Reference Transports: An overall perspective

Jordan/Germanboxers,

it appears that you have not spent much time in thinking about the CD transport stuff. When you write your posts, you seem to be writing ex-tempo & there does not seem to be much depth. you are also blowing the importance of the transport -w-a-y- out of proportion, if I may say so. Transports are very important but they are a means to an end. The end being to get the data read reliably & as quickly as possible. Spend some time & research the matter.

Lktanx has understood the subject matter exactly!

>> The question that neither of us can answer conclusively
>> is to what degree does a transport that exhibits less
>> random errors have on the final sound quality?
I can't remember exactly when this was (maybe it was in grad school) but I remember spinning a CD that had holes drilled in it. NOT THROUGH HOLES; rather, holes drilled deep enough where they encroached into the recording material. These holes were made in the N-S-E-W directions so it looked like an equal-legged cross. Also, the holes were NOT made in the TOC area just so that the CD player would actually play the CD. The objective of this was to demonstrate to us the robustness of the error correction. So, obviously the disk had to play! There was an exact 2nd copy of this disk that was pristine (like the one you'd get from a store). How did it sound? For all practical purposes it sounded just like the pristine copy.
So, what does this tell us? If there are certain # of errors while reading a disk, the error correction system can neutralize them & the sound of the reproduced music will be practically unchanged to the user listening. If the # of errors increases to the point that it overloads the error correction system, then, the sound will be degraded & will "It will sound someone turned on the juice blender for a brief period".
The CD error correction has an enormous appetite for errors & it takes a significant # of errors to break it. Randon errors are just that - random! They do NOT occur at a high enough rate to overload the disk error correction algorithms. Just as Lktanx wrote, if you have a unit that does create a high rate of random errors, you have a defective unit & the transport needs to be repaired/replaced.

>> Again, I don't offer this as conclusive proof, but why
>> would a company such as Esoteric spend mucho $ on
>> developing and manufacturing a massively overbuilt (by
>> an order of magnitude in weight alone) transport when
>> the machines they are placing them in also buffer the
>> data to SRAM?
there are many aspects in the design of a transport. what distinguishes a good one from an average one is: (1) the disk clamping system. A CD spins at 200-560RPM (most of the time, I've read 360RPM). The edges of CDs are not perfectly smooth or straight. Hence, at that speed, if the CD is clamped only in the middle, the CD will wobble. In effect it becomes akin to reading a newspaper placed on your lap in a subway train! In the transport there are surges in electrical current drawn from the digital supply by the laser optics electronics. This has the effect of dirtying the digital power supply & this crud pollutes everything it touches. Also, as the disk wobbles, the laser beam becomes unfocused. An unfocused beam can make errors reading data. So, TEAC's VRDS system was designed to clamp the ENTIRE disk. Does this come for free? NO! it adds weight to the whole transport but it is 1 possible solution to preventing the disk from wobbling. a 2nd solution is available too - a CD cutter w/ a fine edged knife. I believe that it cuts 200 CDs before the blade needs replacing. Solves the same issue by having the user spend less money than buying a TEAC VRDS system. (2) the laser system in an average CD transport has to tilt or rotate so that it can read the entire CD surface. This has the bad habit of spreading the laser beam. this is said to increase jitter & also possibly cause read errors. So, what TEAC does in its VRDS & VRDS NEO systems it that it has the laser pickup on a sled. This pickup operates just like a linear-tracking tonearm on a TT. However, this sled has to be stable. Does this come for free? NO! it adds additional mass to the transport. Plus, it needs a motor & a clean power supply, which add further weight to the system.
I believe that TEACs solution is one manuf solution to these problems & I believe that they have kept the overall transport system as simple as possible but NO SIMPLER. This, of course, does NOT mean that their solution is simple; rather, it is only as complex as it needs to be. If you look at one of their VRDS transports, it is one serious work of art & engineering - I have SE transport in my Wadia.
There is one other factor that is part of the Japanese culture (that an American consumer will probably not understand): the Japanese are favourably disposed to over-engineering. It is in their products since the 1970s. Look at old Sony Walkmans, Sony TVs, etc: they look beautiful inside just as they do outside.
What I'm saying is that there is some element of over-engineering in the TEAC VRDS transports. However, the Japs take it in their stride as they have their home market in mind 1st. The fact that Wadia, the only American company AFAIK, uses it as well is just some side business for them.

there is 3rd aspect that plays superbly into the American manuf's hands: the US audiophile LOVES heavy weight audio gear! If it's heavy, it must be good! To that effect, name 1 European CD player manuf using the TEAC VRDS transport?

Once again as Lktanx wrote, computer-based audio has come a very long way in catching up w/ CD transports. The CD/DVD drives in today's computers are superbly robust & when they get done reading the data from the CD, it is practically 100% correct. CD/DVD drives have always been built with on-board SRAM & they have always been accompanied by hi-speed buses (IDE or SCSI in former years & USB 2.0 today) to carry the data to the CPU. This plays superbly into the hands of a PC being used as a transport for audiophile grade sonic quality.
I have personally pitted my 861 against the my friend's higher-end PC which he uses as a transport into a Scott Nixon Tube DAC+. His floor-stander PC uses a gaming chassis so it has a fancy blue flashing light, it uses higher speed hard-drives & a Lynx sound card. It was self-assembled & probably costs $2000-$3000, which is less than half the cost of my Wadia! Sonically, the difference is even less than the cost disparity. I love my Wadia & I won't part w/ it but it would be utterly foolish of me to ignore the "threat" PC audio is giving TEAC VRDS transports. You can ignore it but at your own peril.

Alex/Aplhifi,

Thanks for providing some corrections & more info on the VRDS-NEO transports. I also believe that NEO is used as a dual purpose: one, as in NEO = new & second, because TEAC uses NEOdymium magnets now.

IMHO, Lktanx posts, your posts & my posts are ALL in agreement - you are saying the same thing! I think that your posts have played remarkably well into our hands!

>> In conclusion, it is a real fun for me to read all
>> these "error free" discussions, but at the end of the
>> day, there are many other VERY important things when it
>> comes to digital audio other than "Zero" error.
Alex, this is exactly what we are saying! The transport is very important for reading the data off the CD, ensuring that the final result is actually or practically error-free. Once this is ensured, the sound of the CD/DVD player is determined by "many other VERY important things". It is hardly dependent on the CD transport at that point.

>> I am sure that one day soon you will realize
>> that “error free” and “bit perfect copy” doesn’t really
>> mean anything when it comes to digital audio sound
>> quality.
This is exactly what we are trying to emphasize as well, Alex!!
You are saying the same thing as we are, just using diff words.
Neither Lktanx nor I are belittling the importance of transports. However, what we are saying that they are means to an end (I wrote this in my orig post above). Once the final data is error-free (whether it is actually error-free when it gets read OR it is error-free after C1, C2 correction is IMMATERIAL to the DAC. I.E. the DAC does NOT care!) the sound of the re-produced music is dependent on "many other VERY important things when it comes to digital audio other than "Zero" error".

>> So my question to you is why then those error and
>> jitter "Free" digital players will not sound as good
>> compared to even a 15 years old regular CD player when
>> used as a digital TRANSPORT ONLY.
You know the answer to this, Alex! It is because there are "many other VERY important things when it comes to digital audio other than "Zero" error". It these other things (digital & analog power supplies, jitter, rise/fall edges, type of PCB material, DAC master clock, etc) that are severely lacking in these el-cheapo players 'cuz they are made to sell at a low selling price. It is not the 1/0 data read off by the cheap transport. If you want to blame the cheap transport then the blame should be levied on its cheap power supply that gets corrupted w/ the spiky read currents from the optical section & goes on to pollute ckts connected to this & other power supplies. IMO, this aspect belongs to the "other aspects" that you wrote about.

>> This is what I meant when I said that there are many
>> other important things other than a fake "error free"
>> digital data output.

>> Given the CD surface is really perfect, with the
>> Esoteric VRDS-NEO transport the error is REALLY Zero,
>> not only that, but the EFM signal jitter is also MUCH
>> lower than anything else currently available

whether it is "fake" or truely error-free, when the data gets to the DAC S&H, it DOES NOT matter & the DAC does not care. Error-free is error-free!
At this point the reproduced sound will depend more heavily on the DAC master clock jitter, analog & digital power supplies, linearity of the analog output stage(s), etc.
Also, in one of the above statements, you are addressing "jitter". Ah-uh, cannot do that, Alex! Jitter belongs to the "many other VERY important things" category you wrote about in your post!
What we are talking about here is the transport, the data read, the error correction(s) & the final data presented to the DAC.

>> Also, when you were talking about your friend’s
>> computer based audio with external DAC did you try your
>> Wadia as a digital transport through the same external
>> DAC?
I'm afraid that we did not! If I remember correctly we had a cable interface issue. At that time, we compared the Wadia integrated vs. his PC-based system.

>> Why don't you get one of these and hook it up to an
>> external DAC together with your x1 reading and non-
>> memory buffering VRDS Wadia and see which one will
>> sound better?
I am very close to doing this - I had to order a BNC to RCA adapter so that I could convert the output on the Wadia rear panel so that could use my digital cable. This will allow me to compare the Wadia transport against my stock Sony DVP-S7000. I'll keep you posted.

In the meanwhile I have been comparing my Wadia used as an integrated player w/ my stock Sony DVP-S7000 + Scott Nixon Saru DAC+.
Just like Tonyptony wrote: the Sony DVP-S7000 + Scott Nixon Saru DAC+ is SCARY close in sound to the Wadia integrated player. The cost of these 2 combinations is 32:1 with the Wadia being 32X more expensive! is my Wadia 32X better? Does it give 32X better bass & hi freq reproduced sound? NO SIR, IT DOES NOT! If the Wadia gave 1X better performance, it would 100% better, correct? I don't think that I could even say that! The Wadia is better, NO DOUBT, but marginally. The margin is significant enough that 1 listen will make it very apparent. If you listen to the DVP-S7000 + Saru DAC+ combination, there is hardly anyway that you could fault its performance. It is extremely musical. It is only when you pit it against a Wadia that the faults get highlighted. IMHO, the (little) David has given the Goliath a damn good run for its money. I wonder how close this "race" will get if I send my DVP-S7000 to Steve Nugent @ Empirical for mods? Hmmmm..... an $800 + shipping question.

Henryhk,
>> With regard to the Wadia not being 32x better....of
>> course. In high end audio, cars, wine ...u name
>> it...the marginal utility one derives from spending
>> each marginal dollar tends to decline....but the key is
>> each consumer's assesment of the marginal utility is
>> different.
you are correct in saying that for each additional $ spent, the improvement is marginal & its value judged by the person spending the $.
However, that is not the point I was trying to make! My point was, that despite the vast diff in price, the cheaper solution gave a very, very good performance. This seemed to suggest that merely a transport was not the major part of the equation when it came to reproduced music from a digital source. BTW, I still love my Wadia, I'm going to keep it & enjoy music thru it.

>> ...my opwn exp: with Meitner. the chg from the old
>> Philips modified transport to CDSD provides not a
>> marginal but major difference in sound quality.
IMHO, what you gained when you changed from the modified Philips to the Meitner CDSD transport was NOT just the transport per se. The new CDSD transport is probably implemented much better than the modified Philips in that it's better mechanically/structurally, better power supply/supplies, better clamping, better electronics, better clock or even slaved to the DAC clock, etc. All these other things is what has given you better performance overall & NOT that the new CDSD drive reads the data off the disk w/ more accuracy.

Germanboxers,

after your last post, we are probably on the same page because of your statement:

>> ...(and I view the transport -correctly or incorrectly-
>> as everything from reading the disk to just before the
>> digital filters, including motors, power supplies, etc
>> to accomplish this)

wish that you had made it amply clear to us of what you viewed as a transport.
I went back & skimmed thru your dialog w/ Lktanx & I re-noticed that all the discussion was based on reading data off the disk & making suitable corrections if error(s) occured. Naturally, I continued the discussion along those lines.
You are correct, all the other support systems in the transport do make a diff & your experience

>> ...but my experience with the effect transports have on
>> the sound in my system were with the ARC CDT-1, Theta
>> Data Basic, and a Pioneer DVD player using the digital
>> out...all using the same Kimber digital cable feeding a
>> Theta GenVa. The differences were not subtle, even
>> between the Theta Data Basic and ARC CDT-1.

confirms it.

>> Would using a well-designed linear power supply for the
>> laser optics accomplish the same thing?
I don't know if something called a "linear power supply" exists. When I read "linear", I think of harmonic & intermodulation distortions. These don't occur in the power supply electronics per se. However, non-linearities in the electronics driven by the power supplies can cause the power supply to leak into the signal path & bring w/ it noise, voltage/current spikes, ripple, etc. Power supplies can be made robust in that their voltage outputs do not sag easily, high current, fast response, low ripple/large charge reservoir, etc. The electronics can be designed to have high power supply rejection ratio or PSRR. The things VRDS-Neo has done to the drive itself + to the support circuitry goes a long way towards all this. The hope is that it will xlate to better sound. It'll be better than the other stuff on the market. Will it be better than their redbook VRDS used in the 861? It remains to be seen. Has anyone heard the VRDS-Neo & compared it to their redbook VRDS? Please share this info. Thanks!

>> Your statement that Japanese mfg's have been
>> overengineering since the 70's doesn't hold water.
what I meant to say was that I have not seen any other country engineer things ON A CONSISTENT basis as I have seen things from Japan over several decades. Things were substantially made in the USA too but when it sacrificed bottom-line profits, manuf goods were made cheaper immediately.
Contrary to this, what I have noticed in Japanese manuf, is that they 1st try to finds better ways to make the manuf goods while retaining their substantial feel. IMHO it is why Japanese automation & process, R&D supported by MITI are the world-class standard they are. Even the Americans admit this esp. in the auto industry.
With this in mind, I meant to say that a country like Japan would probably be the only one to want to tackle the CD transport issue. The volume of these VRDS-based CDPs is very small compared to the CD driver for mass market players. Thus, TEAC's payoff is small but it is certainly there. The proof also lies in the pudding - a CD transport like the VRDS is not available from any other country! True or not?
The one that comes close it Philip's CDM-Pro drive & I think that it is of the same calibre as Pioneer's Stable Platter transport. Correct?
The other major countries into audio like USA, UK, Italy, France, Australia/NZ, Scandanavia do not make VRDS type transports. Why?
Their collective markets are much bigger than Japan's so the financial pay-off from this high-level engineering is bound to fetch more money i.e. there is a higher incentive yet such a product does not exist!

When you say that TEAC did not create the VRDS as a marketing gimmick, I agree. I did not mean to say that anyway.

I think that we might not be talking past each other at this point. Hopefully we have cleared the air?