I've a Transporter from new, bought it when they first came out. It's
working fine, couple of small scratches on metal casing, and I'm not
sure if I can find the remote - I control it from my network. Also have
2 x Boom and a Duet somewhere as well. Ready to sell 'em if anyone's
drmatt wrote:
> If I could be bothered I'd try it out.. happy with what I have though.
> Like calibrating a TV, I can't see it ever being a bad thing, adding the
> finishing touch. Just wish it was easier to get right in a hifi context.
> A complete doddle in an AV context of course.
>
>
>
If I could be bothered I'd try it out.. happy with what I have though.
Like calibrating a TV, I can't see it ever being a bad thing though.
Just wish it was easier to get right on a hifi context. Doddle in an AV
context of course.
-Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk-
--
Hardware: 3x
drmatt wrote:
> No, I do think that a well done room correction would always be a good
> thing. Like human perception of white balance (or rather colour
> constancy) though you always know what colour things are in a scene the
> overall white balance is perceived as a mood rather than a colour
No, I do think that a well done room correction would always be a good
thing. Like human perception of white balance (or rather colour
constancy) though you always know what colour things are in a scene the
overall white balance is perceived as a mood rather than a colour shift.
Fix the white
JohnB wrote:
> I've dipped into this conversation from time to time and thought I would
> comment on this.
>
> That characterization of Digital Room Correction (if that is what you
> were referring to) is extremely misleading. Of course, it won't appeal
> to everyone but it can make a real and
davidovada wrote:
> Ciao, Antonio
> Not sure if you've made your purchase. I have a used Transporter(with
> knob) in black color(silver handles) for sale in Italia at correct
> price. If you're interested just let me know.
>
> grazie - david
Hi David,
Thanks for the offer, but I'm sorry I
Golden Earring wrote:
> So you can acoustically treat your listening space to your heart's
> content, or use complex DSP software in an attempt to convert it into an
> anechoic chamber, but the only effect will be to impress occasional
> visitors who are not used to your room's acoustic. Really
drmatt wrote:
> In truth whatever you choose your ears will adapt to it and unless it's
> chronically ill suited to your tastes it will be quite enjoyable.
>
>
> -Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk-
H Doc!
We are in agreement about many things, & I endorse your statement that
if you
Ciao, Antonio
Not sure if you've made your purchase. I have a used Transporter(with
knob) in black color(silver handles) for sale in Italia at correct
price. If you're interested just let me know.
grazie - david
Hi all!
I've got a few things to say (surprisingly!!), but my life is on fire
atm for reasons utterly beyond my control - my preferred approach to
life these days runs along the "manyana, but without the same sense of
urgency" lines. :D
I'll get back on this when I get a moment, lol.
Dave
drmatt wrote:
> Hey, lots to talk about and learn, always. Me too, I'm not implying
> otherwise!
>
> Yes, the driver plus its cabinet defines the resonance properties of the
> transducer and that defines the observed impedance much more than the
> crossover electronics does, I believe. If you
Hi again.
Yes, the driver plus its cabinet defines the resonance properties of the
transducer and that defines the observed impedance much more than the
crossover electronics does, I believe. If you have scope to test it,
replace the speaker drivers with an 8 ohm resistor and look at the
drmatt wrote:
> Speaker drivers are incredibly reactive to input frequency and this is
> what dominates the varying impedance of most speaker cabinets. Physics
> dictates this. It's easy to push a cone that's oscillating at its
> resonant frequency and very hard to push it significantly faster
Speaker drivers are incredibly reactive to input frequency and this is
what drives the varying impedance of most speaker cabinets. Physics
dictates this. It's easy to push a cone that's oscillating at its
resonant frequency and very hard to push it significantly faster than
this.
Not that any of
Antoniop wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> I've never heard of the Reynauds too, they 've an excellent reputation
> but there are not many in the auditoriums. Focal are quite easy to find,
> for the less expensive products.
>
> Choosing a pair of speakers will be a lng process for me, I'm not
> easy to
In truth whatever you choose your ears will adapt to it and unless it's
chronically ill suited to your tastes it will be quite enjoyable.
-Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk-
--
Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with
Debian+LMS 7.9.0
Music: ~1300 CDs, as
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Antonio!
>
> I do like the B 800 series, but both Focal & Sonus Faber make
> excellent stand-mounts too.
>
> I must confess I've never heard of the Reynauds - are they utterly
> esoteric?
>
> I stand by my personal experience that stand-mount speaker usually
>
drmatt wrote:
> Just to keep everyone guessing, I would personally recommend
> floorstanding speakers for music and there's very little need for a
> subwoofer.. I do have B in mind however..
>
>
> -Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk-
Hi Matt,
Thanks for this second advice. I'll try both
Antoniop wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> My first intention was to buy a pair of floor-standing, just because I
> thought it gives a better sound and I prefer the look of it, but then
> with your advice I'll try some stand-mount speakers, preferably from
> B, it seems to be your favourite brand in England,
Just to keep everyone guessing, I would personally recommend
floorstanding speakers for music and there's very little need for a
subwoofer.. I do have B in mind however..
-Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk-
--
Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I'm much relieved that no-one has taken issue with any of the points
> that I have made about loudspeaker design, room acoustics & the art of
> selecting the most appropriate type of speaker for your listening space,
> which I must confess that I wrote
RonM wrote:
> Back to the start of this thread -- buying a TP would allow you to keep
> the Touch and have it as a back-up; they're not making any more of
> either of these.
>
> R.
Hi RonM,
I agree. Actually, I finally decided to buy one of these Transporter SE,
because I always wanted to have
Antoniop wrote:
> Yes, after posting, I saw the posts about the SE, clearly it would be a
> better option, even if I like the big knob :).
> I don't care about the color display and I'm not convinced about 24/96.
> But keeping (well, I'll keep it anyway) the touch an put a bit more
> money on
Hi all!
I'm much relieved that no-one has taken issue with any of the points
that I have made about loudspeaker design, room acoustics & the art of
selecting the most appropriate type of speaker for your listening space,
which I must confess that I wrote seriously, but "off the top of my
head".
Hi Antonio!
I'm gratified to hear that you appreciate my (slightly droll!) English
sense of humour & equally that you find my posts, which are based upon a
lifetime's interest in music reproduction which started in my teens &
has continued unabated up to my present rather advanced age of 62,
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Antonio!
>
> I fully concur with Mynb's last 2 posts & would simply note that the
> stand-mount style of loudspeaker which I have suggested for your room
> tend to be simple 2-way designs, usually with equally simple passive
> crossovers which present a relatively
Hi Antonio!
I fully concur with Mynb's last 2 posts & would simply note that the
stand-mount style of loudspeaker which I have suggested for your room
tend to be simple 2-way designs, usually with equally simple passive
crossovers which present a relatively benign load for the amplifier.
So go
Oh and "within specs" quality amps usually behaves ok when driven close
and slightly over their limits and still sounds "ok" not so well
designed stuff can behave really bad .
In the early 90's I saw magazine actually measuring amps with a real
speakers , they built a very robust speaker not
Well choose your speakers first .
Todays amp's -driven within their spec's- rarely impose any audible
signature at all unless designed that way ( tube amplifier with
transformers ) .
Speakers are usually designed so that an amp with very low output
impendance and a flat frequency response
Antoniop wrote:
> Hi Dave !
> You seems to be an endless source of knowledge regarding hifi ! Very
> interesting post indeed.
> Sorry, I was posting an answer to iPhone, and I'm very slow, my english
> flows too slowly.
> My room is a little sitting room, about 20 m² (67 ft), rectangular, I'll
>
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Antonio!
>
> I absolutely agree with the previous answer to your question, i.e. it is
> the transducers which have the final job of imparting the sound waves
> into your listening room that are now the weakest (arguably the only
> weak) link in the audio chain as far
iPhone wrote:
> .
> .
> Hello Antonio,
>
> "Gear Fitting" as you call it, IE matching separates for one of four
> reason (price, sound, better half demands, or a combination of the first
> three) takes many paths. For most of us, price plays a huge part in this
> process plus what sounds good
Antoniop wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> I see that you're an expert regarding hifi and you're quite hard to
> please, but what do you do about "gear fitting", I mean, I'm not an
> expert myself but it seems to me that for example some speakers give a
> better sound with some amplifiers than some others,
Antoniop wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> I see that you're an expert regarding hifi and you're quite hard to
> please, but what do you do about "gear fitting", I mean, I'm not an
> expert myself but it seems to me that for example some speakers give a
> better sound with some amplifiers than some others,
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Antoniop!
>
> I just thought it was helpful to set out the arguments on both sides.
>
> Some of my gear was new (or ex-demo, which amounts to the same thing
> really, such gear has usually had very little use & its provenance is
> known... ). This is usually either
Antoniop wrote:
> Hi Dave!
> That's very interesting, thank you for sharing your experience !
> I'll consider differently buying second hand or not!
Hi Antoniop!
I just thought it was helpful to set out the arguments on both sides.
Some of my gear was new (or ex-demo, which amounts to the
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Antoniop!
>
> No, I don't think that you're snobbish. ;)
>
> As long as you look after your kit & keep it for ages, you will still
> get good value when you consider the cost per diem...
>
> There are pro's & con's of buying s/hand.
>
> The initial outlay is
Antoniop wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> you're excellent !
> Maybe you'll find me a bit snobbish, but I don't like much used thinks.
> My father used to almost never buy something new, always used things:
> (very) used cars, used clothes, used furniture... Not only a question of
> money. I like to buy
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Antoniop!
>
> Most of my gear is s/hand: realistically, as soon as you take a new bit
> of kit out of the box, you've flushed half of the purchase price down
> the toilet (with a few significant exceptions - the B 805S speakers I
> was forced to buy new, simply
Antoniop wrote:
> Hi Dave, I suppose they're asking $1000 because it was the price when it
> was still current product !
> Could be worse, there's a new touch at 800 for sale !
> Yes it's a bit too much.
> BTW, nice piece of technology, this Pathos Acoustics Endorphin CD
> Player. I love the
Golden Earring wrote:
>
> The eBay.com vendor asking $1000 for his unused model is shooting the
> moon IMHO: it's simply NOT worth that much...
>
Hi Dave, I suppose they're asking $1000 because it was the price when it
was still current product !
Could be worse, there's a new touch at 800
Antoniop wrote:
> You're perfectly right : I like the look and knowing it's an old piece
> of technology pleases me too. But it's not really a reasonable choice in
> your opinion, moreover at 1000 $. I agree with you about the look of the
> SE : it looks like a cheap piece of plastic, at least
Antoniop wrote:
> Then, we're coming back to my point : Should I buy a transporter, that I
> could use as the digital source and the DAC, or use a SBT as a digital
> source with a recent external DAC, such as this one '*Rotel RDD-1580 *'
> (https://www.whathifi.com/rotel/rdd-1580/review)not too
cliveb wrote:
> I am a long-time user of the Transporter, and am very happy with it. It
> sounds fabulous.
>
> BUT: if it ever dies, I will not be looking to replace it. The TP is a
> legacy product that still performs well, but there are cheaper
> alternatives easily available these days. A
Antoniop wrote:
> Then, we're coming back to my point : Should I buy a transporter, that I
> could use as the digital source and the DAC, or use a SBT as a digital
> source with a recent external DAC
I am a long-time user of the Transporter, and am very happy with it. It
sounds fabulous.
BUT:
Mnyb wrote:
> Another thougth active speakers ? Or active digital speakers ? Provided
> one can find speakers that otherwise satisfy taste and acoustiscs .
> Important caveat the xover should be digital or analog before the amps
> showing the amp in the speaker box and still have a passive
drmatt wrote:
>
>
> For reference I could not hear any difference in audio quality using the
> same setup fed digital data from a Chromecast audio, but that's obvious:
> sound character is determined in the analogue domain. I prefer the SBT
> as a digital source however.
> -Transcoded from
Another thougth active speakers ? Or active digital speakers ? Provided
one can find speakers that otherwise satisfy taste and acoustiscs .
Important caveat the xover should be digital or analog before the amps
showing the amp in the speaker box and still have a passive filter does
not make them
Correct, never met a dlna playback device that is as satisfying to use
as an LMS end point. Add the colour touchscreen and numerous
android/iPhone apps and it's game over, frankly. Win for the
squeezeboxes.
As for sound quality, I'm extremely happy with my SBT, Mytek DAC and
Supernait amp combo.
I think the black SE looks better without the knob.
Fizbin's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=58734
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=107946
Antoniop wrote:
>
> Is anybody using one of the recent amplifiers with dlna capabilities ?
Once you have used LMS, dlna is simply awful as a streaming approach.
*Home:* VortexBox 4TB (2.4) > LMS 7.9.1 > Transporter, Touch, Boom,
Radio (all ethernet)
*Cottage:* VBA 3TB (2.4) > LMS 7.9.1 >
drmatt wrote:
> What he said. ^^ The ripping part is a pain in the ass but once done
> it's done.
Exactly, I'm proud to rip myself my own CDs using the best accurate rip
software.
I already got a decent CD player, and don't intend to change it, Mnyb,
thanks for the suggestion anyway :)
drmatt
What he said. ^^ The ripping part is a pain in the ass but once done
it's done. I have an offboard DAC for my SBT going to a stereo amplifier
for music playback, which also is fed front left/right signals from an
AV amp for TV/film duties. Best of both worlds.
-Transcoded from Matt's brain by
Rip your CD's to 16/44.1 FLAC files and save the investment of a CD
player .
You can now listen to your CD's via LMS and your squeezebox touch .
If your stereo also is in your TV room and you get a DAC with multiple
digital inputs or an amp with multiple digital inputs just use your dvd
or
drmatt wrote:
> There's a few digital amps around not many. V1 Naim Supernait, DAC
> v1/NAP100 power amp combo, Cyrus 6, 8 and up come with built in DAC
> options, there's a Marantz digital amp, and probably a few others. Oddly
> the genre does not seem to have caught on, unless in conjunction
Apesbrain wrote:
> If you really want a Transporter, at $499 it's not a bad deal. The knob
> part was discontinued so that's why those versions sell for so much
> more. If you primarily control your SB player via the remote, or via
> PC/app, the knob is not necessary. In any case, it's not
If you really want a Transporter, at $499 it's not a bad deal. The knob
part was discontinued so that's why those versions sell for so much
more. If you primarily control your SB player via the remote, or via
PC/app, the knob is not necessary. In any case, it's not worth $500
more!
58 matches
Mail list logo
