To be fair, there was no official 2.5. As you know, the TRP2 all had Engine 53 (unless the customer wanted R2R).
I had a TRP 2 that was upgraded to Engine 11 w/ JLSounds USB reclocker, and was told it had practically the identical innards to a new TRP 3, but at the time of upgrade they would not give it a new certificate calling it TRP 3. It was around then that they changed brands of volume control boards and the new OLED display, and that’s officially the TRP3. I never heard the TRP w/ the Engine 53 but folks tell me that going from E53->E11 was a large upgrade.
There’s a huge TRP tube rolling thread on WBF that is a treasure trove of info. I tried KT88s, 6L6, EL51s, and eventually stayed w/ the F2a power tubes. For rectifiers I tried 5U4, 5U4G, 5AR4, USAF596, GEC U52, Western Electric 422A, Telefunken RGN2004, etc. Fuse is SR Purple, and I tried various Shunyata/Sablon power cords.
Ok so to clarify, yours had the old display and volume control and is now upgraded. Or because everything is the same outside of that then it is now basically a 3?
Yep ive been on that WBF thread tons, but last i checked E11 was just rolling out, and for my peace of mind i havent looked much since and most say it is improved but i havent seen how. The F2a were big with E53 so it seems tube pairing for E11 are at least similar. Ive also jumped off there as tubes got more and more esoteric and needing special adapters. All fine and good but i am just not in a spot of going that crazy, especially as my GA has the deeper sockets.
I traded in my TRP2.5 and built a new GA TRP3; long story, but I wanted to upgrade to a GA, but they couldn’t because the older volume control had backwards compatibility issue. Or something to that extent.
I’m listening to the GA TRP3 tonight, and have to say that the biggest advantage that TRP has is PRAT. This thing just wants to boogie – Dire Straits “Sultan of Swing” had me playing air guitar in a way that the Pacific never did. If I put on the magnifying glass then sure, the Pacific wins in micro-details and definition, separation of notes, atmosphere, and probably timbre… I wonder if part of this is also the very different sets of tubes. In other words, the Pacific is a higher-level DAC in “audiophile terms”, but I’m not sure it’s necessary more musical (YMMV).
The names are quite apt… the Pacific is like the great ocean, very neutral and it just IS what the recording is, no more no less, whereas the TRP is truly a paradise… it’s colored in the way that makes me love listening to it, makes things just sound good (in a really good way).
If I had to do it all over, I wonder if the next step after the TRP should just be the Horizon. But without spending stupid $, I think the TRP is probably good enough for almost audiophile.
The micro details w/ the GA TRP3’s E11 engine is definitely there. I’m listening to Sia’s “Chandelier” and all the intonations and edges of her vocals are there, but that’s looking at from the lens of having heard it via the Pac2. It’s just more obvious with the Pac2.
I never had the chance to compare the normal TRP3 w/ the GA TRP3 but Fred Ainsley and others have told me it’s quite a difference.
You can find this table in the PDF I shared as well, kudos for them for at least trying to explain how they see their lineup change as you go higher in price.
You can see in their view, moving from Pacific to Poseidon is not necessarily about the sound quality per se as is also reflected in first chart.
I found that table to be pretty good. I would of loved it to compare each dac with each other dac, but there is little gained comparing an amber to a horizon in all practicality.
As a data professional, that table does not tell any story. Sorry I am being critical, if it’s a matrix to inform as a cross-reference then it’s a piss-poor job. So what is the table telling the reader?
100% agree. It’s as subjective as if someone put up a chart of beautiful models and ranked them; it all depends on the beholder’s preference and values.
Not even as subjective information is this a viable format. For example take the first box, is it stating information about the Amber 4 or Baltic 4?
When creating a matrix or table, there should be some approach to why the data is presented this way, is it a comparison matrix? If so then either the column or row should be considered static and the remainder would be the space to indicate differences from the static data. Alternatively, the language used should be agnostic as to indicate data which are common to both column and row items.
Suffice to say, visuals don’t always suit the goal, yet many see a visual and are “ooh, ah, visuals”
While I agree the format is terrible, especially given it’s just a bunch of pairwise comparisons, but the instant is you read off the lower cost device as a row and the comparison is in the column.
Speaking from a person who has no clue which model Lampi is which, this is not obvious and perhaps I am taking it a bit further, as I am utterly confused by the Lampi line up.
As you go further to right or bottom of the table you go higher in price, so as you read the comparisons diagonally from top left to bottom right you’re reading improvements as you go higher in the lineup. It’s not an ideal visualization but it’s a good attempt. Especially compared to other companies with complicated lineups like Totaldac (these days a much simpler one) and SW1X (absolutely terrible).
I am not complaining about how comparing a dac line up is challenging, no I am speaking strictly from a data viewpoint. Especially for someone with no knowledge of what is being presented there are certain pieces which should be in place to relay the information. I am being a technical nerd on this, and nitpicking as this is my work and there is criteria for choosing the proper format for displaying information. This is not the thread, nor the place to get nerdy on data presentation, so again I will stop commenting. Understand it is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of proper form. Think of your job, and if you saw something that was done incorrectly, would you say something or ignore it? I chose to speak up in this case, yet it is being misunderstood as me pushing an opinion.
So please carry on with the Lampi discussion, my commentary has absolutely nothing to do with their DAC design, only the manner in which they are relaying information to the consumer.
EDIT: Mods please feel free to remove my posts about data visualization as my intention was to not derail, simply point out a flaw in the manner which the table displayed information.
and most say it is improved but i havent seen how. The F2a were big with E53 so it seems tube pairing for E11 are at least similar. Ive also jumped off there as tubes got more and more esoteric and needing special adapters. All fine and good but i am just not in a spot of going that crazy, especially as my GA has the deeper sockets.
