advertisement


CD Transport, does it make much of a difference?

Blimey, I go away for a bit then come back and there's 2 pages! :eek:

I was expecting some vague consensus but every poster seems to have a slightly different POV lol!

Nothing wrong with my DAC I think but I'm just curious really. I'm using an old Marantz CD52 II SE with a new TEAC UD-H01 and I'm very pleased with the results to be honest but I'm just wondering if I can squeeze anything more out of the CDs.

At the same time I'm ripping my CDs to Flac using dbPoweramp (also ripping to Apple Lossless for the iPod at the same time) so yes I will be streaming, initial tests using an old MacBook outputting via optical have been amazingly good, but I'd still like to have the option of the physical object once in a while. Call me old fashioned but there ye go :p

So I guess the ultimate question given I'll not be buying many, if any more, CDplayers in future is should I stick with the Marantz as a transport or can I get a better one for very little outlay (I like the sound of a tenner off eBay as mentioned above)?

As for DACs well we all know they are the future so I'll be playing with that option as and when ...
 
Rog, to keep it short, in my experience after extensive testing (initially sighted and then done blind with some help just to ensure my eyes weren't misleading me) with a few DACs and 14 different players/transports, the transport itself can make a significant difference. The very best can give an extra dose of realism that, once heard, is impossible to deny or forego.

FWIW, I tried a few different Marantz players - CD65, CD65SE, CD52, CD63SE - and they were fine but very much part of the average pack. Upping the transport ante, while not guaranteeing a better result, was more likely to provide it. And it wasn't a case of spending big money either. One of the best sounding transports was a Meridian 206, available secondhand for £150 or so. Conversely, one of the worst was a big Sony ES machine built like a battleship and beautifully finished like little else - a real disappointment. It was alway a rather smooth, slow and uninteresting player, and it continued that trend as a transport regardless of DAC.

If you want to spend less then a Rotel RCD855 was marginally preferred to all the Marantz players, but it was soundly beaten by the Meridian mentioned above.
 
As mentioned in a previous thread Rob Watts (dpa, Chord, Sony etc) reckoned that the SQ was 80% DAC and 20% transport.
I think that's about right. Although there's much interest in DACs currently due to streaming audio the transport/DAC discussion was alive and well in the 90s when I did much of my experimenting.
Currently I'm using an Audiolab CDM 8000 transport which does sound different to a Marantz CD players digital out / old DVD player - jitter/clocking plays a part and there's a lot of technical stuff about on t'web if you dig around.
 
Purite Audio said:
It can't possibly make any difference, unless perhaps the manufacturer of your dac doesn't know how to design and implement s/pdif.
Keith.
Click to expand...

I obviously shouldn't have bought a Young, then, as it must be broken. For me, it quite clearly shews a difference between a TAG DVD32R and a TAG CDT20R, the 32R sounding better, more solid and focused (everything else remaining the same).
Oh, well, now I know it's all down to a poorly implemented DAC.
 
none, zero, zip, nada.

anyone that says so is frankly woefully uninformed about digital audio. a simple blind test will prove any of these statements wrong, guaranteed.
 
Of the Marantz players I have tried with the same DAC , amp and speakers, I was very impressed by the CD6000KI. I only gave it up because of the Vam laser transport, wanting to try the CDM9 laser transport in the Philips.

My recommendation, if a KI is out, would be to find a cheap player that uses the CDM9 mechanism.:)
 
Since cd's inception,i have owned over 20 or 30 cd playing devices,i still have six,every single one sounds different,to state they don't,is like saying nothing else in the chain matters-every single compoment has a bearing on the sound-the sum is only as good as the weakest link!!!!
 
eisenach said:
I obviously shouldn't have bought a Young, then, as it must be broken. For me, it quite clearly shews a difference between a TAG DVD32R and a TAG CDT20R, the 32R sounding better, more solid and focused (everything else remaining the same).
Oh, well, now I know it's all down to a poorly implemented DAC.
Click to expand...

Please return the unit it must be faulty,
Keith.
 
Teddy Ray said:
none, zero, zip, nada.

anyone that says so is frankly woefully uninformed about digital audio. a simple blind test will prove any of these statements wrong, guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you didn't participate in a "deaf test"?

A few mates and I ran a test using the following setup:

Speakers: Tannoy D700s
Power Amp: 2 x Jeff Rowland Model 201 monoblocs
Pre-Amp: Classe CP-500
DAC: Bryston BDA-1
Digital Sources:

1) Theta Data Basic II CDT (using S/PDIF and then AES/EBU)
2) Rotal RCD965BX LE Discrete (S/PDIF)
3) Yamaha CDR-HD1300 (as CDP via S/PDIF)
4) PC with Asus DVD-RW drive and fed via Mobo S/PDIF on coax)

The Bryston DAC has 4 x S/PDIF inputs plus an AES/EBU input and all were used to connect all sources to the DAC to allow source switching on the DAC (initially done "blind" and subsequently as a "sighted" exercise).

The disks used were a selection spanning early 1980s initial releases up to a new CD produced in 2012.

There were subtle but definite differences in the sound quality across the four sources using S/PDIF, but the switch to AES/EBU on the Theta gave a more obvious improvement - particularly on violin, piano and female vocals.

These differences took the form of:

a) Degree of brightness in the higher registers (bad on the PC)
b) Tautness in the lower registers suffered on the PC and Yamaha
c) Female vocals sounded more natural on the Theta than the others (AES/EBU particularly)

These observations were common across the four people involved with no dissenting voices...

The system used has excellent resolution and - dare I say it - great "definition" - so is capable of reproducing nuances that might not come through on any lesser system. So, maybe those who claim from personal experience not to have been able to differentiate between CD transports/players used as transports/ etc. have either:

1) Fed the transports into inadequate systems unable to reproduce the differences
2) Listened to different transports on different systems and different days (and we all know how poor "audio memory" can be)

The old argument that CD reproduction is all about data bits being either "on" or "off" has long been proved fallacious - the key being accuracy of timing at the digital receiver. Poor timing accuracy results in "jitter" and "jitter" can be plainly detected. That's why most half-decent CDT/CDP combos incorporate some form of "jitter-reduction" technology (eg re-clocking the digital data-stream in the DAC) to minimise timing errors and reduce "jitter" effects in the analog output.

So, to the OP, my response is "Yes - there are discernible differences between different digital 'transports' and dedicated decent transports DO sound better than lesser devices".

Whether the degree of improvement justifies the price-difference is another matter and, quite frankly, is irrelevant - different folk have different priorities when spending disposable income.

As a matter of interest, I have vinyl recordings of two the CDs used in the test and we also did a "digital-to-analog" comparison using an LP12/Ittok/Kontrapunkt 'h' - unanimous opinion: vinyl is better - particularly on extended listening.

Dave
 
Yes CD transports do sound different . Based on the following experience . Original Rega Planet with Rega Io DAC was less good than Original Rega Jupiter transport and Io DAC . The sound was and in my system is in the transport.

rosie
 
Teddy Ray said:
none, zero, zip, nada.

anyone that says so is frankly woefully uninformed about digital audio. a simple blind test will prove any of these statements wrong, guaranteed.
Click to expand...

I think all that gunfire has damaged your hearing Teddy.;)
 
DevillEars said:
Are you sure you didn't participate in a "deaf test"?

A few mates and I ran a test using the following setup:

Speakers: Tannoy D700s
Power Amp: 2 x Jeff Rowland Model 201 monoblocs
Pre-Amp: Classe CP-500
DAC: Bryston BDA-1
Digital Sources:

1) Theta Data Basic II CDT (using S/PDIF and then AES/EBU)
2) Rotal RCD965BX LE Discrete (S/PDIF)
3) Yamaha CDR-HD1300 (as CDP via S/PDIF)
4) PC with Asus DVD-RW drive and fed via Mobo S/PDIF on coax)

The Bryston DAC has 4 x S/PDIF inputs plus an AES/EBU input and all were used to connect all sources to the DAC to allow source switching on the DAC (initially done "blind" and subsequently as a "sighted" exercise).

The disks used were a selection spanning early 1980s initial releases up to a new CD produced in 2012.

There were subtle but definite differences in the sound quality across the four sources using S/PDIF, but the switch to AES/EBU on the Theta gave a more obvious improvement - particularly on violin, piano and female vocals.

These differences took the form of:

a) Degree of brightness in the higher registers (bad on the PC)
b) Tautness in the lower registers suffered on the PC and Yamaha
c) Female vocals sounded more natural on the Theta than the others (AES/EBU particularly)

These observations were common across the four people involved with no dissenting voices...

The system used has excellent resolution and - dare I say it - great "definition" - so is capable of reproducing nuances that might not come through on any lesser system. So, maybe those who claim from personal experience not to have been able to differentiate between CD transports/players used as transports/ etc. have either:

1) Fed the transports into inadequate systems unable to reproduce the differences
2) Listened to different transports on different systems and different days (and we all know how poor "audio memory" can be)

The old argument that CD reproduction is all about data bits being either "on" or "off" has long been proved fallacious - the key being accuracy of timing at the digital receiver. Poor timing accuracy results in "jitter" and "jitter" can be plainly detected. That's why most half-decent CDT/CDP combos incorporate some form of "jitter-reduction" technology (eg re-clocking the digital data-stream in the DAC) to minimise timing errors and reduce "jitter" effects in the analog output.

So, to the OP, my response is "Yes - there are discernible differences between different digital 'transports' and dedicated decent transports DO sound better than lesser devices".

Whether the degree of improvement justifies the price-difference is another matter and, quite frankly, is irrelevant - different folk have different priorities when spending disposable income.

As a matter of interest, I have vinyl recordings of two the CDs used in the test and we also did a "digital-to-analog" comparison using an LP12/Ittok/Kontrapunkt 'h' - unanimous opinion: vinyl is better - particularly on extended listening.

Dave
Click to expand...

Great post Dave,could'nt agree more!!!
As stated i started with cd from release in 82,simple philips/Meridian players through various Arcam/Kenwood/Audiolab/Micromega/Linn transports and dozens of dac combos,each and everyone had its own sonic character,each slightly influenced by connection and cable choice,however play one track on vinyl and i could not go back to digital for the rest of the day!!!!!
 
Teddy Ray said:
none, zero, zip, nada.

anyone that says so is frankly woefully uninformed about digital audio. a simple blind test will prove any of these statements wrong, guaranteed.
Click to expand...

I guess you only need to listen to compressed MP3 files through an iPod as you cannot tell the difference between the two under DBT conditions :confused:
 
MJS said:
...all the error correction and concealment that occurs in real-time...
Click to expand...

Error correction is exactly that - it's a sophisticated set of maths that, ultimately, does little more than calculating that if 2+x=5, then x must be 3. Error corrected data is 100% accurate. Your hard disc does exactly this (probably more so than CD).

Data that has been successfully error corrected sounds no different to data that had no errors in the first place. This is fundamental.

A CD has to be pretty knackered (or the transport well sub-par) before concealment comes into play.
 
CD transport should make no more difference than a phono cartridge or pair of speakers.
 
Transports certainly sound different.

I have a TEAC P-30 which 'whups the ass' of my other CD drives. (Yamaha CD recorder/Rotel RCD 965-BX)
Whether the difference is worth the money, and the space taken up by the huge lump of a P-30 is a different issue.

Mull
 
Open up most modern players and you'll find basically a modified £5 PC drive inside.

Modified as in they took the metal case off it.
 
mmterror said:
Open up most modern players and you'll find basically a modified £5 PC drive inside.

Modified as in they took the metal case off it.
Click to expand...

Very true. Snake oil is common enough in audio. But open the top on an audio note cdt 2 or above and you will find much more. Wonderful sounding also. Certainly there are others that are equally creative.
 
mmterror said:
Open up most modern players and you'll find basically a modified £5 PC drive inside.

Modified as in they took the metal case off it.
Click to expand...

You mean like one of these?

vrds1.jpg


Right!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top