Slim Devices Transporter compared to BOLDER modded SB2

Wayne1 · « **on:** 29 Sep 2006, 04:55 pm »

I received a new Transporter through UPS a couple of days ago. I have been very busy with mods to SBs, Olives, mods to PS etc.

I have also been doing some very nasty things to a Van Alstine 550 EXR I purchased used.

I have received some requests for a comparison. I just quickly hooked up the Transporter this morning in a system in my office to compare.

The Transporter needs to run off of SlimServer 6.5 with the latest firmware. I had to install this version on a different computer on my network. My main server still is running 6.2.1 and firmware 15.

I transferred a few music files to the other computer.

I used the track "Feeling of Jazz" by The Wynton Marsalis Quartet from The Magic Hour

Differences were very easy to hear.

The Transporter sounded very good. However in comparison to the modded SB2 it lacked dynamics. It seemed the noise floor was higher as the subtle details in the singers voice, bass, piano and drum kit were masked. Mr. Marsalis muted trumpet just didn't have the impact on the Transporter as the modded SB2.

The SB2 used was Double Ugly's old one that the new owner had sent to me for the Gold Bybee Purifier upgrade. This SB2 has all the upgrades I offer including the Sonicap Platinum and Gen2 Bypass caps. Black Gate caps are used in the internal PS. This mod adds about $900.00 to the cost of the SB2. The power supply used was the Ultimate MK II with Summit DC cable. Mods and PS and Cable added up to $2350.00 The cost of the SB2 was $300.00. So, the $2600.00 worth of modded SB2 sounded quite a bit better to me, on this system, than the stock Transporter.

The system used was the abused

Van Alstine 550EXR, Acoustic Reality 3D speakers with sub modules, Jon Risch designed CC89259 speaker cables and Kimber Hero interconnect. This is a system I had just thrown together from odds and ends laying around the place. I will try to get together with members of the DAM for a more formal comparison.

avahifi · « **Reply #1 on:** 30 Sep 2006, 12:07 pm »

Hey Wayne1, if you are going to "abuse" the AVA amplifier I suggest the following.

Make the changes to only one channel, then have some else randomize the preamp and speaker connections, and A-B the two channels with the preamp balance control and mono material. Get some listeners in to make evaluations; write down the results. First judgement --- are there any differences they can hear? Second, are these better/worse differences? Then see which channel is which.

Regards,

Frank Van Alstine

avahifi · « **Reply #2 on:** 30 Sep 2006, 12:08 pm »

Oh yes, please keep me up to date on the "abuses"

and the results.

Thanks

Frank

Wayne1 · « **Reply #3 on:** 3 Oct 2006, 06:33 pm »

FWIW, I have kept Mr. Van Alstine up to date on all the nasty things I am doing to his wonderful design. He has been very helpful.

Following some conversations with PhilNYC, I hooked up the Transporter to a 10K ohm load and let it play for about 18 hours straight.

I put it back in the system today and compared it to a modded SB2 WITHOUT any Bybee Purifiers. The sound was closer, but I still preferred the modded SB2.

I then changed the AC cable into the Transporter. I used one with a pair of Bybee Purifiers built into it. Now the Transporter was getting even closer. I listened to it a bit more and was generally happy with the sound. I still feel there can be some improvement in low level detail and it is still not quite as "full" in the mid bass as I like.

I put the Transporter on the bench and carefully looked at the circuitry. In my opinion, Slim Devices did a GREAT job in the design and construction of this unit. The only thing I did not like was the use of polarized electrolytic signal coupling caps between the DAC chip and the analog op-amps.

I removed the four caps and replaced them with a Black Gate "N" series bi-polar electrolytic bypassed with a Sonicap Platinum Teflon cap.

I put the lightly modded Transporter back in the system and YES! A lot more of the low level detail was coming through. More of the room could be heard on live recordings.

I will let the caps form with signal running through them for a few days. I will report back on what I think of the changes in MY system.

I have also ordered quite a few lower impedance caps to replace the ones in the various internal power supplies. I will also replace the op-amps.

tonyptony · « **Reply #4 on:** 4 Oct 2006, 02:24 am »

Wayne, at some point would love to read your opinions after trying the Transporter as a digital feed to a D/A, against the SB2 or 3 digital mods + PS mods of your choice.

Wayne1 · « **Reply #5 on:** 4 Oct 2006, 02:55 am »

I am not sure when that would happen. I do not normally use a DAC.

I do have a Monica around here somewhere. I far prefer the sound of the analog output of a lightly modded SB2 to that of a Monica.

I guess we will have to wait to see if there is someone in the Denver area that has a good DAC that would be willing to host a comparison.

Charles Calkins · « **Reply #6 on:** 4 Oct 2006, 03:17 am »

Wayne's digital modded SB3 hooked up to a GR research Liteaudio DAC with Sonic Craft mods sure does sound good to these tired old ears.

Cheers
Charlie

jermmd · « **Reply #7 on:** 4 Oct 2006, 03:32 am »

I have one of Wayne's digitally modded SB3's and my Transporter should arrive soon. I'll post comments on how the digital outs compare when it arrives. I expect there will be very little difference. The value of the Transporter to me will be using the analog connections directly to my amp. I feel the analog output comparison between a modded SB3 and the Transporter will be much more important to the AC community.

zybar · « **Reply #8 on:** 4 Oct 2006, 03:36 am »

Quote from: jermmd on 4 Oct 2006, 03:32 am

I have one of Wayne's digitally modded SB3's and my Transporter should arrive soon. I'll post comments on how the digital outs compare when it arrives. I expect there will be very little difference. The value of the Transporter to me will be using the analog connections directly to my amp. I feel the analog output comparison between a modded SB3 and the Transporter will be much more important to the AC community.

Joe,

Why would you think there will be little difference between a modified SB3 + PS vs. Transporter in terms of sound?

George

Kishore · « **Reply #9 on:** 4 Oct 2006, 04:07 am »

Wayne,

Let us know if the 'boldered' Transporter is the ticket - for now it seems George was right about modded SB being best bang (for buck)

Cheers,
Kishore

jermmd · « **Reply #10 on:** 4 Oct 2006, 05:06 am »

Quote from: zybar on 4 Oct 2006, 03:36 am

Quote from: jermmd on 4 Oct 2006, 03:32 am
I have one of Wayne's digitally modded SB3's and my Transporter should arrive soon. I'll post comments on how the digital outs compare when it arrives. I expect there will be very little difference. The value of the Transporter to me will be using the analog connections directly to my amp. I feel the analog output comparison between a modded SB3 and the Transporter will be much more important to the AC community.

Joe,

Why would you think there will be little difference between a modified SB3 + PS vs. Transporter in terms of sound?

George

Because the Transporter is only acting as a transport if you use the digital out. Using the analog out to your amp, it functions as source, DAC, and preamp. That's not to say that the digital output from different transports all sound the same. It's just that the differences won't be so substantial if everything else in the chain is exactly the same.

zybar · « **Reply #11 on:** 4 Oct 2006, 10:48 am »

Joe,

Having tried lots of transports, as well as five different power supplies for an SB2, I wouldn't agree that "just" using each as a transport won't produce substantial differences. Too bad I live in MA now...I would come over and bring Wayne's Ultimate II PS and I think you would be shocked at how much that improves the SB2.

Looking forward to your comments.

George

Robert57 · « **Reply #12 on:** 4 Oct 2006, 02:27 pm »

Wayne, in your most recent comparison of a "modded SB2" with the Transporter, what power supply did you use with the Bolder SB2 , the Ulitimate II?

Thanks.

Rob

Wayne1 · « **Reply #13 on:** 4 Oct 2006, 02:50 pm »

Robert 57,

The Power Supply used was your Ultimate MKII with Bybee Purifiers.

The SB2 used was the first black SB2 you sent me. It has the Sonicap Gen2 and Platinum bypasses. No Bybee Purifiers.

At some time in the not to distant future, I can compare the SB2 with the Ultimate MK II without Bybee Purifiers and eventually with an ELPAC PS.

Right now, Sean at AV123 has my modded ELPAC. I do need to get it back from him before RMAF.

The DAM did compare some modded SB2s to a highly modded DAC 60. There was an improvement using a digital modded SB2 into the DAC 60 over the stock digital circuit. A modded SB2 with Bybee Purifiers in the analog section was far preferred on analog out to the modded DAC 60 fed by a digital modded SB2.

Wayne1 · « **Reply #14 on:** 9 Oct 2006, 03:30 pm »

The Transporter I changed out the coupling caps in is still undergoing break-in. It has had about 100 hours constant use playing the Hagtech FryKleaner signal into a 10K ohm load at full output. It is still a bit "shrill" as the caps break-in. There is a LOT of potential showing through. GREAT Dynamics. The modified Jung super regulators really help out.

I received a fair amount of parts to use on the Transporter mod. I hope to find time to work on it this week. mgalusha has been lent a dead stock one to put some hours on. I hope to have both playing and able to compare at RMAF.

I still have not had the time to compare digital outputs of any of the units.

At this point, I still prefer the sound of the a well broken in, modified, SB2 with Sonicap Gen2 and Sonicap Platinums as bypasses powered by a Ultimate PS MKII

JoshK · « **Reply #15 on:** 9 Oct 2006, 04:30 pm »

Quote from: Wayne1 on 4 Oct 2006, 02:50 pm

A modded SB2 with Bybee Purifiers in the analog section was far preferred on analog out to the modded DAC 60 fed by a digital modded SB2.

Can you explain what attributes made the SB2 better? Said in another way what was better about the SB2's out versus the Dac60's? Do you know what the mods consisted of for the DAC 60?

Wayne1 · « **Reply #16 on:** 9 Oct 2006, 05:07 pm »

Josh,

It has been awhile. The modded SB2 run off Mike's version of the Ultimate PS had deeper, more dynamic bass.

The highs were smoother and more natural. Lower mids had a weight to them that was missing from the the modded DAC 60.

The mods were preformed by Sonicraft. I believe they were the "standard" upgrades with some new things that Jeff wanted to try out with this particular mod.

JoshK · « **Reply #17 on:** 9 Oct 2006, 05:36 pm »

Thanks, I was just curious as you may know I am researching ideas for mods to the DAC 60. I think there are a number of design choices that are sub-optimal in the DAC60 (not that it is bad stock since which design isn't suboptimal?) that could use tinkering.

My humble opinion is that the DAC chip in the SB2 is inferior to the chip in the DAC 60 however as with anything implementation trumps technology if not top notch. It does not surprise me that using an internal dac with (let presume) an inferior DAC chip beats an external one with superior chip due to the garbage SP/DIF adds to the mix. Then there is the addition of adding a preamp after the DAC 60 which you can forego with the SB2. By the way, what preamp did you use with the DAC 60 in this comparison?

I don't want to hi-jack your thread on modding of the DAC 60, but I think that replacing passive I/V + standard VAS (via tube), as comes stock in the DAC 60, with a transimpedance amp (tube in grounded grid) will be a large improvement. The 1704 doesn't like passive I/V from what I've researched since it does not have enough current output and distortion goes up dramatically as a result. But I still think the SB2 might have the edge due to lack of SP/DIF circuitry. This will be the final frontier and I have some ideas if I can learn to implement them correctly.

Wayne1 · « **Reply #18 on:** 9 Oct 2006, 05:50 pm »

Here is the link to the listening session.

No preamp was used on either the DAC60 or SB.

I personally think too much emphasis has been placed on what DAC chip is used in a product and not enough on the power supply and the analog circuitry after the DAC chip.

Wayne1 · « **Reply #19 on:** 12 Oct 2006, 12:10 am »

I found the time to work on the analog section of the Transporter a bit more.

I changed out the op-amps. I also changed the some of the power supply caps feeding the op-amps.

This is a very nice improvement. The sound is more natural and not so analytical. Low end seems to be deeper and tighter.