[bhobba]

Listen to the music you love in any room in your home. Browse and play songs from your personal collection, online music services, and Internet radio. Control your existing Squeezebox or Transporter™ from anywhere in your home, or just add a second Network Music Controller to your Squeezebox Duet setup.

Thanks for the info.  Did some internet searches and understand how it all fits together better now.  My concern now is with a Jive remote the display and standard remote of the transporter is pretty redundant.  I wonder if and when a version of transporter will be available similar to a duet receiver    I hate paying for useless features - it is a real turn off  

Thanks
Bill

[bhobba]

I hate paying for useless features - it is a real turn off  

Of course what is useless for one can be manna from heaven to another.  'Cool' looking means nothing to me, durability, sound quality and functionality are all important.  To others the 'cool' factor of a transporter as it currently is may be rather important.  Really hard for manufactures to satisfy everyone.

Thanks
Bill

[modwright]

First of all, thank you Srajan for agreeing to review our modified Transporter.  Secondly thank you to Srajan for the into and to all those who have chimed in here on this thread.

I won't comment on the software/ripping end of things as I too am learning more about this end of the technology.  FWIW, I use EAC to FLAC and feel that FLAC vs. WAV files sound the same to me.  The wireless vs. ethernet comparison is one that I haven't had a chance to directly A/B yet.

I have not used any USB connected DACs with computers, so I can't say how this sounds.  The Transporter is connected via ethernet or WiFi for my uses and that is how our mod was voiced.

My ears tell me that jitter is a non-issue with the Transporter and I believe that the stock clock in the unit is quite good.  The AKM DAC chip is also excellent IMHO.  Comparisons of the modified Transporter to the stock or modified SB aren't really fair, considering that the DAC chips, power supplies and digital out circuits are quite different first of all and our analog stage in the Transporter also truly transforms the unit of course.

I agree with others, that early computer-DAC options did NOT sound good.  Jitter, edge, glare and 'digital' were all choice words that I would use to describe the sound.  It is only now, with the Transporter and a good tube analog stage, that I feel that we are able to achieve true Class A performance from a digital source.

I welcome the results of Srajan's review and I am excited to hear his findings, especially considering the different options he has for comparing it to other similar computer based products as well as conventional DACs and players.

I truly believe that this is the future of digital audio and I believe that our customers say it best.  I will continue to post our customers' feedback on the other Transporter thread on our forum.

Thanks,

Dan W.

[Danny Kaey]

I suppose I'll chime in here ...

having used my computer(s) as one of my sources throughout the past three or four years, I think I can come to certain conclusions based on my experiences.

1. using computers to playback your coveted music files while convenient, is not an easy task to get right.  Your basic PC is a bastion for noise.  Noise is everywhere.  Noisy power supplies, noisy this, noisy that.  Not a good place to start.

2. using expensive PCI cards instead of your onboard sound is a possible solution, though not nearly as good as getting away from the computer in first place.

3. logical conclusion would be to have a FireWire or USB output dump data into an outboard DAC of your choice.  This appears to solve many of the issues I have mentioned earlier.  Fortunately, several USB solutions are available, and Weiss is also in the process of releasing a 4-5k priced FireWire DAC in the near future.  emmlabs also featured a new DAC at CES which utilizes the USB interface.

4. the issue with #3 is that you will need to have your computer or laptop running all the time as the interface between you and your music.  Some people are fine with this, others are not.

5. those that aren't, would opt for something like a networked playback device, Transporter, Squeezebox, Sonos, etc.  Naturally, these being mass manufactured consumer devices, sound quality is not a priority, except for TP which was designed with "audiophiles" in mind.  Though of course Sean Adams, engineer of the TP, thinks the TP is about as good as one could make it, you can find his stories and such @ the slimdevices forums.

6. of course, none of the above even begin to enter the world of ripping your favorite silver discs onto your hard drive.  I happen to prefer Poikosoft's Easy CD-DA Extractor, which does a fine job of being an all-in-one stop shop for all your audio ripping duties.  Unlike many in the established audiophile press, I happen to at times prefer the sound of LAME encoded mp3's at 320kps over the redbook standard wave files.  This obviously doesn't apply to high-res 24 bit 88.1 and higher sampling rate files.  I can't explain it, don't know why, but that's just the way it is.  Other then LAME, is use FLAC to encode, since wave files don't store any kind of metadata.  I think there is still a ton that is going on here that we don't understand, much like digital in general I would say.

I have heard Dan's TP briefly at RMAF and CES and must say I am impressed, considering I am familiar with the stock sound.  Dan's TP will be coming my way shortly so look for impressions and detailed info soon.

This is really exciting!

Dan has definitely another winner on his golden hands.

[miklorsmith]

. . .I happen to at times prefer the sound of LAME encoded mp3's at 320kps over the redbook standard wave files. . .

Very interesting, care to elaborate?  In what situations does this arise?

[Danny Kaey]

I haven't been able to quantify this scientifically - but certain pop / rock music seems to benefit from this conversion.  It has been theorized that the LAME 320 encoding process ads something of some kind to the data and music that is perceived as pleasant vs. the same file w/o the conversion.  Certain early digital recordings I have played with exhibit the same benefit and remarks...

Ironically, music which seems to contain complex instruments appears to benefit as well...

the benefits range from tighter and more defined bass, clearer articulation of instruments and vocals and a smoother top end, perhaps "less digital glare" if it were...

I have been in touch with LAME's main developer - he of course insists that all this is pure imagination...  what with all these audiophiles injecting subjectivism into the whole mix... 

Fact of the matter is however that these improvements were noticed and independently verified by several of my confidants...

[ted_b]

Very interesting.  I'm gonna try it with a few songs, especially ones wrought with digititis (preset insane is Lame 320, BTW).  Sounds illogical, but I've heard sillier arguments that work. 

[Jon L]

I haven't been able to quantify this scientifically - but certain pop / rock music seems to benefit from this conversion. 

I also find 320 MP3 often preferable to uncompressed files, but only for heavily-compressed pop/rock that shows all kind of warts when lossless is used.  My feeling is that these files are already compressed and EQ'd to hell, so they don't really have much more information to offer going from MP3 to lossless.  On the other hand, MP3-dropped bits often have the effect of smoothing over some nasty hardness and compression artifacts, sounding more pleasant. 

I would have to compare EMM Labs USB implementation and Weiss firewire to really good pro spdif card, but so far IME, using a good pro soundcard with a lot of noise rejection engineered into it to generate spdif out to outboard DAC is the best that I have heard out of the PC. 

Gordon, for example, runs Lynx spdif out of his tricked-out PC.  Me, too

[flaneb]

I have a modwright transporter and find it superb. It is capable of serving up music that sounds live and I do not believe it would be a weak link
in any system. I have been into hard drive based music since the 90's and things have really improved but the storage medium has always
been superior in many ways. The music that is created,manipulated,used in concerts etc..is contained on hard drives..(eventually flash memory) .
Also I still see comments on tubes being old technology, it is, but most musicians use amps containing tubes because of the sound.
Personally I find the modwright superior (to my ears) than many other dacs I have tried e.g. Benchmark,apogee firewire, and several others
connected with a hagusb or trends. Add to that the instant gratification of hearing any song you own within seconds is something that
is hard to beat. Some find the modwright transporter expensive but to my ears it is a bargain and opens up an incredible new world.
Never lose sight that the main thing about music, is to enjoy it.
frank