atkinsonrr;158261 Wrote:
I would hope that modders could show some empirical, instrumented,
improvements.
Perhaps there are some modders out there doing that, but I (in my
limited experience with the modding community) have not seen it.
On the other hand, I wouldnt claim a modder is full
jhm731;158250 Wrote:
KimR said the Transporter doesn't sound any better than his SB3 off the
digital outputs.
Actually, what I said was that I couldn't tell the difference between
the Transporter digital out and the SB3 WHEN running the SB3 through
the $1500 Apogee Big Ben digital processor.
You are write -- my post was poorly worded. I apologize for that.
atkinsonrr;158254 Wrote:
I appreciate your input here, as I think it may be coming from concern,
thinking there was something that he hadnt considered but should
probably consider before making a big financial decision.
Guys
I've enjoyed the debate and had a bit of fun with the banter but Sean
I'm disappointed with your comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryG View Post
What facts would you like?
Lower impedence power supply.
Lower noise power supply.
Lower noise decoupling caps.
Point-to-point
GaryG;158427 Wrote:
Guys
Anyway, enough of the waffle, I've had an email from somebody offering
to let me hear a Transporter so I've taken up the offer. Thanks for
your comments guys, if anybody's interested in hearing how it compares
let me know.
Regards
Gary
Hi Gary,
Good luck with
GaryG;158427 Wrote:
For example, I used to use squash balls under all my equipment (42 of
them under the Wadia alone to take the weight!), which sit on
ClearAudio RDC Super Postion Platform shelves which sit on Mana
reference tables, which sit on 6 Mana Soundstages. I tried using
Gary, thank you for being even wierder than I :-)
Now I don't feel so strange putting my TP on acrylic wheels on a
microscan table.
Hey, it was sitting around, I never even bought it, a dealer friend
left it here 10 years ago, every time he is over he says he going to
take it but I always give
I'd like to make an observation about the change in attitude we've seen
from Sean. Not very long ago, his postings were just about as friendly
as you could possibly hope to read. His tolerance of pretty much every
tweak and mod to the SB, no matter how nutty, was absolutely
remarkable. Recently,
cliveb;158467 Wrote:
I'd like to make an observation about the change in attitude we've seen
from Sean.
Actually, I just stopped taking my pills. :)
--
seanadams
seanadams's Profile:
Amen.
Now, I will go take some pills.
tomjtx;158482 Wrote:
Where else would the CEO take the time to respond and explain so much
about his product?
This is what I love about this company.
it's refreshing, Sean, to hear you speak with candor and honesty re.
the TP.
I would be
cliveb;158467 Wrote:
I'd like to make an observation about the change in attitude we've seen
from Sean.
Well, I don't see that: Sean has always been proud of his designs and
baffled by why people think they need $1000 power cords...
But that said, the real change I noticed was that people
I have a fully modded and stock Transporter. I haven't done any
critical A/Bing, nor do I really intend to, but, for what its worth,
they both sound fantastic as transports.
Living in Los Altos, I'd be happy to bring them by SD if someone over
there wants to compare them.
--
Sleestack
Sleestack;158513 Wrote:
I have a fully modded and stock Transporter. I haven't done any
critical A/Bing, nor do I really intend to, but, for what its worth,
they both sound fantastic as transports.
Living in Los Altos, I'd be happy to bring them by SD if someone over
there wants to
tomjtx;158525 Wrote:
Who modded your TP and do you know what the mods are?
I'm hoping 'TP' isn't the best nickname we can come up with for the
Transporter. :)
--
JJZolx
Jim
JJZolx's Profile:
JJZolx;158528 Wrote:
I'm hoping 'TP' isn't the best nickname we can come up with for the
Transporter. :)
O yeh, i just got it , sorry...
But a good slogan:
Wipe away the grunge with TP
Sean, I'll let you know where to send the royalties
--
tomjtx
tomjtx;158525 Wrote:
Who modded your TP and do you know what the mods are?
The mods to Sleestack's TP were done by Aberdeen(mauimods.com).
If you're interested, I suggest you contact him directly for more
details.
PS- Sean, glad to hear you're off the pills. Send the leftovers to
George.
--
jhm731;158555 Wrote:
The mods to Sleestack's TP were done by Aberdeen(mauimods.com).
If you're interested, I suggest you contact him directly for more
details.
PS- Sean, glad to hear you're off the pills. Send the leftovers to
George.
Yes it was. Anthony does all of my TACT ger and
Mark Lanctot;157893 Wrote:
Well yeah, but that's kind of a marketing statement. They couldn't
possibly have compared it to every single CD player on the market (or
ever made, for that matter). And I'm sure those $10K CD transports
I've heard about have something to them. If they didn't
One teensy problem: by sending it off to be modded (for what?) before
you even bothered listening to it you have voided the warranty and
scrapped the 30 home trial. Wouldn't it have made more sense to
receive it at home, check it out, and then decide to 1) keep it as is,
2) mod it, or 3) send it
tomjtx;157729 Wrote:
It's a flattering review. But it's too bad they didn't have some good
files to use.
The TP sounds different in my system when I spin a CD on my CDTTP.
Interestingly ,it sounds more laid back, a bit less detail and rythymic
punch.
I could never characterize the TP as
highdudgeon;158106 Wrote:
One teensy problem: by sending it off to be modded (for what?) before
you even bothered listening to it you have voided the warranty and
scrapped the 30 home trial. Wouldn't it have made more sense to
receive it at home, check it out, and then decide to 1) keep it
If Wayne hasn't begun work on it, you should have him send it to your
house -- untouched. Evaluate it, live with it for a couple of weeks,
compare to other stuff, etc. Then you'll know what direction will work
best for you. Just my $.02.
GaryG;158150 Wrote:
Can't argue with that.
Why?
Regards
Gary
--
GaryG
GaryG's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2423
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450
___
GaryG;158169 Wrote:
Why?
Regards
Gary
I dont mean to answer for HD but IMHO if you 1st live with the stock TP
you would then see what improvements the mod makes, and for me , that
would be part of the fun.
You might also decide the stock TP is so good you dont need to mod it.
The Tp sounds
See Tom's post. You don't even know what a stock Transporter will do.
You do know, on paper, some of the things it does: exceptionally low,
world class jitter, first-class DAC, etc. So it is worth at least
TRYING for a week before voiding your return policy and warranty, isn't
it?
As for
I'm puzzled, as to the suggestions I'm getting. Let's make the following
assumption:
The standard Transporter matches the 861se.
In which case, one would expect the modified Transporter to be better
than a standard Transporter, ergo, the modified Transport is better
than the Wadia 861se. End
GaryG;158186 Wrote:
one would expect the modified Transporter to be better than a standard
Transporter
Why on earth would you expect that?
--
seanadams
seanadams's Profile:
Unless you have some facts about why this should be so...you're kind of
working off psychological expectations. Again, it just seems silly not
to try the Transporter as it is.
GaryG;158193 Wrote:
Well, I'm only going on my experience with my modified CD player and
amps, which sound better
What facts would you like?
Lower impedence power supply.
Lower noise power supply.
Lower noise decoupling caps.
Point-to-point wiring to avoid the di-electric loss in the PCB.
Better voltage regulation.
Lower noise regulators.
Regards
Gary
--
GaryG
More to the point: modders will have you believe that audio is magical,
and that any product can be improved in a few minutes by soldering in
certain aftermarket parts (which for some reason original manufacturers
don't use - go figure).
Slim Devices boringly skips all of the BS and tells you
Now, here's an interesting comparison:
Transporter analogue outputs
SB3 feeding Arcam Black Box 50 (via co-ax SPDIF)
Which one will sound better?
(Currently got the second one set up in my temporary office.)
--
Squirrel
Okay, so tell us what you know about the Transporter (which should be
plenty, if you've done your research, because SD has been open about
design and results). Tell us, too, about some measurement differences
with all these goodies and why, specifically, they should result in
anything more
seanadams;158204 Wrote:
And performance that is not matched by ANY product that we've been able
to find.
Well see, I was wrong. That was not just a flippant marketing
statement on the website.
Gary, as others on this thread, I'd advise to try it for a week or so
before you decide to mod it.
Even if one were to mod the Transporter, it seems to me there aren't
that many things to change. Modders tend to first seek out through-hole
caps and 8-DIP op amps, but I don't see any on the Transporter (or very
few I might have missed them). The earlier poster said something about
lower noise
Resistors are metal thin-film (lowest thermal noise), and capaitors are
polyethylene film, ceramic, or electrolytic depending on the capacity
and the application. These are very high quality, high precision
passives which are specced for use in measuring instruments. I do not
have manufacturer's
Disastrous but profitable.
seanadams;158224 Wrote:
Resistors are metal thin-film (lowest thermal noise), and capaitors are
polyethylene film, ceramic, or electrolytic depending on the capacity
and the application. These are very high quality, high precision
passives which are specced for
is there any place in canada where i can audition the transporter?
--
Konig
Konig's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8490
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450
I just want to make it clear (maybe it wasn't in my post) that I'm not
arguing for modding. I think boutique should be left for hairdos and
fingernails, not capacitors and resistors (curling irons?).
--
ezkcdude
DIY projects page:
http://www.ezdiyaudio.com
System:
SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2
atkinsonrr;158245 Wrote:
Sean-- I have seen you post similar thoughts on other threads. This
quote seems to indicate you believe all modders are stupid or
disingenuous. I hope you dont mean that, cause I sometimes mod (my
own) equipment. I even believe that in some cases, simple
Gary G. posts that he's having his Transporter modified and the SD's CEO
and one of his dealers, highdudgeon (George Day), attack the guy.
Why shouldn't he mod it?
In the review that started this thread, J.Bray- said of Transporter:
But it isn't,alas, as good as a traditional CD or SACD
highdudgeon;158213 Wrote:
Okay, so tell us what you know about the Transporter (which should be
plenty, if you've done your research, because SD has been open about
design and results). Tell us, too, about some measurement differences
with all these goodies and why, specifically, they
jhm731;158250 Wrote:
PS- IMO, the SD's Transporter marketing statement- And performance
that is not matched by ANY product that we've been able to find. Is
pure hype!
To be clear, I am talking about objectively measurable performance
(SNR, jitter, dynamic range etc), which admittedly is
Here's a quote from modifier/designer Alex Peychev(APLHIFI)'s forum
about your smoking measurements:
Those guys will never learn. At -60db you will need to go and put your
ear on the speaker driver in order to hear something, so who cares about
-130db noise floor of your digital source which,
seanadams;158249 Wrote:
However, when someone claims pefectly empirical improvements like lower
noise power supply with no rationale or data to back them up, I will
object.
Your sentence above, said it all for me. If a modder or anyone else is
claiming (for example) a reduction in jitter
jhm731;158258 Wrote:
Here's a quote from modifier/designer Alex Peychev(APLHIFI)'s forum
about your smoking measurements:
Those guys will never learn. At -60db you will need to go and put your
ear on the speaker driver in order to hear something, so who cares about
-130db noise floor of
atkinsonrr;157724 Wrote:
atkinsonrr;157716 Wrote:
Do I dare entertain the thought that this indicates a budding consensus
on the relative placement of Transporter? Just taking into account
these two 'direct-comparison' reviews (the only ones I've seen), a
ranking would shape up like
GaryG;157769 Wrote:
Given that ACM reported that his stock Denon 5910 was better than the
Transporter I'm not sure the updated list looks so impressive (assuming
of course that the Meitner is better than the Denon).
The Denon 5910 retails for $3800, if we're going for the more $$$ =
better
acm-
If you're interested in upgrading your Transporter or Meridian G68,
Mauimods.com (Aberdeen)is the one to contact.
It would be interesting to compare an upgraded Transporter to a
aplhifi.com upgraded Denon 5910.
--
jhm731
Mark Lanctot;157782 Wrote:
The Denon 5910 retails for $3800, if we're going for the more $$$ =
better argument. It's their flagship player.
Mark, take a look at the Slim Devices home page, you'll find the
following quote:
Transporter's sound quality surpasses even the most exotic compact
Why not? Because of the brand name?
GaryG;157879 Wrote:
Mark, take a look at the Slim Devices home page, you'll find the
following quote:
Maybe we have different expectations on the meaning of exotic but to me
the Denon 5910 isn't exotic, flagship maybe, but exotic, no.
Regards
GaryG;157879 Wrote:
Mark, take a look at the Slim Devices home page, you'll find the
following quote:
Maybe we have different expectations on the meaning of exotic but to me
the Denon 5910 isn't exotic, flagship maybe, but exotic, no.
Well yeah, but that's kind of a marketing statement.
One of the definitions for extoic is: Intriguingly unusual or different;
although in the case of Slim Device's marketing my interpretation of
that statement was to imply 'the best', in other words the Transporter
can rub shoulders with the best CD players.
Regards
Gary
--
GaryG
Mark
What it boils down to is I'm too honest for my own good, I ordered my
transporter on the basis of the marketing and am disappointed to read
about it's relative ranking.
Regards
Gary
--
GaryG
GaryG's Profile:
GaryG;157897 Wrote:
What it boils down to is I'm too honest for my own good, I ordered my
transporter on the basis of the marketing and am disappointed to read
about it's relative ranking.
But reading isn't hearing and discerning for yourself what you
prefer.
This is especially true in
GaryG;157897 Wrote:
Mark
What it boils down to is I'm too honest for my own good, I ordered my
transporter on the basis of the marketing and am disappointed to read
about it's relative ranking.
Regards
Gary
Has it arrived yet? If not, ignore the relative ranking bit for now.
When you
I ordered it shortly after the pre-order started, but hedged my bets on
the marketing being over enthusiastic and had it shipped directly to
Bolder Cables for Wayne to modify it.
Now to avoid getting jumped on by my fellow members my expectations are
high, I want to replace my GNSC 'Statement'
This looks like a neat comparison:
http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=208268
Can´t await mine :)
--
Wombat
Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113
View this thread:
cliveb;154408 Wrote:
Let's be blunt about this: it would seem that either dCS or Benchmark
are wrong. And they are two of the most highly respected outfits in the
business. Thinking about it, I'm inclined to side with dCS, but that
doesn't alter the fact that Benchmark know a heck of a lot
opaqueice;153738 Wrote:
And if the mod is digital only then I _really_ don't see the point
without some convincing demonstration that it actually sounds better
when connected to a good DAC.I'm not too sure what you're on about, but what
we do is to disconnect
ALL the SB2/3 output
opaqueice;153785 Wrote:
I think this takes the prize for most incoherent post - congratulations!
It's really very boring to argue with you, so I'll sign off here.
ezkcdude, I'm still interested in your response - why do you say it's
not true that buffering and re-clocking eliminates input
opaqueice;153738 Wrote:
I don't know what's inside the Benchmark - but it's certainly NOT
implausible to say a DAC can be jitter rejecting or even immune. If
you think it's hype, why don't you back that up with some facts rather
than simply making rude assertions?
Unless a digital system
PhilNYC;153822 Wrote:
Unless a digital system is using a master/slave clock architecture, it
needs to use a PLL to synchronize the transport signal to the DAC. A
PLL can reduce jitter in the incoming signal, but has some of its own
inherent jitter if the clock in the transport has any
Patrick Dixon;153790 Wrote:
I'm not too sure what you're on about, but what we do is to disconnect
ALL the SB2/3 output circuitry, and replace it with our own DAC,
analogue and digital output circuits together with a linear PSU and
plenty of local regulation. I personally have always
PhilNYC;153822 Wrote:
And here's a pretty good paper by dCS as an overview of jitter as it
relates to audio:
http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/technical_papers/jitter.pdf
An interesting point made in this paper is the claim that asynchronous
sample rate conversion (ASRC) embeds incoming jitter into
opaqueice;153828 Wrote:
However, there is another, entirely different approach possible, which -
as far as I can see - completely and totally eliminates the effects of
input jitter. This does not use a PLL at all, because it does not
reconstruct the clock from the incoming data stream. As
opaqueice;153831 Wrote:
I'd be surprised if there's any perceptible difference between any two
transports - say between a $30 DVD player and the SB+ or a $5000 CD
player or what have you - when played through a good DAC. I say this
because it seems clear that jitter can be entirely or
ezkcdude;153858 Wrote:
If you're going to keep on with this, at least, you must remember that
it is *input* jitter you're talking about. You have not addressed
jitter generated in the D/A process (which is not inconsequential).
In almost every place (except the one you quoted) I was careful
cliveb;153833 Wrote:
An interesting point made in this paper is the claim that asynchronous
sample rate conversion (ASRC) embeds incoming jitter into the signal,
and that low jitter sources with short cable runs should be used when
the receiver employs ASRC.
Contrast this to Benchmark's
BTW, i've posted in the french forum a little listening review of my
new Transporter vs my SB3. For curious frenchies...
--
Chander
Transporter SB3, Arcam Alpha 8R+8P, Klipsch RF7, Synology CS 406, some
QED cables.
ezkcdude;153336 Wrote:
That may be true, but it's unlikely to be due differences in transport
jitter.So what's it due to then?
I've played an SB2/3 and our SB+ into both a Benchmark DAC and a TaCT
system, and in both cases the customers could quite clearly hear the
difference.
The exact same
Was this a double-blind test?
--
ezkcdude
DIY projects page:
http://www.ezdiyaudio.com
System:
SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2 interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step
Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz
anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10 subwoofer
He's not
http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?page=8675head=0
--
rajacat
rajacat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4156
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450
I'm *not* saying that. I just don't think it is right to speculate on or
debate phenomena for which there is no substantial proof. That's how
wars are started. If you had verifiable evidence, then we could start
to talk about jitter, power supplies, noise, etc. Until then, it's just
mere
Patrick Dixon;153632 Wrote:
Ahh, OK so we all 'imagined' it.
That would be a no.
It's not a question of imagining it - that's very naive. When people's
medical conditions improve when they take a sugar pill they believe to
be an effective medicine, they are not imagining it - they have
ezkcdude;153638 Wrote:
I'm *not* saying that. I just don't think it is right to speculate on or
debate phenomena for which there is no substantial proof. That's how
wars are started. If you had verifiable evidence, then we could start
to talk about jitter, power supplies, noise, etc. Until
Maybe he's doing that test right now ;)
--
ezkcdude
DIY projects page:
http://www.ezdiyaudio.com
System:
SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2 interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step
Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz
anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10 subwoofer
P Floding;153643 Wrote:
Why don't you slag off all the positive opinions about the Transporter?
Nobody's asked me yet, and I'm not trying to denigrate any particular
piece of equipment.
After all, I haven't heard anything about ABX of the Transporter vs. the
SB.
Good idea. I would assume
ezkcdude;153645 Wrote:
Nobody's asked me yet, and I'm not trying to denigrate any particular
piece of equipment.
Good idea. I would assume (hope) Sean and the gang might have done this
quite a bit when they were designing it.
Huh?
You take Seans word on a product's superiority, and
P Floding;153643 Wrote:
Don't you guys EVER get enough of this?
Why don't you slag off all the positive opinions about the Transporter?
After all, I haven't heard anything about ABX of the Transporter vs. the
SB.
I've never said anything particularly positive or negative about the
ezkcdude;153380 Wrote:
For those who want to learn more about how asynchronous sample rate
conversion (ASRC) is done, and why it is so good at rejecting jitter,
there's a great tutorial from a couple of years ago over at
diyaudio:
opaqueice;153649 Wrote:
I've never said anything particularly positive or negative about the
transporter, as I have no experience with it. Frankly, I wouldn't be
surprised if it's indistinguishable from an SB in a blind test.
However I also wouldn't be surprised if it isn't. And that's a
P Floding;153646 Wrote:
Huh?
You take Seans word on a product's superiority, and trust no-one else?
Well, that's a fan-boy...
Did I say that? It's not about taking someone's word for it. It's about
whether the method of testing is rigorous. Was your method of testing
rigorous?
--
ezkcdude
ezkcdude;153659 Wrote:
Did I say that? It's not about taking someone's word for it. It's about
whether the method of testing is rigorous. Was your method of testing
rigorous?
Testing of what?
--
P Floding
P Floding's
opaqueice;153649 Wrote:
What Patrick is claiming is far harder to believe - that two SBs which
differ by a few swapped parts, going into a jitter-rejecting Benchmark
DAC, are easily distinguishable.Depends what you call 'a few swapped parts'.
We disconnect all the
SB2/3 analogue
P Floding;153675 Wrote:
Testing of what?
What do you think?
--
ezkcdude
DIY projects page:
http://www.ezdiyaudio.com
System:
SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2 interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step
Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz
anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton
ezkcdude;153693 Wrote:
What do you think?
I have no idea.
--
P Floding
P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450
P Floding;153698 Wrote:
I have no idea.
okey doke. I'll spell it out. Testing of how the design of a component
affects the signal it produces, which then is eventually amplified and
makes speaker cones move back and forth in such a way that the air in
between the speakers and your ears
ezkcdude;153704 Wrote:
okey doke. I'll spell it out. Testing of how the design of a component
affects the signal it produces, which then is eventually amplified and
makes speaker cones move back and forth in such a way that the air in
between the speakers and your ears vibrates and a
P Floding;153654 Wrote:
What a load of absurd nonsense!
Why shouldn't it be possible to improve on the SB? Do you really
believe the Transporter to be so different? And, if so, in what way
would this difference make such a difference to the sound?
Also, the Benchmark isn't jitter rejecting.
opaqueice;153738 Wrote:
Which part, exactly, is the load of absurd nonsense? Is it the part
about how the company which built the SB might have an advantage when
it comes to improving it? Especially given a budget of $2000, tons of
time, a new architecture, sophisticated measuring tools,
P Floding;153756 Wrote:
Rude assertions?
Rude against the Benchmark? Get a life..
Electronics is not magic like you seem to believe. It's actually fairly
simple stuff. I think you are a bit lost in your beliefs about the state
of things. Any competent electronics engineer with a knowledge
P Floding;153348 Wrote:
There is no pretty much rejection -either source jitter is rejected
or it isn't.
When you can tell me what PSRR stands for, I'll get back into this
conversation (maybe). Until then, you can parse the words any way you
want. It doesn't change the bottom line, which
ezkcdude;153380 Wrote:
When you can tell me what PSRR stands for, I'll get back into this
conversation (maybe). Until then, you can parse the words any way you
want. It doesn't change the bottom line, which is that using AD1896 is
one of the best methods for jitter attenuation (o.k.?) short
P Floding;153399 Wrote:
Power Supply Rejection Ratio?
Anyway, what sort of an argument are you putting forward?
I'm right so I'm right..
I've read very knowledgable people claim that ASRC embeds the jitter in
the new upsampled stream. I've read a fair bit of information
technology, and
ezkcdude;153406 Wrote:
You may be reading, but you are not understanding, or you're just being
stubborn. My point about PSRR is that rejection does not have to be all
or nothing. It can be quantified. AD1896 rejects practically all of the
jitter on the input. Yes, you can always argue that
Sorry, but I just cannot continue to argue with you (and your
verizon-like army of experts). My good mood from last night is
beginning to sour.
--
ezkcdude
DIY projects page:
http://www.ezdiyaudio.com
System:
SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2 interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step
Attenuators
http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/08/slim-devices-transporter-reviewed/
Unfortunately engadget are now compounding the mediocre review, whether
this results in lost sales is very debatable, but can't be good for the
future of the Transporter.
Lose the displays, handles and buttons, put in a
CardinalFang;153411 Wrote:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/08/slim-devices-transporter-reviewed/
Unfortunately engadget are now compounding the mediocre review, whether
this results in lost sales is very debatable, but can't be good for the
future of the Transporter.
They're just
ezkcdude;153412 Wrote:
Sorry, but I just cannot continue to argue with you (and your
verizon-like army of experts). My good mood from last night is
beginning to sour.
Jeezzz.. I really care a lot about keeping you in a good mood.
--
P Floding
ezkcdude;153415 Wrote:
They're just quoting the other review.
Exactly, and engadget is one of the most highly read tech sites out
there. They have a fair amount of influence, perhaps not with
audiophiles, but pretty soon it can become common knowledge that a
product is mediocre unless some
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
