Transporter's DAC - e.g. the chip - is well-respected and used in a very high-end equipment, such as Esoteric and Metronome.
Yet, it is analog stage may be **greatly** improved. Under the hood, while schematically excellent, Transporter has very cheap (cents) components. I wish I could upgrade it earlier, now it sounds incredible. Three-dimensional, very quiet (more quite than before), better bass control, better details & microdynamics, etc.. Yet, Transporter as-is sounds good, but not as it could once you upgrade op-amps, capacitors, etc. from 1cent to something that costs 1$ (virtually) Re: 192/24 vs. 176.4/24 - Recently Linn Records released few classical albums with 192/24, I have also HRx disk with 176.4/24, Lindberg has few 192/24 records.. I just want to hear as-is. Another points are that downsampling from 192/24 to 96/24 is CPU-intensive, while 172.4/24 to 96/24 may introduce noise (until I fix SoX to downsample to 88.4/24) -- michael123 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
