• 01-01-2007, 04:46 PM
    avgjoe
    Benchmark Dac1 w/SB3 vs Transporter
    Okay, so Big Brother's Birthday is coming up. Being the audiophile he is, the parents and I want to get him something really nice. He's got a nice speaker system (Maggies 1.3s or 3.6s) so I suggested getting him a DAC and SB3. However, I went on the slimdevices website and I saw the Transporter which is a tad more expensive. I read a couple of reviews, including the soundstage review that indicated that the Transporter is as good as some of the priciest and best CD Player/DAC combos out there. My question remains however is how much is the difference in your opinion between the DAC1 and SB3 vs the Transporter?

    BTW, he's been wanting a DAC for a while and it might seem the first route would be the best as he already has a CD player as well but just for the sake of comparison, what would your opinion be regarding these two (three...) excellent products, or rather, configurations in comparison?
  • 01-01-2007, 07:51 PM
    Mike Anderson
    There's tons of debate about this exact topic on the slim devices forums, you're going to get way more feedback there (or just look at past threads) -- for example this thread:

    http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30530

    Personally, I'd go for the Transporter. It's supposed to have lower jitter measurements than the DAC1 (although I think for most people it's probably inaudible at those levels). But your bro is going to want the best for his 3.6's, just as a matter of principle, right?

    Plus, assuming his CD player has digital outs, he can plug that into the Transporter and use its high quality DAC. Note also that the Transporter has a word clock input if he wants to slave it to an external clock.
  • 01-02-2007, 11:35 AM
    ericl
    with an external DAC, you can also hook up other sources - dvdp, cd changer, etc. can you do that with the transporter?
  • 01-02-2007, 02:31 PM
    Dusty Chalk
    The Transporter will act as, amongst other things, an external DAC. So, yes.
  • 01-07-2007, 07:54 PM
    mlsstl
    I'm a current Squeezebox 3 user and really love it. However, I have a Transporter on order and it should be here in two or three days. I'm really looking forward to seeing just what of magnitude of improvement it offers over the current set-up. It is going to be interesting to see if it is worth the additional big bucks. I'll make it a point to post the initial impressions before the week is up.
  • 01-09-2007, 09:08 PM
    recoveryone
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mlsstl
    I'm a current Squeezebox 3 user and really love it. However, I have a Transporter on order and it should be here in two or three days. I'm really looking forward to seeing just what of magnitude of improvement it offers over the current set-up. It is going to be interesting to see if it is worth the additional big bucks. I'll make it a point to post the initial impressions before the week is up.

    Did I miss something? I think it would be nice to know if the guy has or is planning on doing a lot of ripping of his CD/Downloading of music. Both the squeezebox and transporter are nice addictions to a system:ihih: :ihih: . But the main purpose of both is for streaming compressed music. So the DAC may not be a bad ideal. But again if you got $2k sitting around get the transporter it will impress your guest if nothing else.
  • 01-10-2007, 07:57 AM
    Feanor
    I think I'd skip SlimDevices
    That is, for my particular use, I would perfer to skip the SlimDevices, both the SqueezeBox and Transporter, (though the latter is especially slick). Instead, I go for a DAC with USB input, (which the Benchmark is not), and feed it directly from my USB-attached computer running some music manager/player such as iTunes. To use either SlimDevice you need to run their proprietary music server program.

    Presently I use an M-Audio Audiophile USB external sound card. See my system configuration at the link below.
  • 01-10-2007, 08:58 AM
    recoveryone
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor
    That is, for my particular use, I would perfer to skip the SlimDevices, both the SqueezeBox and Transporter, (though the latter is especially slick). Instead, I go for a DAC with USB input, (which the Benchmark is not), and feed it directly from my USB-attached computer running some music manager/player such as iTunes. To use either SlimDevice you need to run their proprietary music server program.

    Presently I use an M-Audio Audiophile USB external sound card. See my system configuration at the link below.

    I guess that too is always the big question, Do you want your computer attached/in the same room as your audio gear. Most people that use the Squeezebox/Transpoter get them for the purpose of streaming their music via wireless or ethernet from a remote computer so the sounds of a computer fan or just the placement of a computer next to your stereo gear is not a factor. For me, the long term plan is too build a server and place it in the garage. My main rig I use now is a gaming rig and it has large fans to keep it cool (sounds as if I'm on a plane).

    From your setup it may work for some that don't mind hooking up their latop (if they have one) each time they want to stream music files. Also one other advantage of the SB and Transporter is the internet radio ability. I tune in to 4 HD radio stations that sound very nice and those are free ones. If you want to pay you can get 100's more with out ads/commericals. It all comes down to personal needs/wants:)
  • 01-10-2007, 02:55 PM
    mlsstl
    > But the main purpose of both (Squeezebox/Transporter) is for streaming compressed music.

    I'd have to disagree. My music collection is in lossless FLAC format with the computer server (Linux based) housed in a separate room. Music stored on a hard drive in lossless format is the equal of a CD transport. (Many would argue that it is better than a CD transport.) The key then becomes the quality of the DAC.
  • 01-10-2007, 03:18 PM
    recoveryone
    :confused:
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mlsstl
    > But the main purpose of both (Squeezebox/Transporter) is for streaming compressed music.

    I'd have to disagree. My music collection is in lossless FLAC format with the computer server (Linux based) housed in a separate room. Music stored on a hard drive in lossless format is the equal of a CD transport. (Many would argue that it is better than a CD transport.) The key then becomes the quality of the DAC.

    what are you disagreeing with? your music has been compressed (FLAC format) and you stated its on a computer in another room. So wouldn't that agree with the ideal that the SB (mainly) and transporter is for streaming your music from the computer via your network or even direct connection to your stereo.?? :confused:
  • 01-10-2007, 03:37 PM
    Mike Anderson
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mlsstl
    I'd have to disagree. My music collection is in lossless FLAC format....

    Recoveryone is correct - FLAC is compressed.

    Some people stream WAVs though, so I don't know if streaming compressed music is really the "main" purpose of the Squeezebox.
  • 01-10-2007, 04:18 PM
    mlsstl
    Sorry for the misread. I incorrectly mentally added a mental "lossy" to your streaming comment. However, the compressed issue is just an issue of storage space and nothing more. As noted, WAV, PCM and AIFF uncompressed formats are supported too. I just love the access to my music collection that the SB3 allows. (In fact, probably a third of collection has been converted from LP.)
  • 01-10-2007, 06:13 PM
    recoveryone
    No problem, just thought I had maybe misread something.
  • 01-11-2007, 08:34 PM
    mlsstl
    OK, the Transporter arrived this afternoon. It basically dropped into place (just moved the SB3 connections over) and gave a quick listen to affirm that all worked when I got home today. Finally, starting about 40 minutes ago I got a chance for some serious listening, though not at any volume. So, I've been playing some light jazz, solo classical guitar, some female folk vocalists and some chamber music.

    First impressions? Very impressive. Compared to the SB3 (which I could easily live with) it is smoother, more effortless and removes that last trace of harshness. The sense of space is very nice, even at these lower volumes. I'm going to enjoy my evaluation.

    Frankly the hard part is going to be determining if the Transporter is worth an extra $1,700. That's more than a couple days of taking your lunch to work instead of eating out. As noted, I could easily live with the SB3. It would have been an easy decision if the Transporter simply blew away the SB3 (or that the Transporter cost about half of what it does) but that obviously isn't going to be the case. We're talking increments of improvement that are going to make this a tough decision.

    Another minor issue is the 17" wide Transporter won't fit in the spot where I'd like to put it. Not the end of the world, but it is one more factor in the equation.

    I'll continue to give some thoughts as things progress. My personal timetable is to reach a final decision to keep or return here in the next week to 10 days.

    For those interested, the rest of the system is a pair of Spendor S5e speakers powered by a Bel Canto S300 digital amp, which is being driven directly by the Transporter (and SB3 prior to that.) The music server is a Linux based 2.4GHz, 1GB Ram PC with 380 MB of dedicated music storage in Flac that I built. The PC is housed in another room away from the listening room. The connection to the Transporter is 100MB wired ethernet (though I tried wireless and it works fine.) The music collection on the server is currently about 13,000 songs. About one-third of those are converted from LP (using Adobe Audition to convert.) Still a lot of work left to do on LP's that haven't been converted yet.
  • 01-12-2007, 08:57 AM
    recoveryone
    I only have the SB3, but your insight on the difference between the two is welcomed. I too like the look of the transporter, but don't see why the cost is so high. If the transporter was around $500 it would sell like hot cakes. For the increse in quality in sound from the SB3 I feel this would be the approperate cost level.

    To pay 2k for a transporter I would expect much much also, to the point that the transporter would be a full self contain system (A SB that held its own HD/Flash drive able to hold from 40gig-100 gig). That way you could rip directly to it from your system. With the size of 17" across and 3-4" depth is plenty of room to fit a HD (most laptops are not as wide). This is just my 2 cents.....I love my SB over the netgear Mp101 I had.
  • 01-12-2007, 09:48 AM
    mlsstl
    Actually, in the big scheme of things in a world that has many CD players that cost $5,000 and $10,000 or more, the Transporter is actually "reasonably" priced in that context. There are plenty of DACs-only that cost much more than the Transporter.

    However, I don't have the kind of budget for audio that makes this an easy decision. In light of the typical excesses (and often BS) of the high-end market, I think Slim Devices did a fairly credible job of actually watching the budget while still trying to build a no-holds barred machine. They could have just as easily thrown a $3,000 or $4,000 machine at us.

    They put a couple of things on the Transporter I could care less about. I'm not overly impressed with the second display on the right (that shows the meters and is switchable to a couple of other displays). And, in my fairly "clean" environment, I don't really need XLR connections to keep the noise floor down. All in all, they could have probably got the sonic quality I'd like for a couple hundred less. But a manufacturer always has to draw a line somewhere on the number of models they have since tooling up for production and determining the volume of production runs is a complex matter.

    For me, that means it is what it is and I have to make my decision within the parameters of what's available.
  • 01-12-2007, 11:05 AM
    aevans
    you may want to try and put an high quality external opamp setup on the sb3 and see if that is the same effect. I have a feeling that is the main differance in the sound quality.
  • 01-12-2007, 11:39 PM
    Mike Anderson
    mlsstl, sounds like you'd be better off with the SB3 + DAC solution. The price of good quality DACs are dropping like a rock these days, so if you don't want all the extra features of the Transporter, that's a much more cost-effective approach.
  • 01-12-2007, 11:43 PM
    Mike Anderson
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mlsstl
    It would have been an easy decision if the Transporter simply blew away the SB3 (or that the Transporter cost about half of what it does) but that obviously isn't going to be the case.

    BTW, that speaks more to the sound quality of the SB3 than anything else.

    As you are well aware, there are diminishing returns at some point. I'm very skeptical that you could find anything else in the same price range that truly "blows away" the SB3 (as in any joker off the street could tell the difference). We're really talking about comparatively subtle differences at that level.
  • 01-13-2007, 01:16 AM
    aevans
    After the discussion with mike the tiger about the sb3/transporter I can say that I really think a opamp upgrade would do wonders for the sb3 product:
    http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/burson/buffer.html

    I can't recommend this product enough, everytime I listen to music now I'm left with nothing but explicitives to discribe how good it sounds.
  • 01-13-2007, 10:24 AM
    Mike Anderson
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by aevans
    After the discussion with mike the tiger

    Not tiger - lawyer!

    I'll look into that buffer. Somebody else recommended a tube buffer for me, is there anything like that with the same high-quality opamps?

    My Benchmark DAC1 has an output impedance of 60 ohms, My pre-amps specs say input imedance of 220k Ohms. Is it going to make that much of a difference?
  • 01-13-2007, 02:01 PM
    aevans
    I thought you were justing using the sb3 by itself, so no I'm not sure if it would make as much of a difference, although I'm sure it would sound better. The buffer does have some tube like quailities that come through as details/airy highs/warm stuff ..

    I'm not too up snuff on the valve stuff as I've only used solid state for my own setup.

    digital equipment is 3 basic components, transport, dac, opamp.. I have found that the opamp is the largest difference in sound quality, 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.
  • 01-13-2007, 02:31 PM
    avgjoe
    hey mike, do you think my ordered sb3 will provide a better listening experience through my B&ws than thru my pc? Or would it be minimal until I upgrade my amp and so on and so forth...
  • 01-13-2007, 03:06 PM
    Geoffcin
    I dont know.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mike Anderson
    There's tons of debate about this exact topic on the slim devices forums, you're going to get way more feedback there (or just look at past threads) -- for example this thread:

    http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30530

    Personally, I'd go for the Transporter. It's supposed to have lower jitter measurements than the DAC1 (although I think for most people it's probably inaudible at those levels). But your bro is going to want the best for his 3.6's, just as a matter of principle, right?

    Plus, assuming his CD player has digital outs, he can plug that into the Transporter and use its high quality DAC. Note also that the Transporter has a word clock input if he wants to slave it to an external clock.

    I would have to see some good hard bench results to prove to me that the Transporter could outperform a DAC1. This is Logitecs first foray into the audiophile field, I find it hard to believe they could best one of the top players the first time out.

    I admit it's a cool looking unit though.
  • 01-13-2007, 07:16 PM
    recoveryone
    Hey Geoffcin, the SB and transporter have been around for a while, Logitech just brought out the parent company (Slim Devices). So its a proven product.