[Philistine]

If you want to take the hassle of setting up a PC with EAC/Accurate Rip/FLAC, then the Music Vault NAS looks like a very good option.  However, the wealth and depth of support through the Slimdevices website make setting up a PC based system relatively straight forward (all of the software packages EAC/Accurate Rip/FLAC are all free and integrate seamlessly together).  The lowest cost option is the PC route, the minimum PC power required is very basic, the software is free and hard drives are cheap.  If you don't want to use a traditional PC then the Music Vault is an option - but you pay for the convenience.  A fair option/choice.
I'm currently running my TP off a laptop with external hard drive, my next step is to get a basic PC and put it in the garage and wirelessly link it into my home network, this will eliminate any concerns on fan noise etc.

I setup a Sonos music system for a friend, and envied the interactive remote - but not the sonic performance.  With the Nokia tablet interface embedded in the Slimserver software this gap is well and truly closed.     

[richidoo]

I have a ReadyNAS from Infrant. It is great in many ways. Having music available without turning on a PC is nice, as is safe data storage.

The fan noise is solved by putting it somewhere else on the LAN. But one problem can't be solved, that is becoming a drawback for me: processor speed. Slimserver and the Infrant OS image has grown very large since I first got the NAS, and now my SB navigates slightly slow. Sometimes very slow if NAS is busy doing something else. Forget about decoding flac on the server for better sound quality with SB, and forget about running processor intensive plugins, like scanning while playing or Inguz. It will stutter. I run slim on my PC when I want to use Inguz.

I would be interested to know how much processing power MusicVault has, whether it can be an advanced slim server for power users, or basically just a file server. I intend to build a dedicated Linux PC just for running Slimserver. I have a pentium 3 about to be retired from kids' XP use and I think it is enough for the job when dedicated to Slim and linux only. I will continue to host the music files on the NAS for the "RAID"-like storage. Like everything else in audio, it's all subject to endless upgrades...   
Rich

[Rasta]

Rich,

It might not be so much a function of processing speed as it is memory.  I'm not sure how much processing should be happening, but I bet the memory requirement has increased.  Might be cheaper too?

[shokunin]

Not being a Slimserver user, I have a couple of questions.

1.  If I use Ethernet or Wireless connection from my computer to Transporter, am I limited to using the Slimserver software or can I use another software such as Foobar:

You are tied to Slim Server/ Slim Center, as it basically does the transcoding and file organization for the Transporter, it also connects to internet radio stations, squeezenetwork, rhapsody, etc.  You cannot use Foobar with a Transporter or SB unless you use the Transporters SPDIF input.   

You can bypass the front panel UI, by simply logging into Slim Server and then be able to maneuver around somewhat like Foobar, although not as many options on layout. 

2.  I assume I can use any playback software if I'm using Transporter's spdif inputs?

Yup, anything can on the SPDIF inputs CD transport, your Lynx Card, etc.  I'll let you know when my TP returns.

[richidoo]

Thanks Rasta. I have ordered a 1GB upgrade module for it (256MB standard) but folks on their forum say that only gives about a 15% improvement in speed, not a total fix - we'll see. The processor is a small RISC chip, IT3107, runs 32bit at 280MHz with a huge data bas. The whole architecture it optimized for file transfer as it should be. Slim runs fine in normal use. I am always greedy for more! 

[ted_b]

Squeeze Center skins are getting plentiful, not as many as Foobar skins but enough to please most.  I use the Nokia770 skin and it works great with album art and typical searching/browsing.

[firedog]

HI

[firedog]

HI-
Talked to the owner at sound science about the unit. It's basically a custom built music server Linux PC for Slim Devices units, with software written especially for its function. It's built by a former partner of Neil's who has some kind of business building specialist PC's for users with special needs. Neil and his team write the software.

As I understood it, it has only a motherboard fan and is very quiet. I asked how quiet and Neil is going to measure the SPL of the unit and send me the results  - I'll let you know.

The main downside of the unit is that it is basically a closed box. I asked if the user could upgrade the HD size in the future if desired, and Neil said that would "break" the functioning of the NAS. I then asked about possible HD failure and repair of the NAS and he said that possibly something could be worked out with users to allow changing the HD.

I'm going to suggest to him that they market the unit with a "Disaster Recovery" CD that will work automatically when inserted and allow HD recovery or installation of a new HD.

He also said that they are going to add automatic updating of the software over the net in future versions. Since they are writing the Linux OS themselves, so they can add any feature they desire. The whole thing is very new and I don't think they have worked everything out in terms of how to market it.
Thanks

[jwes]

Hi - one silly question on this.  If I use the Transporter and the Slim software, what am I looking at that shows me all of my music?  Is it just that little display on the modified Transporter itself?  The remote doesn't seem to have a display.

I feel funny asking this just because I'm familiar with all the technical stuff, but haven't worked with any slim devices equipment and don't know what they provide to make it easy (and hopefully fun) to pick through your music selection.

I know how this works if I were to connect a mac directly to it and use iTunes...  Anyway, thanks in advance

[ted_b]

Yes, you would look at the one to three line readout on the Transporter.  To get a better look at your collection, you would use a laptop or any Internet tablet-like device to pull up the Slim Server (now called Squeeze Center) software front end, a published URL.  Many of us have inexpensive Nokia internet tablets that present the web interface on the Nokia device.  it can be your remote control (it controls the web interface rather than controlling the actual device....doesn't really matter).  It looks like this:


or this




Then, as of late, Logitech (Slim's new parent) has created a new remote device that has a decent sized screen and shows album art, etc.  It was code named Jive, and is now part of a new Slim Device set called Duet.  It's another $299 for the remote, or $399 for the whole thing (replaces the Transporter functionality, but lower quality dacs, etc.)

It's this:

[CometCKO]

This is a very small and quiet box (nicely styled) that can sit anywhere on your network.  Its primary purpose is to back up a home network, but it also provides media streaming.  I've got mine set up with Slimserver, so that it streams music to a Squeezebox/Transporter located anywhere in the house via a wirless 802.11g router.

Mine was about $570 from Amazon, plus $50 for the router.  It is a computer that runs Windows Home Server software (a unique version of Windows).  It has an AMD Sempron processor and 512MB of RAM, and comes with either 500GB or 1 Terabyte of storage: more drives can be added (hot-swapped!) up to something like 8-12TB.  This is considerably more power than most of the NAS boxes out there, altho it does benefit from a memory upgrade if you're running any video streaming to your home theatre (I'm not).  The nice part about it, it's transparent.  The HP is running silently all the time, and I don't need to turn on any of the computers in the house to access my music collection on my Transporter.

Once I placed my order for the ModWright Transporter, I began ripping my CD collection to the HP server, using EAC/AccurateRip/FLAC.  I'm a big fan of ripping CD's this way because the Exact Audio Copy program re-samples each track multiple times to be certain of an accurate bit-for-bit copy of what's on the CD.  This is a definite improvement over most of the one-pass ripping programs I've tried before.

So far, I'm up to about 650 CD's, and that's taking less than 90GB in FLAC.  I'm about a third of the way thru my CD collection, and haven't decided whether or not to rip my 1500 LP's to the hard drive, but I'm tempted.  The HP has a nice feature that duplicates the file over several drives, so that I'm protected in case of drive failure.  The only tricky bit is in setting up the slimserver software, because you have to log onto the box using Window's "Remote Desktop" capability, which lets you run the WHS computer as if you had a monitor and keyboard attached to the box (which you can't otherwise do).  Copy the install file to the WHS desktop, then you can run the install, and everything goes smoothly from there.  The only other thing I've done, is add Diskeeper defragmentation software, just to keep response time snappy.

I guess this isn't quite as easy as buying one of Neil's boxes, but I'm more confident in my ripping process, and the box is really small and sexy, so it's aesthetically pleasing.

Hope this helps someone!

DF

[Philistine]

I had a different approach:
Decided to build my own media server, but found it was cheaper to buy a pre-ordered (not delivered) slim form PC from Dell's outlet store than the individual parts and OS from Newegg.  Picked up an AMD 64 2X4000 processor/2GB memory/250GB Hard Drive/Vista for $325.
This weekend I loaded SqueezeCenter and linked the PC into my network, as it sits next to my router it's just wired in via ethernet.  You can configure SqueezeCenter, or SlimServer, to load immediately when you switch on the PC, it will then fire up when you access the Transporter.  SquuezeCenter even has a startup routine if you want to add  username/password, as I intend to use this purely as a media server I didn't need to add a Vista user account. The biggest issue being the antivirus software trying to interfere, got rid of it and fixed the problem.  When I press the power button everything starts up with SqueezeCenter loading in the system tray, when I power off it goes through the regular shutdown procedure.  It's very quiet.  My music is on a 500GB external HD, and I'll add an internal HD in the next few days as part of my backup strategy.

Now its up and running I've removed the keyboard/mouse/monitor and its a stand alone server, just need to figure out how to add new music as easily as possible?

What I take from the various posts are that their are many different ways to get music to your TP - you can build your own server, and those that don't have the time/expertise can pick up an off the shelf server that automates the burning/ripping/storing process.  These are two ends of the spectrum, plus other options in between like the HP  media server.  All cheaper than buying a $10k system, and with superior sound.

 


 

[brontotx]

I recently jumped into the transporter/squeezebox arena and should get my unit back from Dan later this week (yippee!).

In regard to some prior posts re: NASs, I think I can offer some insight.  I ripped ~1,200 CD's to FLAC using db-poweramp and the total space used on the NAS was about 420 GB.  I put all my music files on an Infrant/Netgear ReadyNAS NV+ and slimserver performance using the NAS interface, frankly, sucked when browsing my library or building playlists.    As mentioned by someone else, additional memory may improve performance, but my NV+ came with 1 GB of RAM and, while I can't compare my unit to a 256 MB version that I never had, I still think performance is seriously slow (a minute or more for a screen refresh when browsing).  I was a little PO'd until I realized that browsing or playlist building using slimserver already required my PC to be on in order to access slimserver through the NAS interface.  Thus, I re-scanned my library using slimserver installed on my PC and performance has been restored to a very very acceptable level. 

Basically, when I want to browse the library or build playlists, I point the transporter or squeeze box to my PC and use the speedy PC-based slimserver as needed.  Other times, when the PC is off and I don't care to fire it up, I point the transporter or squeezebox to my NAS and performance using the remote is acceptable, although it "hesitates" a bit (< 10 seconds)when accessing a large list (e.g., when you hit the right arrow when browsing 1,000 artists or albums or so).  I am curious to see if slimserver v7 (I'm running v6.5.4) improves the performance and/or how performance degrades using the new Duet remote (since graphics are now part of the transmission, I'm assuming performance will degrade). 

By setting both slimservers to point to the same playlist directory on the NAS, I can also use the PC-based slimserver to build playlists and either the PC or NAS-based slimservers to play them back.  I find the dual slimserver set-up to be a compromise (and compromise may be too strong a word) I can easily live with... and it sure beats figuring out how to build/buy a faster NAS.  The Infrant/Netgear ReadyNAS is really simple in that regard - a truly simple plug-n-play device that has slimserver pre-loaded.  It is also very quiet, takes up very little space (although it is very heavy for its size), and has some sophisticated power management/saving features.

One last comment... while I am running RAID on my NAS and it provides some data redundancy, my understanding is that you shouldn't rely on RAID as your sole back-up protection.  I've backed up all my files to a large external USB hard drive.

[ted_b]

Well, I've been busy lately, evaluating different combinations with my Modwright Transporter -> Modwright LS 36.5 -> McCormack DNA-500 -> SP Tech Revelation MR1 MK III Ultimates.  Mainly I've been eval'ing balanced interconnect between the pre and the amp and have disocvered a great (but fairly pricey) XLR set by Synergistic Research, the Tesla Accelerators (active coupling, etc.).  Anyway...they are ruthlessly revealing, yet not at all bright or boomy at the extremes.  They sound like no cable at all.   

Why am I mentioning this?  Cuz once I found these I realized it was a good time to call Brendan at Tube World and try a couple sessions of tube rolling for my Transporter.  I currently have a USA Sylvania 5U4G rectifier in there, and some Sovtek 6N1P's (which I keep liking better than other 6CG7's or 6H30's I've tried).  Dan and Brendan have both recently become enamored with the 5BQ7 signal tubes.  Moreover, when I told Brendan that I was still breaking in the SP Tech's he mentioned a nice big GZ32 rectifier bottle to round things out, and suspected it goes even lower than the 5U4G.  BTW, Brendan is a great source of history, experience and guidance.  He really knows his stuff.  So, since the 5BQ7's wer so cheap ($30 pair) and the GZ32 sounded interesting an not outrageously expensive ($100) I ordered them.

I first tried the GZ32 in place of the 5U4G, and let it run for several hours (it's not an instant hot kind of tube and Brendan recommended patience).  I did not initially replace anything else, so as to keep a singular variable.  If there is anything about the SP Tech Mundorf cap break-in (a 600 hour exercise) it is that they can be a bit forward during this process (like row one for quite awhile).  However, their ability to handle detail and dynamic swings are priceless, and I wanted to make sure I didn't lose those qualities with any new glass.

To my surprise, the sound qualities of the GZ32 were just a little too rounded for my taste, at least with the 6N1P's.  The detail was still there, and if I hadn't heard the SP Tech's incredible dynamism earlier I likely would have been pleased with the slight softening (I use Brendan's "roundedness" comment cuz that's a good descriptor).  It just lost some air, some attack and some "live" feeling.  Instead of the players being in the room they sounded like they were great recordings; nice, but not enough. 

I clearly didn't give the GZ32/6N1P combo enough time, and will go back to it later, but I was itching to hear if the swap of the 6BQ7's would be the right synergy.   Gave them a couple hours to settle in.  So, synergy?  Well, in a word, no.  The promise of deeper, more extended bass from the rectifier now came partly true.  The bass output was increased but at the expense of tightness and musicality.  The soundstage seemed slightly smeared too, as if the lower registers were out of phase.

It was time to swap out the rectifier and try the more aggressive 5U4G.  Voila.  The Cowboy Junkies 1986 Whites Off Earth Now, a collection of blues covers, has been reissued by Mofi and has an incredible you-are-there feeling.  It was recorded with a single Calrec Ambisonic microphone, and the details and air are palpable (and that's only the rebook layer; the SACD is slightly better still).  On Crossroads, the bass guitar is much more real with this 5U4G/6BQ7 combo than any previously.  The attack and decay of the recording is portrayed beautifully, with just enough sizzle but no harshness (Mundorf cap breakin qualities discounted).  This is the combo I'm staying with for awhile.  The 6BQ7's bring a better tonal quality and a slight increase in gain, but with little or no downsides. 

I will keep (actually I don't even know Brendan's return policy frankly) the GZ32 rectifier and bring it back out later, when the Revelations are mature.  Additionally, it might be cool to try it (with lid off, it's 5-6 inches tall) in the LS 36.5.  Anyway, it certainly does some things very well, and for those of you with digititis, it is a beautifully smooth rounded painting, very analog, across the entire fr.  Hell, I may use it when listening to difficult recordings....ah, the sickness we call tube rolling.

[Philistine]

Like Ted I'm doing the tube rolling hokey-kokey this weekend.
Brendan at Tube World has an encyclopedic knowledge, and is a great resource who is following Dan's TP mods closely in order to offer advice and direction to fellow tube rollers.  This should short circuit (excuse the pun) the tube rolling options/time/cost for TP owners who want to go down this path.

Phase 1
Modwright TP -> Musical Fidelity KW500 -> B&W CDM1NT's
Had my main spkrs off line for a few weeks so dusted off a pair of CDM1's that I used in my home office.
These sounded exceptionally good with a Tung Sol 5U4GB and Sovtek 6N1P's.  I only rolled the signal tubes and compared the 6N1P's with Sovtek 6H30's and RCA 6FQ7's, the 6N1P's were so much better (this couldn't be true - they are so cheap  )

Phase 2
Modwright TP -> Musical Fidelity KW500 -> Salk HT3's
This time time I had my rectifier tubes from Brendan, RCA SV4G and 5AS4.
I didn't care at all for the 5U4G/6N1P combination with my Salk's - it sucked the life out of the music, very warm and lacking detail.  Replacing the 5U4G with the 5AS4 gave me back the detail, but took away too much bottom end.  The SV4G fixed everything - gave me the detail, bass depth and articulation, energy and fun.   
Keeping the SV4G as the constant I've switched the signal tubes and, like Ted, keep coming back to the Sovtek 6N1P's - they are an excellent tube (maybe cryoing a pair might be an option?).  This combination is so good in my system my kids are complaining I spend too much time listening to music, in fact its so good even RadioHead is listen able (for Ted's benefit). 

I did give my rectifier tube feedback back to Brendan who, based on the different designs of the 3 rectifier tubes, is not suprised that they sound so different.
The combination I am currently living with is the cheapest - SV4G ($20), Sovtek 6N1P's (maybe $10).  Brendan also advised me that the GZ32 Ted has is in the same family as the SV4G I like, consequently I was curious as to what he found - so back on the dog and bone (Cockney rhyming slang for phone) to Brendan to get his feedback as to whats going on.

Again I'll live with these for a few more weeks and see how they settle down.

[modwright]

FWIW, I just had the opportunity to compare a modified Squeezebox with modified ELPAC external supply and bybee purifiers installed (not modified by ModWright).  I still have not heard a stock squeezebox.  The Squeezebox is as convenient as it could be, compact and represents ultra-cool technology.  Functionally and interface-wise, it is very similar to the Transporter.  That is where the similarities end however, in my opinion.  I also acknowledge the price difference between the stock Squeezebox and stock Transporter.
 
We ran both modified Squeezebox and the Transporter with ModWright Signature Truth mods, directly into our LS 36.5 w/PS 36.5, comparing both as standalone units, i.e. no outboard DAC.
 
Both units were served at the same time - interestingly enough, via wifi from my laptop and external HD in the other room.  I have over 130 albums on the drive so far, ripped to FLAC, so we were able to compare with many different genres of music, including rock, jazz, classical and some electronica.
 
The session ended with the customer putting a deposit down on a new Transporter.  It was quite obvious to both of us, that while the Squeezebox made good music, the Transporter brought the music to LIFE.  It clearly represents a much higher level of performance.  It was NOT a subtle difference.  Admittedly, I am not sure of the exact cost of the modified squeezebox and external supply that we compared it to, there is a cost difference and the modified Tranporter does cost more.  I maintain however, that at our package price of $3600 for a full modified Transporter (price increase April 15 to $3800), we are achieving sound that would require an investment of $10K-$12K+ to better, in my opinion.

I am so excited about the modified Transporter because we are now able to combine the exceptional level of convenience of the computer-based music server with an equally exceptional level of performance and value that ModWright always strives to represent.

Thanks for all that have shared here.  I will continue to post customer feedback also.

Dan W.

[modwright]

I will post more feedback that I get from customers as quite simply, our customers say it best:

You and FedEx are awesome… the transporter arrived yesterday afternoon and it sounds absolutely glorious!  The mid-range and especially the bass bloomed considerably over the stock unit – it is also a lot less “analytical” sounding and has the warm “tube sound” I really like.  And you were right – it trounced [my other modified CDP] in a back-to-back comparison.  My audiophile friend also likes it – his comment was that my stereo was the first one he has heard that he preferred over his.  I’m also trying to work from home today, but I can’t seem to quit queuing up more songs and sitting in the living room listening instead of working... the “background” sounds (currently Norah Jones) coming down the short hall are pretty mesmerizing too   
M. Nelson - 1.14.08

"I had high expectations. I had heard the modded TP before and was very impressed. However, my system is pretty nice imho and I had assumed that any improvement would be incremenatal and subtle. Not so. The difference between the MW TP and my CD player is dramatic. Very dramatic. With the CDP, on well recorded music, I occasionally felt like I was hearing live music and (very) occasionally felt as if there were musicians in the room. With the MW, everything sounded live. I was constantly startled by a voice or instrument so defined and solid that it seemed real and present.
 
In geekspeak, the soundstage was wider and deeper, the imaging more solid, the sound very very detailed... I have heard lots of mega-expensive systems that could be described that way, but did not really sound good. Great technical qualities, but harsh or unnatural in some way. In contrast, the MW was technically great, but more importantly, totally natural sounding and a real pleasure. I was ecstatic all last night as I listened.
 
This new component has made the biggest difference in the quality of sound of any other upgrade I have ever made, including the upgrade of speakers...and the upgrade from a 150w integrated to 350w monos."
John Culver - 1.25.08

First impression of the Transporter: It's just fantastic. The only digital musicplayer that I have ever heard that comes anywhere close to the Transporters realism and analogue way of communicating is the top-of-the-line CDP from Accuphase I heard at a show last year. However, I do think the Transporter beats it on dynamics. My own Burmester CDP has now been firmly dethroned.
T. Halvorsen - 2.05.08

[ted_b]

I need to wipe all these damn eggs off my face!!  Man, they stain badly!!

I am not a great tube roller, and if you read my post a few posts back you read that I said Brendan's wonderful recommendation of the GZ32 bottle style rectifier was way too warm and rolled off, with very little soundstage depth, etc.  Lackluster, ho hum, etc.  Well.........

Dumb me assumed the tube was well-worn (certainly the box was) so I never realized that this NOS tube needed 100 hours of break-in.  Silly me, the king of break-in paranoia.

Now that Brendan set me straight I have left both the GZ32 and the 6BQ7's in the Modwright TP for 2 days straight, running an XLO break-in signal constantly, and when I went back to listen last night I got the best shock of my life.  Wow!  The sound is glorious, a little more organic than my best attempt with the 5U4-6N1P combo, and better in every way.  The soundstage depth, the dynamics, even the headroom (something Brendan thought might be given up) all were there.  The organic nature of this combo is not to be taken lightly.  My system can devour any carbon-based organism if I'm not careful, and this combo produces a Martin guitar that sounds not like a Taylor but a Martin.  The fact that the SP Tech Revs and their hand grenade-sized Mundorf caps are 100 hours more broken in probably helps, but I don't care. 

Another indication of my liking this new setup?  I started digging deeper into my Squeezecenter collection, and spent almost 2 hours loving the sounds of Fripp, Bruford, Belew and Levin during their incredible three album run from Discipline to Three Of A Perfect Pair....and a couple of those masterings suck.  That's one of the downsides of this new setup; the marriage of Transporter, Modwright pre, McCormack amplification and SP Tech transduction makes for such a high resolution presentation that poor masterings are easily id'd (I have orders out for several good remasters....although that term is often an oxymoron as you know).  yet the music still sounded wonderful.

So, I'm an idiot, not a professional reviewer, and a tube newbie of the worst sort.  All that being said, I'm happily in musical bliss. 

[kenreau]

FWIW, I just had the opportunity to compare a modified Squeezebox with modified ELPAC external supply and bybee purifiers installed (not modified by ModWright).  I still have not heard a stock squeezebox.  The Squeezebox is as convenient as it could be, compact and represents ultra-cool technology.  Functionally and interface-wise, it is very similar to the Transporter.  That is where the similarities end however, in my opinion.  I also acknowledge the price difference between the stock Squeezebox and stock Transporter.
 
We ran both modified Squeezebox and the Transporter with ModWright Signature Truth mods, directly into our LS 36.5 w/PS 36.5, comparing both as standalone units, i.e. no outboard DAC.
 
Both units were served at the same time - interestingly enough, via wifi from my laptop and external HD in the other room.  I have over 130 albums on the drive so far, ripped to FLAC, so we were able to compare with many different genres of music, including rock, jazz, classical and some electronica.
 
The session ended with the customer putting a deposit down on a new Transporter.  It was quite obvious to both of us, that while the Squeezebox made good music, the Transporter brought the music to LIFE.  It clearly represents a much higher level of performance.  It was NOT a subtle difference.  Admittedly, I am not sure of the exact cost of the modified squeezebox and external supply that we compared it to, there is a cost difference and the modified Tranporter does cost more.  I maintain however, that at our package price of $3600 for a full modified Transporter (price increase April 15 to $3800), we are achieving sound that would require an investment of $10K-$12K+ to better, in my opinion.

I am so excited about the modified Transporter because we are now able to combine the exceptional level of convenience of the computer-based music server with an equally exceptional level of performance and value that ModWright always strives to represent.

Thanks for all that have shared here.  I will continue to post customer feedback also.

Dan W.

I wanted to chime in as this was my Bolder SB3 we listened to at Dan's place.  For reference purposes it is a SB3 with Bolders' Full Enthusiast mods plus bybees and the Bolder Elpac modd. PS.  Approxiate cost +/-$1,700 (new retail package).  This has the analog and digital mods.

I concur with all of Dan's comments above.  I want to state that I have been very content with my SB3 and I think it offers excellent sonics for it's price.  Imho the main weakness is the Elpac ps.  While it is twice as good as the stock wall wart, there is significant room for PS improvements.  There are ultimate power supplies upgrades available but with the added cables, et al, it quickly approaches another $1,500 +/- to get there. 

What I really wasn't expecting to hear was the level of improvements when we switched in the MWI Transporter.  It was literally like hitting the "loudness" button on an old stereo receiver or boom box.  (We did match the spl's as close as possible by ear).  The Transporter was significantly more musical, full sounding and had a bass quality and depth to die for.  The attack of drum strikes, bass beats and acoustical guitar tones and ambience hanging in the air were all amazing and the best I've heard.

We listened to probably 20+ songs during the evaluation and the biggest impression I left with was after listening to Rush.  Most Rush (digital) music is not known for it's audiophile attributes.  When Dan played Tom Sawyer, at R & R sound levels, all the great music was there, but without any of the usual digital glare and brittleness.  Being a Rush fan and having heard this (digital) sound hundreds of times before,  I was half cringing when he cranked it up but relaxed fully after hearing it.  It was very analog like.  Things were not rounded off at all, all the musical detail was there, it was just missing the usual digititus (my lingo for early digital sound).   

With the Transporters / slimserver  functionality and ModWright's s.o.t.a. sound quality improvements, I am simply amazed and convinced that this is where it's at and I bought one.  Great job Dan!  Highly recommend. 

Kenreau

[Bequerel]

The standard Transporter has an universal powersupply inside which means that it also supports 220-240V mains voltage which we use in Europe. I suppose that the ModWright mod introduces a new transformer for the tube section. Will The Modwright Modified Transporter work with 220-240V?