JayZ
Minor Hero
Posts: 36 
|
Post by JayZ on Oct 11, 2010 6:47:48 GMT -5
Guys,
What do you guys think of the output stage of the Slimdevices Transporter vs XDA-1 sound quality wise?
Basically, I own a transporter and have been looking to get a XPR-2 when it becomes available. I have also consulted several Audiophile experts who have advised me that feeding the transporter (digital volume) directly to a power amp would really not be good. I have also been reading XDA-1 threads which seem to indicate XDA-1 can be connected directly to power amp and is preferred.
So I guess my question comes down to which of this combinations would be best:
Transporter(XLR out) --> XPR-2
- or -
Transporter(AES out) --> XDA-1 --> XPR-2
All comments gratefully received.
Thanks,
|
|
rvd
Minor Hero
Posts: 12
|
Post by rvd on Oct 11, 2010 7:09:03 GMT -5
Why not the new upcoming XSP-1 stereo pre.
Transporter (XLR out) --> XSP-1 --> XPR-2
I am going for this Transporter (XLR out) --> XSP-1 --> XPA-2
I think the dac of the Transporter is better then from the XDA-1.
|
|
|
|
Post by ajani on Oct 11, 2010 10:54:34 GMT -5
Why not the new upcoming XSP-1 stereo pre. Transporter (XLR out) --> XSP-1 --> XPR-2 I am going for this Transporter (XLR out) --> XSP-1 --> XPA-2 I think the dac of the Transporter is better then from the XDA-1. That would be my guess as well... The Transporter DAC is supposed to be really good... So I really doubt the XDA-1 would be up to that level... Also, the reason people advise against using the Transporter direct to a power amp is because it uses digital volume control... Problem is that the XDA-1 also uses digital volume control... |
|
|
|
Post by rocky500 on Oct 11, 2010 11:22:19 GMT -5
|
|
rvd
Minor Hero
Posts: 12
|
Post by rvd on Oct 11, 2010 11:25:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Oct 11, 2010 14:18:28 GMT -5
Comparing the Slim Devices Transporter to the Emotiva XDA-1 is like comparing apples to turnips. They aren't even close to being in the same category. Even if they were in the same category, the Transporter costs 10 times as much. The Transporter is a complete digital server type of product with a built-in DAC. It would be like trying to compare an external phono stage to a HT processor than also has a built-in phono circuit. Do such a comparison is pointless
|
|
iceman66
Emo VIPs 
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" The Great One
Posts: 1,083
|
Post by iceman66 on Oct 11, 2010 14:30:05 GMT -5
Have you ever read a bad review in Stereophile? |
|
rvd
Minor Hero
Posts: 12
|
Post by rvd on Oct 11, 2010 15:22:19 GMT -5
I did never read before stereophile i listen with my own ears to the transporter and it sounds fantastic in my ears  I totally agree with roadrunner.  |
|
|
|
Post by rocky500 on Oct 11, 2010 18:52:20 GMT -5
I thought the OP was asking if he uses the XDA-1 would the SQ be as good or worse then the transporter by itself.
Seeing as the XDA-1 is not out it is hard to say.
I suppose its like comparing the ERC-1 with and without the XDA-1.
|
|
JayZ
Minor Hero
Posts: 36
|
Post by JayZ on Oct 12, 2010 2:47:24 GMT -5
Many thanks for the feedback guys. A few things to clarify.... >>Ajani says: Also, the reason people advise against using the >>Transporter direct to a power amp is because it uses digital >>.volume control... Problem is that the XDA-1 also uses digital >>volume control... This is exactly what I have been adviced, but read this: emonatics.com/XDA-1.shtmlIt says "Lonnie has also reiterated that the XDA-1 connected directly to an amplifier provides the highest quality of sonic reproduction, if that configuration works in your system". I have seen the similar statement from Lonnie in other threads. 1. So the first question (still needs clarification) is, does the XDA-1 have digital attenuation and if so, why would that be considered superior to conventional analog attenuation as in UMC-1. 2. If we forget the price difference, does anyone have thoughts on whether Slimdevices Transporter's DAC output or XDA-1 output would be better technically and sonically. (Note that we are comparing the two DACs against each other so should be a fair comparison) Better still, do we have any hifi retailers in the forum who can do a side-by-side comparison of Transporter fed directly to a power amp vs transporter fed to amp through XDA-1 (In this case transporter becomes equal to a CD transport) Thanks, |
|
|
|
Post by broncsrule21 on Oct 12, 2010 4:11:37 GMT -5
Until the XDA is actually in peoples hands there can be no comparison. Wait until the product is actually out. Right now everything is speculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by ajani on Oct 12, 2010 9:06:39 GMT -5
Many thanks for the feedback guys. A few things to clarify.... >>Ajani says: Also, the reason people advise against using the >>Transporter direct to a power amp is because it uses digital >>.volume control... Problem is that the XDA-1 also uses digital >>volume control... This is exactly what I have been adviced, but read this: emonatics.com/XDA-1.shtmlIt says "Lonnie has also reiterated that the XDA-1 connected directly to an amplifier provides the highest quality of sonic reproduction, if that configuration works in your system". I have seen the similar statement from Lonnie in other threads. 1. So the first question (still needs clarification) is, does the XDA-1 have digital attenuation and if so, why would that be considered superior to conventional analog attenuation as in UMC-1. 2. If we forget the price difference, does anyone have thoughts on whether Slimdevices Transporter's DAC output or XDA-1 output would be better technically and sonically. (Note that we are comparing the two DACs against each other so should be a fair comparison) Better still, do we have any hifi retailers in the forum who can do a side-by-side comparison of Transporter fed directly to a power amp vs transporter fed to amp through XDA-1 (In this case transporter becomes equal to a CD transport) Thanks, Yep, I've seen those posts... (and have been curious about them)... Even more interesting is the info now up on the main website about the XDA: The key word being "lossless" implying they have solved the standard complaint made against digital volume controls... That would explain why Lonnie finds that the XDA direct to an amp sounds so good... Anyway, when I get my XDA, it will be connected directly to my XPA-2, so I'll see for myself... I don't have a Transporter (Just a Classic), but I will compare the XDA to my Benchmark DAC1 to see how good it is... |
|
JayZ
Minor Hero
Posts: 36
|
Post by JayZ on Oct 12, 2010 11:07:49 GMT -5
Thanks Ajani, looking forward to your findings.
I actually wouldn't mind getting the XDA-1 and connecting up Transporter(AES out) --> XDA-1 --> XPA-1 or XPR-2 but I just want to double check that XDA-1's DAC & output stage is indeed better than transporter's and probably more suited to directly drive XPA-1 or XPR-2 considering the extra output voltage swing capability of the XDA-1 and of course the "lossless" volume control
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by Bmac on Oct 13, 2010 12:56:45 GMT -5
1. So the first question (still needs clarification) is, does the XDA-1 have digital attenuation and if so, why would that be considered superior to conventional analog attenuation as in UMC-1. 2. If we forget the price difference, does anyone have thoughts on whether Slimdevices Transporter's DAC output or XDA-1 output would be better technically and sonically. (Note that we are comparing the two DACs against each other so should be a fair comparison. 1. The XDA-1 definitely does have digital attenuation. Digital attenuation is fine when it is properly implemented, in which case you could make the argument that it is superior to analog attenuation as it is completely transparent, and I believe channel matching becomes a non-issue, which can be a problem even with expensive pots. 2. Since obviously no one has heard the XDA-1 and cannot comment on its subjective performance, I will speculate that it will be inferior, at least technically to the Transporter. If you look at Stereophile's measurements, the Transporter measured about as well as the best DAC's I've seen them test. These include the Benchmark DAC-1, the Bryston BDA-1 and the Bel Canto DAC-3, which are all incredibly well engineered products. They're subjective performance is obviously up to each person to decide for themself, but technically I would be very, very suprised if the XDA-1 could match the Transporter, especially given a quoted SNR of 105dB on the Emotiva webpage, which is not particularly high. With that number I would be surprised if it could match the DacMagic technically. |
|
|
|
Post by stuofsci02 on Oct 25, 2010 22:07:51 GMT -5
1. The XDA-1 definitely does have digital attenuation. The XDA-1's volume control uses the AD1955 DAC's on-chip digitally-controlled resistive ladder on the analog output, and therefore it is an ANALOG volume control, and not digital. Whether or not it sounds good is another question, but it is "lossless" as far as not losing least significant digital bits. Steve This is the case for the XSP-1, but where have to seen this said about the XDA-1? |
|
JayZ
Minor Hero
Posts: 36
|
Post by JayZ on Oct 26, 2010 6:21:45 GMT -5
Thanks for your feedback Steve.
From all the feedback I have had, my understanding so far is that the Transporter DAC is better than XDA-1 DAC. Whether XDA-1's descrete output stage is better than Transporter's, I have no idea.
In the mean time, I have started to look at various TVC passive pre-amps. Since emotiva power amps have high gain and average sensitivity, there is a possibility I can just place a passive pre-amp between transporter and power-amp, which in may ways will be ideal as the pre-amp will almost be fully transparent.
Anyway, please keep comments coming, I it will be very interesting to read any real review of the XDA-1 and various audio tests.
|
|
|
|
Post by ajani on Oct 26, 2010 20:30:35 GMT -5
Thanks for your feedback Steve. From all the feedback I have had, my understanding so far is that the Transporter DAC is better than XDA-1 DAC. Whether XDA-1's descrete output stage is better than Transporter's, I have no idea. In the mean time, I have started to look at various TVC passive pre-amps. Since emotiva power amps have high gain and average sensitivity, there is a possibility I can just place a passive pre-amp between transporter and power-amp, which in may ways will be ideal as the pre-amp will almost be fully transparent. Anyway, please keep comments coming, I it will be very interesting to read any real review of the XDA-1 and various audio tests. In your situation, I'd opt for the passive pre... The Transporter should already be a very good DAC, so all you really want is volume control... I've been tempted to use a passive with my Benchmark DAC1 to gain a remote, but the XDA-1 would allow me to have 2 separate systems instead... |
|
