jbm0 wrote:
Pat Farrell;142570 Wrote:
But I don't understand what you are asking for. The Transporter as a
unit is very cool. Without the DAC, it would be a lot like having two
SqueezeBox 3s, but lots more expensive.
And I don't quite understand how you could not understand what the
poster was asking for, since several people have spelled out the
advantages of the Transporter over an SB3 as a purely digital
transport.
I see no advantage of the Transporter's quality as an expensive SB3.
I use it instead of using me Benchmark DAC-1. My DAC-1 has been
unplugged since I got my Transporter last week.
Forgive me for finding it a mite annoying when people play dumb in a
passive-aggressive sort of way.
I am not trying to be dumb, altho I often play one on the 'net.
I don't see any reason to use a Transporter and a Benchmark DAC-1.
While the post you cite talks about less jitter, the Benchmark folks
claim that they are immune to jitter. So I fail to see any point in it.
It's not clear to me (just seat of the pants, of course, not having
done any kind of formal study) that in the the volume in which we
digital-Transporter-wanters would buy them, any parts savings would
even be able to result in a meaningful retail-price drop once the
additional design and manufacturing overhead were factored in.
And shipping and support overhead.
I don't see any chance if it being cheaper.
But still, I'd buy one if offered at even a nominal price cut, just
because I'm freak enough to like the idea of a minimal, optimized
digital-only Transporter. Maybe there are enough like me.
Not likely. Even the audiophile market is small, restricting it more
makes it next to impossible to recover the NRE
--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html
_______________________________________________
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
