Transporter Mods...in the works...need input!

Danny Kaey · « **Reply #20 on:** 22 May 2007, 06:49 pm »

outboard PS an issue? no way!

this could well be a superb all-in-one music distribution/DAC combo for all digital needs, including HD Radio, XM/Sirius, etc... (via digital inputs)...

amazing!

JEaton · « **Reply #21 on:** 22 May 2007, 07:58 pm »

If you're going to go tubes for the output stage, you better break out the drill press and shoot some ventilation holes through the unvented chassis.

No offense intended, but I'd be _extremely_ hesitant to allow anyone to touch a $2000 piece of gear.

ted_b · « **Reply #22 on:** 22 May 2007, 08:22 pm »

Dan,
An outboard PS is almost assumed. No issue here. The only addtl pushback (mentioned the DAC only direction in my previous post) is that the TP is kind of a version 1.0 product for SlimDevices, in that product space. I'm concerned that spending $3k+ on a modded TP may just be the wrong time in this product's lifecycle. I mean, modding a Denon 3910 or even an earlier Sony 999ES was less risky, given that they were significantly evolved by then. And yes, Logitech/SlimDevices has been making streaming boxes for some time, but this was their first foray into "audiophile" level quality and features, and the next TP iteration may well be the better foundation for modding. I know that this logic in any technology family could be extended ad infinitum, and if we took that approach we'd buy nothing....but IMHO version 1.0 products are debatable as solid foundations, given the average tech curve.

Danny Kaey · « **Reply #23 on:** 22 May 2007, 09:04 pm »

Quote from: ted_b on 22 May 2007, 08:22 pm

Dan,
An outboard PS is almost assumed. No issue here. The only addtl pushback (mentioned the DAC only direction in my previous post) is that the TP is kind of a version 1.0 product for SlimDevices, in that product space. I'm concerned that spending $3k+ on a modded TP may just be the wrong time in this product's lifecycle. I mean, modding a Denon 3910 or even an earlier Sony 999ES was less risky, given that they were significantly evolved by then. And yes, Logitech/SlimDevices has been making streaming boxes for some time, but this was their first foray into "audiophile" level quality and features, and the next TP iteration may well be the better foundation for modding. I know that this logic in any technology family could be extended ad infinitum, and if we took that approach we'd buy nothing....but IMHO version 1.0 products are debatable as solid foundations, given the average tech curve.

being that Logitech only sells a comparatively tiny number of Transporters I don't think they will be following up w/ a 2.0 release anytime soon... besides, they look at it as their statement product with the latest innovations and advances.

PLMONROE · « **Reply #24 on:** 22 May 2007, 09:32 pm »

Quote from: sleepysurf on 22 May 2007, 02:54 pm

why not work with Sean et al (Slim/Logitech) to incorporate (? license) the KEY Transporter circuitry into one of your already superb Pre's, which already has the requisite "toob" sonics, HT/BP, and excellent analog volume control. In essence, it would be a Pre/DAC/Transporter all-in-one killer device.

I'd definitely "upgrade" to a device like that (reluctantly selling my SWL 9.0SE).

Maybe so. But IMHO Dan can sell a ton of modded transporters. And although it may be heresy not all of Dan's loyal supporters will see fit to purchase one of his preamps -- fact of life.

Paul

gbeard · « **Reply #25 on:** 22 May 2007, 11:10 pm »

Quote

Gary's PFO TP review is here, previous issue.
Rich

Oops!

Thanks Rich!

04dgmsilv · « **Reply #26 on:** 23 May 2007, 12:54 am »

Wow... this could be the ultimate! I too would be a fan of a Bypass option for the flexibility, although not at any sacrifice for SQ. I use my TP as a source and preamp. It is my only volume control and i have a CD transport connected. For this simple 2CH system, the thought of some Modwight glowing glass on the output direct to my audiosector chip amp and druids... mmmmm...

Very interested for sure!

tonyptony · « **Reply #27 on:** 23 May 2007, 12:03 pm »

Quote from: ted_b on 21 May 2007, 02:37 pm

Just set up Slimserver to decode FLAC to wav at the player.

ted, just to claify, are you saying to select FLAC -> FLAC in the Slimserver configuration, or FLAC -> WAV?

ted_b · « **Reply #28 on:** 23 May 2007, 12:23 pm »

Quote from: tonyptony on 23 May 2007, 12:03 pm

Quote from: ted_b on 21 May 2007, 02:37 pm
Just set up Slimserver to decode FLAC to wav at the player.

ted, just to claify, are you saying to select FLAC -> FLAC in the Slimserver configuration, or FLAC -> WAV?

If you think wav sounds better then set Slimserver to be FLAC->WAV so wav files are presented to the player. Likely a bit more traffic. Me, I use FLAC->FLAC.

modwright · « **Reply #29 on:** 23 May 2007, 08:49 pm »

Wow, thanks guys, a lot of info here.

Okay, first of all, I will assume that an outboard supply is not a problem. The outboard supply would power the analog portion of the unit only, leaving the digital responsiblities to the internal supplies which I feel are quite adequate for the DAC.

Secondly, I see two camps of potential customers here, those who don't mind spending the $ for the transporter + mods, provided that it provided truly exceptional audio. Its just a fact that good things cost money. The SB may also be a candidate for a less costly and involved mod. I do understand budget constraints, but I just wanted to make it clear that to make the Transporter sound exceptional, it will cost money.

Not sure what to make of the HT option, but I do understand that this device is used by a lot of people as both preamp and processor, no problem. Yes we well preamps and I do like the idea of integrating the two, but it isn't in the cards right now. The first step is to modify an existing product like this and see where we can go from there.

I only recently became aware that the SB has a DAC inside too...not sure how good it is, but I just found this out. I thought the Transporter was unique because it added a DAC to the squeeze box functionality. Most people I talked to, have been feeding the SB into a DAC, so I assume its internal DAC isn't anything to write home about?

Okay, so for now, I am looking at an analog stage that glows and while the initial prototype will have an internal supply, based on the results, the next level will offer an outboard supply.

This is going to be great guys and I REALLY appreciate your feedback and info!

Take care,

Dan

tonyptony · « **Reply #30 on:** 23 May 2007, 09:40 pm »

Quote from: ted_b on 23 May 2007, 12:23 pm

Quote from: tonyptony on 23 May 2007, 12:03 pm
Quote from: ted_b on 21 May 2007, 02:37 pm
Just set up Slimserver to decode FLAC to wav at the player.

ted, just to claify, are you saying to select FLAC -> FLAC in the Slimserver configuration, or FLAC -> WAV?

If you think wav sounds better then set Slimserver to be FLAC->WAV so wav files are presented to the player. Likely a bit more traffic. Me, I use FLAC->FLAC.

Hmm, what happens if you have both FLAC->FLAC and FLAC->WAV checked off?

ted_b · « **Reply #31 on:** 23 May 2007, 10:52 pm »

Dan,
Although I've said that the TP is possibly not a great foundation for moddding simply cuz it's version 1, and have also said that regardless I'll buy it from you cuz I buy everything you do and find everything you do to be high-end value leaders beyond reproach, I will also add that the SB ain't worth your modding efforts (i.e tube analog section, etc.). The DAC in it is only so-so, the form factor is meant to be somewhat portable and/or inobtrustive, and it doesn't support what the next version (SB4?) will likely support, namely 24/96 or maybe even 24/192 (TP is currently 24/96, SB is 24/48). The mods that have currently been done (mostly Boulder and RedWine) are very good to excelllent, but are NOT to the level of complete renovation that you ascribe to.

Can anyone say Modwright modular 66 bit/1536 kHz tube DAC, with USB, I2S and coax SP/DIF inputs?? I can dream can't I?

richidoo · « **Reply #32 on:** 24 May 2007, 01:47 am »

I think that the SB DAC is great compared to other $250 audio products!

With a good outboard PS it becomes a decent little player. It is a toy with lots of room for improvement, but it didn't become an audio cult icon by having mediocre sound! Lots of us are using its analog outs as our main digital source, and are quite happy in our ignorance of how much better it can be with mods. I think the stock SB analog output stage is the main hindrance, mostly held back by the little 1A switcher PS. I don't want to sink money into modding a toy, but paying a little more for a TP to get a world class analog stage might be worth it depending on the price. Maybe $3000 total? You wanna make it comparable in sound to the very best digital players in the world, and I know you can

Then the network player and DAC functions will put it over the top in the lust factor as we all felt when it was announced. TP is a very nice, quality built machine. I'm glad you see opportunities in the analog stage.
Rich

ted_b · « **Reply #33 on:** 24 May 2007, 02:20 am »

Quote from: richidoo on 24 May 2007, 01:47 am

I think that the SB DAC is great compared to other $250 audio products! With a good outboard PS it becomes a decent little player. It is a toy with lots of room for improvement, but it didn't become an audio cult icon by having mediocre sound! Lots of us are using its analog outs as our main digital source, and are quite happy in our ignorance of how much better it can be with mods. I think the stock SB analog output stage is the main hindrance, mostly held back by the little 1A switcher PS. I don't want to sink money into modding a toy, but paying a little more for a TP to get a world class analog stage might be worth it depending on the price. Maybe $3000 total? You wanna make it comparable in sound to the very best digital players in the world, and I know you can Then the network player and DAC functions will put it over the top in the lust factor as we all felt when it was announced. TP is a very nice, quality built machine. I'm glad you see opportunities in the analog stage.
Rich

Compared to other $250 stuff, maybe. But hardly a foundation for a $1500 tube stage. The SB3 became a cult icon, IMO, because of its A+ functionality combined with decent sound for less than $300, not necessarily for any great sound. Also, it's a nice transport architecture to combine with a great DAC (Dan, are you listening......I know, broken record...sorry

).

DSK · « **Reply #34 on:** 24 May 2007, 02:39 am »

Dan,
I haven't heard the SB in stock form as I had mine shipped directly to Bolder for the analog & digital mods and Bolder PS. However, from the posts of those with stock SB's it seems safe to assume that the stock SB is handy but not high end. How much its performance is held back by the DAC specifically (as opposed to power supply and analog output stage) I don't know. I'm pretty sure Wayne upgrades the DAC as part of the mods. A fully modded SB, with Bolder PS, is truly high end though. Most SB owners simply assumed that the stock SB DAC was crap and only got the digital upgrades done so that they can use an external DAC. However, the posts from almost all the SB owners who got both done seem to indicate that they prefer it without an external DAC (I'm in this camp too). My Sony SCD-XA777ES sits idle now (the SB sits on top of it) and I'm not missing SACD at all. I've heard flagship players from MF, Electrocompaniet, Arcam, and Audio Aero and I'm not jealous at all.

Another member here (TomS IIRC) had a $9k front end (Wadia 861SE with full mods from GNSC) and sold it after he compared it to his modded SB. He also had another good player (Resolution Audio Opus 21 IIRC) and sold that too.

Another member with a modded SB bought a Transporter, compared it, and returned it as it didn't sound as good to him as his modded SB.

So, I don't think there is any doubt that the SB, and Transporter (if space) can be modded to be truly high end. A tube output stage would be very interesting to hear.

My only hesitance in modding my SB even further is that it is limited to 24/48, though I'm not entirely sure that this will be a problem in the near future.

Dan, you may well be able to mod the SB or TP to greater levels than we have seen to date from other modders. I love seeing just how far you guys can take the performance of relatively low cost products and I certainly have great respect for your work and Wayne's. All I'm saying is that the current bar may be at a higher level than you think.

I can sort of understand people baulking at the cost of full on mods, especially compared to the realtively low cost of the stock component. However, if the total cost of stock unit plus mods is still well under what you would have to pay to get the same quality from an 'off the shelf' product, then ....

ted_b · « **Reply #35 on:** 24 May 2007, 03:03 am »

Wow, TomS replaced a GNSC modded Wadia 861SE with a modded SB? Well, I for one have a modded SB (RWA analog mods and digital mods with a custom RWA linear PS) and although it's good, very good, it doesn't come close to the Modwright 3910 Platinum Signature tubed sound.....but it's a third of the cost. Wayne's mods are likely better (they cost more and most who've heard the no-longer-in-production RWA vs the Bolder like Wayne's more) but I've not heard them. I believe Dan can make the SB3 sing like it's never sung....but at what cost. It would need to be his Platinum-level modding effort, because, as you stated, the other mods have taken this litttle box to great heights already. Dan's Platinum-level work is not cheap, and will marry nicely with the TP, but putting that kind of effort into the current version of the SB3?

Oh well, Dan, you'll find buyers regardless. As Srajan says in the current 6Moons preview of the LS 36.5, "If there's a serious American audio modder/maker more liked and respected than Dan Wright, I haven't heard of him yet"

AB · « **Reply #36 on:** 24 May 2007, 03:11 am »

What would a Modwright modded Tp compete against?
Is there a "higher" end Tp-ish digital streaming thing available?

I ask because I don't know - I'm all about spending money on a vinyl rig these days.

jhm731 · « **Reply #37 on:** 24 May 2007, 03:14 am »

Quote from: DSK on 24 May 2007, 02:39 am

All I'm saying is that the current bar may be at a higher level than you think.

The current bar for a modified Transporter is the Mauimods.com/Aberdeen version.

Danny Kaey · « **Reply #38 on:** 24 May 2007, 03:58 am »

Quote from: AB on 24 May 2007, 03:11 am

What would a Modwright modded Tp compete against?
Is there a "higher" end Tp-ish digital streaming thing available?

I ask because I don't know - I'm all about spending money on a vinyl rig these days.

presumably other DAC's - the benefit to the Transporter however, is the fact that it is a wireless music streaming device on top of having a digital input...

Double Ugly · « **Reply #39 on:** 24 May 2007, 06:15 am »

Quote from: ted_b on 24 May 2007, 03:03 am

Wow, TomS replaced a GNSC modded Wadia 861SE with a modded SB? Well, I for one have a modded SB (RWA analog mods and digital mods with a custom RWA linear PS) and although it's good, very good, it doesn't come close to the Modwright 3910 Platinum Signature tubed sound.....but it's a third of the cost. Wayne's mods are likely better (they cost more and most who've heard the no-longer-in-production RWA vs the Bolder like Wayne's more) but I've not heard them.

IMO, DSK and Tom are right, Ted.

I believe Bolder's Ultimate (and presumably, Ultimate II) achieve a much higher level of performance than what you think is possible given your experiences. The quantity of anecdotal evidence regarding what is possible with Wayne's best effort is compelling. My wife and I compared the original Bolder Ultimate to a stock SB2, a fully-modified RWA SB2 and a no-longer-offered "Basic" Bolder SB2, and the similarities ended once we moved beyond the physical appearance of the boxes themselves.

Your description of the sonic-quality gap between your SB2 and 3910 Platinum reminds me of our reaction to the RWA SB2/Bolder Ultimate comparison - the RWA wasn't in the same zip code, and that's probably an understatement.

That said, I'm eager to hear the result of Dan's labor, and hope to compare it to my modified Transporter. My only interest is in achieving the best sound, and if Dan's creation improves upon what I have, he'll have yet another customer waiting in line.

-Jim