owner comparison of moddified sb3 vs transporter

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 8827 times.

95bcwh

Re: owner comparison of moddified sb3 vs transporter
« Reply #20 on: 16 Jan 2007, 10:35 pm »
Laurie is not the only one that feels "disappointed" with the transporter. I have returned the transporter to Slim Devices because it has no synergy with the rest of my gears.

The transporter analog out is lacking in resolution, it is warmer, more forward sounding than the Bolder SB2, meaning the transporter produce a soundstage that's closer to the listener, but it sounded a little "muffed".

The Bolder SB2 analog out, although has a more laid-back presentation, is more revolving, you will hear more texture, more details, the image is sharper, and yet it sounded more "juicy" and "airy". In comparison, the transporter sounded hard and dry in my system.




jhm731

Re: owner comparison of moddified sb3 vs transporter
« Reply #21 on: 16 Jan 2007, 11:39 pm »
"I then tried SB3 unmodded digital output into my DAC with the Ultimate Power Supply. (rating 8 ). "

Looks like the cheapest path to musical performance is a stock SB3 with a linear PSU feeding an external tube DAC like the CAL Alpha. 8)

ted_b

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 6345
  • "we're all bozos on this bus" F.T.
Re: owner comparison of moddified sb3 vs transporter
« Reply #22 on: 16 Jan 2007, 11:55 pm »


The transporter analog out is lacking in resolution, it is warmer, more forward sounding than the Bolder SB2, meaning the transporter produce a soundstage that's closer to the listener, but it sounded a little "muffed".







Although we agree that the Transporter is not a fit, my take on it is 180 degrees from yours.  From my post on a couple other forums (updated today):

I have just installed the TP a couple weeks ago in my system. I am looking to replace the redbook capability of my modded tubed Modwright Denon 3910 (likely keep it for hirez, though) with something that gives me all the obvious advantages of hd-based playback (convenience, clutter-reduction, etc.). However, it is imperative that this step is a step forward, sonically. I am eval'ing the TP because I know that, in my system, the accompanying SB3 stock will not cut it in the sonically-equivalent department, but might be a candidate for Boulder or RedWine's soldering gun and, of course,  upgraded PS's if the TP doesn't come through for me.

My system is very highly resolving, but with a tendency to get to strident if I don't watch out. My Krell KSA-100 is the original (read: highly-regarded, not the later cold, analytical ones) version of that Class A beast and is, IMO, difficult to fault in some favorite areas (iron-gripped bass control, dynamics, quietness). But it's tendency toward midrange ice requires me to feed it vacuum tubes. My front end is a tubed universal and analog vinyl fed into a Modwright tubed SWL 9.0 SE linestage. As an aside, when I recently eval'd the vaunted Moscode 401HR it's warmth and midrange bloom was too much for my front-end, so I'm happy with the balance right now. My main speakers are RSA's new Sason mega-monitors, and the lowest registers are augmented by a Paradigm Servo 15 room EQ'd by the Velodyne SMS-1. The Sason's are electron microscopes into the soundstage, and I like that. Enter the TP. I'm using FLAC album sized files with cue sheets, and sending FLAC across the wireless network. No dropouts yet, although I'm completely open to going wired if needed.

To paraphrase the latest 6 Moons review about computer audio, the insertion of the TP was one of remarkable clarity, unsurpassed levels of information, powerful bass, reference level dynamic performance and excellent transparency. This TP does very many things very very well!! Most of this is likely due to the superiority of the AKM dacs and the supposed superiority of the lower jitter due to hard-disc playback. The main criticism I have is there is some major stridency in the upper midrange and treble, and that on lesser recordings it's quite problematic. I'm not sure how much of this will "break-out" of the system as it breaks-in (I am a firm believer in break-in of components, although I've read very little discussion about the evolution of the TP break-in process here or anywhere). My modded 3910 is no slouch, and to compare it's near-SOTA vacuum-based midrange buttery smoothness (even though it's not a tube rec'd power supply yet) to the TP is looking/listening in only one aspect of the solution...but an important one. Update: after about two weeks of listening and constant burn-in, it still just doesn;t sound musical. it's way too analytical and bereft of midrange weight and necessary air and bloom. It's great food without the right spices.

I am going to do a few things over the next few weeks (during my 30 day eval period). I am going to let the TP break-in, I am going to do more a/b with the Modwright, and I'm also going to set up my to-be-sold ATC active 150's and run balanced outs from the TP direct into the 150's (ala CliveB at Slim forum)

Here are my long-term options:
a) stock TP once it breaks-in and shows me good midrange bloom (update: it just isn't getting any warmer; it's not really musical in my system and is going back to Slim Devices within the 30 day trial)
b) Anthony modded TP to "install" sonics such as better midrange
c) mod the SB3 digitally (with good linear PS) and go outboard DAC, such as APLHiFi's upcoming tubed NWO DAC (see RWA update below)
d) stay computer-based but go the USB/I2S route with tube-based DACs such as Wavelength, etc.
e) stay disc-based and get Dans's new tubed-rectified PS for the 3910. This is least favorite in that I'm hooked on the convenience and power of computer-based audio.

In any regard I am going to go with Dan''s new LS36.5 linestage which is tube-rectified and slightly warmer than his current linestage. I'll ping back in when things change.

Update: I bought a slightly used RedWine fully modded SB3 this past weekend and it arrived today.  I'll install and check back in a couple of days. I'll post my comparisons to the stock Transporter when I can.  I'll also see what a balanced TP -> active ATC 150's pure-and-simple system (no addtl pre or amps) sounds like (the ATC's are behemoths and will take some time to set up again). I'm not exactly sure what I'll do if I like the setup cuz I'm very satisfied with the sound of my Sason's. Oh well, it's all about synergy, right?

mr_bill

Re: owner comparison of moddified sb3 vs transporter
« Reply #23 on: 17 Jan 2007, 12:51 am »
Great posts so far.
It would be great to do a home audition of the Bolder SB3 w/ultimate power supply.
I have a SB3 with a linear power supply that I bought off of Ebay running into a Benchmark Dac but am curious is the Bolder modded w/ups or Transporter would be better.
I'd love to hear those RSA Sasson speakers sometime - they're keepers!

95bcwh

Re: owner comparison of moddified sb3 vs transporter
« Reply #24 on: 17 Jan 2007, 12:56 am »


Although we agree that the Transporter is not a fit, my take on it is 180 degrees from yours.  From my post on a couple other forums (updated today):



What I said was "relative" to Bolder SB2. Unless you have compared the two, it is difficult to agree or disagree between us.  :wink:

ted_b

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 6345
  • "we're all bozos on this bus" F.T.
Re: owner comparison of moddified sb3 vs transporter
« Reply #25 on: 17 Jan 2007, 01:16 am »


Although we agree that the Transporter is not a fit, my take on it is 180 degrees from yours.  From my post on a couple other forums (updated today):



What I said was "relative" to Bolder SB2. Unless you have compared the two, it is difficult to agree or disagree between us.  :wink:

Sorry, I was confused by your post's perspective.  You said the TP is too warm, then later said it is hard and dry (my feeling too).