michael123 wrote: > My choice was greatly based on the fact that Transporter is an open > platform.
There is a good chance that your choice was based on incorrect understanding of the open license. The hardware has never been open source in any sense. None of the firmware has been open source, altho the Touch and other recent models have some pieces of software that is Open Source. > I agree about "marketing purposes"! > I know few people that do not buy it just because it does not support > 192/24 and 176.4/24.. Well, then they won't buy one. Are you really of the impression that the Transporter was ever a mass market device? It was an engineering tour-de-force, a flagship. And a labor of love by folks who are no longer part of the company. What is the point of your continual posting in this thread? You are not going to change any facts. The firmware is not open source, the CPU is too slow. Accept it and move on with your life -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
