Slim Devices TRANSPORTER vs. SB3 + DAC?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 6812 times.

95bcwh

Re: Slim Devices TRANSPORTER vs. SB3 + DAC?
« Reply #20 on: 23 Jan 2007, 08:47 pm »
In your system , you mean.
In mine the TP is not more forward.

So you tried both the TP and the SB3, and you hear no difference as far as the soundstage is concerned?

« Last Edit: 23 Jan 2007, 09:00 pm by 95bcwh »

95bcwh

Re: Slim Devices TRANSPORTER vs. SB3 + DAC?
« Reply #21 on: 23 Jan 2007, 08:56 pm »
Good, as a show of good gesture, I have rephrase my comment about your speaker...it's not up to me to judge what's good for others.

In your system , you mean.
In mine the TP is not more forward.

BTW, I didn't know you had Salks and I am not dissing them. Different speakers react differently.
Notice I refered to placement and room acustics as well.

So Salk lovers: please no flames :-)
I haven't heard the Salks but I know they are well regarded here.

tomjtx

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 217
Re: Slim Devices TRANSPORTER vs. SB3 + DAC?
« Reply #22 on: 23 Jan 2007, 09:02 pm »
I heard a diff.

I think of soundstage as the whole package. The TP SS doesn't extend to the front of my speakers. On well recorded classical music especialy the instruments are always behind the speakers.
Let me use string quartet as an example, but this is true of orchestral music as well.

The quartet exists behind the speakers with each instrument accurately placed within the sounstage. 1st violin ahead of 2nd violin etc.

With the SB the SS begins closer to the front of the speaker and the SS has less depth. The imaging is not as clear.
However it's still very good especially for a 300.00 source.

The modded SB2 PSU etc. also has a better SS, imaging etc. than the Sb but it also fell a bit short of the TP in my system.
Disclaimer: IMO, IMO, IMO.......IMS(in my system) IMS , IMS

Please multiply the IMOs and IMSs by a factor of a trillion before you flame me :-)

Double Ugly

Re: Slim Devices TRANSPORTER vs. SB3 + DAC?
« Reply #23 on: 24 Jan 2007, 02:21 am »
I don't think anyone is going to flame you, Tom.  What you're saying is correct - virtually every reference made here is in our system, to our ears and in our room.  Few things are more subjective than audio IMO, and as long as no one is intent on telling another person what that person is or is not hearing, all should be well.

As for the Transporter's soundstage, in my system it depends on the recording, just as it did w/ both SB2s and every other source I've used.  Some recording are relatively forward, but the majority of my classical is back - sometimes extending WAY back - from the speakers.  If my modified Transporter is any indication of how a stock unit performs, I can't imagine anyone dissing its soundstaging capabilities.

     Sorry, I'm not interested in mods. Somehow, voiding a 3 year warranty on an audiohile (i.e. possibly finicky) device doesen't sit right with me, among other reasons.
Hi Richard,

Voiding the warranty would me an issue w/ me, too, if I hadn't faith enough in the person doing the mods.  But I do, and my experience w/ modded equipment is such that I believe all but a few components will benefit from a little attention from the right person, and even the exceptions are subject to debate.

As for the Transporter being "possibly finicky", I'm not sure what you mean.  I'm sure some have experienced issues w/ one thing or another, but mine has operated flawlessly from day one.


      Thanks for your input.
You're welcome.  I appreciate additional data points, and I'm pleased to return the favor when able.

-Jim