PhilNYC wrote:
Pat Farrell;142596 Wrote:
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.
For those of us with better DACs than a Benchmark, a transport-only
version is still appealing... ;-)
I am sure that there are better DAC's than the Benchmark, but the people
who want one, are not likely to care about the extra $$$ that a
Transporter "as is" costs, or would care about any theological savings.
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.
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.
What architecture are you speaking of?
If you use the Transporter as a transport to some DAC, you have to
connect them.
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.
Which takes one back to using the Transporter and a very high dollar
DAC, or modding the Transporter. Neither seem like mass market
opportunities for Slim Devices.
--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html
_______________________________________________
audiophiles mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
