[ted_b]

Jim,
Thanks for the info.  Mine is an SB3 by the way, not SB2, and uses a new linear PS that Vinnie built specifically for me (ac power, not battery).  Nonetheless, let's assume it's the same sonically as his best battery implementation...So what was your reaction to the differences in your Bolder Ultimate vs the modded TP (Aberdeen, right)?  This will likely set the bar(s) for SB and TP currently.....no pressure

[TomS]

Hmmm, I heard my ears burning a little 

I did indeed replace the GNSC Wadia, which is VERY, VERY good in many ways, yet different from the Bolder SB2.   Yes, convenience is a huge factor and I'll never go back to spinning discs, but sonics still came first.  The Bolder just doesn't make me yearn for other sources much any more, though I am ALWAYS curious and will continue to try new things.  The organic wholeness of the Bolder SB2 keeps me very satisfied though.  I've never had a TP so can't comment.  I think the $2k is a little precious though I'm sure it's really good.  I'd also love to see something in between SB3 and TP, or a killer SB3/Dac combo that were actually tuned TOGETHER, such as Dan might do.

With all that said, the most satisfying digital playback I've had that sucked me and my wallet back into the hobby was definitely Dan's Modwright 999ES after the last round of mods he did.  If I could have kept just the DAC part and combined it with the convenience and organic sound of the Bolder SB2, it would be terrific.  I never was lucky enough to hear the Modwright 9100ES tube rectified player, but I understand it's a leap forward as well.

As far as I'm concerned, only good can come from Dan's effort here, so go for it Dan!

Tom

[ted_b]

Hmmm, I heard my ears burning a little 



With all that said, the most satisfying digital playback I've had that sucked me and my wallet back into the hobby was definitely Dan's Modwright 999ES after the last round of mods he did.  If I could have kept just the DAC part and combined it with the convenience and organic sound of the Bolder SB2, it would be terrific.  I never was lucky enough to hear the Modwright 9100ES tube rectified player, but I understand it's a leap forward as well.

As far as I'm concerned, only good can come from Dan's effort here, so go for it Dan!

Tom

Well said, oh Hoosier-one.  BTW, if you ever come East on I-90 I will care and feed you well (assuming you bring the Bolder modded unit with you).  Of course, later in the summer, it will get even more interesting as several boxes arrive ( ).  My 3910 is going back to Dan for tube rectification (and some adjusting), and will remain in my system for SACD and DVD-Audio/Video regardless, but I continue to lust for a streaming transport w/ a Modwright back-end.  If his TP is the only option, I'm there.

[TomS]

Hmmm, I heard my ears burning a little 



With all that said, the most satisfying digital playback I've had that sucked me and my wallet back into the hobby was definitely Dan's Modwright 999ES after the last round of mods he did.  If I could have kept just the DAC part and combined it with the convenience and organic sound of the Bolder SB2, it would be terrific.  I never was lucky enough to hear the Modwright 9100ES tube rectified player, but I understand it's a leap forward as well.

As far as I'm concerned, only good can come from Dan's effort here, so go for it Dan!

Tom

Well said, oh Hoosier-one.  BTW, if you ever come East on I-90 I will care and feed you well (assuming you bring the Bolder modded unit with you).  Of course, later in the summer, it will get even more interesting as several boxes arrive ( ).  My 3910 is going back to Dan for tube rectification (and some adjusting), and will remain in my system for SACD and DVD-Audio/Video regardless, but I continue to lust for a streaming transport w/ a Modwright back-end.  If his TP is the only option, I'm there.

Oh yeah, I am definitely up for that.  Let me know when the goodies finally arrive and I'll bring my own over too

[Double Ugly]

USB -> I2S Dac would be nice 

I agree. 

I think quite a few people use the SB straight into their amps as an only source setup.  A bypass if not overly expensive to implement correctly would be a selling point for many people.

I agree again.

Okay, first of all, I will assume that an outboard supply is not a problem. 

I wouldn't say it's a problem, but if it's a matter of convenience vs. a requirement to attain and maintain sonic integrity, I'd prefer a single box solution. 

I guess it comes down to whether the separate supply is for improved sonics or to simplify the modification process.  If the latter, I'd rather pay to have you spend more time under the hood to achieve the same result.

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 agree with the others.  If it's possible, I believe your potential customer-base will expand exponentially with an HT/BP option.

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?

To offer a differing viewpoint, IME most of those who use a SB/DAC combo don't have modified SBs, or they limited their investment by going with digital-only modifications.  Several of us (myself, zybar, mgalusha and others) discovered that a well-modified SB connected directly to our amp(s) compares favorably with the best digital rigs we've heard, regardless of price. 

I've tried external DACs with SBs, and though there's nothing special about the SB's DAC, it fairs quite well if the rest of the unit has been fully modified and is connected to a good-to-great PS.

Jim,
Thanks for the info.  Mine is an SB3 by the way, not SB2, and uses a new linear PS that Vinnie built specifically for me (ac power, not battery).  Nonetheless, let's assume it's the same sonically as his best battery implementation...So what was your reaction to the differences in your Bolder Ultimate vs the modded TP (Aberdeen, right)?  This will likely set the bar(s) for SB and TP currently.....no pressure

No pressure, indeed! 

My top-of-the-line RWA SB2 was AC/battery switchable, so I'm not sure what sonic differences (if any) that would make.  I'm told the SB2 and 3 circuitry is virtually identical, so I doubt the models being different had any bearing on the sound.  In fact, Wayne used to prefer the SB2 because there was more room to mod.  I think he's since figured out a way to make the SB3 sound as good as the 2, but I can't swear to that.

As for differences between the Ultimate and the TP (yes, Aberdeen), I sold one to get the other, so I can't be definitive in the comparison.  I can and will say the TP compares very favorably with the Ultimate, but without any of the issues I came to expect from SBs (occasional dropouts, static when the display was scrolling, etc.).  Aural memory tells me the Ultimate may have been a little sweeter in the highs with a bit more body (i.e. dimensionality) in the mids, but I don't know if that's true or a product of romanticizing the past.

Even if it is true, I felt the Ultimate was about the best one could hope to achieve with the SB, and yet I've attained a very close approximation of that sound using a device with which modders have only begun to realize the potential.  That's why I chose to change when I did; the promise of what was/is possible with the TP.

The quiet background and quality of play I'm getting now makes me wonder whether Dan can achieve something with an external PS that I don't already have with internal modifications, but I've been down this road before and was surprised to be proven wrong.  I'm looking forward to seeing if Dan can prove me wrong again.

-Jim

[Thelonious Monk]

To try to answer all of you at once.

At $2K, the Transporter is not inexpensive, but it is also a pretty amazing piece of gear for what it does.  Digital input, output, wireless, built-in volume control, etc.

I have poked around inside and confirmed my suspicion that the clock circuits and power supply regulation are quite good.  The analog stage is pretty typical and needs attention.  I am thinking tubes and no external supply.  I have a few tricks up my sleeve and believe that we can do something pretty cool here.

The AKM DAC chip is very good and has differential outs to boot.

More to come...stay tuned.

Thanks!

Dan

i do not understand the infatuation with many audiophiles and tubes, especially in situations like this. why is the transporter so popular? convenience. adding a (somewhat) power-hungry output stage with big, HOT glowing filaments that require case mods to work and will burn out in a year or two is not convenient. please, practicality over romanticism for once. i am probably pretty alone on my side of the argument though.

[rpf]

Nothing gives tonal accuracy/harmonic richness like tubes. The small tubes Dan uses in his digital mods don't put out much heat. I'm not interested in any gear lacking tubes for other than background music.

Re: the mention of the Modwright Platinum 999 above (which I owned) and the Modwright tube rectified Platinum 9100 (which I now have), the latter is several levels up from the former. More extended, resolving, three dimensional, and harmonically rich with a much larger soundstage. The 9100 is on the same level as the APL Denon 3910 I had for several months.

Fwiw, I don't have any interest in a HT Bypass, and although I'd prefer an interior PS it doesn't make much difference to me. But a TP with tubes

Rob

[Syrah]

I'm with everything Rob just said.  Everything.  I too had a Modwright 999, now I have the tube rectified 9100.  You said it Rob.

I also have 3 Squeeze Box 2s modded by Boulder.  They are not as musical as the 9100, nor are they as expensive.  For convenience, they're tough to beat.

Please add me to your waiting list Dan.  I'm very eager to see what you can do to a Transporter!

[Thelonious Monk]

Nothing gives tonal accuracy/harmonic richness like tubes. The small tubes Dan uses in his digital mods don't put out much heat. I'm not interested in any gear lacking tubes for other than background music.

that's not a blanket statement at all.

define tonal accuracy. when i think of "tone", i think of pitch. if a piece of audio equipment skews frequencies, it has failed in too many ways to count.

harmonic richness makes sense. there is more harmonc distortion in the second and third harmonics, and it is personal preference as to whether this is good or bad.

it's ok if people prefer tubes, but implying solid state is only suitable for background music is ignorant. trust me, i'm a teenager, i know ignorant.

[rpf]

I did not mean to imply that SS is only suitable for background listening. I have heard SS pieces I could listen to critically for a good while.
I was expressing my preference for tubes because for me tonal accuracy is more in harmonic richness and decay than anything else. Frequency extension is important but as most music lies in the midrange I find it secondary to the above. And tubes still do those things better.

Rob

[rpf]

And as Dan's tubed gear demonstrates, you can have both.

[JEaton]

tonal accuracy is more in harmonic richness and decay than anything else.

While I can certainly understand your personal taste for this tube effect (I have a tubed preamp that I rather like), the idea that it relates to "tonal accuracy" strikes me as a very odd view.

[modwright]

Hi guys, sorry for not toning in before now, but I decided to do the 'mortal human' thing and actually take the weekend off and not even get on-line .

Okay, first of all, with regards to ModWright DAC, I AM listening.  We are currently working on an amplifier design and have been busy rolling out the phono stage and full function preamp with phono, as well as the new LS 36.5.  I don't know when the amplifier will be available, but these things DO take time.  I AM still thinking about the DAC design and I have been monitoring the SB mods and the streaming digital options for a few years now.  After working with the Transporter, I believe that the technology has reached a point where we CAN get excellent audio from this medium.

I have not worked with the SB2 or SB3 yet, so I don't have much of a reference for the TP, aside from our modified Sony 9100ES.  I have researched the DAC used in the TP and it is quite good.  I am trying to determine what DAC chip is used in the SB, but don't know as of this point.  If someone can give me the DAC chip ID - Burr Brown, Crystal, Etc., I would be grateful.

I have looked at what Wayne and Vinny are doing and the power supply is certainly key to any design.  I believe that with regard to the SB, a linear supply is a good way to go.  I can't say much about batteries as I have not experimented much with them in this application. 

Use of the TP or SB as transport IS a good idea.  I am not sure what sonic losses there are, when adding an outboard DAC with extra cabling, etc.  This is why I like the idea of modifying the TP and using its internal DAC.  Keeping this thought in mind, the I2S format between 'transport' and DAC is an excellent idea.

Now, with regards to up-sampling and higher sampling rates, I have not been a big fan of most of the up-sampling schemes that I have heard.  At this point, if I was to design a DAC, I would use a hi-rez capable DAC chip, one capable of accepting DSD levels of resolution, but I don't know that I would add up-sampling to our design.  I am not saying anything definite, but this is my opinion at this point.

I don't mean to sound like I am rambling here, but I am trying to address the prior posts and share with all of you, my thoughts on this whole subject as I am excited about the future of audio and I DO believe that this is the future of digital...

One of the great things about the Transporter, as mentioned earlier in the thread, is that the TP has a digital input also.  This allows for use of our analog stage with other digital sources.  Until now, we have not offered a digital input for the modified players that we offer and I still don't see us doing so.  I am going to be evaluating the TP with our tube analog stage next and I will share my results.  With regards to the tube vs. SS debate, it is a matter of personal taste, but I like to think that our tube designs offer the musicality of tubes without the high levels of distortion and the 'tubey' sound that is commonly associated with older 'classic' tube designs.  In my opinion, both SS and tubes can sound good.  I simply prefer the use of tubes for voltage amplification - i.e. preamp and line-level stages and SS devices for current amplification - i.e. amplification.

So to sum up:

ModWright DAC?  I am listening...no promises, but I AM listening.

SB Mods?  Possibly, but at this point I don't have much experience or knowledge of the SB2 or 3 designs.  I may buy an SB3 for research.

TP mods will likely involve our tube analog stage mods.  Adding these to the SB doesn't make sense and isn't feasible inside of course.

Thanks for your posts and I will update with progress VERY SOON!

Dan W.

[Papajin]

Dan,

It's my understanding that the SB2 had the Burr-Brown PCM1748, while the SB3 has the Burr-Brown PCM1748KE.

If you need an SB3 to look at, let me know -- I have one just sitting here unused that I was probably going to sell sooner or later that you're welcome to borrow to look at.

[mtodde]

A ModWright DAC would be cool.   

[modwright]

Thanks for the DAC info and offer to borrow a SB3.  I would love to take you up on your offer and if you contact me directly, I will give you my UPS account to ship on.

I know I know....a DAC...hmmm....if there were only more hours in the day .

Dan

[truckfighters]

any news about the transporter mod? I am in search for this !! (germany)

[modwright]

I have a prototype built with internal supply and I am finallizing details of the design.  More soon.

Thanks,

Dan

[modwright]

Sorry guys, I know that it has been a long period of silence on this subject, but I AM making good progress and wanted to share.

First of all, what tube would most people prefer?

Choices are:

6H30
6N1P
6DJ8/6922
6CG7/6FQ7 (9-pin equivalent of 6SN7)

I am currently listening to the prototype with internal PS and a single 6CG7.  It sounds very good and PS noise is NOT an issue.  At this point, it is a matter of tonality, functionality as it pertains to interfacing with Transporter logic/muting, etc.

My intention is to perfect the design with the simpler internal supply and then move forward with the same tube circuit, but with external supply and possibly two tubes.  The advantage of the internal supply is to keep costs down and of course, simplicity.  The use of one tube is not necessarily a limiting factor at all, as the tubes that I am considering using are all dual triodes with a shield between the triodes, so channel separation, etc. is excellent.

The circuit that I am perfecting at this point does set a fairly specific bias point for the tube, so while all of the tubes listed above all share the same pinout, they would not all necessarily be mutually compatible in the circuit.  Within the tube family of course, there are a number of variants and this is why perhaps the 6922/6DJ8/7308 family is the way to go.  I am open to suggestions and welcome your input and preferences here.

More to come, but I just wanted everyone to know that I AM working on this project, but it has taken longer than anticipated as we have a lot going on with the rollout of the LS 36.5, scheduling reviews, handling a major remodel of our production facility, etc.  This summer has been MUCH busier than expected on many fronts and this has caused this project to take longer too.

Thanks and I look forward to your input and replies.

Take care,

Dan W.

[Skipperrik]

I'm confused.  Maybe I missed it in the earlier replies, but are the tubes in the power supply or the output stage?  If they are in the power supply, does the type of tube really make a sonic difference?  And if it does, what characteristics do the different ones you propose offer?