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 can't accept this result as credible, but I am a bit more open-minded. The more I know, the more I realise there is yet to learn in hifi. I can imagine that streaming and SPDIF might use different circuits, at some stage, within the Transporter player. This might explain the difference. As I understand it, the slim devices players use buffering so I don't see TCP/IP in itself as a problem. Or it might be the reviewer is the problem. I don't know, and neither does anyone else for sure. But I accept it is possible the SPDIF sounds better. So on to personal observations... I am lucky enough to have an outboard DAC in my existing set up so I figured to use the Squeezebox as a transport using SPDIF. My set up is: - Dedicated listening room approx 18x9.5 feet (loft room so end walls are sloped, one with dormer window). - Transports: Monarchy CLD-M401 and Squeezebox v3 - Outboard DAC: Sony DAS-703ES - Integrated amp: Krell KAV-300i - Speakers: PMC AB-1 - Interconnects: Precious Metals throughout - Isolation and room treatments: home-made I've heard better and worse set ups, but this is good enough to discover a few things which I report here. First off, I compared the Squeezebox v3 as a player (using the analogue outputs) and as a transport (using the SPDIF output into my outboard DAC). Here the Squeezebox as a player seemed smooth in the treble, with a friendly mid-range and warm bass. In a word, inoffensive (I mean that as a compliment). Initial impression was good but after a short while it was clear that, in my system, the outboard DAC provided more impactful bass, clearer mid-range, more naturally extended treble, more detail and a better sound-stage. Ok, no surprises, and Transporter owners will have nothing to argue with there :-) Then came comparison between using Squeezebox v3 as a transport and using the Monarchy CD transport, each passing 1s and 0s into the outboard DAC. (I used the same SPDIF cable and SPDIF input in each case.) Here the differences seemed almost nil, with perhaps certain vocals sounding more intelligible through the Squeezebox v3. To be honest the comparison was a bit hurried, using only three tracks, since I was busting to get my new Squeezebox purchase in harness. I can't tell you how pleased I was, since I am totally sold on the idea of having my music collection on computer. I believe very strongly this is the way of the future. In time, all music (all media) will be stored and delivered this way. It is so much more accessible and convenient to do so. I have been using this configuration for the last month and it's been good. A couple of days ago, however, "disaster" struck. I was getting more and more bothered with the sound of my system (this happens from time to time!). I spent a day playing with the speaker positioning! This culminated in listening to the opening track of "Bare" by Annie Lennox. I just wasn't getting it, it sounded very clumsy and not in-the-room. I was listening to the track for the very first time (the album belongs to my wife). This is always a good test. It sounded a worse recording than her previous album which spurred me into action. In the end, I swapped out the Squeezebox v3 and put in the Monarchy transport. Bang: some detail, sharpness and soundstage came back that was missing before. The loudness of the vocals had more shading, not just blared out but modulated at times. The recording suddenly wasn't so suspect. Out came more and more discs, and each one proved better on the Monarchy (same comments as for Annie Lennox), from big studio stuff like A.R. Rahman to classics like Innervisions by Stevie Wonder and Peter Gabriel's live Secret World concert. I cannot tell you how sorry I am, since I want to use the computer as a music source! And that Monarchy transport is a pain - it's based on the old Philips laserdisc players and it's big, heavy and a reliability problem waiting to happen. Problem is, the Monarchy and Sony together sound great, and they've beaten off a lot of competitors in my system... So many times I have doubted this combo against newer opposition. But each time they prove they can pull a lot of information out of a red book disc, despite their age. I have no explanation for it. Somewhere along the chain the networked 0s and 1s are not arriving at the SPDIF input of my outboard DAC perfectly. Somehow the CD 0s and 1s, via the Monarchy player, are in better shape. I can only guess the issue is around the SPDIF circuits. HFN alluded to the lack of PLL circuitry within the Transporter. So HFN. What I really wanted to see (from a selfish point of view) was the Transporter being used as a TRANSPORT (the clue is in the name) and not as a DAC as they tested it! After all, the whole point using devices such as the Squeezebox and Transporter is to access the music in the computer domain and bring it into your music system. So using the Transporter as a DAC is not a realistic, useful test. But using the Transporter as a transport is. And it might have shed more light on where the issues are in the listening results. I would like to know if the Transporter sounds better as a transport than the Squeezebox v3 as a transport. I think it is very feasible, but I don't know enough about this area, and the slim devices designs within the box, to comment. Clearly if I bought a Transporter I would compare the Transporter as a player, versus using it as a transport with my Sony DAC. As always, I choose by what I hear. To sum up (bearing in mind most of the readers of this thread are interested in the Transporter). 1. I can confirm from my own testing that my CD transport is superior at getting the 1s and 0s into the SPDIF input of my outboard DAC as compared to the the "low-end" Squeezebox accessing a Slim Server. I don't know how much circuitry the Squeezebox and Transporter share purely on the transport side, so... 2. It would have been nice if HFN had looked into the question above, since they had an ideal opportunity to do so. I note that on p107 of HFN the same reviewer discusses the Squeezebox so a nice comparison of Squeezebox and Transporter could have been made, as transports (I assume as a player the Transporter would mash the Squeezebox). PS: Replay gain and bit-rate limiting are disabled on my player. Also digital output levels are fixed. -- darrenyeats ------------------------------------------------------------------------ darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
