then feed that into an amp to feed the speakers. It was made to a standard rack mount width just to integrate better than the somewhat oddly shaped Squeezebox.

I have test equipment here at work that is in a rack mount enclosure that is mostly dead space. It's just made to be rack mountable.

jaysung
2008-02-20, 11:30
Hello,
Well, I agree. When opening the tp I was tempted to put something into it just to fill the space ...
Here is what I thaught of:
- solid state hard disk and some unnecessary Slimserver overhead ;)
- Cd drive to rip or directly play music
- heavy duty copper shielding for the different components to electrically isolate them and to be more convincing for such audio- and electrofools as I am

Anyway the tp is not HEAVY enough Zarnash (have to pay the cables still ) says heavy equippment sounds better because of less mechanic vibration. ;)) He argues that electric parts in motion generate magnetic fields or such. ;-P
And well I forgot we have to have a tube in it I don't know where but it will sound substantially better if we put a tube believe it Harmony has prooven it. ;)

So what. Ain't the Tp a good unit of electronics?

riffer
2008-02-20, 11:36
The larger the screen the better for me, so I say keep the current form factor and make it even taller, with a bigger screen.

Suprlite7
2008-02-20, 12:06
The SB3 if double it's depth could have the same capability as the TP I'm guessing. You could add a larger screen to boot and still have a small form factor. I don't see a necessity for maintaining an old standard. Computers used to come in the same size box but that's not the case any more.

SuperQ
2008-02-20, 12:28
Hrm, what are the dimensions of the TP's "empty space" I suppose you could fit a small embeded slimserver in there. Just need to add an external USB port to add an external CD drive for ripping/encoding.

iPhone
2008-02-20, 20:35
I recommend the next Transporter be 1/2 its present size which could easily be done without sacrificing any of the elements within.

The Transporter was designed with audiophiles and the higher end market in mind. To that end, the device needs to be X inches wide and just as important rack mountable. Additionally and more important in my mind, the Transporter needs to be big enough to keep from being pulled off the shelf by the weight of all the heavy audiophile type cables I have plugged into the back! I know it is just my opinion, but the Transporter is about as small as it can be still satisfying the audiophile crowd.

Please keep it the same or make it larger (more room for mods for people into that)! I would not want to come home to find my new smaller Transporter off its shelf and hanging by the interconnects behind all the other equipment!

HalleysComet
2008-02-20, 20:51
Hello,
Well, I agree. When opening the tp I was tempted to put something into it just to fill the space ...
Here is what I thaught of:
- solid state hard disk and some unnecessary Slimserver overhead ;)
- Cd drive to rip or directly play music
- heavy duty copper shielding for the different components to electrically isolate them and to be more convincing for such audio- and electrofools as I am

Anyway the tp is not HEAVY enough Zarnash (have to pay the cables still ) says heavy equippment sounds better because of less mechanic vibration. ;)) He argues that electric parts in motion generate magnetic fields or such. ;-P
And well I forgot we have to have a tube in it I don't know where but it will sound substantially better if we put a tube believe it Harmony has prooven it. ;)

So what. Ain't the Tp a good unit of electronics?

Here's one that's stuffed with LOTS of parts!

http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=41197.100
scroll down for an amazing TP picture!

Suprlite7
2008-02-21, 10:21
Hopefully I can cut and paste the internal photo. No one could/should argue that 90% of the internal volume is wasted space. With the new Controller you could make this headless like the Duet, half the size (orient in the other direction) and it would be awesome.

haunyack
2008-02-21, 10:37
argue that 90% of the internal volume is wasted space.

Looks more like just under 50%.
I agree with a few posters here that the rack handles are silly.
Also the front panel, while functional, is redundant.

.

jaysung
2008-02-21, 10:51
Hi,
what exactly does the linked photography show? Which components are added? I can not see the photo. ;)
Br Jeronimo

iPhone
2008-02-21, 12:13
The SB3 if double it's depth could have the same capability as the TP I'm guessing. You could add a larger screen to boot and still have a small form factor. I don't see a necessity for maintaining an old standard. Computers used to come in the same size box but that's not the case any more.

I can not agree completely with the analogy to computers. True, consumer PCs have gotten smaller and so have commercial PCs, but even though the commercial PCs are smaller many still come in RU sizes (smaller then before, but still RU). Why is this? Because they meet a standard and are still rack mounted so they can be stacked vertically to use all available space and make them easier to service and interconnect.

Taking a look at the major audio and video rack manufactures, their main product lines are still for 19-inch wide equipment and most have an offering for actual rack mounting. Most of my gear came with rack mount ears or has an option for rack mounting.

The quoted post contains the main reason to keep the Transporter the width it currently is. The current size does conform to “the Standard”, which will probably be around as long as there are Class A power amps, tube gear, and A/V receivers. Besides the current size looks great with all my other gear in the media room. My SB3 looks out of place (but sounds great) on the Stand Design Rack in the living room with the rest of the 19-inch gear. I will be buying a Duet so I can hide the SBR in the living room system and use the SBC with it, the Transporter, and multi SB3s.

iPhone
2008-02-21, 12:19
Hi,
what exactly does the linked photography show? Which components are added? I can not see the photo. ;)
Br Jeronimo

Hello,

Use that link again, then scroll down until you see photos. What you will see is a picture of a ModWright Transporter with the top cover off. The inside of the ModWright Tansporter is full mainly because of the large trodial transformer, filter caps, and tube sockets.