Any Digital Impressions of the Caiman yet?

[Labarum]

I innovate, not copy. Many have copied my ideas over the last 15 years though.

But a streaming chip in your little box would be innovative, Stan.

All but the firmware in the Logitech streaming chip is in the public domain, and like Linux, there is a big team of talented folk constantly adding to the possibilities.

You could beat Linn DS products easily.

[chrism]

I have tried:

1. PC using Foobar/USB/Caiman.
2. PC wireless SB3/Spdif/Caiman.
3. PC ethernet to SB3/Spdif/Caiman.

- and really can't detect any difference between them.

Both tests using EAC copied CD's into Wav and Flac files.

I have tried using a couple of laptops as well and one of them has the dreaded crackle and popping problem. The settings of the PC and XP really do appear to need attention when going USB. On the otherhand Squeezecentre appears to be more tolerant of XP.

Just my two penneth.

Regards

[Spur07]

The comparison was between the DAC internal to the Transporter and the Caiman.

Not straightforward, because when using the external DAC (the Caiman) you are also reviewing the interconnects. The lot in one box, designed of a piece has many advantages.

The Transporter is not cheap and has bells and whistles I don't want.

https://www.ripcaster.co.uk/node/71

Cheaper here

http://www.superfi.co.uk/index.cfm/p...roduct_ID/3229

N0, it's not. It was £1100

Brian

If that's the case I don't really get it. If it was dac v dac it was hardly a fair fight by sticking the Caiman on the back of the Transporter - does that really prove anything? Are we saying the Caiman is completely negating the dac in the Transporter?

I appreciate the differences in cable/interconnects, etc, but that's not so relevant if you're trying to find a working solution - i.e, can I replace my expensive transporter with the cheaper Caiman without losing the quality? If you run SPDIF directly from a PC to the Caiman to amp, etc and there's no difference compared to a PC > Transporter > amp, etc, then you've given yourself some options. And you can always use the same RCA connection between both dacs to the amp - just a bit fiddly.

[Labarum]

If that's the case I don't really get it.

The point was surely to compare the Caiman to a very well respected and expensive DAC - Stan's DAC came out of the comparison very well.

If it was dac v(ersus) dac it was hardly a fair fight by sticking the Caiman on the back of the Transporter - does that really prove anything?

Yes. In an all analogue system, if you wanted to compare two power amps you would run them in an A-B test using the same pre-amp. Same principle.

[technobear]

I have two identical computers, one upstairs in my office and one in the living room. The one upstairs is now having to work a little harder.

Spur, I see you are still confused about the digital output of the Transporter.

The DAC in the Transporter is completely bypassed.

You only need one DAC in the signal chain.

You either use the one in the Transporter via it's analogue outputs or you use an external one such as the Caiman in which case the DAC in the Transporter is bypassed.

The same holds true if you use a disc spinner (CD, DVD) as a transport. The DAC inside the spinner is bypassed completely.

What I have shown here, to my ears and in my system, is that when fed from a low-jitter source (the Transporter) the Caiman DAC slightly outperforms the DAC inside the Transporter and is not found wanting in any area.

The Croft Syntegra and the Zu Druids (both with upgrades) are a formidable combination. Given the nature of the differences heard, I can quite see how those with humbler amps and speakers might not notice those differences.

Regarding the comment about the digital interconnect, yes it is a factor. The one I am using still enabled the Caiman to slightly outperform the internal DAC of the Transporter.

Of note, my digital interconnects are 1.5 metres long. This is not for layout reasons but because this length avoids the internal reflection problem that can occur in the cable with S/P-DIF signals. I would avoid using 1 metre cables.

I'm gonna keep inserting the word slightly in these posts because I don't want anyone to get carried away with the old Chinese whispers and start reporting night and day differences.

One other point is that I only use WAV files and they were all produced with EAC.

SqueezeCentre is immune to operating systems because the link (Ethernet or WiFi) is asynchronous. All the Squeeze devices buffer the received digital data and then reclock it to the DAC chip or to the digital output. The Transporter does this reclocking to a far higher standard than the SB3.

So to the final question. Can I replace my expensive Transporter with a much cheaper Caiman. That question is still on the table. All we can say so far is that the Caiman has not been ruled out by a direct comparison with the DAC in the Transporter.

I do have an old XP laptop (an IBM ThinkPad R50) which I will load up with FooBar and WASAPI when I get a minute. Not today though.

I hope I got everybody's questions there. Any more?

[Codifus]

I've grown to realize something about DACs; the chip inside the DAC doesn't really determine how good the DAC will be, but rather the implementaion and design of the whole unit.

Case in point, the Logitech transporter contains the very same DAC chip as the EMU-0404 USB, an AKM AK4396.

Food for thought.

Carry on

CD

[Labarum]

the Logitech transporter contains the very same DAC chip as the EMU-0404 USB, an AKM AK4396.

And some rate the £150 EMU very highly - see

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/co...04-mini-review

But someone on this board shows a marginal preference for the Caiman

See

http://www.theartofsound.net/forum/s...ead.php?t=3702

I would love to see a comparison of the Logitech Transporter with the EMU 0404 USB

As with the Caiman, there's £1000 and difference in price!

Edit:

I was wrong. The AOS thread above compares the 7520 to the EMU 0404 USB. The writer shows a marginal preference fpr the 7520, and Stan says a Caiman would make the preference more than marginal.

[technobear]

The problem with USB is that it is a movable feast!

The Transporter buffers at least 30 seconds worth of data (I can't remember the exact figure but it keeps playing for quite a time if you switch the router off ). It is therefore pretty much immune to how busy the network is. I've never yet in 2 years ever managed to stop it from playing by loading up the network.

USB is a different matter. Will the Caiman be the only USB device or will it be competing with other devices such as a hard drive, keyboard, mouse, wifi adaptor, hub, webcam, etc. etc.? What effect will all these things have on the signal received by the Caiman? To what degree does the Caiman buffer and reclock the data (if at all)?

Another potential problem is electrical noise on the USB output. What effect might this have on the receiver in the DAC?

I don't know the answers to these questions.

On the plus side, USB 2.0 is a fairly capacious network so it may be that none of this matters. I will be attempting to find out in the near future.

[marscay]

I hope I got everybody's questions there. Any more?

After testing various pc based transports to the Caiman i am yet to hear a discernable difference between any of them, including various sound cards of differing values (£10-£100) which can all bypass internal mixers and send 44.1khz bit perfect and of course the USB connection.

Of course i don't have access to anything as exotic as a Transporter right now as a transport only so i would be intrigued if you can honestly find a real difference between it and a pc which can send a bit perfect signal to the Caiman.

[Gazjam]

As someone said....

"The only gain you'd get using a Transporter to feed an external DAC is the ability to feed the DAC with actual 24/96 files.

Pretty expensive (and probably pointless) exercise."

From the Slimdevices Audiophile Forum its accepted that the digital out of the TP and SB3 are the same.
Over SPDIF anyway.