How good of a DAC is the Logitech Transporter

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!

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.

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!

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

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