Most people send a rip to a DAC via an electrically noisy computer and a mediocre USB audio implementation. A good CD transport should beat that. But there's no technical reason that I've ever heard why a good streaming transport should be inferior to a CD transport. It's just that most streaming transports are designed for features, not for the best possible electrical behavior. It's not even a question of price, but one of minimal, careful design. I'm sure that Mike could design a streaming transport as good as Urd, it's just that Schiit does not want to be in the streaming software business, and I don't blame them.
That makes perfect sense to me
@earnmyturns
I have also never understood why a good streaming transport should be inferior to a CD transport, but I do not claim to fully understand the technology.
I don't use a noisy computer to send ripped CDs to my DAC, and I don't use USB ( I use BNC S/PDIF).
I do not currently have a high quality CD transport as my Arcam Alpha Plus CD Player is about 25 years old!
However, I have compared it with ripped files using its RCA S/PDIF digital output to my Yggy.
The ripped files sound marginally better, to my ears, but this is an old CD transport.
The convenience of streaming ripped local files and Qobuz is certainly a major advantage compared with CDs, providing there is not a noticeable sacrifice in sound quality.
Some audio manufacturers, like Linn in the UK, have stopped making CD players altogether, as they are convinced that a well designed streaming transport is superior.
I do not 'need' a CD transport, but I am certainly intrigued to learn just how good Mike's 'Urd' will be.
I'll probably wait to read reactions from other forum members when it is released, before biting the bullet.
I suspect that in terms of 'bang per buck' a 'Lokiest' might be a more sensible purchase, but then I probably wouldn't be an audiophile if I was 'sensible'