2. digital
  3. 156079-7401

Network Transport vs. CD Transport

So I decided to conduct an experiment. I pulled the old Marantz cd player circa 1999, around $400 retail, from storage along with few CDs. Using a coax digital cable with a $4.97 rca to bnc adapter from amazon, I sat down to listen. I played the CD, the ripped version (AIFF) of that CD, and a Qobuz redbook version thru my zmac Mini. Long story short...the reason why I did it was because there is something missing in the Mac Mini sound quality and I got tired of trying to figure out what the heck is going on. 
Anyways, that old cd player used as a transport into the Qutest DAC sounds considerably better  than the Mac Mini that right now I will need a few days break before I can can listen to the Mac again. I figured (assumed) that a dedicated network transport will pretty much better the Mac Mini and be comparable or better than what I heard with Marantz player as transport. Eyeing Auralic G1, Lumin D2 and Lumin U1 Mini as candidates (I need wifi capability), will any of these be comparable or better than let’s say a decent CD transport feeding the Chord Qutest? For example a Cambridge CXC, or a used high end player?
I can go back to spinning CDs, but figured I don’t want to give up on streaming just yet.
What are your thoughts - Auralic G1, Lumin D2, Lumin U1 Mini, or a dedicated CD transport for high quality playback. Forget convenience, let’s talk purely sound quality...thanks!

System:
Rogue RP-1, Rogue ST-100, Martin Logan Montis, Chord Qutest dac. 
128x128audphile1

Showing 3 responses by porscheracer

porscheracer
132 posts
 
Let's get real here.

If you are using a CD transport to send digital data to your DAC and use a computer or streamer to send digital data to your DAC, they are both sending the exact same data.

Let's assume the CD transport sounds better to you. Why would this be the case? Either the CD transport is sending a better (cleaner) electrical signal along with the digital data or you like the distortion the CD transport's electrical signal creates more than the distortion the computer's or streamer's electrical signal creates.

Ultimately, a small electrically quiet streamer, like an ultraRendu, should be able to provide and cleaner electrical signal than a CD transport. There is just a lot more going in a CD transport than a streamer. You have motors and lasers and probably DAC circuitry in a CD transport.

Note: There are no CD's, which are Redbook, that play 24/96 music.
porscheracer
132 posts
 
George,

Please get your facts straight.

CD = Redbook = 16/44.1

HDCDs are 16/44.1. HDCD uses a proprietary algorithm to to compress the peaks of a recording so that when played back on an HDCD decoding device, the peaks are extended and approximate the dynamic range you would get from a 20/44.1 recording. 

HDCD is most certainly not 24/96.

Also, HDCDs with "Peak Extend" used can sound not so very good when played on a regular CD player. Read here:

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/ive-decided-not-to-run-my-masterings-through-an-hdcd-converte...

I hope this has been educational.
porscheracer
132 posts
 
George,

The 24/96 "Reference Recordings" that you mention are not CDs. That's just marketing bullcrap. 

Why do you think it is better to convert from analog to 24/96 and then to 16/44.1 than to convert analog to 16/44.1? The only reason they do that is because they use "Peak Extend" in the conversion process so they can effectively gain some bits back, up to about 20. They are not real bits though. It is just a method to extend dynamic range to what you get with 20 bits.

So yes, if you have an HDCD compatible player, the "Reference Recordings" CDs can sound better. But, as the link I provided in my previous posts shows, if you don't have an HDCD compatible player, the results are not so good.


More to discover