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

Double Ugly · « **Reply #60 on:** 6 Aug 2007, 02:01 am »

Any chance of setting one up to take a 300B?

It'd shore be purdy sit'n 'twix mah amps!

ted_b · « **Reply #61 on:** 6 Aug 2007, 02:03 am »

They're in the output stage, like his player mods.

6922/6DJ8's are plentiful and varied enough for rolling.....but Jim's idea of 300B's would be wild!!

rpf · « **Reply #62 on:** 6 Aug 2007, 03:42 am »

Quote from: ted_b on 6 Aug 2007, 02:03 am

They're in the output stage, like his player mods.

6922/6DJ8's are plentiful and varied enough for rolling.....but Jim's idea of 300B's would be wild!!

I agree with both points above!

Given that the latter is unlikely however, I favor the 6922/6DJ8 family for the above reasons and for the fact that the 6H30 is already in the LS36.5. I prefer a bit of tonal variety in my gear and I have a feeling I may end up with an LS sooner or later.

rpf · « **Reply #63 on:** 6 Aug 2007, 03:45 am »

BTW, different tubes in a power supply will give a different sound.

Dan, when you move the power supply outboard will it have a tube in it?

Double Ugly · « **Reply #64 on:** 6 Aug 2007, 03:48 am »

Quote from: ted_b on 6 Aug 2007, 02:03 am

They're in the output stage, like his player mods.

Yep!

And as I understand it, that's pretty much where the 300Bs on my amps are located.

From the Monad manual:

Quote

...current-multiplying DC coupling circuitry allows the 300B output driver tube to directly operate into a fixed ratio-reduced speaker output load.

I'm a notch or two below neophyte in these matters, but it sounds to me like the tube is somehow directly-coupled to the output stage. Whatever it is, I get all the 300B goodness without the usual tube hassles. What's not to like?

If BK can do it, I'm sure Dan can come up with something similar, right Dan?

modwright · « **Reply #65 on:** 6 Aug 2007, 05:06 am »

Hi guys and thanks. I am listening to the Transporter proto mod right now, with 6CG7's, after having been on and burning in for the last 24 hours and it is sounding VERY nice. Keep in mind, this is with internal SS power supply and only a single dual triode tube in the analog stage. In fact, the tube IS the analog stage, with accompanied SS components for constant current sources, etc. There are no op-amps or other devices in the output stage.

The 300B idea is very cool, it would get tricky and I just don't know that there is enough room or $ in the budget for that in this case. It really needs to be in indirectly heated triode and SET output transformers simply wouldn't fit. We may be able to include our custom OPT's for a balanced output however. This would add some cost, but not prohibitively so.

If we were to move the PS outboard, it would be tubed. This WILL add significantly to the mod price and will of course add another box, umbilical and power cord. I am seriously pursuing the internal supply option first.

Thanks for the feedback, I will start working with the 6DJ8 family and see how it sounds.

I have to tell you, I don't have a Sony or Denon w/tube mods here right now for a direct comparison (I will tomorrow), but the transporter being fed FLAC ripped CD's wirelessly to the Transporter, into my LS 36.5 is pretty DAMN good!

Thanks for all of your patience and input here. I can finally see the finish line here and I am getting excited now!

Dan

yooper · « **Reply #66 on:** 6 Aug 2007, 05:48 am »

Quote from: modwright on 6 Aug 2007, 05:06 am

I can finally see the finish line here and I am getting excited now!

Me too!

modwright · « **Reply #67 on:** 10 Aug 2007, 02:20 am »

Okay guys, I have been running the Transporter in current config. for most of a week straight now to break it in and get a feel for it. We also finally compared it to the Sony 9100ES yesterday.

Current Config:

1) Single 6CG7 dual triode - SE only, no balanced outputs.
2) SS rectified supply with no choke regulation - PS internal.
3) Smaller Hammond power transformer, in lieu of oversized toroidal transformer used in Sony mods and preamps.
4) Playing music via wireless connection from laptop - ripped to FLAC.

Sony 9100ES for comparison:

1) Two 5687's.
2) Outboard tube-rectified power supply with choke current regulation and oversized toroidal transformer.
3) Music played directly from player of course, through tube analog stage.

Rest of playback system:

LS 36.5 preamp
McIntosh MC162 amp
AZT Cabling
Running Springs Jaco line conditioner

Listening comparisons between the Sony and Transporter proved that they are close, but the Sony still gets the edge - specifically in terms of weight, body and ultimate bass response.

I believe that this can be improved if we use the oversized toroidal transformer in the Transporter, with tube-rectified supply. I am pretty sure we can make this work and may add a second tube for the signal also.

I am hoping to wrap this up next week. I just wanted to share where we are at and how the comparison came out.

If we go with a tube-rectified supply, a big old coke-bottle 5UV or 5V4 would look just as cool as a 300B

.

Thanks,

Dan W.

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #68 on:** 10 Aug 2007, 05:03 am »

Dan....

Quote

LS 36.5 preamp
McIntosh MC162 amp
AZT Cabling
Running Springs Jaco line conditioner

What speakers are you using ? Thanks....and good luck...

Chris

truckfighters · « **Reply #69 on:** 10 Aug 2007, 05:47 am »

hi dan,

please just give this a try for your next comparison:

rip some (same) music again with EAC (exact audio copy) with a max of 1x speed and the correct setup (secure mode) for near bit-perfect copy.
then leave the files as they are (WAVE-Fomat, .WAV) - no conversion into flac !!

my experience is, that when they come in FLAC format, transporter needs extra calculation power to transcode the FLAC files back to WAV (PCM) to play them. this is either done in transporter or the slim server. however if transporter is set to do it (it is a setting in the slim server software), it might create more EMI and therefore the sound *might* degrade a little.

this is what quite a lot people claim over on the slim devices forums and I also am a type of worried about it.
if you can do it pure (WAV), then please do it for your future tests...

cheers,
mike

ps: some even claim to hear differences if listening through wireless or cable LAN connection. because of the same issue - EMI (electromagnetic influence)

modwright · « **Reply #70 on:** 10 Aug 2007, 05:20 pm »

Speakers are Greybeard KB/3/3's. They were the late designer Tim Wright's personal Reference pair, heavily tweaked. They are full range, with Revelator tweeters and Scanspeak mid/woofer. $250lb each, finished in Greek marble. I will never sell these speakers.

Thank you for the conversion recommendations. I admit that I have not compared with ethernet vs. wireless. I can imagine that ethernet might be better sounding, but I have to experiment.

Thanks,

Dan

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #71 on:** 10 Aug 2007, 05:22 pm »

Quote from: modwright on 10 Aug 2007, 05:20 pm

Speakers are Greybeard KB/3/3's. They were the late designer Tim Wright's personal Reference pair, heavily tweaked. They are full range, with Revelator tweeters and Scanspeak mid/woofer. $250lb each, finished in Greek marble. I will never sell these speakers.

Thanks,

Dan

Those are nice speakers Dan....thanks !!

yooper · « **Reply #72 on:** 10 Aug 2007, 05:47 pm »

Dan,

I must say, I'm really, really looking forward to your mods.

While I understand I am about to ask a question that can't be answered with a definitive answer yet, will these mods be more or less a cost in no objest, or are you attempting to stay within a pre-determined cost? Another words, are you attempting to keep the final price to the consumer under $2000.00, under $1500.00, or under $1000.00?

Or are you considering offering a "tier" type pricing structure for various mods?

Thanks,

Mark

DSK · « **Reply #73 on:** 11 Aug 2007, 01:13 am »

Quote from: truckfighters on 10 Aug 2007, 05:47 am

...ps: some even claim to hear differences if listening through wireless or cable LAN connection. because of the same issue - EMI (electromagnetic influence)

Mike, I haven't viewed the SlimDevices forums recently but from previous readings it seems that a few people were getting an occasional/intermittent noise (like static crackle) through their speakers that disappeared when running ethernet cable to the SB. However, I haven't seen anyone claim that they here a difference in actual sound quality or noise floor level between wired and wireless.

I run my SB wireless with FLAC decoding done on PC side. When I ran my SB direct to my amp, I heard this occasional static type noise too. But when I re-installed my pre-amp between SB and amp (which sounded much more lifelike) the noises disappeared completely. I do have a long ethernet cable that I will try one day, when current tweaks settle in, but I'll be (pleasantly) surprised if I hear an improvement.

Double Ugly · « **Reply #74 on:** 11 Aug 2007, 12:05 pm »

Quote from: DSK on 11 Aug 2007, 01:13 am

Quote from: truckfighters on 10 Aug 2007, 05:47 am
...ps: some even claim to hear differences if listening through wireless or cable LAN connection. because of the same issue - EMI (electromagnetic influence)

Mike, I haven't viewed the SlimDevices forums recently but from previous readings it seems that a few people were getting an occasional/intermittent noise (like static crackle) through their speakers that disappeared when running ethernet cable to the SB. However, I haven't seen anyone claim that they here a difference in actual sound quality or noise floor level between wired and wireless.

I experienced the intermittent noise with a SB, but I've not heard a peep out of my wirelessly-operated modified Transporter. I've not heard mention of Transporter owners experiencing noise issues, but then I haven't actually looked either.

As for SB noise floor improvements, Mike Galusha seems to say he's heard a difference in this post -

Quote

...some of the wireless SB's can produce noise when in wireless mode but are substantially quieter when switched to wired mode.

I have a stock Transporter on loan that I plan to compare with my modified unit if/when matched pairs of SE and XLR cables arrive. Regardless of the outcome of the comparison, I'll try to remember to post something about the noise, or lack thereof.

PS - It appears to me you've put together a excellent system, DSK. I wish I could hear it some day.

ted_b · « **Reply #75 on:** 11 Aug 2007, 01:57 pm »

I don't have a stock SB3, although I did for some time. My current SB3 is a linear-ac-powered RWA modded one (I got tired of forgetiing to recharge the battery and then have Vinnie replace it, so Vinnie wired up a great big linear ps), that goes through a Monarchy 48/96 DIP upsampler into (currently) an Ack Dack. The SB3 is wireless. I hear no noise, nothing (never had, though, even with the stock unit).

BTW, the DIP has been quite the addition; lots more resolution, lots more PRAT. Gues that's what jitter reduction does, cuz the upsampling, due to the Ack limitation, is only to 48k.

So Dan, the Transporter will then have two tubes in the output stage, a tube in the tube-rectified power supply, and will take advantage of the balanced outs of the TP?

modwright · « **Reply #76 on:** 12 Aug 2007, 12:48 am »

Hi guys, I do anticipate at least offering to levels of pricing/options. I was expecting the initial mod level to be about $1250. I don't expect that the top mod will exceed $2K however. I still have to crunch the numbers.

At this point, it looks like the top mod will use one rectifier tube (exposed) and two output tubes. I do intend to offer a fully differential output for SE and true balanced outs.

The cheaper mod may be SS rectified with a single output tube and no balanced outputs. One significant cost factor is how the balanced outputs are implemented.

I have confirmed that the 36.5/9.0SE power transformer will (barely) fit inside the transporter and I do not believe this will contribute any noise to the circuit.

I will share more once I have the prototype updated with tube rectifier and bigger power transformer. From there I will go for the two tube-balanced output design.

I hope that my previous post wasn't mistaken by those who read it. The prototype is not quite as good as the 9100ES with our Signature Truth mods at this point, but it is NOT that far off. I am confident that the next step will truly get us there.

Thanks guys!

Dan W.

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #77 on:** 12 Aug 2007, 04:01 am »

Dan....

Any chance that this modded Transporter will be attending RMAF '07 ? Thanks....

Chris

modwright · « **Reply #78 on:** 14 Aug 2007, 12:40 am »

First of all, in the spirit of blow-by-blow design updates, this morning the unit was evaluated with the 'BIG' power transformer and tube rectification (5U4) and the result was a BIG thumbs up from all who heard it. It is still using a single 6CG7, but the next step will be to design a single board to house the PS circuitry and output stage with two tubes. I believe that our custom output transformers (Electraprint) will be used to create the balanced outputs and offer a lower output impedance.

The next step is to design a custom PCB for all of this that will make everything fit precistly inside the Transporter. I still expect to have this done by the end of the week.

There is a VERY good chance that a Transporter will be accompanying us to RMAF

. In fact, there will be a number of fun goodies to see and here in our room there.

Thanks,

Dan

mateo · « **Reply #79 on:** 14 Aug 2007, 04:03 pm »

This sounds amazing...

Also, are there still any plans to compare other output tubes (6922, etc.)? Is there a particular reason why you're moving away from the 5687?