pfarrell;313594 Wrote:
I'm pretty sure it is the evil brick wall filters that folks used to
use, they do terrible things to phase.
Even worse, the early brick wall filters didn't just mangle the phase,
they often had a db or two of ripple in the amplitude response for at
least a decade
I have two SB3 and one TP... I use a SB3 for my main stereo setup in my
music room, because I have a very nice DAC and currently very few
hi-rez files. The few I have, I can play on the computer instead.
For the secondary stereo in the living room I use the TP. Why? The
answer is simple - why
andynormancx;313089 Wrote:
Don't forget that the most expensive part of the SB3 is the screen and
the TP has two of them. Also, that knob must be a pricey bit of kit.
Hopefully those cosmetic items do not account for a big chunk of the
difference in pricing. My expectation is that the main
I have two transporters, and apart from the first few times have never
used the knob. It's just easier to navigate using the remote, or with
the Controller. I'd be happy to see a knobless Transporter; it's still
only 1/10 the cost of a Linn. Klimax is what their sales folk do when
you order one!
Steve Agnew;313380 Wrote:
I'd be happy to see a knobless Transporter; it's still only 1/10 the
cost of a Linn. Klimax is what their sales folk do when you order one!
Cheers, Steve.
Ha - that is very funny. BTW The Klimax is already knobless ;o)
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal
mswlogo,
I came to the same conclusion about the sound output differences
between the SB3 and Transporter. I agree that the Transporter as a
piece of hardware is much better than the SB3 but is it $1,700
better...I'm not quite so sure.
I hope that in the next iteration of the Transporter, Sean
mswlogo;313269 Wrote:
As I also said I think we will see more 24/96 as physical media phases
out.
It's a nice thought, but I don't think it's ever going to happen.
First of all, look at the death of MLP and SACD products, even 96k
encoded DTS isn't selling. Why do you think Apple's iTunes
Eric Seaberg;313563 Wrote:
It's a nice thought, but I don't think it's ever going to happen. First
of all, look at the death of MLP and SACD products, even 96k encoded DTS
isn't selling. Why do you think Apple's iTunes store just hit the
5-billion sold mark... most consumers don't care
Eric Seaberg wrote:
just convenience, and the consumer is, typically, what drives the
market.
No, the consumer defines the market. There will always be boutique
audiophile stuff, but never in any volume to make anyone care.
meaning NO ONE could hear a difference. Now the difference between
Cool review. The transporter knob is fairly cool. Unfortunately for my
stereo setup it's down on a low shelf, so I almost never walk up and use
the front panel controls. One of these days I'll get around to making a
new stereo shelf that will allow the TP to be up at standing height.
The next
His speakers take a Digital Signal , have inbuilt DACS so analog output
is not really an option unless to a headphone amp or something else
that requires an analog signal.
--
Rodney_Gold
Sb3/Z-sys RDP1/meridian DSP5500's
TP/X-cans v3/Senns 650's
TP/TACT 2.0/SCM 50a's
TP/Meridian DSP5000's
The
I should have mentioned that I had always hoped Slim Devices would have
released a Tranport only (no DAC) Transporter which was another reason
I waited, but it never materialized and don't expect it ever will.
Probably 1/3 the cost of the transporter is it's analog/DAC section
which is a shame
mswlogo;313076 Wrote:
I should have mentioned that I had always hoped Slim Devices would have
released a Tranport only (no DAC) Transporter which was another reason
I waited, but it never materialized and don't expect it ever will.
Probably 1/3 the cost of the transporter is it's analog/DAC
agentsmith;313084 Wrote:
I would hope that more than one third of the cost is the analogue output
section and the DAC+circuitry, I would think that these are just about
the only 2 parts that seperates its sound quality from the SB3 which
cost a fraction of the transporter.
Don't forget that
Rodney_Gold;313098 Wrote:
Well , I have had one transporter with a bust knob out the box , soon
after the top 1/2 of the right hand screen went , then I got a new one
out the box and the top 1/2 of the left hand screen hs failed 4 days
later ...so perhaps these pricey bits are more a
agentsmith;313084 Wrote:
I would hope that more than one third of the cost is the analogue output
section and the DAC+circuitry, I would think that these are just about
the only 2 parts that seperates its sound quality from the SB3 which
cost a fraction of the transporter.
Front Panel isn't
mswlogo;313104 Wrote:
Front Panel isn't exactly free.
Second Display.
Faster Processor.
Power Supply.
Cabinet.
The RD on the analog was probably pretty significant. The added cost
in replicating it, is probably pretty darn cheap. Analog connectors and
labor to connect them are probably
I also thought that the Transporter was an excellent digital transport,
and was disappointed that a 'digital only' version didn't exist.
I found it to be better than the unmodified SB3 as a digital transport
but it is too long ago to say how it compares against my modified SB3.
I wasn't too
It's probably not surprising that there was little (indeed no)
discernable difference. In principle, if a DAC is doing its job
properly then it should be pretty well immune to jitter, and since
they're the same bits, there's no scope for improvement.
Since you have a £5k Meridian device that's
I think much of the point of the Transporter is that a very high quality
DAC is integrated into the device. Running an external DAC on a
Transporter seems an odd thing to do.
MC
--
ModelCitizen
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
It's the music stupid!
ModelCitizen;313236 Wrote:
I think much of the point of the Transporter is that a very high quality
DAC is integrated into the device. Running an external DAC on a
Transporter seems an odd thing to do.
MC
I have to agree with what MC said. The main differences in an SB3 and
TP (aside from
Guys you don't read very well. I said I never expected TP to sound
better as a digital transport. It was worth a check though !! I doubt a
SB+ sounds any different on digital outputs as well on a good
dejittering DAC.
But it does have more capabilities that are worth it to me. Mainly
88.2/96K.
mswlogo;313269 Wrote:
I just bought a new sofa that was more expensive than I could get at
some discount furniture store. It's not any more comfortable and has no
more seating capacity. But it looks really really nice. Was I wrong to
buy the sofa that appealed to me more?
Yes, if the better
iPhone;313274 Wrote:
Yes, if the better half doesn't like the sofa more then you. All kidding
aside, that is exactly what my post was about. If one needs or is
willing to pay Transporter prices to have 88.2/96 capability, then by
all means buy a TP! If one just likes the way it looks but has
mswlogo;313277 Wrote:
Can't the duet remote be used with any SqueezeBox/TP?
Yes, it can, that's what was used in the initial beta testing. You can
even us it with the Slimp3 :)
--
SuperQ
SuperQ's Profile:
I've had my eye on a Transporter since the day after I received the SB3.
One thing that held me back was its lack of support for 88.2k for all
that money. Not to mention they are very expensive. And even used
prices really hold up (they have held up higher on the transporter than
I have seen for
26 matches
Mail list logo
