How good of a DAC is the Logitech Transporter

thanks Nwavesailor! it seems to improve a bit by doing that, but still now 100%....maybe something is not quite right with knob, i will have to live with it i guess, and use the remote instead most of time.

cheers
raymond

You might try gently pulling the control knob 'out' just a bit to gain a touch more clearance. This will allow a bit more movement and you may see an improvement in this selector switch when pushing in the control knob.

anyone?

got my Transporter last week, have been testing it with my Denon AVR 4810 and some cheap speakers while waiting for delivery of my ATC SIA2-150 integrated amp (to go with the ATC SCM40's floor standers), so i guess i can't really comment much yet except to say that so far i found the TP built-in DAC no different to the Denon built-in DAC's when playing 2-ch music (i was hoping an improvement), but then again i am only using a dirt cheap dvd player as transport (one of those $50 chinese no name ones), so maybe no point concluding on anything yet...

however, i have a problem, the knob in the middle does not always respond to "click" (push) - it's intermittent, sometimes works, sometimes doesn't, does anyone know why??

thanks in advance!

cheers
raymond

beautiful! that makes sense, thanks Alex! you see, i am just a beginner here :)

regards
raymond

I am sorry for the confusion, Raymond!

When used as a network player (wi-fi or LAN), the Transporter is limited to 96/24. This is due the processor they are using, I would guess.

When used as a DAC with its digital inputs, the Transporter can do 192/24 because the DIR (Digital Interface Receiver) and the DAC chips (both made by AKM), are capable of this resolution.

Best,
Alex Peychev
www.aplhifi.com

Thanks Alex!

Sorry but I am still confused at one thing.

You mentioned:

"the Transporter is limited to 96K so adding Hiface will not help. Even when used as a digital source to an external DAC, the Transporter still can't do more than 96K."

But then you also mentioned:

"What you can do is experiment with a Hiface plugged to your laptop, feeding the Transporter digital input. In this case you will have 192/24 capability."

What is point of feeding the Transporter with 192/24 if the Transporter is only capable of 96/24? I think I might be missing something here.

Regards
Raymond

Raymond, the Transporter is limited to 96K so adding Hiface will not help. Even when used as a digital source to an external DAC, the Transporter still can't do more than 96K. Of course, the newer Slim Servers make possible the playback of audio files with higher resolution, but these are being down-sampled to the 96K limit.

What you can do is experiment with a Hiface plugged to your laptop, feeding the Transporter digital input. In this case you will have 192/24 capability. But as I previously mentioned, the clock quality will be greatly decreased because it will come from the digital input receiver that uses PLL for the clock recovery. In other words, you will not be able to hear the full capabilities of the Hiface.

I will let you know about my findings once I complete the evaluation but, so far, at equal playing fields, I strongly prefer the Hiface. In fact, I like it so much that I will be using M2Tech USB interfaces in my digital products.

Best,
Alex Peychev
www.aplhifi.com

Alex, i see...

I know the Transporter is only capable of 24/96 natively, will it make it 24/192 by simply adding a Hiface interface? i mean, ultimately you will need to use the Transporter's digital out to go into your DAC, is that digital out 24/192 or 24/96? i am interested in your experiment, let us know your findings please :).

best regards
raymond

Raymond, I am evaluating Transporter and Hiface as "digital transports" with my DAC using S/PDIF connection (I am not interested in the Transporter DAC/Analog section). So, I wouldn't say that Hiface is just a convenience and, unlike Transporter, it is 192KHz/24bit capable.

Best,
Alex Peychev

Alex, your Hiface/DAC outperforms the Transporter, maybe because your DAC is simply better but not because Hiface USB-S/PDIF is better than network?

Fiface is more a convenience device instead of an enhancement, right? if i stream wirelessly (or via ethernet) from my laptop to the Transporter, then i don't think using an USB-S/PDIF would improve over network, right?

I've been evaluating the Hiface USB to S/PDIF from M2Tech. With my asynchronous DAC, the Hiface considerably outperforms my Transporter (both upgraded or stock). The Hiface was connected to my Sony VGN-SZxxx Sony Laptop streaming wirelessly audio files from the same server used by the Transporter. Player is Foobar with KS plug-in.

As for the DAC/Analog stage of the Transporter, it is the same as in the AK4396 datasheet recommended circuit for balanced + single ended output (page 35, fig 17). As you can see, there are coupling capacitors at the DAC outputs and NJM5534D Op Amps.

"However, in the case of Transporter there is a very large improvement over the manufacturer's specs because we are using the chip in a far more advanced design than AKM's evaluation board."

I think I'll point AKMs attention to this statement. :-)

Best,

Alex Peychev
www.aplhifi.com

I believe a USB solution would still ultimately involve an S/PDIF conversion operation - and thus there would be no reason to use USB with a Transporter. A main feature of these SlimDevices units is to avoid any such S/PDIF conversions - the network connection avoids S/PDIF and gives an optimum connection medium.

Also, regarding whether there are "better" AKM dac chips available, keep in mind that Sean Adams (designer of the Transporter) implemented the chosen AKM dac chip in a very optimized way. Here's a quote-snip from him:

Sean Adams: "However, in the case of Transporter there is a very large improvement over the manufacturer's specs because we are using the chip in a far more advanced design than AKM's evaluation board. For the THD+N figures this is especially due to the jung regs and the selection of certain passives in the amps/filters. The clocks are very important too, but this isn't meaningfully reflected in THD+N tests."

i doubt i would be able to hear the difference though, i mean between wireless and wired.

i know the Transporter doesn't have USB, but how would USB compare to network or S/PDIF performance wise? as high end as the Transporter is, it's a shame Logitech/Slim Devices forgot to include something as simple as an USB, which even a dirt cheap transport/streamer would have one these days.

Sure, wireless or wired with LAN cable, the clock jitter remains very low. Of course, you can experiment and see if you hear a difference between the two.

Best,
Alex Peychev

yes chesebert, i was going ask that, i have no problem using wired, well, of course wireless is always attractive because it is convenient, but i guesss i would overcome the "inconvenience" to gain performance.

thanks
raymond

The low-jitter attribute of wireless also applies to regular wired connection. Many actually prefer wired over wireless because of the reduction in emi/emf from turning off the radio antenna/receiver in TP.

hmmmm, thanks again Alex! learning something new every day in this amazing hobby...i haven't got a cd transport and will probably not get one (it's dying anyway in my humble opinion, at least not as essential as before), so i guess i should be happy with my Logitech Transporter and computer.

Hi Raymond,

Yes, that is correct; the clock jitter coming from the S/PDIF receiver (all digital inputs) is very high compared to the low jitter clocks used for the wireless.

IMO, this is the major reason why many prefer audio stream from their computer/server against a CD transport. Of course, IMO again, a CD transport can sound better than computer audio, but that is another story. :-)

Best,
Alex Peychev

Thanks Alex!

So are you suggesting that I should use the wireless on the Transporter if and when possible and it's always better than other types of connections?

Cheers
Raymond

(2) i can always purchase another new transport/streamer to go with the Transporter's built-in DAC (via digital inputs?) when higher than 24/96 is supported

Yes, but the wireless transmission in the Transporter is asynchronous so the master clock jitter the AKM DAC see is very low, unlike the S/PDIF input where the master clock comes from the digital receiver and can be 100 times more, at least.

Since I believe AKM DACs are really special (and I use them in all of my products), there is no doubt that the AK4396 DAC in the Transporter is nice (although inferior to the latest 32 bit AKM top-line DACs, IMHO!). Of course, it is all implementation, so "everything matters". And we can't really blame AKM for introducing much better 32 bit DAC solutions after the Transporter was released.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Alex Peychev
www.aplhifi.com

thanks for the tip Datsystem, yes, i was actually also thinking about that, i mean the 24/96 limit, but then again (1) how widely available is music with higher than 24/96? (2) i can always purchase another new transport/streamer to go with the Transporter's built-in DAC (via digital inputs?) when higher than 24/96 is supported, which i don't think there is yet. the very latest Squeezebox Touch that was only released late last year is only 24/96.....well, i guess there isn't such thing as completely future proof in this hobby, the best you could do is to get the best at the time and then enjoy it for as long as you can, and that is what i am planning to do :)

i went ahead and bought the Logitech Transporter from overseas, will report back once i have got it and once i have had a chance to try it in my system, which is ATC integrated SIA2-150 and ATC monitors SCM40's with Chord Epic Super Twin speaker cables and Monster 1000M RCA interconnects (i can only hope they are good synergy!)

cheers
raymond

When the Transporter was released, 'miracle' DAC chip maker AKM already had a better DAC chip available.

If hi-rez playback is a concern, the Transporter is limited to 24/96. There is no indication that Logitech will upgrade it or release a derivative product in the future.

i am pretty sure and convinced that the Transporter is very very good at the price range and maybe one of the best, but it is a 2006 product (right?), nothing wrong with that i know, but will there be a Transporter II (or something like that) out soon? any rumours yet? or, any serious competitors (similar league, similar price...) yet?

i wish Logitech brought out cut down versions of the Transporter, e.g. Transporter without the built-in DAC, or DAC without the streamer/transport, that would have been much easier decisions for many many people, me being one of them, because i can sort of try one at a time, this would be more flexible.

from what i gather from many forums (including this great forum) and reviews about the Transporter, it seems the general consensus is that the Transporter is extremely good as a digital transport (almost peerless), but the DAC, as good as it is claimed, is at best on par with the likes of Benchmark DAC1, Bel Canto DAC3 etc., and therefore one could reasonably confidently conclude that: Gee, i wish i did not buy that standalone DAC, or, another way to put it, i really want to buy it, but $2000 just to use the transport part of it? probably not...

at least that is exactly what i am contemplating at the moment. mind you, i haven't got a DAC yet, so i might still go for it.

raymond

The Touch is fine, but it is no match for the Transporter, not really even close. Also, things get even better still, when using the Transporter balanced outputs...

I have not auditioned a Transporter and would very much like to compare the Balanced output to the Touch's unbalanced one.

On the other hand, to have a more fair comparison I did test out the Touch's unbalanced out with a Philips LH200 CD player unbalanced out to a Accuphase C-202 balanced out to a P-102 powering a set of Totem Staff speakers. My friend and I could not really tell a difference, in fact the Touch actually presented a bit more clarity.

Interested enough, I also compared the Touch's digital out to a Mhdt Havana DAC amp-direct to the Accuphase P-102 with -12db attenuation and it is remarkable, it sounds warm and absolutely musical (although my friend isn't really quiet used to the tube(?) sound the Havana produces).

I say the Touch is very very good.... for an unbalanced output and the AKM4420 can be compared to the DAC Philips LHH200 uses back in the old days.

The Touch has a newer DAC, presumably a new digital design. How would it compare to a Transporter?
Art

Hi Ophitoxaemia:

The Linn Genki was a decent sounding $ 2000.00 CD player 10 years ago and is still considered as a great player.

The Transporter has a Wang Jung re clocked processor that contributed to the lower floor noise in the DAC circuitry which helps eliminate the jitter and clock error.

That is why Dan Wright also consider the DAC as one of the best and only tackles the Analog stage for improvement.

The present voltage regulator and analog stage op amp cascade circuit is modified by Mod Wright, Dan replaces this section of the solid state analog stage, by adding the rectifier and driver analog stage tube circuit along with a beef up P/S to deliver that dynamic and warm sound which in return removes that clinical dry sound from the stock unit.

Some people might call it tube coloration.

The analog stage of the stock Transporter can be conquered by using a quality warm interconnect pair to a analog pre-amp and fixing the Transporter volume 100% and using the analog volume pot of the pre-amp tube preferred, which will take the sound to a more warm and less clinical.

Your Transporter downloading HDTrack 96/24 Hi-Res will outperform the best of the best red book CD unit.

Enjoy Music!

Harold

i have had my transporter for about 3 weeks now. it is replacing a linn genki in my aktiv two lk-140 bi-amped ninkas linn system.

the transporter makes even the genki sound warm and fuzzy by comparison. the detail is a step up, the noise floor invisible and the clarity astonishing. high volumes are far less fatiguing than the genki, which is no slouch itself.

the only thing i am not completely used to is the sound of the treble, e.g. cymbals. it might be just so accurate my slightly aging hearing is the limiting factor.

i have been meaning to try some of the software emulation of tube components. just for fun.

one thing i am looking forward to trying is the 24bit/96khz files.

lastly, having your whole library at you fingertips (i am using ipeng on an ipod touch as a remote) is really revolutionary.

the cd player is dead.

Hi Luis:

In regards to the external DAC, reading your comment it seems to me that you are taking things in the right steps to the process of elimination.

Isolation and tweaking are the core and fundamental to achieve and maximize proper sound imaging.

I quote you saying that the Mod Wright is probably worthwhile. I feel it is going to definitely change your present sound signature.

The sound would become more defined with more of a warm sound and help eliminate that clinical dry digital presentation.

IMHO, why not consider a digital out external Tube DAC, such as the Tri-Vista 21 which also allow you the flexibility to switch back and forth with digital out and using the internal Transporter DAC.

This will also give an edge as to the different presentation and you can probably get one for more than half the price of a Mod.

I have this setup in my system and it sounds great, with allot of flexibility for upgrade and not sterile to just one sound.

Enjoy Music!

Harold

Gentlemen,

I love my Transporter. It has taken a bit of work but its finally at a point I can enjoy its convenience. I chose not to mod it. IMHO its probably worthwhile but I chose to "tweek" the sound. I chose a highly shielded power cord that improved its performance and made sure its isolated with the right material, and thats critical. Purchased a power strip that has built-in AC noise conditioning. The key was adding Alan Mayer design Power Reference II on the main AC outlet along with the surprising tweek that should get the Audio steal of the century, the DIY filter.

Final analysis, its a keeper until I decide on which DAC to try. This discussion is highly appreciated and all opinions good or bad are welcome. Dynamics is never a problem with this player as much as refinement.

The sound improves as you lower the volume. I do my critical listening at 4:30am in the morning so very little AC noise, neighbor noise, TV or other incendiary distractions to chew on.

Note: Red Wine Audio Signature 30.2 Battery power supply
Grover IC SC (patented emi/rfi shield
95db efficient speaker ..So noise is not tolerated AC or otherwise.
Alan Maher design AC filtering treatments and custom design isolation for the Transporter.

Luis

Hi Spencer:

You are welcome, I think it is only fair that true testing of the components are measured with our experience and the best accuracy that we have available to us and then share results and fact finding among each other like yourself.

This really put us closer to the real world and help us all understand the determination and madness we audiophile geeks have for this passionate hobby.

One thing for sure we spend allot of time and money consequently trying to extract and squeeze for the reproduction of sound as intended during recording without and making it to clinical and believe you me that will certainly be tackled in a near thread to come... hint, "PWD"!

I have been doing this over 30 years and still prefer my Vinyl listening, but must say Digital has come along way, and find myself being able to listen longer with less fatigue.

Finally I must say from this thread it has shown the values and worth of the Transporter.

I personally must say thank you to Rich sharing his own experience of the Transporter.

It is an excellent investment for all the things it does with so many features and true benefits.

It is really hard to find a single component that lends so much. With the Squeeze Center interface and occasional firmware update has certainly, outside of vinyl turned my listening experience to another level, especially with 96/24 hi-res downloads.

Enjoy Music!

Harold

Harold,

Thanks, that's exactly what I hoped to hear. Cheers,

Spencer

I use a stock Transporter. Also have a TacT 2.2XP and a EMM labs DCC2 SE (my digital stuff).
Lets just say the Transporter DAC breaks new ground imho at this price bracket. You will need to spend a LOT more to get a LITTLE better sound. It's certainly not the last word in DAC, but for the money, it's the steal of the century. (not to mention the entire SqueezeCenter platform is just fantastic... flexible + quality)

Hi Spencer:

I had the same setup. SB 3 with a upgraded power supply, Digital output to a Tri-Vista 21 as one digital source and it was quite good in critical listening setup in my system.

I have been using now for 2-weeks a transporter and find the comparison the same.

The transporter does native 96/24 and the SB-3 upto 48/24 and again out through the Tri-Vista 21 that will upsample to 24/96 I find listening to downloaded Hi-Res no difference between the two source.

I consider headphone listening the most accurate and detail listening experience and really testing sound reproduction.

Testing results I used a AKG K1000 which is considered the best headphone on "planet earth", connected to one of the best sounding Amp, a Cary SEI with 300B Western tubes.

IMO keep your SB 3 as your musical server source. The transporter is a great device if you need to have a DAC and in your case your Tri-Vista 21 tube DAC is better than the transporter internal DAC.

Enjoy,

Harold

Audiogalore & Swampwalker, thanks for the suggestions. Since my budget is tight, and I've already ripped AIFF files via itunes onto a pair of external drives(one as backup), I hope to just use a Squeezebox3 now as my budget is tight, feed it digitally via my Stereovox dig. cable, into the Trivista21 dac. Then down the road I can consider upgrading when budget allows. Sound reasonable?
FYI, hearing good things about the new PS Audio stuff, and saw an interesting demo of the new Ayre dac. Cheers,
Spencer

Sbank: I would not sell your Tri -vista 21 at a lost to gain the same from the Transporter.

The Tri-Vista 21 tube DAC with my ears sounds more dynamic and with a bigger sound stage than that of the transporter properly setup. That being said, there is more than merely trying to squeeze a few drops out of the issue.

For one with the Transporter you will gain a music library at your finger tips along with a vast amount of internet Radio. Plus with Hi-Res music the transporter supporting 96/24 will differently sound better than any Red book CD no matter the investment cost hands down.

On the issue about modifying the Transporter with Mod Wright, that will cost more than what you could get for your Tri- Vista 21 listed on the open market. The Tri-Vista 21 being tube and heavily designed with a digital stage and left/right analog staged power-supplies is why the thing weighs 40 lbs. and built like a tank. With a quality neutral sounding digital cable will give better return overall than to modify the transporter.

Hope this helps clarifies some of the thoughts and we all should network our experiences, as we gain more from the real world.

Cheers!

Sbank-If your budget allows, I would sell the DAC you have and get Dan Wright to mod a transporter for you. I am now using a MusicVault server sending FLAC files wirelessly to a MW transporter; analog out to Doshi Alaap line stage/Doshi-Lectron amp to MMs. Could not be happier. NOt sure what your budget is, but MusicVault server is pretty close to plug'n'play w/o spending big bucks, plus it can be configured to back up your network. It also auto-rips your CDs; just slap one in the drive and it spits out in a couple of minutes. I also have a USB DAC/headphone amp hooked up directly to the MV; no need for a squeezebox for my office. The basic Transporter can be had for well under list; the basic MVII server is under $1650. You can then compare your external DAC to the internal AKM DAC, but the analog output stage and PS is where Dan Wright works his magic.

audiogalore-thanks much for the post. i have been very curious about how the transporters dac compared with the usual suspects, bel canto dac3, benchmark, etc. from the ears/systems of others. from what i have read, it is pretty close and just becomes a matter of synergy, preference, wires and preamps choice. between your efforts and rich's, you have given us quite a bit of information on these questions many seem to be asking. thanks again!

Audiogalore, so are you saying that if I want to add a music server to my setup(that has a tube linestage, and currently a cd transport feeding a Trivista21 dac), and I am on a tight budget, that the internal dac of the Transporter will sound almost as good as with the Trivista21 as the dac?

I have been fact finding all inputs from this thread and have purchased a transporter to replace my Squeeze box 3 as my music server source.

Okay, I have a few things to share regarding external DACs. I have tried now 3 DACs in my present setup. The Tri-Vista 21, Bel Canto DAC 3 and the Benchmark DAC 1.

The Tri- Vista 21 is the most Dynamic with the biggest sound stage.

The Bel-Canto separation and placement of the music was the most accurate.

The benchmark was analytical and thin.

The Transporter stand alone as a DAC was quite impressive and low noise the sound signature was not as warm as the Tri-Vista 21 tube DAC, but certainly a even match to the Bel Canto and certainly out performed the Benchmark.

With the proper setup Transporter and 100% fixed digital volume in order not to lose any bit resolution, a neutral to warm interconnect cables and a analog pre-amp, a pre-amp with some tubes more preferred. I found the analog output stage of the transporter pretty darn close that rivals any other sweet spot audiophile critical listening source.

Enjoy music!

I own the Transporter, a ML390S, a Proceed CDP and a Weiss Medea. Firstly, please ignore the Stereophile review, I found it wholey inaccurate and overstated the analogue capabilities of the Transporter. Anyone with a "normal" hifi system I'm sure will be delighted. It is certainly a sonic match for a dedicated CD player in the same price range. As a system combune it with active speakers (eg Meridian) and you'll be impressed. The ML390S (£6K) is an extremely well and accurately reviewed CD player / DAC pre. When fed via the XLR digital output from the Transporter, the ML390S DAC section reveals a greater ambient detail, a naturalness that bridges the realism barriers to that special emotional connection... The Weiss Medea (£10K) via a ML XLR digital cable is an upgrade of about the same proportions albeit with the usual diminishing returns... The rest of the system is Graaf OTL's with Feastrex wide range speakers, all linked with top end Nordost, very revealing but hugely satisfying. I would avoid any mods to the digital section of the Transporter, (ala Fleebay) it already measures very well. I'd maybe conceed to the Bybee inline filters... DPAWS

Of metrics that can be measured, the Transporter outperforms the DAC1. For example, it has a lower noise floor.

Thank you for the correction, I some how lost track of myself and started to thinking about the internal DAC and got ahead of myself. I really meant to to say the digital output of the transporter. Rich I have been doing this wacy hobby too long approx. 35 year it known as a "senior moment". You are correct the downside of the TRI-VISTA it as minimum inputs/outputs, oh well that is the Brits for you!

Audiogalore Quote: "I guess my dilemma is that I do not have balance inputs on my Melos 333 line pre-amp. and I know there will be some degradation taking balance out of the Transporter directly to my Power amp. I believe this month Absolute made mention of same."

Yeah, I'm still here!

You don't have a dilemma. I believe that the Absolute Sound Article that you are referring to was talking about using the Analog Outputs of the Transporter, (either balanced analog out or unbalanced analog out) which implies that you will be using the Internal DAC of the Transporter and therefore, if you were to go directly into a power amplifier, then you would be forced to use the digital volume of the Transporter which can trump bits and cause a loss of resolution.

From what I gathered from you, this is not what you will be doing. You will be using the 75ohm SPDIF Digital Outputs of the Transporter to your external Tri-Vista DAC, then to your Melos 333 Preamp using your analog RCA Cables. So, you will be able to put the digital volume all the way up on the Transporter (so not to lose any bits of resolution) then you will be using the Analog Volume Control on your Melos Preamp. You will not be losing anything except the difference between a 110 ohm digital cable (because your DAC doesn't support this) and a 75 ohm digital cable, as well as the difference between a fully balanced Preamp/Amp setup, but you don't have that now, so you won't lose anything.

I was using a 110 ohm AES/EBU Digital Balanced Out Cable (which is a single Digital Cable) from the Transporter to my external DAC, not a Balanced XLR Analog out. The digital cable that you will be using is a single 75 ohm Digital SPDIF Cable.

Does that make sense?

Rich

Rich you are absolutely right not because I am a Engineer certifies me an expert on the sound of ones and zeros. As matter of fact trial and error is the best test. Example and proof is your total demonstration that we all testified today and that alone is money to the bank.

I guess my dilemma is that I do not have balance inputs on my Melos 333 line pre-amp. and I know there will be some degradation taking balance out of the Transporter directly to my Power amp. I believe this month Absolute made mention of same.

We all know as we speak there are changes being made to the next generation digital and that eventually Red book CD as we know it will die. At present after numerous research on digital front end the transporter is the closest to getting it right.

Hi Audiogalore,

I'm not surprised he said that, he's probably a support tech answering the phone (I have no idea), however even engineers who are not audiophiles like yourself, don't understand the reasons why these differences occur. I know some very bright non-audiophile engineers, that don't understand why more expensive cables and interconnects sound better then cheaper ones, and some of them can't even hear the differences.

The Transporter was specifically designed to satisfy us audiophiles, according to the original company Slim Devices which was bought out by Logitech a few years ago.

If you go to the Logitech website take a look at the specifications of each.

The only thing that I could ascertain from the Transporter specs are as follows:

Word clock input for synchronization with an external clock
Linear-regulated power for all clock paths
Dedicated high-precision crystal oscillators (no PLL, no resampling)
Standard IEC-958 (S/PDIF) or AES/EBU encoding
Optical connector: TOSLINK 660nm
RCA connector: capacitor-coupled 500mVpp into 75 ohms
BNC connector: transformer-coupled, 500mVpp into 75 ohms
XLR connector: 4.7Vpp into 110 ohms

So, if Word Clock synchronization, lower jitter, larger linear regulated power supply, higher signal to noise ratio, a 110 ohm XLR digital output, a larger and heavier chassis, and the ability to upgrade the power cable, all doesn't make a difference according to Logitech, than I'm not sure why they are charging $1600 more for the ability to use a 24Bit/96khz DAC, which I don't even like. This is all tongue and cheek of course.

I've been an audiophile for over 25 years, and I am absolutely positive of my impressions, and I actually believe that you would bet on me instead of that Logitech Technician. The simple fact that you could appreciate the weaknesses of your squeezebox, tells me that you too will also enjoy a Transporter just like I do, especially through the 110 ohm digital output.

I have some really nice gear, there is no way that I would ever have thought that I would be using a Logitech Transporter as my Digital front-end source. I'm telling you..... Faaahgetaboutit...., it wasn't even close, the Transporter destroyed the Squeezebox.

I will also tell you that as more high-end companies start focusing on Digital Streamers, then I will probably upgrade to one of those products down the line. Right now its, Linn, Soolos, Logitech, Sonos and the PS audio which isn't even available yet.

Rich

Okay Rich fair analysis, I am curious with the thought, when I spoke to a tier 2 Logitech technical rep. they mentioned the only difference in sound would be 96/24 domain. As a Electrical Engineer, I follow your process of elimination and trust your integrity as a end user and the real world with the associated in-out circuitry that you based your test on.

Again thank you for your support on this issue.

No I didn't, because the Squeezebox can't handle 24Bit/96khz, it max's out at 24Bit/48Khz and I don't have any 24/48 music files.

I should also point out that I always keep the Digital Volume Control all the way up, on the Transporter and so I did the same for the Squeezebox. Both were ultimately running through an MBL 6010D Analog Preamp that controls the volume.

Rich

Rich, I also take it that you were streaming 96/24 as your test when you had performed your comparison of the two units this morning.