Squeezebox Transporter

zybar · « **Reply #20 on:** 8 Sep 2006, 01:40 pm »

Quote from: woodsyi on 8 Sep 2006, 01:31 pm

I think the more appropriate question is whether the stock Teleporter at it's $1700 price (if you sell the bonus SB3) would be better than a SB2/3 with $1400 worth of after market modification.

This has been the point I have made in numerous threads around the Slim Devices Transporter.

My vote is for a Bolder modified SB2/3 with Ultimate II Power Supply.

George

woodsyi · « **Reply #21 on:** 8 Sep 2006, 02:17 pm »

Quote from: zybar on 8 Sep 2006, 01:40 pm

Quote from: woodsyi on 8 Sep 2006, 01:31 pm
I think the more appropriate question is whether the stock Teleporter at it's $1700 price (if you sell the bonus SB3) would be better than a SB2/3 with $1400 worth of after market modification.

This has been the point I have made in numerous threads around the Slim Devices Transporter.

My vote is for a Bolder modified SB2/3 with Ultimate II Power Supply.

George

Yes, the credit goes to George.

I admit I plagiarized Geoge's POV posted earlier eleswhere. I would agree with the modified SB2/3 for digital out but I am not sure about analog out yet. After all, we have to listen to the darn thing first. Right?

Occam · « **Reply #22 on:** 8 Sep 2006, 02:51 pm »

Phil - Points taken; you were careful to qualify your statements, as allways. I certainly shouldn't have addressed my comments specifically to you. I shouldn't post anything at 2am in the morning and owe you an apology.

Gary - Indeed, I was tremendously impressed by your extensively modded DI/O which uses an AKM chip. But as I've posted previously, while I consider your implementation a technical 'tour de force', it wasn't exactly my cuppa, which is purely a subjective call. I guess my subjective preferences are for a sound that that is like my personality, slightly warm and cuddly.

PhilNYC · « **Reply #23 on:** 8 Sep 2006, 03:55 pm »

Joe and Woodsyi...thanks for the plug!

Quote from: woodsyi on 8 Sep 2006, 01:31 pm

I don't believe the factors that drive people to either go with Olive units or Squeezebox are changed with the introduction of the Teleporter. Some choose Olive for the integrated server/transport/storage in one box solution. Others choose Squeezebox so as not to have redundant server/storage function which they already have with home PC. I think the more appropriate question is whether the stock Teleporter at it's $1700 price (if you sell the bonus SB3) would be better than a SB2/3 with $1400 worth of after market modification. But as Paul noted, I can't quite see why one would choose the Teleporter over an already excellent transport in SB2/3 if it is going to be used with an external DAC. One further point to consider would be that a Teleporter may have the potential to be much better with further tweaking but we will have to wait until Wayne and others have had a chance to go at it.

Regarding the Transporter, I think that there are other considerations that contribute to the price beyond sound-quality. The main one that interested me was the digital-in, because I know a lot of people (ok...customers

) who are interested in getting better sound quality out of their set-top boxes, playstations/XBox's, etc, and being able to feed the digital-outs from those devices into a Transporter is a big plus. RS-232 port for Crestron/other controllers is another big one for a lot of people. Obviously, if you don't have any interest in these other features, you then have to ask whether its worth paying for those features.

Regarding the modding alternative, I think all the same "rules" apply that apply to modding mass market DVD players etc...in most cases, you will get more performance per dollar spent than whatever you buy in "stock" form. It's a personal choice whether you want to go that route or not, with factors such as warranty, availability, service, etc all being important in that decision...

Phil

AphileEarlyAdopter · « **Reply #24 on:** 8 Sep 2006, 11:24 pm »

Quote from: PhilNYC on 8 Sep 2006, 03:55 pm

....
being able to feed the digital-outs from those devices into a Transporter is a big plus. RS-232 port for Crestron/other controllers is another big one for a lot of people. Obviously, if you don't have any interest in these other features, you then have to ask whether its worth paying for those features.
...

Phil,
this means the Transporter will not appeal to people who already have a good dac.
The Transporter is actually a "wireless transport" + DAC. I think there is a high-end market for the first half (transport) itself, considering the mods being done to the SB. I dont know why SD did not choose to address this market. For eg. Just like Naim or Monolithic Sound, there is a market even for the power supply. SD can sell a power supply for $150 (especially if it has separate supplies for the digital and analog part) and easily make $50-$70 out of it.
Choosing to bundle the DAC with the transport, SD is trying to compete with the DAC manufacturers which I feel is not their speciality (even though they might actually do a good or better job here). Something like a DRC feature built into the hardware might attract more mainstream customers (than just audiophiles for the Transporter. Maybe there is enough profit margin in addressing audiophiles

)

PhilNYC · « **Reply #25 on:** 9 Sep 2006, 01:53 am »

Quote from: AphileEarlyAdopter on 8 Sep 2006, 11:24 pm

Phil
this means the Transporter will not appeal to people who already have a good dac.

I have a good dac, and the Transporter appealed to me enough to make me want to become a dealer for it...

Quote

The Transporter is actually a "wireless transport" + DAC. I think there is a high-end market for the first half (transport) itself, considering the mods being done to the SB. I dont know why SD did not choose to address this market. For eg. Just like Naim or Monolithic Sound, there is a market even for the power supply. SD can sell a power supply for $150 (especially if it has separate supplies for the digital and analog part) and easily make $50-$70 out of it.
Choosing to bundle the DAC with the transport, SD is trying to compete with the DAC manufacturers which I feel is not their speciality (even though they might actually do a good or better job here). Something like a DRC feature built into the hardware might attract more mainstream customers (than just audiophiles for the Transporter. Maybe there is enough profit margin in addressing audiophiles )

It's pretty clear that SD is trying to satisfy a wide array of audiophile customers with the Transporter...the home-automation crowd with the RS232 port, the ultra-high-end crowd with the Word-Clock input, the integrated AV crowd with the digital-input, the high-end crowd with the DAC, etc. Perhaps they have packed too many features, making those who only want/need some of the features feel they are overpaying?

I know for me personally, I looked at the jitter specification for the digital out, as well as all the options for digital-outputs, and I felt that if it offered significant improvement as a transport over the SB2, I would be happy with the results.

jermmd · « **Reply #26 on:** 13 Sep 2006, 12:42 am »

Stereophile article.
I think the transporter is going to be great. We'll see soon.

Joe

zybar · « **Reply #27 on:** 13 Sep 2006, 12:58 am »

Quote from: jermmd on 13 Sep 2006, 12:42 am

Stereophile article.
I think the transporter is going to be great. We'll see soon.

Joe

Can't get too excited over what amounts to a press release.

I don't think it will be great, but it can be good.

George

matix · « **Reply #28 on:** 1 Oct 2006, 03:02 am »

[

Quote

It's pretty clear that SD is trying to satisfy a wide array of audiophile customers with the Transporter...the home-automation crowd with the RS232 port, the ultra-high-end crowd with the Word-Clock input, the integrated AV crowd with the digital-input, the high-end crowd with the DAC, etc. .

Hi Phil,

If I plug my DVD player into a transporter, it will only have 2 channel right? Is there a way to fully integrate a 5.1 input?

PhilNYC · « **Reply #29 on:** 1 Oct 2006, 03:14 am »

Quote from: matix on 1 Oct 2006, 03:02 am

Hi Phil,

If I plug my DVD player into a transporter, it will only have 2 channel right? Is there a way to fully integrate a 5.1 input?

Unfortunately, you are correct. The Transporter will not decode Dolby Digital into multi-channel output (Transporter only has 2-channel analog outs).

How are you achieving 5.1 sound now? Are you using an AV receiver?

matix · « **Reply #30 on:** 1 Oct 2006, 03:50 am »

Quote from: PhilNYC on 1 Oct 2006, 03:14 am

Quote from: matix on 1 Oct 2006, 03:02 am
Hi Phil,

If I plug my DVD player into a transporter, it will only have 2 channel right? Is there a way to fully integrate a 5.1 input?

Unfortunately, you are correct. The Transporter will not decode Dolby Digital into multi-channel output (Transporter only has 2-channel analog outs).

How are you achieving 5.1 sound now? Are you using an AV receiver?

Yes, I have a Denon AVCA11-SR which I use the pre-out to my two channel system when watching movies. Problem is I have to change the interconnect everytime I do that. I have Wadia 850 connecting direct to a pair of eAR1001 driving a pair of VMPS RM30S. Well, maybe SD will come out with a Transporter that can decode 5.1 soon?

dlite · « **Reply #31 on:** 1 Oct 2006, 01:26 pm »

I am interested in how to integrate multichannel with the Transporter too. I have a good solution for the multichannel at the moment which I am very happy with but I can not help thinking what can be done better. I currently have a Bel Canto PRE6 multichannel pre amp, that gives me the features and sound of a good 2 channel pre with out the overhead of having video and processing in the unit, but i miss the decoding of multichannel which only can be done direct in my denon 2900 at the moment, now with digital TV/Xbox etc all capable of outputting multichannel digital i am looking at a HT processor (probably the Nuforce AVP16) to do the decoding and was thinking of replacing the PRE6 with a 2 channel amp and pass the HT's analog front channels through one of the inputs. Now with the Transporters preamps capabilities I was wondering if there was a way to use it to pass the front 2 channels of the HT through it.... any ideas ??? best I can come up with is a analog to digital convertor to convert the signal back to digital and pass it through through one of the transporters digital inputs but this sounds very clunky. I guess this is all a little academic as it all depends on the Transporter being a top class pre anyway which it might not be.... about 2 weeks until the transporter lands here in Australia to find out

PhilNYC · « **Reply #32 on:** 2 Oct 2006, 07:02 pm »

I'll see what I can find out regarding future products from SD supporting multi-channel...

In the meanwhile, I just received my Transporter and put it in my system. Right out of the box, it is WAAAYYYY better than the SB2 w/Elpac...

95bcwh · « **Reply #33 on:** 2 Oct 2006, 07:14 pm »

Phil are you using comparing the analog out?

Rgds

PhilNYC · « **Reply #34 on:** 2 Oct 2006, 07:21 pm »

Quote from: 95bcwh on 2 Oct 2006, 07:14 pm

Phil are you using comparing the analog out?

Yes. When I first set it up a couple of hours ago, I hooked it up via BNC digital out to my Dodson DAC. But I've been listening to it via analog out for the last hour. I want to get a week or so of hours on it before reaching any conclusions about it...but my initial impression is that there is no sign whatsoever of any harshness (I found my SB2 w/Elpac to have a bit of grain and sibilence relative to my Oracle transport when using the digital out, and to be very lean and flat when using the analog out relative to my other digital sources).

Brad · « **Reply #35 on:** 2 Oct 2006, 07:23 pm »

Phil - is that a stock or modded SB2 you're using with the Elpac?

I like the digital VU meters - there's a lot more room for them on the Transporter face than the SB2

PhilNYC · « **Reply #36 on:** 2 Oct 2006, 07:36 pm »

Quote from: Brad on 2 Oct 2006, 07:23 pm

Phil - is that a stock or modded SB2 you're using with the Elpac?

It's a stock SB2...

mcrespo71 · « **Reply #37 on:** 2 Oct 2006, 08:36 pm »

Quote from: PhilNYC on 2 Oct 2006, 07:02 pm

I'll see what I can find out regarding future products from SD supporting multi-channel...

In the meanwhile, I just received my Transporter and put it in my system. Right out of the box, it is WAAAYYYY better than the SB2 w/Elpac...

It certainly looks the business.

budbrew · « **Reply #38 on:** 2 Oct 2006, 08:51 pm »

Potentially Stupid Question: If you have a Macbook and use iTunes is there a reason to use the Transporter/Slimserver (with or without an external DAC) rather than a USB DAC off the Macbook/iTunes?

Also, other than the comments here and on the Slim boards are there any more opinions out there on the new Transporter?

PhilNYC · « **Reply #39 on:** 2 Oct 2006, 10:16 pm »

Quote from: budbrew on 2 Oct 2006, 08:51 pm

Potentially Stupid Question: If you have a Macbook and use iTunes is there a reason to use the Transporter/Slimserver (with or without an external DAC) rather than a USB DAC off the Macbook/iTunes?

That's kind of a broad question, because no all USB DACs are the same. From a purely functional perspective, using a Transporter allows you to use wireless so you don't need to have a long USB cable or keep your computer near your audio system. From a sound quality perspective, how the Transporter stacks up against a USB DAC will be a function of whether that USB DAC is any good...