Bombaywalla, the depth of my knowledge in the area of digital audio is not that great...I admit that. I am not a digital engineer. You are also correct that I didn't prepare for this discussion. However, it does appear that you have narrowed this discussion to just the reading of bits off the disk and have in some ways contradicted yourself. I am probably to blame for the former as I focused my response to Lktanx on read errors. My "ex-tempo" response was perhaps offbase or at least, too shallow? Perhaps we have been talking past each other (maybe not?), but my initial response to Lktank was a reaction to this statement In a modern properly designed player, transports should make NO difference to the sound. If this were true (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) then any modern transport should sound IDENTICAL to the next...not almost as good or practically as good, but IDENTICAL. The issue of cost/performance is moot...they must sound identical. A Sony, a Wadia, a Toshiba, an Esoteric, etc should all sound the identical if feeding the same outboard DAC, right? Forgive my non-technical, empirical approach here, 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. Both were noticeably better than the Pioneer player. I realize that there are variables still unaccounted for in this experiment; however, the ARC and Theta did not read to RAM and the Pioneer did. I asked why would Esoteric spend so much money recently on developing and manufacturing the VRDS-Neo transport when they were going to read the data to RAM? On your first point, you said something along the lines that the clamping system they use eliminates/reduces CD wobble which reduces the "surges in electrical current drawn from the digital supply by the laser optics electronics". You went on to say that "this has the effect of dirtying the digital power supply & this crud pollutes everything it touches". This explanation sounds reasonable and reinforces my belief that the design of the transport is an important part in the design a good digital player. Would you agree? Would using a well-designed linear power supply for the laser optics accomplish the same thing? I don't know...I'm asking the experts. I'm not so sure that Japanese culture has a great deal to do with Esoterics approach to their recent Universal players. I spent a year working for a Japanese manufacturer in Japan in the mid 90s. I would say Im fairly comfortable speaking of their culture. High-end Audio is a culture of its own whether in Europe, Japan, or the USA. Your statement that Japanese mfg's have been overengineering since the 70's doesn't hold water. The initial offering of all new technologies are usually over-engineered. RCA made some pretty substantial VHS players in the 70s also. You think the iPod will continue to be housed in the metal chassis for much longer? Im fairly certain that Esoteric did not over-engineer their recent transports by such a large degree for purely marketing purposes. This would be alot of expense and effort if it made no difference to the final sound. I've found Japanese engineers extremely practical in general and would fully expect them to focus their attention and investment on better digital filters, analog stages, and DACs if the transport made no difference to the sound. Certainly, they wouldn't tie the entire success or failure of a product to a multi-thousand $ "gimmick". Finally, I have no beef with "computer-based audio" and I'm sure it sounds great. My main point is that there are differences in transports. Whether this is due to corrupted power supplies, read errors, or some other factor...there are differences. I am NOT saying that the differences in transports are massive or that they are more significant to the sound than other parts of the digital playback system. Your statement that you are also blowing the importance of the transport -w-a-y- out of proportion, if I may say so. is entirely misplaced. I said that I have heard meaningful differences in transports in my first post...that's the extent of my "blowing the importance of the transport -w-a-y- out of proportion". Are we talking past each other or are we at least on the same page? Thank you for educating me on some of the technical details I may have misunderstood. |
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? |
We may have gotten a bit side tracked from my original response. Here is a very simple example of why a transport makes no difference. We build the following hypothetical system. This system consist of 3 boxes interconnected. They are:
A. Transport only
B. RAM only
C. Digital filters/DAC/Output stage
These 3 boxes make up a complete CD player. The following lists a step by step process to listen to music.
1. Download entire song from Transport into RAM, error free of course.
2. Turn OFF Transport and disconnect it from RAM.
3. Discard Transport into an incinerator and burn it.
4. Play music from RAM thru box C which has the digital filters and DAC.
|
I finally came back to this post after starting it way back in March. I'm sure no one is still following it but if they are, here is my take (to quote Lktanx with an important modification):
"Here is a very simple example of why a transport makes [A] difference."
In real life any fool with a pair of ears can hear that some with error free output sound like crap and some with error free output sound like music.
Yes, pragmatism, empiricism, and experimentation are all that I have to offer.
One can continue to argue that transports SHOULDN'T make a difference but to argue that they don't make a difference is simply un-scientific:
1. You've hypothesized that transports shouldn't make a difference to the way CDs sound;
2. You run a controlled experiment where you test your hypothesis;
3. The experiment shows that there is an enormous difference in the way two transports sound (even though both provide 'error free' output to the DAC).
4. You must scrap your hypothesis and move on. |
"Here is a very simple example of why a transport makes [A] difference."
In real life any fool with a pair of ears can hear that some with error free output sound like crap and some with error free output sound like music. Exlibris, Your take, using a pair of ears, can also find some support from a pair of eyes (actually, one eye is sufficient). Check out the following link for a pictoral comparison between Esoteric's VRDS-NEO transport and some other transports, including some that are used in top-tier players. For me, it's an example of a picture is worth a million words: http://www.aplhifi.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=560 Thanks for your thread, it's been very informative. Best Regards, John |
John,
Thanks for the link. That really does put things in perspective. |
|
Pardales, could you please elaborate on the inherent musical superiority that hard drives, currently based on magnetic read/write heads on multi-platter Random Access media are expected to have over optical drives? |
I am no expert. Others can speak to, and have in other threads, the merits of the hard drive. For example, Steve at Empirical Audio has written about this on threads in the computer audio forum and at his website. |
Pardales:Have YOU compared in your system a hard drive against a reference transport: one of these...
Zanden 2000
CEC TL-0X
Metronome Kalista; T2-i Signature; and T2-A
Esoteric P-01; and P-03(?)
EMM Labs CDSD
47Labs PiTracer
Weiss Jason
Accustic Arts Drive 1
Ensemble Dirondo
Wadia 270se |
No, I have not used any of those. The transports I have had in my system tested
against the hard-drive is the newer CEC TL-51X (I think I have the model right)
-- it retails for around $1500. I have also had some older model Denon and
Sony CD players that were touted for their excellence as transports (in their day
5-6 years ago). None of them sounded better than the hard drive. None of them
sounded worse either. I am not saying transports are of no use.....but combine a
thoughtfully constructed hard-drive based system (including a good device for
between the computer an DAC) with a high quality DAC, and I think one would
have to spend a lot to get a significant improvement from a conventional
transport.
Hey, I might be wrong about this. But I think hard-drive based music systems
can equal some pretty nice transports. |
Pardales, I think you might be surprized how much of a sonic improvement you would hear with a reference level transport compared with a hard-drive.
I'm no engineer so I don't know why a reference transport would perform better then a hard-drive or an average transport, but every time I have gone to a better transport, right now my reference is the new Accustic Arts Drive1-MK2, the sonics get better, not just different, but a true improvement. |
Anything's possible Teajay. If I get a chance to demo a really top-flight transport
in my system I certainly will. That said, my hard-drive based music server isn't
going anywhere, no matter what. There is just nothing like having any song or
album in my entire music collection at my fingertips. You should see the way
iTunes 7 allows you to scroll through your music by album cover. Very cool.
Sorry, I know this is off topic for this thread. |
If your transport breaks, you repair or get a new one. If your HD goes south, it gets tossed with all you stuff on it or you have to buy an adapter kit to hopefully download available content that's hopefully not corrupted. |
"If your transport breaks, you repair or get a new one. If your HD goes south, it gets tossed with all you stuff on it or you have to buy an adapter kit to hopefully download available content that's hopefully not corrupted."
Bankup is your friend.
Hard dirves are not that expensive these days especially compared to the high-end audio gears, even compared to the cost of repair...
It's not an issue at all.
These days you store all your pictures on hard drives, why not all your music.
It'll be one of the major way of listening to music in the near future. |
& u can always have a back up hard drive |
Tottally agree - XL-Z999ex is really one of the greatest. But there is sth much better on the market - XL-Z1000. I have both of them (100V version), so I had possibillity to compare. Based on my observation, using digital (RCA) connection between both and DAC from XL-Z999ex. Sonically huge difference - bigger, quiter, more stable sound, wider sceene, much more details. Even power cable - integrated version gives possibility to use separate one (NBS Monitor0), in transport case - there is one built in. |
This tread has been dead a long time, I'd like to give it a bump due to much has changed since the last post.
Personally, I replaced a Accustic Arts Mk ii transport with the PS Audio PerfectWave PWT Transport. Much more open and transparent with tighter bass response and more actual timber of strings.
What are other's experience with the PS Audio PerfectWave PWT Transport or any others? |
hi grateful:
i too have the ps audio transport. its advantage is that the disc disc is fed from ram to the dac. it does not spin while you are listening to the music.
it is , however, highly sensitive to the digital link.
it is hard to judge the sonic attributes of the pwt because there is a dac connected to it. when i connect a tube dac i hear a tube like soun, wheras, when i use the ps audio perfect wave dac, the sound is very much as you describe.
i use a harmonic tech hdmi digital cable with the ps audio dac and coax with a tube dac. |
I am sticking with my RAM - modded CEC TL-1x, recently refreshed and updated by Nick at True Sound with a new belt, etc. AES/EBU output through Sextet digicable to W4S DAC2 (which replaced a Dodson DAC). Can't see why I would want to replace this elegant, smooth operator, dead reliable beauty, or move to computer audio(ugh!). Call me a Luddite -- but a musically satisfied one.
Neal |
Do the various Philips drives or the TEAC VRDS transport mechanism each have a particular sonic signature regardless of which maunufacturer uses them in their designs? Exlibris, I see that you have asked this question couple of times in this thread. I would like to answer that. YES, both these transports have a distinct sound, meaning one distinguish one from the other. Simplistically speaking the Philips transport sounds more like a good suspended TT while the VRDS sounds like a well-built high mass TT. By the way, I am new to TT but it was interesting for me as well I was able to co-relate the sound of these transports to the TTs. And more interestingly the VRDS is indeed high mass design. Does that mean an all analogue TT and a digital transport have similar design considerations in some areas ? I dont know but it does seem likely to me. Coming over to specifics: 1. The VRDS is clearly more extended at in the low frequency region and goes really deep and articulate. The philips doesnt articulate deepest bass notes as well as the VRDS. You can sometimes clearly hear the Philips rolling off bass beyond a stage. 2. The VRDS presents an extremely stable and rock solid holographic soundstage, almost with an iron fist. Listen to a big classical sypmhony on it, you will know what you were missing all these days. You will also hear soundstage layers in a more obvious manner in a VRDS. The Philips sounds "normal" in this area. The soundstage is good but slightly moving, a bit hazy and not so holographic compared to a VRDS. You will notice this only if you hear a good VRDS in the same system, else the Philips will sound just fine. 3. Tonality: Here the Philips is one of the best performers of all transports I have ever heard. Tone and more importantly Timbre is extremely accurate in Philips transports. I have heard the early CDM1, CDM9, CDM12 and now CDPro2M. All of them exhibit this character. They just to it near perfect. The VRDS has a timbral coloration towards the darker side. I have heard about 4 VRDS including the latest ones and they all have it. Simply speaking I have not heard any other transport as tibrally accurate as a Philips. I am very sensitive to this aspect of music reproduction so it is almost the first thing I hear in any system. 4. Philips in general also sounds more fluid, and a bit livlier than VRDS in general (again suspended vs non-suspended thing). In general, VRDS sounds special, as in real hifi, while Philips sounds normal but more natural, more like music. If one has to choose between these two transports alone then it will boil down to genre of music a lot, a western classical listener would like to have a VRDS with him even in his coffin. A jazz, blues, country listener will love a Philips and may not care much for the "special effects" of a VRDS sound. A rock listener will be happy with either. BTW, I have not yet reached a conclusion on this but many Philips transports I have heard also have very good PRAT (suspended design?). |
