The Transport vs Full Function Thread

My requirements are pretty simple:

A transport with larger storage (128-512 GB)

Gapless playback of Flac (and other) files (Hey, Cowon can do it, Rockbox can do it...why can't anybody else?)

Optical/Coax/and yes...even USB output

Options for no EQ and manually adjustable 8-10 band EQ

Minimum 12-15 hour playtime

On-Board or off-board playlist generation and support.

Less than $400

See, not much...

Cheers!

-HK sends

PS - The idea for me is to be able to plug it into any DAC/amp I want, from Schiit Bifrost/Lyr to Practical Decives XM6...

I agree with the above. I think minimum should be 15 hours since a transport that is dedicated should be able to have decently long battery life if it is not hindered by a DAC and amp section. I'd like 15 to 25 hours playback time. With straight to the point functions that work flawlessly. Doesn't need to be eye candy, yet minimalist and to the point. Don't want to be stressing out over dumb UIs.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee730 

I agree with the above. I think minimum should be 15 hours since a transport that is dedicated should be able to have decently long battery life if it is not hindered by a DAC and amp section. I'd like 15 to 25 hours playback time. With straight to the point functions that work flawlessly. Doesn't need to be eye candy, yet minimalist and to the point. Don't want to be stressing out over dumb UIs.

+1!  It doesn't need to be pretty, but it does need to make sense and be functional.  Right now, I am hoping Little Dot does something with their UI in the next firmware upgrade for the DP_I (whenever that will be...).  Whoever designed the UI seemed to assume that the operator would intuitively know how to navigate the menus...and if they made some sense, I could deal with it.  Right now the UI on the DP_I ruins a potentially excellent DAP.  From what I have heard, that seems to be the issue with a lot of the non-android DAPs (even Cowon has its issues).  The DAP makers need to stop letting the hardware engineers and/or chip makers design the interface.  OK, off my soapbox... 

Cheers!

-HK sends

Dr. McCoy: "I know engineers, they love to change things!"

So far exactly 50/50, interesting, although not a great number of votes...

I say we need one of each!

i'm not sure why the poll tbh, they both serve different needs and different customers. one product isnt going to replace the other. a top quality transport plus top quality dac/amp is going to beat any of the all in ones available currently on the market, as not even the top flight all in ones have done the transport section properly, or the dac/amp section as well as it can be.

thought it was pretty clear myself....

well whether you intended it or not (hard to see how you cant see this …), a poll suggests an either or choice very clearly, as have subsequent posts. as I see it there is no choice between the 2 options, they are different things and one does not serve the needs of the other. the all in one has many alternatives, the transport, none. odd choice yes? one people are familiar with, the other many will not even realize its what they actually need.

a person who wants an all in one device will not consider a transport only device as it wont suit their needs, a person who wants a transport only device will not consider an all in one, unless they dont have a choice but to buy the rest of the dap just to have the transport (which is all that has been offered till now).

actually if done properly an all in one device is the better alternative for signal quality, but i'm yet to see it done. On the down side it limits the market and makes for a very expensive item that still may not suit everyone. a transport plus dac/amp is the next best thing but allows more choice for the consumer to mix and match. It also makes it easier to separate/isolate the high slew rate, high speed digital circuits of the CPU/MCU from the more sensitive analogue circuits. these can exist up in the RFI bands, making for radiated noise that can literally leave the PCB and become airborne

a dac/amp in one box is comparatively easy, most dacs will allow the existing output stage to simply have some voltage gain added and a buffer to drive the headphones with minimum extra components and optionally no extra power supply over a dac only. many of the new breed of dac chips have internal 32bit+ digital volume control, or well implemented digital volume control at 32->64bit floating point could be done in the transport (optionally bypassed).

Portable means just that. Make a one piece player. If you do it right, you can get great inboard dac results that could easily beat a portable DAC/amp setup. That said, home setups can do more with jitter and dac design so a switchable dedicated dig out path for that would be a nice addition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by goodvibes 

Portable means just that. Make a one piece player. If you do it right, you can get great inboard dac results that could easily beat a portable DAC/amp setup. That said, home setups can do more with jitter and dac design so a switchable dedicated dig out path for that would be a nice addition.

Ah..but portable is part of trans-portable which is the only way I can describe those folks that had their iRiver H20 (or whatever it was that had optical out) stacked together with a DAC/Amp or a DAC and an Amp because they liked the sound from the combination better than the player's.  That's why I prefer the idea of a transport, so I can tailor the sound the way I want for either home use or away-from-home listening.

But again, that's my preference...YMMV. 

The bottom line for me is:  neither choice is wrong as long as it's a choice you can be happy with.  I will look for a solution that suits my taste, even if it is in fact an all-in-one solution...like my Cowon J3...that I plug into a Schiit Asgard at home or a Practical Devices XM6 while I am away. 

Cheers!

-HK sends

Quote:

Originally Posted by HK_sends 

Ah..but portable is part of trans-portable which is the only way I can describe those folks that had their iRiver H20 (or whatever it was that had optical out) stacked together with a DAC/Amp or a DAC and an Amp because they liked the sound from the combination better than the player's.  That's why I prefer the idea of a transport, so I can tailor the sound the way I want for either home use or away-from-home listening.

 

But again, that's my preference...YMMV. 

 

The bottom line for me is:  neither choice is wrong as long as it's a choice you can be happy with.  I will look for a solution that suits my taste, even if it is in fact an all-in-one solution...like my Cowon J3...that I plug into a Schiit Asgard at home or a Practical Devices XM6 while I am away. 

 

Cheers!

-HK sends

Well, that's exactly what I described exceot for having a better internal DAC/amp to meet that higher end need. We're looking for better than h20 performance here. I also want that dig out but certainly not optical. Coax is preferred and the internal DAC/amp should be bypassed when the dig out is in use.

      Quote:

Originally Posted by goodvibes 

Well, that's exactly what I described exceot for having a better internal DAC/amp to meet that higher end need. We're looking for better than h20 performance here. I also want that dig out but certainly not optical. Coax is preferred and the internal DAC/amp should be bypassed when the dig out is in use.

Ok then, it sounds like we are on the same sheet of paper.  I thought you were suggesting there was no need for a digital-out on a portable if there was an on-board DAC/Amp.  My mistake.

Cheers!

-HK sends

subpar coax is far worse than normal toslink, its folklore only. ideal controlled impedance transformer coupled, proper connector and cable using connections are better than toslink yes, show me a portable dap or dac/amp doing ANY of that. its very popular to bash toslink, but it hardly ever applies and here much less than ever. besides, show me a dac that is actually USING the recovered spdif clock and i'll show you a bad design.