looking for the best cd transport only, without dac

It would seem to me that the transport *shouldn't* matter because the myriads of high end dacs out there do their own jitter correction and clock management. I think they apply that functionality regardless of how "clean" the data is to begin with.

That said, does someone now mean to report as fact or imply as probable that certain transports may not send *all* of the data? That would be a different story and if true would mean that the transport matters.

it it has some interesting features that a normal transport does not have, such as “re-read until successful” vs ecc error checking.

Just my .02, irrespective of the fact that physical CDs themselves are subject to data rot and present issues of their own, if one is wanting to "RIP" a cd this is why there is nothing better than exact audio copy (EAC) software. And, back to the point of the thread (transport without DAC), an outstanding transport - albeit with a DAC - if "bad" or "difficult to read" CDs are the issue, then consider an Emotiva ERC-3. It (intentionally) spins the disk at over 1200 rpm, 3 to 4 times faster than most other players, in order to read (and re-read) the disk to make sure things are "exactly perfect".

EDIT:

Forgot to mention the ERC-3 has a plethora of digital transport options.

@audioengr

Hi Steve.

Your quoting @willemj and @randy-11 from posts back on 11/1 of last year. In any case, I happen to agree with them.

You already know the respect I have for your work in this subject, and by no means am I stating that you are wrong about the effects of jitter.

However, lets be real/practical. DACs now-a-days (such as, but not limited to, a Schiit Yggdrasil) essentially cleans up whatever "mess" in the way of jitter is sent to it.

Interesting enough that I posted in the absolute best dac thread that realistically speaking this is something the "best" DAC should do. that post was glossed over and no one responded.

Bottom line is yes, a transport matters, however, the "right" DAC renders the transport a moot point. The Yggdrasil goes as far as can indicate the source signal is crap, if it is, *and even then* purportedly cleans it up.

EDIT:

And the same (cleanup once signal is inside DAC) also holds true for cabling, IMO. Yes cables matter, however, the cable is part of the overall signal delivery from the transport to DAC, and its resulting "jitter laden signal" (if present) can be properly, thoroughly and effectively "cleansed" once handled by the (quality) DAC.

gdhal - can you hear any difference when you use different S/PDIF coax cables?

If you mean differences between optical, AES/EBU and RCA coax, yes, I can hear a difference. Within those, to be perfectly honest I haven’t tried different types of optical cable, AES/EBU or RCA coax.

If so, then the transport jitter still matters. It does with most DACs.

How do you know that it matters with most DACs? The URLs you’ve provided (that I’ve seen) to your measurement data (again, outstanding work on your part) are *before* the DAC. Are you stating there is measurement data available *after* the DAC (via SE or XLR output) and therefore already converted to analog that indicates (never mind proves) there is better analog, as a result of less incoming digital jitter?

The very few DAC’s where it doesn’t have any effect are not very good sounding IMO, because of the reclocking inside.

So are you saying that DACs that are immune to incoming jitter are not good sounding? And further, the reason they are not good sounding is because of the DACs reclocking? At face value and in my mind this wouldn’t make sense because seemingly all of the quality DACs do some kind of reclocking (or at a minimum "re" something or other with the incoming digital).