[kck]

I am considering this move. I tried the TP last year but I used it as a DAC+Transport and thought that my SB3 + External DAC was *slightly* better for my tastes. I couldn't justify keeping both the TP and a DAC.

Now I have a DAC which I really like and it's a keeper, plus given a little better budget, I'm considering 'upgrading' to a TP used only as a transport. Cost is still a factor so the performance this way would need to be noticeably better than with the SB3 - a slight improvement would not be worth it IMO. (No I did not try the TP with my other DAC at the time).

At the moment I do not use 24/96 files, just FLAC from 16/44. I may get into hi-rez but not sure when.

If you have made a similar move and been happy with it (or not!) I'd love to hear from you. Also please note that, although I am using a Bolder PS with my SB3 it is in all other ways stock, and the TP would also be stock... no Modwright, etc for me, so I'd hope to hear comparos based on stock machines.

[lcrim]

While I don't have a Transporter, why not wait for the Squeeze Box Touch to be released?  It will have 24/96 capability w/ a much cheaper price tag ($300).   It is rumored to be delayed in its launch until after the 1st of the year.
The digital out from it, based on a reliable beta-tester-John Swenson over on the Asylum), is of higher (cleaner) quality than the present Squeeze Boxes.
That would be a better deal at least it seems so to me.

[NewBuyer]

...I'm considering 'upgrading' to a TP used only as a transport. Cost is still a factor... a slight improvement would not be worth it IMO...

My opinion: You should just keep using your SB3 with your DAC.  Although some claim to hear a big difference, I personally don't find that to be the case - so if you're like me, I doubt you'd find the difference that striking (especially for the $)...

[Bigfish]

I am considering this move. I tried the TP last year but I used it as a DAC+Transport and thought that my SB3 + External DAC was *slightly* better for my tastes. I couldn't justify keeping both the TP and a DAC.

Now I have a DAC which I really like and it's a keeper, plus given a little better budget, I'm considering 'upgrading' to a TP used only as a transport. Cost is still a factor so the performance this way would need to be noticeably better than with the SB3 - a slight improvement would not be worth it IMO. (No I did not try the TP with my other DAC at the time).

At the moment I do not use 24/96 files, just FLAC from 16/44. I may get into hi-rez but not sure when.

If you have made a similar move and been happy with it (or not!) I'd love to hear from you. Also please note that, although I am using a Bolder PS with my SB3 it is in all other ways stock, and the TP would also be stock... no Modwright, etc for me, so I'd hope to hear comparos based on stock machines.

If I understand your situation you are running an SB-3 to a DAC, thus using the SB-3 as a digital transport only.  If you are only considering replacing the SB-3 with a Transporter to be a transport you won't gain anything expect the ability to stream 24/96 files.  I own an SB-3 and made the jump from an SB-3, that had the analog section modded, feeding into a Burson Buffer to a ModWright Modified Transporter.  In my case the ModWright Transporter sounded better and it was a one box solution, thus eliminating a PC and a set of ICs.  In your case, the Transporter will look like an audiophile piece of gear, it will have stronger receiving signal strength from your router if you stream, but in my opinion it will offer you no other advantage.  I would expect you to realize no sound improvement as you will be feeding a DAC.  If you are considering spending the money for a Transporter you might be better served to seriously consider feeding the DAC direct from a computer.

Good Luck,

Ken

[kck]

Wow, thanks for the great and reasoned responses. Looks like no TP for me! That's actually a relief as I didn't relish the thought of spending ~$1200 (used price, although there's a guy selling them new for not much more).

[scraps@midnight]

I strongly disagree. I went through that very thought process and eventually figured I would just have to try it out to know for sure. I went from the duet running digital out to my dac to a stock transporter running digital out to the same dac. I find significant gain in sonics with the transporter. Overall, much more dynamic, clear and accurate (not much for audiophile adjectives, it just sounds better, much better!). I suspect there are many reasons for this. Certainly the power supplies, adding an aftermarket power cord and the overall better quality of the components. I also use the AES/EBU on the transporter which I think adds to the benefits too. It is not subtle.

[Wayne1]

I also use the AES/EBU on the transporter which I think adds to the benefits too. It is not subtle.

Interesting that you say that. The designer of the Transporter doesn't think too much of the AES/EBU section. Neither doe a very highly respected DAC designer:

Sean Adams:AES/EBU is a defective technology, use coax S/PDIF instead.

Sean Adams:AES/EBU doesn't fix anything in s/pdif, it makes it worse. It uses wiring and connectors that lack the bandwidth and impedance matching for RF signaling. Just because XLRs are suitable for analog audio doesn't make them good for high frequencies. It's included on Transporter frankly because of legacy expectations, and perhaps in a pro environment you might need it for one reason or another (got the cable handy, used up all the other inputs, etc) but I don't recommend it.

John Swenson:Its nice to know someone else agrees with me about AES EBU, I always thought I was the lone voice in the wilderness.

Anyway I see two main reasons for the inferiority of AES/EBU.

1. XLRs are horrible RF connectors. In order to send a square wave fairly faithfully the interface must support a bandwidth many times higher than the frequency of the square wave. For the signals in question that is getting well up into the RF spectrum where the XLRs are terrible. The impedance varies radically with frequency which will cause all kinds of bizarre reflections. The choice of XLR was a very poor choice.

2. Output voltage. The S/PDIF electrical spec is 0.5V into 75ohms, but the AES/EBU is 3-5V into 110 ohms. Think about that for a second, what happens when you put 5volts across 110 ohms? You get almost 50mA of current flowing. This means the driver sitting in the source box has to be able to dump between 30-50ma into the cable. That causes huge current spikes in the power and ground pins of the driver chip which is going to cause big noise spikes in the power and ground planes of the board. If you are not extremely careful that is going to cause significant jitter in the output signal.

All modern high speed interfaces use less than 0.5V signal.

As far as I can tell the XLRs were chosen because studios had lots of microphone cables and wanted to use them. Because they are such lousy RF transmission lines they had to go with high voltages to make sure there was some signal left at the end.

John S.

The entire thread can be found here

[scraps@midnight]

thanks for the quotes/link wayne, interesting stuff. if it is in fact inferior to spdif, then the transporter is significantly better (to my ears), digital out, than the sbx when using it's worst digital output option.

i will certainly be spending some time comparing the digital outputs on my transporter now. i am also interested to find out which input format the designers of my dac recommend. off the top of my head, i think it is aes/ebu but i will confirm. always something...!

 *update:  i checked with the designers of my dac and they did say aes3 is "preferable" to s/pdif. confusing enough??