Slim Devices Transporter -- Anyone bought One Yet? - Page 2

Did you see the meeting thread forum? Some people directly compared it to a Wadia DAC.

I think what you are doing is a waste.
Using the Transporter as a transport only is not doing what this product was meant to do.

Moreover, The SB3 is equal to the Transporter as a transport, really. they are both almost perfect as a transporter.
So for 1700$ difference, I think the SB3 will give you the same result

actually the slim devices makes you have to use their own software (no itunes or foobar, right?) and it won't play DRM stuff like tunes you got from the itunes store. i'm figuring to give the linksys music bridge a go soon, which just basically acts as a wireless soundcard, since it will play anything an internal soundcard would (meaning, everything). gaming, movies, desktop bloops, whatever.

Jhan, what does it has to do with what I said about Woodcans ?

Anyway I don't think the reasons you stated are good enough.
I personally don't use Itunes, and any tunes that are in Apple format (ALAC or whatever).
I consider Itunes to be inferior to most of the players out there, it really isn't a good one, I don't like it at all.
I don't have any DRM content, but AFAIK it is capable of playing DRM content.


Aside from that, the Slimdevices will not hold a candle to the the Linksys in terms of Sound quality, which is to me, the most important part.

Not true. When I was using a stock SB3 as a transport, it wasn't that great - flat, 2D, and a little grainy up top. When I got it modded and upgraded the power supply(bolder full mods and ultimate mkII ps), the difference (using it both as a transport and the analog outs) was huge. Dimensional, NATURAL, and added weight were the first things that came to mind. People have reported the Transporter being a better transport than a fully modded SB3. So he definately wouldn't get the same result using a stock SB3..... but I do get the feeling that if he uses the analog outs on the Transporter it may be just as good, if not better than his dac...

I think some people have criticized the choice of DAC chips used in the Transporter for not being the latest and greatest. Some people also have a problem with the analog stage layout. Nevertheless, we all know that even DAC chips in the highest end products aren't all that expensive, and that implementation of those chips is what makes or breaks a DAC. We also know that unless you live with a product, your impressions from a brief audition can be affected by anything from expectations, source material to lack of level matching.

I spent some time last night listening to the analog output of my modded Transporter through my stereo and must say that I was very impressed. It sounds clean and can really hold its own against the analog output stages of excellent Redbook sources I have owned and had in my system. I won't say it sounds as good as my Esoteric combo, but with a $22K price differential, I don't really think that is a criticism. I don't think a modded SB3 can match the analog output stage of the Transporter.

As far as digital transports go, I think a SB3 with an upgraded power supply would be a more cost efficient choice and can serve the function of a simple digital transport in an audiophile system. Nevertheless, I do prefer the versatility of the Transporter (AES, word synch, etc.) and was not comfortable with the SB3's form factor in my systems. The Transporter should not be viewed as the most cost effective digital transport. It really caters to professional installers and people who want the versatility. Some people will view it as overpriced, while others like me will view it as a small price to pay for getting exactly what you want.

Oh.. to the OP. I also live in Silicon Valley (Los Altos). Although I am house ridden with a severe allergic reaction to medication for the next week, you are welcome to come by and check out my modded and stock Transporter in the next week or so.

The part where you said that it was perfect as a transporter. Just pointing out reasons why it wouldn't. I made the same checklist when deciding between an SB3 and the Linksys, and since everything I do is on itunes and SlimDevices doesn't support DRM-AAC, and doesn't play movies/games audio, that's why I chose the way I did. Flexibility is a factor!

The Slim Devices products definitely aren't for those who are tied to iTunes or want an all-in-one device. Products like the iHome will cater to that market, while products like the Transporter are geared for audio-only systems and tends to be favored by FLAC users. Things may change with the acquisition of SD by Logitech.

Apple Lossless is not the same thing as the AAC-DRM. The music you download from the iTunes store is encoded in AAC format, wrapped in the FairPlay DRM. The Squeezebox will not be able to play any DRM-wrapped format.

This is precisely why I chose the Transporter. I am archiving my CD collection using EAC & flac. I did not want to use iTunes. Also, I wanted to utilize the AES digital output, have front panel controls as well as the option of utilizing balanced analog outs when I need/want to.

Interesting, based upon the name alone, I would disagree.

Numerous folks around the web disagree. But when I have some more time, I will compare the two directly.

I doubt that if you heard it you would still think so. I certainly don't.

On a side note. Has the SQ of the music downlaoadable through the Apple store improved at all? I gave up on downloading tunes there b/c I could hear artifacts in everything I downloaded. Also, if I recall, can't you burn it to a CD than rip it back as MP3 or something along those lines?

No, the quality hasn't improved, because the iTunes store has always used 128k AAC as its default, although there are rumors that in the future, iTunes would offer Apple Lossless downloads, but so far, it's just a rumor.

Yes to the second part of your question. But consider that AAC is already a lossy format, re-encoding it to mp3, another lossy format, will only result in more loss and compression.

I guess I question why one would want to play Apple downloaded tunes in the first place... and if they are satisfied with the marginal SQ of the downloaded tunes, wheter they would really care about another layer of compression.