Interference from computer

[avgjoe]

Ok, so I was at my friend's house today and he showed me his father's b&w 805s. I was impressed by the sound considering I have/bought a used pair of dm601s for a very good price. Nonetheless, we got into an argument talking about the squeezebox 3 and transporter. I was presenting Mike Andersen's viewpoint that the music sounds better if not as good from sb3 w/ an outboard dac or even better from a transporter than a high end cd player like his father has. After giving him a list of reasons why the sound should be the same if not better, he posed an interesting question. He stated that no matter how silent you make a pc, even its presence would adversely affect sound quality of one's music if the pc is located in a room with the squeezebox 3 where the main speaker system sits. I thought this was far fetched and untrue. However, I countered his argument by saying that you could buy a transporter, a wireless router, and a wireless server and the price/performance ratio would still be better than a high end cd player. Furthermore you would get the convenience of having all your music on demand and available easily and able to be backed up by a wireless server. He said my claims were rubbish.

:6: I want to prove him wrong. Who do you guys think is right?

[Dusty Chalk]

I thought the Transporter was already wireless? Or is it wired only?

But look -- you took the PC out of the room with your hypothetical situation, so his main criticism falls apart.

That said, I've heard a Transporter as a DAC vs. a Wadia (the Wadia was acting as transport in both cases) -- the result? Indistinguishable. I wish we could have compared a ripped disk to the same disk being played in both cases, as I think the wirelessness adds a small degree of jitter, but I don't know whether or not it will be audible.

[mlsstl]

I've used a SB3 for some time now and been extremely pleased. It is easily the equal of my Nad C542, a highly regarded and musical transport (though not a pricey one.) My music server is several rooms away on a different floor. PC noise is not an issue. I ordered a Transporter and it arrived today and it is clearly superior to the SB3. The hard question now during my evaluation period, is it $1,700 better? Listening to Julian Bream play a little Granados on the classical guitar right now. Very impressive. One guitar with nothing to hide behind.

[mlsstl]

An addendum - the Transporter supports both ethernet and 802.11b/g wireless. Works fine either way (I've tried both.)

[avgjoe]

Yes, but for the sake of argument, I don't think the presence of the computer in the room if it is off will create jitter or am i wrong? And even if there is jitter added would it be an audible even to those "golden ear audiophiles."

Nonetheless at least I know i'm right about the sb3 and its capability as a music source. :6:

[Dusty Chalk]

...I don't think the presence of the computer in the room if it is off will create jitter or am i wrong?No, not at all, I was speaking too quickly, and two concepts accidentally came together.
And even if there is jitter added would it be an audible even to those "golden ear audiophiles."Well, that's the question now, innit? And no generalizations can be made -- each setup has its own jitter, and each listener has his own threshold of ...well, not "pain" per se, let's call it threshold of intolerance -- that value of jitter beyond which one can't tolerate it. Some people's "JIT" (Jitter Intolerance Threshold) is pretty high -- mine's pretty low. It's not "golden ears" low, but it's pretty low.

That said, none of this is important. I was confirming that his premise -- presence of computer negates "blackness" of background that golden ears require -- was rendered moot by your moving the computer out of the room. So, you're right.

[aevans]

I've got to vote for a negative here, the electronic gadgets that you are suggesting to put up against some very heavy hitters just can not compete.

You will have RF interference from the equipment as it all uses the same electronics and dirty power supplies of a PC. you can do what ever you want with the digital signal, but after the DAC you need to keep it as far away from anything not blessed by the audio gods.

Unless you take the lid off and it looks something like this, keep your rca's/xlr's away from it.
http://i15.ebayimg.com/07/i/000/83/0c/c240_3.JPG

[mlsstl]

Not sure what your photo proves. I see lots of "dirty electronics" in that device. Power supplies, transformers, dirty integrated circuits, digital circuitry, nominal internal shielding, dreaded ribbon cables, electrolytic caps and so on. My "dirty" PC is too far away from my system to be a source of RF interference - remember from a physics standpoint that the inverse square rule applies when it comes to distance and RF power. The digital stream from the PC is buffered by either SB3 or Transporter and then the clocking is supplied by the units not the PC. The jitter measured on the Slim Devices units is lower than many high end CD players.

[aevans]

I'm talking about the sb3/transporter being more dirty than a purpose built high end cd player, by means of power supply and additional electronics that are needed for the ethernet connection, processor, etc. etc.

From what I can tell, without looking under the hood, the slim audio stuff is basically a lowend pc that has been stripped and upgraded with some audiophile stuff.

[avgjoe]

Yes but even when your computer is off is it still producing RF interference if it located in the same room as the main speaker system? I mean if you have a server that is on 24/7 a floor beneath, you can't be telling me that the the computer source a floor beneath has an effect on the sound quality from the sb3/transporter.

BTW getting a sb3 for myself!!!

[mlsstl]

> the slim audio stuff is basically a lowend pc...

Wrong. The SB3 and Transporter are not personal computers. No hard drive, no Intel or AMD CPU, no video card. It is an ethernet/wireless 802.11b/g receiver with a DAC. It does some minimal processing to control the display, play music and respond to the remote. Anything that responds to a remote has a processing unit. If you want avoid dirty RFI, you need to ban your TV, cell phone, and about a bazillion other devices to the next state.

Your CD player generates a digital data stream similar to what the SB/TP receives from the remote computer's hard drive. The hard drive actually has an advantage because it can stream at such a high speed and that data is buffered in a memory device. Many CD players deliver data much slower and the data is not buffered which can complicate jitter problems.

If you stop and think about how digital music is recorded, it is written to a hard drive and streamed from there for editing, mastering and further recording. One can argue the SB/TP method of delivering music to your amp and speakers is closer to what the recording studios do than how CDs handle the issue.

[aevans]

so you are suggesting that the Transporter has a cleaner signal than any cd player because it does not have a cd player in it? it's and interesting idea that I had not thorugh about.

I'd still like to see what the components inside the transporter look like.

[Mike Anderson]

so you are suggesting that the Transporter has a cleaner signal than any cd player because it does not have a cd player in it? it's and interesting idea that I had not thorugh about.

I'd still like to see what the components inside the transporter look like.

You don't have to wonder, there are plenty of photos on the Slimdevices forums.

Also, look at the jitter measurements:

http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_transporter.html

Jitter (standard deviation):

* 11ps at oscillator (intrinsic jitter)
* 17ps at DAC
* 35ps at S/PDIF receiver

Anybody who says they can detect jitter that slight should step up and prove it in a blind test. I sure as hell don't have ears that good.

[Mike Anderson]

This thread has some photos of the innards, although I think there are some better shots somewhere:

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27857&page=4&highlight=photos+transporter

[Dusty Chalk]

so you are suggesting that the Transporter has a cleaner signal than any cd player because it does not have a cd player in it? it's and interesting idea that I had not thorugh about.

I'd still like to see what the components inside the transporter look like.I think what you meant was, "I'd still like to hear one for myself."

Right?

[Mike Anderson]

I was presenting Mike Andersen's viewpoint that the music sounds better if not as good from sb3 w/ an outboard dac or even better from a transporter than a high end cd player like his father has.

Just to clarify slightly, my position is that if you're comparing a high end CD player to something like the Transporter or a SB+high end DAC, the two are basically indistinguishable, at least to anybody without extremely exceptional ears.

Perhaps someone with extremely exceptional ears could differentiate between the two, but I don't know any such person, and I don't know which they would say is better.



He stated that no matter how silent you make a pc, even its presence would adversely affect sound quality of one's music if the pc is located in a room with the squeezebox 3 where the main speaker system sits.

What was the logic behind his statement?



He said my claims were rubbish.

Based on what?

If you want to prove him wrong, you have two choices:

(1) Challenge him to lay out his thinking in a logical, analytically rigorous, factually accurate fashion, then counter him with your own logical, analytically rigorous, factually accurate response; or

(2) Get him to take a blinded listening test and challenge him to distinguish between two such systems.

Even if you could do both of these, you may never convince him. People can be amazingly stubborn with their opinions!

[aevans]

there are other things besides jitter that color sound, but everything does look pretty well layed out. one thing that struck me is that I did not see any opamps.. they may be there, I just didn't see them.

I still think it would be a strange thing if it could match the sound of a krell or similar priced product.

[Mike Anderson]

What comparable product does Krell make?

Keep in mind, the Transporter is not a preamp. Technically, it can be used as a pre-amp (because it has volume control), but it's really designed more to function as a transport+DAC, not a preamp.

[Mike Anderson]

there are other things besides jitter that color sound

Only in the analog output stage, assuming you have a bit-perfect digital signal. With something like the Transporter or the Squeezebox, you don't even need to use the analog stage. I run my SB2 into a Benchmark DAC1, although I'm sure there are DACs with better output stages and lower jitter -- mind you, I don't hardly claim my system is perfect, just comparable to or better than what you'd get with a CD player for the same amount of money, particularly when you account for the music management capabilities.

[aevans]

What comparable product does Krell make?

Keep in mind, the Transporter is not a preamp. Technically, it can be used as a pre-amp (because it has volume control), but it's really designed more to function as a transport+DAC, not a preamp.

transport/dac/opamps/optional preamp:
http://www.krellonline.com/html/m_ClassA_p_KPS25sc.html


Only in the analog output stage, assuming you have a bit-perfect digital signal. With something like the Transporter or the Squeezebox, you don't even need to use the analog stage. I run my SB2 into a Benchmark DAC1, although I'm sure there are DACs with better output stages and lower jitter --

My original comments were based around using the rca outs on the back of the transporter

yeah running through an extrenal dac removes any problem that could come up, it's like using any cd player as a transport.. as long as it has optical out it does not matter where it is comming from minus jitter stuff which I think we both agree is crap for the most part.



mind you, I don't hardly claim my system is perfect, just comparable to or better than what you'd get with a CD player for the same amount of money, particularly when you account for the music management capabilities.

The OP was about compairing it to more expensive cd players which is where my initial objection occured. I'm sure it's a price/performance leader and all of that, but it's not the end all be of digital transports as far as I can tell.

[Mike Anderson]

transport/dac/opamps/optional preamp:
http://www.krellonline.com/html/m_ClassA_p_KPS25sc.html

I wouldn't have thought of that as a "comparable" product.

First off, I bet that thing costs a fortune. But I know you were thinking of a price-free comparison. Now I know the thread started with a comparison of the SB with high-end stuff, so fair enough -- but --

With that thing, you have all the mechanics required to read the data off the CD -- with the SB or Transporter, you don't have to pay for that, because you can let your computer do the work (and take the time) necessary to get a bit-perfect copy.

Now, putting price aside:

That Krell has a Class A pre-amp. Neither the SB nor the Transporter is designed to act as such. (Although they have the flexibility such that you could feed this thing with either.)

But most importantly, that Krell can't manage your collection of 1200 CDs, or 10,000 CDs, or whatever.

That's the thing people don't get about the new computer-based devices: I can choose any song from a collection of thousands of CDs, in a couple seconds, without getting out of my chair.

Or, I can have it play songs at random. Or, I can build playlists with dozens of songs, instantly. Or, I can browse or search through my collection instantaneously.

Want to randomly play all songs in the genre "jazz"? Simple. Want to play all songs from 1996? Just as easy. Want to play all songs with the word "Winter" in the song title? No problem.

How about Internet radio, can the Krell do that? I didn't look at it very carefully, but somehow, I don't think so!

I really have to say, until you've experienced this, you have no idea how cool it is! It has literally changed the way I listen to music. And with the Internet radio capability, it has also expanded my musical horizons literally by an order of magnitude.

Now it's a bit unfair, because we're trying to compare apples and oranges here (and I realized you're focused entirely on sound quality), but... that's the whole point! This is a whole new category of fruit. Don't ignore it just because you don't think it's not true audiophile. If you want "true audiophile", just run the thing into a $5k DAC and the best pre-amp/amp/speakers in the world. Just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

[aevans]

here is the difference:
Impedance: 100 Ohms

While good and tons better than say your average sony which is 1000 ohms the krell's opamps are putting it down to 16 ohms. This is where you get your added details.

If you outputted to an external dac, then to an external opamp, like the burson audio opamps I posted a review of, you would be in the 13-30ohm range, but you can do that with any cd player really, and would probably be a good lower cost upgrade to the SB3 than the transporter.

[aevans]

I wouldn't have thought of that as a "comparable" product.


now you see understand why I was not agreeing with the jist of the original argument.


Just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

cool stuff is just that, cool.. I've been using my comp for storing and sorting audio for years, but I don't think of it as a audiophile product.. I could get a good sound card and output to a dac, but at this point I'd rather dig through my collection of cd's everytime I want to hear something really sound good, it kind of a meditation that prepares me for listening.

I'll give it a few more years to solidify and when they have a few more companies doing it I may be able to justify the cost of conveniance, but I'm not interested right now. At this point they would need to stop selling cd's tomorrow for me to purchase something like this, it's just not my cup of tea.

[Mike Anderson]

but you can do that with any cd player really, and would probably be a good lower cost upgrade to the SB3 than the transporter.

Yabutt... Name me a CD player you can load X thousands of CDs into, that will access them instantly, with very good quality sound, and has all the music management capabilities I mentioned above?

Now, sound quality-wise, I can't speak to the Transporter versus the SB, because I have yet to hear a Transporter, so you may well be right on that score. (And which is exactly why I recommended that sort of solution to the OP, who is clearly conscious of quality for the dollar.)

But as far as CD players, forget it. And I'm not talkin' sound quality there, I'm talking THOUSANDS OF CDs AT YOUR FINGERTIPS, ALL MANAGEABLE, SEARCHABLE, AND CONTROLLED BY COMPUTER!

[aevans]

whats the output impedance on the SB3? I can't find it listed in the specs?

[Mike Anderson]

cool stuff is just that, cool.. I've been using my comp for storing and sorting audio for years, but I don't think of it as a audiophile product.

Well hold on here, I think you also admitted that given a high quality DAC and pre-amp, it doesn't matter what the source of the digital signal is, correct?


I could get a good sound card and output to a dac, but at this point I'd rather dig through my collection of cd's everytime I want to hear something really sound good, it kind of a meditation that prepares me for listening.

Fair enough. Ultimately it comes down to personal preferences.

Personally, I like to entertain a lot. So when I throw a party, and I know what kind of people are coming, I can throw together several dozen tunes in a playlist, or have the computer select from a genre at random, and I find it extremely cool. So do my guests, who like to browse through my collection with the remote or the computer, and add songs of their own to the pool.

It's like a friggin' cosmic jukebox.

Also, I tend to hear stuff I haven't heard for a long time. By putting the computer on random, it will play things I never would have thought to play consciously.


I'll give it a few more years to solidify and when they have a few more companies doing it I may be able to justify the cost of conveniance...

OK, but I have to say: We're not talking about simple convenience. We're talking about raw power.

I suppose the folks who simply walked or road horses might have called the first automobiles "convenient", but... was that really an accurate term to use, given how revolutionary the change was?

[aevans]

I suppose the folks who simply walked or road horses might have called the first automobiles "convenient", but... was that really an accurate term to use, given how revolutionary the change was?

a good word for it is lazy ;) thanks for the good debate, I will keep this product in mind, if I lose use of my legs of something :)

Also, I would suggest you take a look at the opamp upgrade I mentioned, as I think it would offer you a good price performance upgrade on the SB3. and bring you to spec with the krell... minus the secret krell voodoo of course. It really made music a whole lot more musical, especially for the few mp3 encoded discs I have laying around.

[Mike Anderson]

^^^ Thanks, I definitely will keep that in mind.

And if by any chance you live in the SF Bay Area, consider yourself cordially invited to come check out my rig some time!

Mike

[aevans]

I'm in Louisiana, but if I ever end up on that side of the world I'll look you up.

[Mike Anderson]

Definitely do so.

You're obviously an extremely knowledgeable fellow (I read your other thread on the Class A amps), and I'm always anxious to meet friendly folks I can learn from.

[mlsstl]

Catching up on a hodgepodge of comments:

Mike sez > "It has literally changed the way I listen to music."

Bingo. Give the man a cigar. I am just in love with the way that SB/TP gives me access to my music collection. I've currently have around 13,000 songs ripped (about one-third of those from LP, many not available on CD.) I can move from classical to jazz to rock instantly. I can build eclectic playlists for listening sessions. I can compare different recordings of Beethoven's Appassionata back-to-back. I can actually find my music without having to remember where I filed away the disk (10 different artists on a sampler CD - now where did I put that?) I kind of had aevan's attitude until I used my original SliMP3. (Of course, that had some real quality limitations.) Now the thought of having dig through records or CDs one at a time is an impediment I'm happy to be rid of.

Of course, as with anything, other people's mileage may vary. Just because something floats my boat doesn't mean everyone else will feel the same.

Regarding the output impedance issue, one has to be careful not to automatically assign too much weight to this. The traditional rule in electronics is that if you have a ten-to-one ratio between an amp's input impedance and the source's output, then you should be fine. If you have two signal sources that both meet the 10:1 rule but do vary in output impedance, there is a good chance there is something else going on if they do not sound the same.

A bit of research found the output impedance of the SB2 (and probably 3) is 220 ohms. The Transporter is 100 ohms. Directly driving my Bel Canto S300 with either gives ratios of either 45:1 or 100:1. Contrast that to my Conrad Johnson PV10 tube preamp which has an output impedance of 800 ohms (~12:1) . While I am going to sell the CJ preamp as I no longer need multiple line level input sources, it was and is a wonderful sounding piece of equipment. I certainly can't look at it wistfully and wish it's output impedance were lower. For whatever reasons they had when they designed the circuitry of that preamp, they certainly did a good job and got very musical results.

Of course, audio magazines (and manufacturers) seem to easily fall into the habit of ascribing all good (or evil as the case may be) to one or two traits or specs that happen to fit their fad du jour. Music is an extremely complex phenomenon and designing audio circuits to faithfully reproduce that music is a similarly complex challenge. Ultimately, as consumers, the specs or technical details may seem enticing, but the real test is what we hear when we listen. For me, the SB3 is quite good. I would have to say stunningly so for the price. The Transporter is even better. It is the equal of any reproduced music source I've heard anywhere. Again I cannot look at it with misty eyes and say "if ONLY they had made the output impedance 10 ohms instead of 100...." (heavy sigh.) Right now it is just a budget issue - doable, but is it worth it?

[avgjoe]

Mike, my friend stated that the computer, even when off, runs power through the motherboard, and thus could POTENTIALLY cause some amount of disturbance to the audio signal.

I personally think my friend is just angry becuase he didn't think of getting the sb3 in the first place. He's usually the more technical one. :)

BTW, considering I bought an SB3 recently. Will there be any issues if I have my computer about a 2 meters away along with my wireless modem and router? Also is there a difference between using the wired ethernet cable vs wirelessly streaming music? Any delay or other problems associated the wireless over the wired option?

[aevans]

avgjoe - if you can't hear it then there is no difference.. I have my computer about 3 feet from my system at the moment and can't tell any difference.

[mlsstl]

2 meters (6 ft) should be more than ample distance from an RFI standpoint. You're more likely to be bothered by the noise of the computer fan and hard drive access.

Wired vs wireless is moot with a SB3. Music CD data at it's fastest is about 1.4 Mb/sec (megabits) and even the lowly 802.11b connection is seven to eight times faster. Both wired/wireless connections are buffered to give added stability to the connection. You can literally unplug the ethernet cable on the wired connection and the SB3 will continue playing for 8 or 10 seconds, using the data stored in the buffer.

The only issue with 802.11 wireless is it runs at 2.4GHz. Some wireless phones or other household items can potentially interfere but you'd probably already have noticed this on your computer connection by now if an issue. If nothing else, having your wireless router only 2 meters from the SB3 should eliminate that issue.

[aevans]

Regarding the output impedance issue, one has to be careful not to automatically assign too much weight to this. The traditional rule in electronics is that if you have a ten-to-one ratio between an amp's input impedance and the source's output, then you should be fine. If you have two signal sources that both meet the 10:1 rule but do vary in output impedance, there is a good chance there is something else going on if they do not sound the same.


the output impedance is more of a sign of the quality put into the opamp, IMO it's the main difference outside of the dac between lowend equipment and highend. I'm not an electrical engineer, but I can guess that the reason for the big change in the sound is that less resistance is usualy better, and 10 to 20 times less is usually a pretty good difference.



A bit of research found the output impedance of the SB2 (and probably 3) is 220 ohms. The Transporter is 100 ohms. Directly driving my Bel Canto S300 with either gives ratios of either 45:1 or 100:1. Contrast that to my Conrad Johnson PV10 tube preamp which has an output impedance of 800 ohms (~12:1) . While I am going to sell the CJ preamp as I no longer need multiple line level input sources, it was and is a wonderful sounding piece of equipment. I certainly can't look at it wistfully and wish it's output impedance were lower. For whatever reasons they had when they designed the circuitry of that preamp, they certainly did a good job and got very musical results.


I was talking about digital equipment, I'm sure the tube in the preamp had more to do with the musical quality of the preamp than the output impedance.



Of course, audio magazines (and manufacturers) seem to easily fall into the habit of ascribing all good (or evil as the case may be) to one or two traits or specs that happen to fit their fad du jour. Music is an extremely complex phenomenon and designing audio circuits to faithfully reproduce that music is a similarly complex challenge. Ultimately, as consumers, the specs or technical details may seem enticing, but the real test is what we hear when we listen.

I have not read an audio magazine in years, and don't hold what they say in much regard, I'm compairing what I can see in the specs and hear in the equipment.



For me, the SB3 is quite good. I would have to say stunningly so for the price. The Transporter is even better. It is the equal of any reproduced music source I've heard anywhere. Again I cannot look at it with misty eyes and say "if ONLY they had made the output impedance 10 ohms instead of 100...." (heavy sigh.) Right now it is just a budget issue - doable, but is it worth it?

digital equipment is 3 basic components, transport, dac, opamp.. I have found in my experiance that the opamp is the largest difference in sound quality of digital sources, and also the most neglected piece in budget components. looking at the ultra highend stuff the only thing seperating it from a $1000 unit is the opamp and maybe some stacked dac's which I tend to think is much less important, and more smoke than substance.

[mlsstl]

There is an incongruity between your comments on the tube amp and the "opamp" stage of a DAC. They serve the same electrical purpose - to bring a (now) analog signal up to line level voltage to drive the next device in system, be it another processing stage or a power amp. If output impedance is critical for the output amp of the analog end of a SB3, TP, DAC or CD player, then it is also critical for a tube preamp - you can't change the rules of the game midway through. As noted, once you are beyond a 10:1 ratio, there are plenty of other things to worry about.

Output impedance is a factor of circuit topology and a designer may well have decided there are greater things he can work on. Tube preamp output impedance can run from under 100 ohms to 1,000 or more depending on the design choices made. In these cases one has to be careful not to confuse correlation with causality.

[aevans]

There is an incongruity between your comments on the tube amp and the "opamp" stage of a DAC. They serve the same electrical purpose - to bring a (now) analog signal up to line level voltage to drive the next device in system, be it another processing stage or a power amp.


I know very little of tubes, but my comment was on the tube coloring the sound.



If output impedance is critical for the output amp of the analog end of a SB3, TP, DAC or CD player, then it is also critical for a tube preamp - you can't change the rules of the game midway through. As noted, once you are beyond a 10:1 ratio, there are plenty of other things to worry about.


usually people have a matched set - preamp and poweramp, so it's not so much of an issue, although I understand what you are saying, it would be a possible benifit to place a buffer between any unmatched components, but the source is the item that is usually not matched at all.



Output impedance is a factor of circuit topology and a designer may well have decided there are greater things he can work on. Tube preamp output impedance can run from under 100 ohms to 1,000 or more depending on the design choices made. In these cases one has to be careful not to confuse correlation with causality.

I'm just looking at what I see, if you can find me a cd player over $5k that has 1000ohm outputs, I'll agree that it has nothing at all to do with sound.

this has good information:
http://www.bursonaudio.com/Burson%20HDAM%20Buffer.htm

[mlsstl]

1. Buffers can be helpful under some circumstances, but they cannot restore sound that has been already degraded by a prior stage of electronics. Just like a song compressed in lossy MP3 format cannot have the bits restored that were thrown away during encoding.

2. Not sure why it is my job to run down an expensive CD player with those specs. I'm out of the CD player market.

I was speaking in general terms of circuit topology. While output impedance cannot be ignored, it is not the one holy grail of design goals. There are lots of other factors that affect sound and certainly a lot of debate among circuit designers as how those various items rank in terms of priority. Not sure any more needs to be said unless you wish to get into an advanced technical discussion.

To get back to music, I've done extensive listening to the Transporter today and last night with a very broad range of music. I plan to put together a review this evening and I'll post that under a new subject heading for those interested.

[aevans]

1. which is why you put the buffer behind the source.

2. I didn't expect you to, but if there is a cd player that you admire, I do think that if you looked up the spec you would see that they are all very low ohm output.

I'm not up for an advanced discussion, as I'm not qualified to partake.. I still will push this issue as much as you suggest the sb3/transporter, because I think it can greatly improve the quality of the sound of most sources.

I look forward to your review, and will keep it in mind for my living room system as I'm sure it could help when entertaining guests.

[mlsstl]

Actually, entertaining guests is the last reason I would advocate as a reason to own an SB/TP. When we have guests over, conversation and companionship are the focus and music is little more than background for us. For me it is access and management of my music collection for my benefit, without loss of sound quality.

[aevans]

when entertaining guest I mainly focus on getting drunk off my ass and rattling the windows with whatever my guests want to dance to. Tossing a remote with access to all of my music to the person who took the last shot of jack would spice up any drinking game. it should work better than trying to carefully handle my cd collection and load a cd tray while blitzed.

[avgjoe]

Alright thanks guys. I think it'll be alright, then. I can't wait to get it. It's being shipped as we speak!:cornut: Luckily, thanks to silentpcreview.com, my computer is virtually silent from about 2 feet away besides a small whine that's being emitted from my psu.

[Mike Anderson]

^^^Joe, the only issues with wireless that I know of have nothing to do with sound quality, it's a connectivity issue.

Some people can't get the wireless to work well with their networks. There may be many reasons for it -- firewalls, interference, etc. A small number of people can't get their SBs to be recognized by the networks (probably a firewall issue most commonly).

I decided just to get 40 ft of CAT5 and wire mine to avoid any such problems (I have one of those b*tchy firewalls, for one thing, and I didn't want to have to worry about dropout anyway).

But assuming you have any connection at all, the sound quality of the wireless setup is the same as wired.

[mlsstl]

> aevans sez: "which is why you put the buffer behind the source."

The only catch to that is the signal has already passed through an analog circuit in the DAC itself. If output impedance is the ONLY factor causing a loss of sound quality, then you help the situation. If the internal analog circuit in the DAC is subpar (noise floor, distortion, freq response, dynamic range, etc, etc) then a buffer cannot correct those flaws as they have already become part of the analog signal. So, a buffer is not a universal fix. It can help in a few situations, but won't fix many others.

And that situation also assumes that the buffer has no sonic quirks or signature of it's own.

[aevans]

don't knock it till you try it. I'm sure I can't convince you, as you are just opposed to the idea that I may have a point. I would suggest it over the transporter if you are looking for a sonic upgrade to the sb3. think there is a return policy, if you are unhappy with the results, although you would need to check with burson on that.

[mlsstl]

Not sure I understand the drift of this conversation. I've never "knocked" the device. Buffers serve a distinct and useful purpose in the world of electronics and I've clearly said that. There are certain problems where they offer a great solution and other situations where they are not effective. That isn't a negative statement.

An analogy: you may have the finest screwdriver in the world, but if the project at hand needs a hammer, the former isn't going to help much.

In this case, the output impedance is already ten times greater than necessary to prevent adverse interaction with driving my amp. (One of my hobbies is rebuilding amps and other audio equipment and I've got a basement full of oscilloscopes, distortion analyzers, meters and other test equipment so I'm pretty comfortable around electronics.)