Confused by the cost of CD Transports

[Conan1974]

If i am not mistaken, You are talking about the connector?
I think the RCA should be fine or is just fine.
Personally, i do not believe that You can get better QA with other connectors. It is in the end digital signal.
But this is me.

 

[George Hincapie]

If i am not mistaken, You are talking about the connector?
I think the RCA should be fine or is just fine.
Personally, i do not believe that You can get better QA with other connectors. It is in the end digital signal.
But this is me.

Agreed. SQ should be the same. It's just preference.

 

[sygnus21]

I connected my AudioLab 6000CDT to May KTE last night. Sounded great. Is there any point from SQ buying a more expensive transport?

Yes, and no. Like everything else, it comes down to parts, build, tech... and sometimes aesthetics.

And unless you've heard every player in the market "sounds great" is a relevant term. I think my Teac 701 VRDS "sounds great", but how it compares to the many others I've not heard, doesn't make me say its best for the money.... that something more, or less doesn't sound better.

All I will say is that in my system it sounds well enough that it doesn't have me wanting for more. I suspect this is your feelings as well

Oh, and not AES, but I2S would be my wish. Currently connected optical direct to DAC.

 

[2leftears]

Worrying about the sound quality of a CD transport (ie. using the digital out) is like worrying which model hard-drive gives you the sharpest print-outs of your Word documents...

That is determined by the DAC/amps/speakers, or in the document analogy by the computer software & printer.

As long as it reads the CDs OK, use any CD transport you like and go by features/convenience. That is one of the advantages of splitting sound recording & reproduction into a digital and analogue domain. The conversion between the digital and analogue domains is where the magic happens, but that is the task of the ADC & DAC, not the CD transport.

 

[chord1]

I connected my AudioLab 6000CDT to May KTE last night. Sounded great. Is there any point from SQ buying a more expensive transport?

Unfortunately, yes.
After experiencing it you will completely understand.

 

[sygnus21]

I think we're all allowed to have thoughts on things.... as you're clearly posting yours. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant to the choices we make based on the beliefs we have.

I'm one who does believe CD players can have sonic differences cause not only have I heard these differences, I've read reviews on this about certain players.... yes, even transports.

Whether you agree or not does not change my mind no matter how many times you say it.... or attack those who believe such things.

This is an open forum. We're allowed to have opinions... just like you.

Peace

 

[2leftears]

It is indeed my own opinion based on science, and meant as a response to @George Hincapie's question, not meant as an attack to anyone

 

[sygnus21]

It is indeed my own opinion based on science, and meant as a response to @George Hincapie's question, not meant as an attack to anyone

That's always the "get out of jail" response.... but we also know the psychology of hearing is also part pseudo-science. That is is factually known not everyone hears the same. And why there are tons of different audio gear on the market with varying opinions on what sounds better and why. This too is fact.

 

[2leftears]

That's always the "get out of jail" response.... but we also know the psychology of hearing is also part pseudo-science. That is is factually known not everyone hears the same. And why there are tons of different audio gear on the market with varying opinions on what sounds better and why. This too is fact.

Sure, but here we are talking about comparing the digital output of two (or more) different CD transports. That was the question asked.

As long as two different CD transports output the exact same binary data stream to the DAC, there is not going to be any impact on the sound. Hence my document analogy; if the printer receives the exact same binary data file, the print-out will look the same.

CD transports may differ in their error handling of problematic CDs, and in the amount of jitter on a synchronous output like S/PDIF, but assuming the CD is good, and the jitter-induced small lift of the noise floor being well below audible levels, the sound will be the same.

The sound may well be perceived to be different, but that's a psychoacoustic effect no different from me perceiving my music different when I close my eyes.

There may be noticeable problems if you use a really bad USB cable on USB audio, due to the isochronous nature of the data stream not allowing for data packet resending upon packet loss or corruption, but that would be an equipment fault.

There may also be isolated cases where a CD transport with a very noisy ground or power line on e.g. a USB out, and a DAC with poor noise rejection on the USB input combine to make for a noticeable difference, but that would be an unlucky exception of combining two poorly designed devices.

 

[sygnus21]

As said, you have your perceptions / opinions, I have mine. And the ole "he doesn't want to accept science" doesn't work here as well cause we all know there's pseudo-science involved here as well. We'll simply have to agree to disagree agreeably and move on.

Peace

 

[theveterans]

Sure, but here we are talking about comparing the digital output of two (or more) different CD transports. That was the question asked.

As long as two different CD transports output the exact same binary data stream to the DAC, there is not going to be any impact on the sound. Hence my document analogy; if the printer receives the exact same binary data file, the print-out will look the same.

CD transports may differ in their error handling of problematic CDs, and in the amount of jitter on a synchronous output like S/PDIF, but assuming the CD is good, and the jitter-induced small lift of the noise floor being well below audible levels, the sound will be the same.

The sound may well be perceived to be different, but that's a psychoacoustic effect no different from me perceiving my music different when I close my eyes.

There may be noticeable problems if you use a really bad USB cable on USB audio, due to the isochronous nature of the data stream not allowing for data packet resending upon packet loss or corruption, but that would be an equipment fault.

There may also be isolated cases where a CD transport with a very noisy ground or power line on e.g. a USB out, and a DAC with poor noise rejection on the USB input combine to make for a noticeable difference, but that would be an unlucky exception of combining two poorly designed devices.

We don't care about data integrity (because data is PERFECTLY preserved) in audio at all. We care about timing (has ZERO CORRELATION with buffering/async) as well as the quality of the PSU/filtering that can contaminate the CD transport and degrade the signal quality (NOT DATA). Finally, vibrations from CD module itself can degrade the sound too

 

[2leftears]

Well, let's agree to disagree then. I simply answered a question, and wasn't attacking anyone; this isn't the Sound Science forum...

I'm sure @George Hincapie are mature enough to look at the arguments on either side and make up their own mind. If they want to know more about what my opnion is based on, they are free to ask.

 

[TinearedOne]

Loving this discussion, but I tend to simply purchase audio based on the idea of getting the most for my money to suit my purposes. There are three transports I was considering around $500: 6000CDT, CXC V2, SMSL PL200T. The first allowed me to do business with a brick and mortar store I'd like to see still here, so the choice was easy. That, and the fact that my desktop solution wouldn't actually fit a top loader.

I was, though I am questioning my brain, convinced that I heard different vocal layering on the 6000CDT compared to the older CD player it replaced as a transport. Not doing any blind testing, I'm not going to argue with the science guys - as I have no proof other than my memory. I just wanted something quiet mechanically, which the 6000CDT is with good disks - with poor disks my old player wouldn't even read properly, there's some noise in there, likely because of imbalance of the CD itself, but that player seems to read every CD.

Best for the budget we have is pretty much how all of us operate, no?

 

[2leftears]

Loving this discussion, but I tend to simply purchase audio based on the idea of getting the most for my money to suit my purposes. There are three transports I was considering around $500: 6000CDT, CXC V2, SMSL PL200T. The first allowed me to do business with a brick and mortar store I'd like to see still here, so the choice was easy. That, and the fact that my desktop solution wouldn't actually fit a top loader.

I was, though I am questioning my brain, convinced that I heard different vocal layering on the 6000CDT compared to the older CD player it replaced as a transport. Not doing any blind testing, I'm not going to argue with the science guys - as I have no proof other than my memory. I just wanted something quiet mechanically, which the 6000CDT is with good disks - with poor disks my old player wouldn't even read properly, there's some noise in there, likely because of imbalance of the CD itself, but that player seems to read every CD.

Best for the budget we have is pretty much how all of us operate, no?

The ability of CD players to read problematic discs is very much hit-and-miss in my experience.

Poorly balanced CDs some of my modern CD drives struggle with; when ripping them to my computer you can hear the vibration and you can hear the drive drop its RPM's in a effort to read the disc. And then it sometimes still fails to read since most computer CD-ROM drives seem unable to drop below 4x read speed. But those discs tend to play fine on my vintage players because they spin the disc at a much more sedate 1x read speed.

On the other hand, localised substrate undulations is something my more modern players are better able to handle; likely because my older players use the Philips CDM radial drive which, for all their advantages, have more moving mass and sometimes simply have too much inertia to handle poorly pressed CDs with more localised undulations.

Bottom line: all my players play almost all my CDs without issue. But a small number of problematic CDs are tolerated quite differently by different players; sometimes the vintage players are better, sometimes the modern ones, sometimes there is no way of predicting beforehand.

Unfortunately it isn't always possible to get a better copy of a CD (rare out of print & limited editions ones e.g.) In my experience it helps to have a few different models & brands modern & vintage CD players to hand; often one of them will read/play the disc without issues where the other ones struggle.

And yes; top loaders look nice but they have their logistical drawbacks

 

[sygnus21]

The ability of CD players to read problematic discs is very much hit-and-miss in my experience.

Bottom line: all my players play almost all my CDs without issue. But a small number of problematic CDs are tolerated quite differently by different players; sometimes the vintage players are better, sometimes the modern ones, sometimes there is no way of predicting beforehand.

This I can agree with

And yes; top loaders look nice but they have their logistical drawbacks

Placement - I've see a couple of Top loaders (Jays Audio for one) that I wouldn't mind getting, but placement is an issue, and why I ultimately skip (also cost).

As a side note, I think the cost one is willing to pay for a player is attributed the the size of their CD collection and the percentage of time played. If you've got something like 50 CDs and rarely play, you're probably not going to drop a ton of money into a player vs. someone who has a 3000 CD collection they play all the time.