Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Are CD transports obsolete these days?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are CD transports obsolete these days? - Page 4

post #46 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruppin
The actual drive may be flimsier, but in theory it doesn't matter. You only use the transport drive once, with each CD, to upload it by copying it or by using lossless compression. Since the drive doesn't have to play the CD in real time, it can repeat passes to correct any errors. What ends up on the hard drive (which is not flimsy) should be bit perfect. The hard drive can be backed up, perfectly. If the transport breaks, extenal CD drives are also cheap.

Hard drive storage is cheap. This way you don't have to waste a fortune on a sturdy CD drive which must read perfectly in real time, as you play the disk. What is played off the hard drive is, in theory, bit perfect. Just keep your library backed up against the inevitable drive failure, and life is easy. And, you still have the CDs if you need them.
Understood, but I was refering to home CDP's that use computer based drive systems. And I've come across many that do. This is where I think a hefty drive in a good transport would be a step up in SQ.
post #47 of 144
When you say computer based drive systems, do you mean the same tray and laser system that was developed for computers but sold to the CD manufacturer. You mean the same actual drive that one would find on a computer?

If so, you are probably right. A drive developed for data use probably cost under $100 to the cd manufacturer. It wasn't designed to survive a nulear blast, and for data use it didn't need to be. Using it in a computer allows several passes if necessary for error correction. No such chance in a cd player.

If you insist on a dedicated cd player, then obviously a sturdy drive is better. The question, though, is why would you pay all that extra money for a sturdy cd player, when a computer Hard Drive can be as good as the high end CD player.
post #48 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruppin
The actual drive may be flimsier, but in theory it doesn't matter. You only use the transport drive once, with each CD, to upload it by copying it or by using lossless compression. Since the drive doesn't have to play the CD in real time, it can repeat passes to correct any errors. What ends up on the hard drive (which is not flimsy) should be bit perfect. The hard drive can be backed up, perfectly. If the transport breaks, extenal CD drives are also cheap.

Hard drive storage is cheap. This way you don't have to waste a fortune on a sturdy CD drive which must read perfectly in real time, as you play the disk. What is played off the hard drive is, in theory, bit perfect. Just keep your library backed up against the inevitable drive failure, and life is easy. And, you still have the CDs if you need them.
You seem to have a misconception here. CD transport do not read in real time. Just like a HD, the data is buffered to a cache and distributed at a steady rate.

Sorry if you interpreted my response as sarcastic. I didn't mean it that way, although a little bit might've snuck in because I misread your genunie request for information as uneducated skepticism which I thought was kind of haughty. Its pretty clear we both misunderstood each other (one of the pitfalls of forums.)

I am really busy right now but I will refute your post in more detail when I get more time . There is already a thread on it, but yes I do believe that the DAC3 USB goes through spdif just so they can asynchronously reclock.

Jitter is technically bad but not necessarily sonically bad, it is like brightness with detail loss. If it sounded bad in every implementation, the technology wouldn't have perpetuated.

I am just not sure why i2s hasn't been more widely adapted. One of the problems is that there is no standard plug for it. NorthStar uses RJ45 while Zanden and Perpetual Technologies use the airplane plug (srry dunno what its called) maybe it is more expensive to implement to.

And just because you don't see artistic value in album doesn't mean others dont or that I have OCD haha. And you still seem not to be reading my point about internet distribution. I do think that's the way the world is going. Much of the cost of releasing singles is allieved by not having to sell a hard copy of the data, but artists can still record a bunch of songs together, it just won't be an album it will be a series of singles one released every two months over a couple of years. And having 12 smash hits and no albums would be a lot more profitable than 1 smash hit in a 12 song album. Compression is even more worrisome. Unfortunately, 95% of the world doesn't give a s#&^. There is very little incentive to release uncompressed music, except for the audiophile market which is VERY small.

I woulld think that any DAC manufacturer would agree that I2s is technically superior but there are realistic reasons why it hasn't been adopted. Other than the lack of coherency, I know it is more difficult to implement, and perhaps more expensive? Sorry I am getting a little out of my league here. And again you have a completely valid point about spdif and jitter. SPdif cables have their own sonic signature because of varying amounts of jittter, but is that necessarily a bad thing? Personally I'll take the cable that is most transparent but different strokes for different folks. I will try to dig up some stats for you but like I said I'm almost over my head. I suggest you consult Thomaspf if you are still interested, hes very knowledgable.

Again, sorry about the miscommunication, I'm sure neither of us wanted to look like a jerk.

EDIT:Paragraphs for the grammar trolls.
post #49 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruppin
When you say computer based drive systems, do you mean the same tray and laser system that was developed for computers but sold to the CD manufacturer. You mean the same actual drive that one would find on a computer?

If so, you are probably right. A drive developed for data use probably cost under $100 to the cd manufacturer. It wasn't designed to survive a nulear blast, and for data use it didn't need to be. Using it in a computer allows several passes if necessary for error correction. No such chance in a cd player.

If you insist on a dedicated cd player, then obviously a sturdy drive is better. The question, though, is why would you pay all that extra money for a sturdy cd player, when a computer Hard Drive can be as good as the high end CD player.

Yes that's what I was referring to. My #1 reason for a stand alone CDP based system is no crashes ever! Also my CD collection sitting out in full view looks impressive. LOL! I had a hard enough time giving up my vinyl, my CD's are gonna stay around a bit longer. And I've had the same CDP longer than I've owned a computer, I just upgraded by adding a good DAC.
post #50 of 144
post #51 of 144
Paragraphs are your friend!
post #52 of 144
Patrick - No need to get pissy because you don't know what I2S is.

Basically, I2S is the format that most DAC's output. Therefore no conversion is needed, which I am sure you can see is a good thing. I believe it also carries clock information so that your DAC can act as a true clock master. There is little, if any, standard I2S implementation though, so custom cables are usually needed... even between two components that support it. You can also hack an I2S connection off of most CD players.
post #53 of 144
First, to Chri5peed: I don't know who were you were talking to. But if it was me, I agree that paragraphs are good. But you should understand that a paragraph may be your friend, but paragraphs are your friends.


Thank you, Akathriel, for the response. I was in fact seeking information, but I agree that the tone of a response may not be what we intend. Either way, my original intent was not to be sarcastic, especially given my lack of expertise. I can't say the same about my later posts. If I misinterpreted, or overreacted, my apology. You were right about forums. Also, one of the problems of e-mail or forums is that you get the spontaneity of speech, without the impulse control.

I was quite serious. In theory, a hard drive (uncompressed, error corrected) should be perfect transport. This wouldn't be better than a great transport, but it would be as good. Now, I may misunderstand the theory. Maybe I couldn't understand the explanation that proves me wrong. But I'd like to know, if only so that I may improve my system. I am only speaking about sonics. I have no problem purchasing a stand alone CD player, if it would be better.

I was also serious, and maybe even touchy, about this question seeming to evoke an emotional response (other threads) when it comes up in these forums. [Aside: I wonder if we could do a simultaneous post – both in this forum and in the computer forum].

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akathriel
You seem to have a misconception here. CD transport do not read in real time. Just like a HD, the data is buffered to a cache and distributed at a steady rate.
Good point. Would it be safe to say that the quality, size, and speed of buffering increase as the transport improves? I would like to know at what price, the cd transport becomes better than the hard drive.



Quote:
I am really busy right now but I will refute your post in more detail when I get more time . There is already a thread on it, but yes I do believe that the DAC3 USB goes through spdif just so they can asynchronously reclock.
I look forward to hearing more in favor of dedicated CD player/dac, or stand alone cd transport. It isn't so much my argument as it is my statement of a position, as I understand it, and a hope to understand the other side.

Thanks for the information on the DAC3, and for your later post with the links. I will look. The DAC3 does look interesting.
post #54 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruppin
First, to Chri5peed: I don't know who were you were talking to. But if it was me, I agree that paragraphs are good. But you should understand that a paragraph may be your friend, but paragraphs are your friends.
I wasn't directing that comment to you, but someone else! Unless something is very interesting you might not read it, it should be chopped up to make it more readable.


The friends thing wasn't wrong. I said Paragraphs in reference to the idea of using them, not using them more than once! I left out 'Using' in that post.
post #55 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chri5peed
I wasn't directing that comment to you, but someone else! Unless something is very interesting you might not read it, it should be chopped up to make it more readable.


The friends thing wasn't wrong. I said Paragraphs in reference to the idea of using them, not using them more than once! I left out 'Using' in that post.
My comment was a "He who writes perfectly and is without grammatical error may cast the first stone". Fair is fair. You may have meant to include "using" but you didn't. You mixed singular and plural.
post #56 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruppin
My comment was a "He who writes perfectly and is without grammatical error may cast the first stone". Fair is fair. You may have meant to include "using" but you didn't. You mixed singular and plural.
My address bar says http://www6.head-fi.org not http://www.goodgrammar.com!

My post required being short to carry a short sharp point. Adding 'using' would have made it too long... I might have had to use a paragraph.
post #57 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianS
cd baby, no hassle
CDs are a big hassle if you have an expansive collection. Even if you have them organized, you have to constantly reorganize as you add new titles. They're also a big hassle if you like to listen to playlists even only part of the time. On a computer you have access to anything in your collection about as fast as you can type part of the name. Playlists can be easily stored and called up at any time. Even if you are willing to deal with a CD changer, programing the damn thing is a huge hassle.

When you have a computer source, you drop the CD in the tray open EAC, wait about 5 seconds for it to look up the album, then hit shift+f5. Wait a few minutes, and then select+drag and drop into your playlist/music library. You can then put the disc away for good, and from then on out all those files are a few key strokes or mouse clicks away. You don't have to have massive CD racks that you constantly have to reorganize everytime you add a new album. You don't have to spend several minutes looking through said CD racks for the album you're after. A computer source's biggest asset is that it's much less hassle in the long run. Particularly for those of us who have large music collections, a computer source becomes a virtual necessity. Hybrid systems with an external DAC seems to bring the best of both worlds...
post #58 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbz
In my case it is. Foobar's ASIO drivers combined with a poorly encoded mp3 will cause a BSOD on my computer. Not to mention that when i throw a modern CD in my cdplayer I can listen to it with ease regardless if it says copy controlled on it or not

This is not true of all CDPs though, Meridians for example are known to have issues with copy protected discs.
post #59 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper994
CDs are a big hassle if you have an expansive collection. Even if you have them organized, you have to constantly reorganize as you add new titles.
Yes, for example my Iron Maiden CDs take up one draw and the ony gap anywhere is in the last draw. When someone brings out a new album everything after it has to be moved forward one, until the end of a draw, cos they can be moved.

Having properly tagged FLACs mean if you really wanted you could just put all your audio files in one folder.
post #60 of 144
Eventhough I'm a computer as source user, I don't believe CD player as transport is obsolete. Your use of it is based upon your lifestyle and how you listen to music. Some people like easy, some are album people and CD players are great for that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Are CD transports obsolete these days?