It is your choice, of course. However, you cited only a subtle audible difference from the SoTM. And, though you did not say, I presume that was in sighted listening.
As with Amir's testing of the original Amber Regen, not the ISO, it is possible that the SoTM influences transmitted noise, but not necessarily for the better. The Amber actually slightly increased noise, though it claimed to reduce it. So, there might even be a detectable sonic difference with the SoTM, but not by reclocking. Some listeners might even prefer some slight additional noise. Or, they might hear a slight difference and merely assume it is an "improvement", because that is what the marketing and user testimony preconditions them to believe. I do not know of any measurents for the SoTM, so we are just in the dark, except for all the anecdotal, sighted reviews around the web about "improved" sound quality. Believe them if you choose.
The above is merely hypothetical about one way the SoTM might influence the sound. There might be others. Or, the SoTM, like the ISO Regen, might introduce no sonic difference at all, except in the fertile imaginations of reviewers and listeners.
Rest assured that their elaborate claims to jitter improvement via reclocking the data stream in asynch USB are pure garbage. Hey, if reclocking is good for spdif, AES/EBU or Toslink, it must be good for USB, too. Right? No, wrong! There are no measurements anywhere because it has no effect on asynch USB. A somewhat deeper understanding of how asynch USB actually works will convince you of that, I am sure. Don't listen to me, if you prefer. Read up on it yourself.
If you are convinced of SoTM's good faith without any solid evidence, and if you are convinced that you can hear things totally accurately by sighted listening in an unbiased way free of influence by marketing claims or mere user testimony, then be happy with your SoTM. I think you will find many people here disagreeing with your beliefs, however, for very solid reasons.
