2. digital
  3. 1166325813

Today's Transport War: Significant Differences?

I have been reading much these days about computer/hard-drive based transports as being a whole order of magnitude superior to traditional CD transports. In my reading, the camp who believes hard-drive based transports can render major improvements has been most notably represented by Empirical Audio. The camp which suggests that traditional CD transport techonology (or atleast the best of its sort--VRDS-NEO) is still superior has been most notably represented by APL Hi-Fi.

Each of the camps mentioned above are genuine experts who have probably forgotten more about digital than many of us will ever understand. But my reading of each of their websites and comments they have made on various discussion threads (Audiogon, Audio Circle, and their own websites) suggests that they GENUINELY disagree about whether hard-drive based transportation of a digital signal really represents a categorical improvement in digital transport technology. And I am certain others on this site know a lot about this too.

I am NOT trying to set up a forum for a negative argument or an artificial either/or poll here. I want to understand the significant differences in the positions and better understand some of the technical reasons why there is such a significant difference of opinion on this. I am sincerely wondering what the crux of this difference is...the heart of the matter if you will.

I know experts in many fields and disciplines disagree with one another, and, I am not looking for resolution (well not philosophical resolution anyway) of these issues. I just want to better understand the arguments of whether hard-drive based digital transportation is a significant technical improvement over traditional CD transportation.

Respectfully,
pardales

Showing 7 responses by pardales

pardales OP
652 posts
 
Very good point Ehart -- clearly a conversation about this topic in the cost-no-object realm would be different than in the budget and mid-price levels.

A few of the organizing issues seem, to me, to be:

1. The "rip" or how data is read

2. The quality of bits: are all bits equal?

3. And the whole USB/SPDIF/I2S thing.

There are probably other organizing characteristics that are important, this just reflects where I am in my understanding.
pardales OP
652 posts
 
Steve N.: "If a CD-player is doing buffering and high-speed transfers of blocks of data, then it is actually a computer-based CD system, not a classical CDP at all."

I guess this might be what I really want to know. Is it evolution, or, maybe convergence of technologies?" What would really be a classical, digital transport?

If we look at this, it may help us see where this is going...
pardales OP
652 posts
 
Okay, as of now (and this is just my read on the debate) the crux of the argument between the two positions I started this thread out with seems to be about whether the computer can send out a decent signal. Alex is suggesting that there is so much noise involved in the computer that it is not going to send out as clean/clear a signal as a classical CD transport will send to its internal DAC.

So, for now, I guess this is the question: is the average computer really putting out an inferior signal to that of the transport section of a good CD transport?

One camp says "no, not right now", and the other suggests, "yes, it now can".
pardales OP
652 posts
 
There will always be terms that need definition. I still think that where we are in this discussion is trying to answer the question of whether a computer can put out a digital signal equivalent to what a classical CD transport can put out.
pardales OP
652 posts
 
The best conventional transport I have tried is the newer CEC TL-51X (I think I
have that model right) it retails for $1500. It was equivalent to the set-up I have
now, but not better.

Seandtaylor99: You make some important distinctions. I guess what I am talking
about is the situation where you are taking a USB signal out of a comptuter and
sending it to an external DAC (not using the computer or a soundcard for D/A).

Jsadurni: You are right about being able to draw a personal conclusion even
when a general one is elusive.
pardales OP
652 posts
 
Jsadurni/others: I reached a personal conclusion on this over two years ago.
Fingertip access to my 9000 songs through iTunes is IT for me.....NO going
back. Having all my music on iTunes lead me to listen to more of my
collection
than ever before. I have not had a conventional CD player in over a year. To
me,
ACCESS IS EVERYTHING and having almost 900 albums on iTunes gives me
at-a-
glance access that I cannot duplicate with the physical media (CD's) no matter
how I organize it (racks, shelves, binders, etc.).

That said, I initiated this thread to try and better understand some of the
technical aspects of the current deabte going on about computer playback of
music versus conventional CD transportation. I have learned much from this
thread and appreciate the input of everyone who has participated.

The conclusion I have reached from this thread, and my other reading on the
subject, is that a thoughtfully implemented computer transport can compete
with all but maybe the most tweaked hi-end conventional transports.
pardales OP
652 posts
 
Perhaps tomorrow's transport war is today's transport war.
More to discover