[immtbiker]

I know that this is stating the obvious, but yesterday I hooked up my digital XLR out (AES/EBU) on the Transporter to the PCM digital input on my Emm Labs DAC 6e (never really used it for anything else other than the Meitner CDSD).
I A/B'd between the balanced outs on the TP and the output of the DAC 6e and the difference was day and night (as well it should be!).

So, a lesson to be learned here. The 2 reasons that I got the Transporter over the SB3 was for the TP's balanced out capabilities and the better DAC. However, it is my assessment that the Squeezebox 3 and a good outboard dac, like maybe a Benchmark or a Lavry, can save you about $600 over the TP and get better sound. The functionality between the 2 Slim Designs model are basically the same, and they both use the same software interface.

We would need someone with a good $1K DAC to see if it sounds better than the TP, and then use it with a SB3.

 

[Konig]

Quote:

Originally Posted by immtbiker /img/forum/go_quote.gif I know that this is stating the obvious, but yesterday I hooked up my digital XLR out (AES/EBU) on the Transporter to the PCM digital input on my Emm Labs DAC 6e (never really used it for anything else other than the Meitner CDSD). I A/B'd between the balanced outs on the TP and the output of the DAC 6e and the difference was day and night (as well it should be!). So, a lesson to be learned here. The 2 reasons that I got the Transporter over the SB3 was for the TP's balanced out capabilities and the better DAC. However, it is my assessment that the Squeezebox 3 and a good outboard dac, like maybe a Benchmark or a Lavry, can save you about $600 over the TP and get better sound. The functionality between the 2 Slim Designs model are basically the same, and they both use the same software interface. We would need someone with a good $1K DAC to see if it sounds better than the TP, and then use it with a SB3.

sb3 has no clock input to slave it to our dac. Im not sure if this brings about an improvement as im still waiting for sleestack to publish his results.

 

[J-Pak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by immtbiker /img/forum/go_quote.gif I know that this is stating the obvious, but yesterday I hooked up my digital XLR out (AES/EBU) on the Transporter to the PCM digital input on my Emm Labs DAC 6e (never really used it for anything else other than the Meitner CDSD). I A/B'd between the balanced outs on the TP and the output of the DAC 6e and the difference was day and night (as well it should be!). So, a lesson to be learned here. The 2 reasons that I got the Transporter over the SB3 was for the TP's balanced out capabilities and the better DAC. However, it is my assessment that the Squeezebox 3 and a good outboard dac, like maybe a Benchmark or a Lavry, can save you about $600 over the TP and get better sound. The functionality between the 2 Slim Designs model are basically the same, and they both use the same software interface. We would need someone with a good $1K DAC to see if it sounds better than the TP, and then use it with a SB3.

Someone on the Slim Devices forum has compared the Transporter (analog) with the Lavry: (though they used a SB2/elpac with the Lavry, instead of a SB3)
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28369

Quote:

Let me speak to the specific differences I heard between the Transporter connected directly to the amp and the SB2/Lavry (w/high-end power cable) connected to the same amp with the same XLR cables. - It's really, really, really close. If you don't have a super good environment and a very revealing system, I doubt you could A/B it in a short listening session. - Transporter had lightly wider soundstage with instruments a bit more precisely placed. If I closed my eyes and tried to imagine exactly where an instrument was in front of me it was a narrower space with the Transporter, but only slightly. - Transporter resolved very high frequencies a tiny bit better. Background cymbals were more recognizable, for example. - Strong notes sustain better with the Transporter. A bass drum hit with the same authority on both, but tended to trail off quicker with the Lavry. Overall, the Transporter is a tiny bit warmer to the Lavry's tiny bit more analytic nature. If given the choice between the two for the same cost, there is no question I would take the Transporter. From a value comparison ($1300 vs. $2000) it's a tough call if it's worth the price difference on sound alone. For me, the additional features of the Transporter are well worth the upgrade price. I had only hoped that it would at least be as good as the Lavry and it certainly met that criteria so I'll be getting one. -Ben

from page 3 onwards, there's a few more impressions.

 

[lan]

Any ETA for the mini meet? I've got to hear the transporter and squeezebox to believe it myself.

 

[melomaniac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan the man /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am confused about what the SB3 actually does. For a wireless music stream from an Apple PowerBook Pro, isn't there a way to use Next-generation 802.11n technology which offers up to five times the performance and twice the range as the previous standard.* Mac and PC compatible with an Apple AirPort Extreme Base Station. It has optical out I believe.

well, no - so far there is no 802.11n MUSIC streaming that is superior to the Squeezebox due to the formatting of the digital audio stream (i.e. 16/44). so Apple's Airport solutions, or any similar one, will be restrained until someone can solve that limitation. the Airport optical out to a DAC is good, but not, according to most online comparisons, superior to SB3 to DAC. the kinks are in the power supplies and in the signal path.- the SB3 also does other things the Airport Express does not: its analog out is superior to that of the Apple, and it gets hundreds of net radio stations (here's hoping that US net radio survives the current charade about ginormous royalty demands backdating to 2006). - as for the Transporter, most reviews praise its DAC but see it fall short of competition at a slightly higher price, meaning it occupies that niche precisely, and does somewhat better (because it's in one box with short paths) than some similarly priced combos of DAC and router.

 

[bozebuttons]

I also hooked up my newly aquired SB3 to my Dac6e's XLR PCM input using a XLR to RCA adapter as the SB3 doesn't have XLR connectors only RCA.

In my system the way it is setup,I can use the SB3 to drive my speaker system,My Zana which is doubling as a preamp / dynamic phones amp & my ES1 for my Stats.

I pretty much have all bases covered with the SB3,the only advantage a Transporter would give me is in the balanced digital output to my Dac6e instead of using a XLR adapter.Sounds pretty Damn good

 

[immtbiker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konig /img/forum/go_quote.gif sb3 has no clock input to slave it to our dac. Im not sure if this brings about an improvement as im still waiting for sleestack to publish his results.

I don't understand. I used the Headroom MicroDac and the ACK!dACK! from the SB3 and got a lock light on the ACK! and had no problems with the Micro, so why won't it work with yours?

 

[Konig]

Quote:

Originally Posted by immtbiker /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't understand. I used the Headroom MicroDac and the ACK!dACK! from the SB3 and got a lock light on the ACK! and had no problems with the Micro, so why won't it work with yours?

im not saying it doesnt work. It works if you slave the dac to sb3, but there is no clock input to slave the sb3 to the dac with a word clock frequency

 

[Rambaud]

I use my SB3 with a Zhaolu DAC (bought mainly for the headphone amp).

The Zhaolu has XLR connections so I have ordered some Blue Jeans cables - still awaiting their arrival, as I did not spot they are sourced from the US.

I shall try turning off the digital volume to see if I can detect any difference - although I run it at 100% most of the time.

 

[immtbiker]

For the people in this thread who have a Transporter or Squeezebox:

Look in the upper left hand corner of the SlimServer and see if you notice that the Slim Devices logo has turned into Logictech. I know that they were owned by Logictech because when you first setup your device, it says "Logictech" when it boots up, but it seems they are now doing away with the Slim Devices name.

 

[Mr.Shadow]

From the Release notes for Version 6.5.2:

* Update logos and names to Logitech from Slim Devices in many places.

Indeed, they are taking over

 

[jonnywolfet]

do i understand correctly that the squeezebox will stream wirelessly from my mac laptop?
i think thats right, but im not 100%. im kinda hoping it doesn't, as i dont wanna have to spend more money i dont yet have......

 

[Lou Erickson]

Yeah, I noticed the splash screen changed. When it booted it was Slim, then it did an update, and rebooted. After the reboot it said Logitech.

I don't mind that so much. Logitech has some clue on devices like this.

 

[immtbiker]

Ah yes.

The change does coincide with the upgrade in software.

So, it's not magic, afterall.

 

[Mr.Shadow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by immtbiker /img/forum/go_quote.gif The change does coincide with the upgrade in software. So, it's not magic, afterall.

No, it's called Software/Firmware

amazing, isn't it