325xi wrote: > Pat Farrell;221208 Wrote: >> I don't see any point in low jitter, the usual suspects, Benchmark, >> Larvy, etc. are immune to jitter. > > Please, you first know there's no DAC truly immune to jitter. And think > about those who have different DACs, more prone to jitter?
No, I don't know this. I don't even believe it. You may believe it, but I don't. I believe that well designed DACs are practically immune to jitter. Essentially immune to jitter, etc. So it practice, they are immune to reasonable sources of jitter. > I'd vote for purely digital device with improved connectivity options > (BNC, XLR), and somewhat lower jitter. I also do not believe that "somewhat lower jitter" is a meaningful requirement. First, its totally vague, and second, if lower is better, then we need to know how much is bad, and how much it needs to be reduced to be important. Much more importantly, the Transporter is the audiophile product. the SqueezeBox is the mass market product. I see no value in increasing a nebulous problem such as jitter output for folks using an external DAC in a mass market product, since mass market consumers aren't going to know what jitter is. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
