Yup. Best thing ever since sliced bread 🙄. Biggest innovation in audio since 1947 🙄🤦‍♂️.
looking for the best cd transport only, without dac
I have a Hegel H160 with inbuilt DAC and I'm looking for cd transport recommendation for $1000 or so. I have Harbeth SHL5 + and like an open and transparent sound. I've considered PS Audio PWT and other used options. I'm currently using my $75 Sony bluray player for transport and surprised how good it sounds. I've auditioned transports like Marantz and Cambridge. Options like Primare and Audionote I have't been able to listen to, the latter ones used to get closer to price point. There is also the Oppo 203, but wonder about quality of sound sacrifices in jack of all trades box? When I have compared the few transports I've tried the sound quality differences were quite subtle. So have people here done some serious comparisons of sound quality of just transports and have any great recommendations? Thanks
87 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
+1 I know that you’ve heard a boatload of transports and digital sorces. I have tried to let fellow Audiogon music lovers know how truly good the Pro-Ject RS2T transport is. Some are put off by its by design diminutive size and light weight. Physically small, sonically huge and large scale performance. This is a 1st rate audio component across the board. Charles  |
Heard, repaired, upgraded more than 50 transports. The Project was the best of the bunch, simply no contest. The Jays is very good but a different sound. Rega Saturn a cheaper alternative and especially once modified. We have compared the streamers from Auralic and Aurender and while they also sound good, the Project transport was simply better. I also know the modified Flatfish. Brian Charney had one. Excellent but you will need to invest a lot of money to get it there as stated above. The cheaper recommendations above our good players but just do not produce the sound quality of the better transports. Happy Listening. |
How do you know that it matters with most DACs? I modded many DACs for 10 years, I have played with customers DACs and I have heard many DACs at trade shows for 15 years. 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? This is my experience. With the Sabre D/A's for instance, it usually sounds better if you can avoid the reclocking by bypassing it. The reason for this is simple: most internal reclocking implementations are not that low in jitter. Not the 10-15psec like you can get with a free-running clock. You are correct however, that many DACs use reclocking of some sort internally so that the source jitter is less important. The problem is that most of the reclockers use PLL to synchronize to the incoming stream. A PLL clock can NEVER have the low jitter possible with a free-running clock.  Another method is to re-sample the data. After using many upsampling chips over the years, I discovered that only one of them is good enough to deliver low jitter, and I use that one in my Synchro-Mesh. Then there is the clock quality, clock power delivery and implementation which all affect the jitter. The clock quality, implementation and power delivery may be very good in a Vivaldi DAC, but probably not that great in a $3K DAC. There are a few examples where there is a possibility that an internal clock could be good enough in a reclocker to delivery really low jitter. In these cases, they use a "bang-bang" type of clocking where the clock is actually free-running, but it switches between a slightly higher frequency clock and a slightly lower frequency clock in order to "bracket" the incoming frequency. The data is buffered in a FIFO and the frequency changes prevent overrun and underrun. The change between these two frequencies may happen every few seconds. In order to achieve really low jitter, the circuit would need 12 custom oscillators for the 6 sample-rates. Each of these would have to be slightly higher or lower than the nominal frequency. Each of these would need to be low-jitter oscillators with independent power regulation. This is certainly possible, but I'm not aware of any DAC on the planet that uses this scheme. It would be very expensive. I implemented a circuit like this in a product I called the "Pace-Car", which is obsolete now. Rather than using 12 oscillators, I used two and "pulled" their frequency slightly from the nominal. It was good, but pulling the frequency from it's nominal to be slightly higher and lower is not optimum and probably adds jitter. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
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). |
@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. |
Transports don't have a sound of their own. They produce bit perfect digital output and bitperfect is bitperfect. You just want a quiet and sturdy one, and that is all Not true. The difference in transports is the jitter, which includes the Master Clock quality, the associated circuitry and power delivery, and the output driver speed and accuracy.
Jitter has been identified, and decades ago. 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. That would be nice in an ideal world, but that is not the world we live in. 99% of DACs are not perfect at rejecting jitter. All that really matters is the jitter at the end of the S/PDIF cable from the Transport, nothing else. Unless you want something pretty to brag about that is. So why spend big bux on a transport, when you can have world-class jitter (20 psec) with an OPPO driving a Synchro-Mesh reclocker with a Reference BNC cable? Synchro-Mesh - $599 Reference BNC cable - $499 Used OPPO BDP105 - $900 This will kick the butt of any transport on the market at any price. Money back guarantee. See these jitter plots: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=154408.0 Steve N. Empirical Audio |
To the folks saying a transport makes a difference, please show us the double-blinded listening tests and the sample size. Manf.s will make things that sell - if audiophiles suddenly develop a fetish for bubinga wood, it will be added to components whether it matters for SQ or knot. OTOH, there is no reason NOT to get a CXC, unlike wasting money on toxic liquid metal cables. |
This is where my query came from. After comparing the Neo and CXC I wondered if there was something beyond the CXC that would sound much better, more transparent etc.? And not cost much more than $1000, new or used. The PWT seems the closest option I've seen mentioned in this thread that some feel sounds noticeably better than the CXC. All of this subject to interpretation of course. |
If you auditioned the Neo260D and compared to the CXC, the differences were very subtle that's show you how good the CXC is at the same level as the Neo260D that cost many times more ! I bought the CXC as a temporary solution to my system till funds allow to buy a serious hi-end transport and was impressed how good it is. |
When I auditioned the Neo260D and compared to the CXC, the differences were very subtle in a pretty good and isolated local audio shop. There was some music that sounded to me better through the CXC and others through the Neo and a lot that was hard to discern a difference. This is part of what began this post for me, is there much of a difference in transport only cd players? So I really appreciate people here who have actually had the opportunity to directly compare different transports directly. |
To the folks saying a transport makes no difference, here's another  Mark Levinson player for your consideration: https://www.audiogon.com/listings/transports-rare-beast-top-loading-and-motorized-2017-10-13-digital |
Ronres, My good friend replaced the Lampizator Big 5 eventually with the Pandora Eclipse. I really liked the Lampizator but agree with my friend that the Pandora was more refined, harmonically richer and was more full bodied. Overall a more complete or finished product sound quality. I do strongly believe that the Lampizator Big 7 or the Atlantic models are a step forward and would definitely compete with the Pandora Eclipse and to some ears exceed it. Charles |
https://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/696sf/index.html http://www.partsconnexion.com/ The best I have ever used. Still going strong after many years. you can get them refurbished for about 1300 at the link above. |
I’m a piker when it comes to serious digital playback of music. Long time vinyl guy (since 1965!, although my turntable then wasn’t quite in the same league as what I’ve been using over the past decade or three). I’m now seriously considering that new CEC TL5. I don’t have a DAC yet, and am looking at R2R type (chip), non-oversampling, no digital filters type. My more sophisticated (in digital) friends tell me forget the transport- rip and set up a network, you can stream, do hi-rez, etc. I’ve never been bothered by physical media. Frankly, the less complicated, the better. Although I can use a computer, I don’t really want to add networking and computer issues to my playback. I’ll admit- I’m a luddite. And I’m still not sure what to expect- my vinyl quality playback is top notch, my record cleaning is pretty intense (I buy mostly old pressings) and my ear is very attuned to digital artifacts. But, the main reason I "need" to go digital is simply access to music, and particularly older rare records where the cost is now astronomical. Leaf Hound Growers of Mushroom = $6k dollars for an original pressing. I don’t believe there are any legitimate* reissues on vinyl. See for Miles label of that recording on CD, done in 1992, and taken from the tape (they let the tapes out for 3d party licensing in those days) cost me 30 bucks. Not an "audiophile" record, but for my needs, I’d like to maximize Redbook. *NB- there is a Repertoire vinyl reissue. These are taken from digital files. At some point, it will be interesting to compare that copy with the CD taken from tape. |
My Denon CDP crapped out so I employed my Sony BDP-S350 Blu ray player and didn't notice a drop off. I go digital out to a Wadia 321 DAC. I demo'd a CXC and compared it head to head with the Sony and could not notice a compelling difference to warrant an upgrade. Digital out Sony still sounds better than Deezer Elite >Sonos W4S-mods>Wadia. But I would really like to get my hands on the 260d or a PS Audio transport and try that. Barns and Noble has select CD's for $5 for gods sake. |
A few years ago I was looking into getting a CD Transport to use with my Bryston DAC to replace an aging Oppo NewForce BluRay Player. I tried several until I read the TAS article about a Simaudio Neo260D. The transport was very nice indeed. When I finally listened to the DAC in the 260D, I sold my Bryston DAC. The transport is $2000, but I’d recommend spending the extra $1K for the DAC, it’s that good. |
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. |
It has a memory section so it doesn’t read directly off the disc. When you remove the CD from the tray the music continues to play for another 30 to 60 seconds i.e. it’s ripped and stored then the signal ("bit perfect ") is sent to the DAC. I have one of the early units (6 years) and music continues to play nearly 90 seconds after CD removal. Charles |
I’m wondering if anyone saw this PWT review: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/ps-audio-pwt-cd-transport it it has some interesting features that a normal transport does not have, such as “re-read until successful” vs ecc error checking. |
https://www.audiogon.com/listings/transports-mark-levinson-no-37-cd-transport-no-37-3752-2017-10-20-... Good luck in your search. Â Enjoy the music! N |
Charles1dad, Thanks for sharing your listening experience. This is just the sort of feedback and comparative listening I have been looking for. There have been some PWT's refurbished that were for sale here, but seem all gone for the moment. The last one for $800, which seems like very good value. I'm keeping an open mind on other alternatives or insights that emerge. |
