jbm0;140096 Wrote: > My question is... why would you concern yourself with 192K sources? It > hasn't yet been demonstrated to me that 192K actually sounds better than > 96K; and really, a sizeable portion of the 44.1/16->96/24 jump in > quality (to my ears) comes when you go from 44.1/16 to 48/24, maybe > just because of a few more bits of level resolution. > > Do you have any actual, natively-192K/24 recordings, or are you just > feature-counting? Yes, I have several recordings in 192/24 and when I heard them on my M-Audio's Revolution 5.1 (192/24) it was like switching from 128/mp3 to a CD! 44/16 doesn't sound edgy, it's just that everything is so "bold" and "fat" comparing to 192/24 where music sounds airy, with so many details...
> If I were you, and didn't have that Benchmark yet, I expect I'd just > forget the whole idea of an external DAC and get on the list for a > Transporter. Put the money which would have gone for the DAC toward > the Transporter, and enjoy both great sound *and* good looks and a nice > interface. The second display panel actually meaningfully improves the > user interface, especially when set to "Extended Text Display". Hmmm... yes that's my dilemma... Transporter looks so attractive (feature wise too ;)) -- dcolak ------------------------------------------------------------------------ dcolak's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5864 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27657 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
