[johnwmclean]

this is a bit of a spin off from the thread: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f21/do...-cable-461445/
I fail to see what a transport does for the signal, being binary data how would a fancy transport have any effect over a computer feed directly into a DAC. I don’t get the need for a high end transports and think there a waste on money.

 

[m1abrams]

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwmclean /img/forum/go_quote.gif this is a bit of a spin off form the thread: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f21/do...-cable-461445/ I fail to see what a transport does for the signal, being binary data how would a fancy transport have any effect over a computer feed directly into a DAC. I don’t get the need for a high end transports and think there a waste on money.

Only thing I think that a transport can effect is jitter, and it really does not take much to get the jitter to a ridiculously low point that it is non-trivial to measure never mind hear the effects.

 

[ciphercomplete]

Be careful not to go go super cheap. I have compared about 8 dvd/blue ray players to my Stello Transport and the main thing that effects their quality is terrible digital output stages. The dvd players I have owned that had a optical output outperformed those that had only coaxial simply because optical won't carry that interference to the DAC. I really tried the cheap transport route but I ended up getting a dedicated transport.

Secondly, IMO cheap players do have varying audible levels of jitter. Currently I have a Pioneer and a Sony DVD player and a Sony Blue Ray player. Plugged directly into my DAC which has no jitter rejection on its own (Monarchy makes a separate device for that) they do not match the level of my transport, everything is worse although the Sony DVD player fares quite decently. Now when I place jitter rejection into the chain via the Genesis Digital Lens the two DVD players sound just a like. The blue ray player is better than it was but is still the worst of the bunch. Now mind you that the Digital Lens never sells used for less than $500 and retailed for over $1K when it was in production.

I guess the moral of the story is that if you want to go the cheap transport route be prepared to pay extra for very good jitter rejection. I would not go with a cheap DAC that lacks the Jitter rejection that say the Stello DA100, Benchmark Dac, Monarchy Audio DIP or some equivalent go between like the Digital Lens has. Seriously a cheap DVD player with really good jitter rejection can sound equally good as a $1000 one cd player solution like the Cambridge varieties. A Sony or Pioneer DVD player plus Monarchy Audio's DIP (which goes for about $150 used) paired with a decent dac will sound very good. Or you could just buckle down and spend the money on a good transport.

I would also suggest looking for one that has optical output. A lot of people on this board poo poo optical in favor of coaxial but their reasoning is jacked up. Optical has more than enough bandwidth for redbook cds and it is immune from cable interference which will be important in cases like these. Heck I am using the optical out from my transport right now and to my ears it sounds better than both the balanced and coaxial outputs because the fuzziness caused by interference is gone. It doesn't matter how much shielding you put on a coaxial it won't ever be immune to interference.

 

[anetode]

Disc players were long ago obviated by multi-gigabyte hard drives & software rippers with built-in error correction. All that's left on the market are overdesigned boutique pieces, akin to modern belt-driven turntables.

 

[m1abrams]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ciphercomplete /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would also suggest looking for one that has optical output. A lot of people on this board poo poo optical in favor of coaxial but their reasoning is jacked up. Optical has more than enough bandwidth for redbook cds and it is immune from cable interference which will be important in cases like these. Heck I am using the optical out from my transport right now and to my ears it sounds better than both the balanced and coaxial outputs because the fuzziness caused by interference is gone. It doesn't matter how much shielding you put on a coaxial it won't ever be immune to interference.

Since when do you get fuzziness interference in a digital signal? And the reason people poo poo optical is because of the belief that optical introduces jitter more than coax due to the way optical must be converted from electrical to optical then back to electrical. I can not determine a lick of difference myself when using my gamma2 with my Squeezebox switching between optical and coax.

But really fuzziness in a digital signal?

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by m1abrams /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can not determine a lick of difference myself when using my gamma2 with my Squeezebox switching between optical and coax.

Compare the Squeezebox to the Transporter and you'll see why transports make a difference. Even add a CIAudio regulated supply to your Squeezebox and you'll hear a difference. Go one further and add a custom DC cable to connect the two. I had two when I had my Duet and each one changed the tonality quite a bit.

But in the argument of optical vs. coax, the differences that I've heard are minor. It's the digital output section of the transport that's important, as well as the quality of the power supplies and the clock.

 

[estreeter]

As much as I dont want to believe it, a good transport does make a difference. Whether you need to spend 3K to get a 'good' transport is debatable, but making the assumption that any $90 DVD player will suffice if you have a good DAC is selling yourself short.

Like many here, I rip my music to WAV or FLAC using EAC and I enjoy it immensely, but my entry-level Marantz CDP does a better job with *some* of my music than the MBP : even using the Topaz with both. I don't spend too much time analysing this - both give me a lot of job - but I do know that the Tosh DVD player I was using before did a much poorer job through the same DAC. Whether its jitter control/clock timing or magic fairy dust, thats been my experience - YMMV.

 

[dasmb]

I'm against optical because back in 1999 I paid like $75 for a six foot TOSLINK cable and it sounded identical to the RCA patch cable I got with my computer speakers.

 

[johnwmclean]

I’m not convinced with any off these views put forward regarding the need of a quality transport, some of the higher end DAC’s offer 100% jitter ejection by design.

I got a lot of the following info from my DAC’s white paper, Im not to technically savvy, but this kinda makes more sense to me than what’s been presented so far.

My current DAC extracts the data from the transport medium avoiding having to extract the clock at all, decoding does not require an explicit measure of the clock frequency. Once the DAC strips the data from the transport clock, it’s mathematically correct but there’s no time in the data. Once jitter is removed from the transport clock a poly-phase filter is employed to rate-convert the signal into the new clock domain.
Both jitter rejection and rate conversion convert all data from the transport at high speed clock speed and then it’s passed on to the modulator.

I really do not believe in a quality transport at all, I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument otherwise.

 

[IPodPJ]

That's fine, John.

If you are happy with what you have then no one has to convince you otherwise. But until you try it for yourself you shouldn't assume there will be no difference.

 

[johnwmclean]

IPodPJ yes I agree, I'm not closing the door on the idea and would love to try a high end unit to gauge what you and other people are hearing.
I firmly believe the binary data from my computer is bit perfect, and since my DAC strips the original clock data, eliminates 100% jitter and clocks before modulation the idea of an expensive transport is a complete waste.
If someone can cough up a good reason why a transport is needed technically, I'd love to hear it.

 

[project86]

I think the need for a transport stems from the proven fact that audiophiles enjoy having more products in their system. CD player? OK. Transport ->DAC? Better. Transport ->DAC with seperate power supply? Better still. Each function that can be seperated into a seperate device means there is one more piece in the chain to upgrade, fuss over, brag about, etc. Thus seperate power supplies, power conditioners, monoblock amps, etc.

I'm totaly serious about this too. Just because something CAN be upgraded, doesn't mean it will yield any benefit. Those who pay money for the upgrade are generally not in a position to admit this fact. Those that sell or review the products have an obvious bias as well.

My experience is thus: When I use my high end DACs such as the Esoteric D70, Wavelength Audio Cosine-V, or even an excellent budget DAC like the Y2, it doesn't matter what transport is connected. I often use a Toshiba HD DVD player simply out of convenience. Granted it was originally ~$400 so it is no off brand cheap player, but still certainly not considered in the realm of high end audio. But I cannot distinguish it from my expensive Theta or Marantz players when using an external DAC.

 

[estreeter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by project86 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I often use a Toshiba HD DVD player simply out of convenience. Granted it was originally ~$400 so it is no off brand cheap player, but still certainly not considered in the realm of high end audio. But I cannot distinguish it from my expensive Theta or Marantz players when using an external DAC.

It mightn't be high-end, but we have Head-Fiers who agnonise over spending $99 on the uDAC - to those guys, $400 must seem like a hell of a lot for a 'cheap transport'.

 

[vo_obgyn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwmclean /img/forum/go_quote.gif this is a bit of a spin off from the thread: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f21/do...-cable-461445/ I fail to see what a transport does for the signal, being binary data how would a fancy transport have any effect over a computer feed directly into a DAC. I don’t get the need for a high end transports and think there a waste on money.

This is an interesting discussion. That it doesn't matter too much about the transport can be exemplified by the Radio Schack Optimus CD3400 a while back. This was a portable cd player that just happened to have a digital output. Some people even bought a Sequerra docking station to feed it to a DAC. I had this set up and it souned great with my Theta Cobalt 307 DAC at the time. If I remember correctly, a popular hi-fi magazine did measurements that were quite good. At the other extreme, I also have a Mark Levinson No.37 transport that sounds real good with the Mark Levinson No. 36S DAC. I would have to look at the measurements in the articles again for the Radio Shack Optimus CD3400 and the Mark Levinson No. 37 to see of they would help in the discussion. Then again, even measurements do not necessarily help in the debate for some.

 

[m1abrams]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Compare the Squeezebox to the Transporter and you'll see why transports make a difference. Even add a CIAudio regulated supply to your Squeezebox and you'll hear a difference. Go one further and add a custom DC cable to connect the two. I had two when I had my Duet and each one changed the tonality quite a bit.

My statement is in regard to Opitical vs Coax. However with regards to the Squeezebox vs Transporter you very well may hear a difference, the Transporter does indeed have much lower jitter. However I personally would not buy a Transporter over a Squeezebox to use as just a digital transport. Not because the Transporter is not a great device but because most of the money in the Transporter is in the really nice DAC it has and using it with an external DAC just seems like a big waste to me.