Pat Farrell;142596 Wrote: > jbm0 wrote:[color=blue] > I see no advantage of the Transporter's quality as an expensive SB3. > I use it instead of using me Benchmark DAC-1. My DAC-1 has been > unplugged since I got my Transporter last week. > [color=blue]
For those of us with better DACs than a Benchmark, a transport-only version is still appealing... ;-) > I don't see any reason to use a Transporter and a Benchmark DAC-1. > > While the post you cite talks about less jitter, the Benchmark folks > claim that they are immune to jitter. So I fail to see any point in > it. > [color=blue] > Even a master/slave word-clock system is not "immune" to jitter, and that architecture is FAR more "immune" to jitter than any SPDIF-based or AES/EBU-based DAC. FWIW, I've only had my Transporter for a little over a day, but up until this point, my Dodson DAC is still IMHO better than the Transporter's internal DAC. However, using the Transporter as a transport-only feeding my Dodson is definitely in the ballpark of my reference Oracle transport, and both are significantly better than the SB2/3 feeding my DAC (even with an upgraded Elpac power supply). I definitely agree that the market for a transport-only version of the Transporter is probably very small and likely not worthwhile for a company like Slim Devices to pursue. But from an audiophile perspective, there is definitely value to one if using a top-tier DAC. Just my two cents... -- PhilNYC Sonic Spirits Inc. http://www.sonicspirits.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PhilNYC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=837 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28246 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
