Robin Bowes wrote: > Chinanico wrote: >> For me the dream SB4 would be basically a SB3 WITHOUT the DAC but rather >> with a better digital output (of the likes of the transporter, low >> jitter, and most importantly 24/96). > > True, but the DAC is likely a very small part of the cost of the unit - > the hardware, display, power supplies, etc. are the biggest costs. > Removing a chip and a couple of sockets from the design isn't going to > bring the price down very much and it makes the unit useless without an > external DAC.
Only crazy audiophiles want an external DAC. I posted a while ago what the DAC chip costs, quantity one. Its under $2. There are no "sockets" anymore, all stuff is surface mount. as Robin writes, eliminating the DAC will save only a tiny amount, and a "better digial output" will easily eat any savings. I don't see any point in low jitter, the usual suspects, Benchmark, Larvy, etc. are immune to jitter. I can almost understand a desire for something cheaper than a Transporter and better than a SB3, but I'm not seeing anything in the thread that makes much economic sense. You can get a very good sound with a simple SB3 feeding it flac. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
