PhilNYC;142639 Wrote: > The material cost of a DAC-less Transporter would absolutely cost less > than a standard Transporter. Why wouldn't it? You can argue that it > might increase SD's overhead to manage having to market a 3rd product > in the their product lineup, but that would be a weak argument if there > was a legitimate market for a DAC-less Transporter. Sure the material costs would be lower. But would the difference be enough to offer the product at a price significantly lower than the Transporter's? If you'd be selling it for $1900 then why bother?
When you consider that SD thinks/claims that the big deal about the Transporter that makes it worth the $2k price tag is the sound of the DAC, then a similar product with the DAC removed would make marketing either one difficult. Here's what I'd see as then next logical product, which could build on the Transporter's design and the manufacturing knowledge gained in producing it: - price point at or below 2/3 that of the transporter ($1200-$1340) - smaller chassis with similar quality casework - a knob, but fewer buttons - similar DAC and output sections - no digital input - no balanced output - single screen The price point would need to be at a distinctly different level than the Transporter in order to attract a new audience. Given the limited product lineup of Slim Devices, it just wouldn't make sense to produce, say, a $1700 product. Similar DAC. If they love the DAC and its sound, designing a new mainboard around it should be fairly easy. I'm guessing the material costs of the DAC and output sections are low enough that it wouldn't make any sense to build a design around another DAC or change the output section very much. No digital input and no balanced output would save the cost of a few connectors and some electronics, but the smaller chassis would also dictate losing some rear connetions. This is the type of thing that almost seems arbitrary, given that it would probably be easy enough to duplicate the Transporter's circuitry. But then there's no point in duplicating the Transporter and you need to justify the lower price while the Transporter remains in the product line. It would be by removing the flexibility and convenience of these added features that you could sell both. No reason for a 17" wide chassis - there are plenty of very fine audio components on the market that have smaller form factors and the smaller form makes it a much better fit for secondary systems in bedrooms and such. And lose the handles. I don't quite understand why they were added to an audio component that weighs only 13 lbs. -- JJZolx Jim ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28246 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
