Will the Big Ben improve the 24 MXL?

Lourenz- I understand how they work, I've had both in my system, have you? Both units are being purchased by audiophiles as jitter reduction devises, and as such when connected between the same transport and dac, my experience was the DL improved the sound, while the BB degraded it. The set-up performed at 44.1 was transport AES out-> BB AES in-> BB AES out-> dac AES in. There are many BB users using the unit in this manner, and they feel it makes an improvement.

I agree that clock slaving a transport to a DAC should produce an improvement, but most consumer transports and and dacs(including mine) do not have word clock inputs/outputs, so few will be able to use the BB for this function. I haven't tested a BB in this manner, so I don't know if it reduces jitter and improves performance.

There is a simple mod for the BB. The Toslink connection is disconnected. I think i still have the email that states this.

Tabl10s:
This is off subject in relation to the thread, but in response to your isolation query. In a conversation, JO was supportive of using isolation. I am using his older DAC, the M34DSB. I put a Townshend Seismic Sink under it.
Wow! I would never have expected such an improvement.

I would agree that you call Jerry Ozment as well and ask about it. The Audio Logic has an excellent re-clocking interface, as I understand it, and likely won't need it, but he'll tell you straight.

On isolation, I use a K-Works IsobaseK under my Audio Logic, it works even better under it than the Seismic Sink (which also made a positive improvement).

Rc:
Can you elaborate on the differences you experienced between the "Sink" and the "IsobaseK". Bigkidz sent me the white paper on the IsobaseK so I have a modest awareness of it.