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
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.
georgehifi's avatar
georgehifi
10,312 posts
 
There are no CD’s, which are Redbook, that play 24/96 music.
Take that up with Professor Keith O Johnson who owns "Reference Recordings"
Ok, 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other, they are still CD’s able to be played on normal CD player even with non HDCD and they sound magnificent.
https://referencerecordings.com/format/hdcd
https://referencerecordings.com/format/hrx

And he was the inventor of HDCD, as well as the very sought after, even today dacs don’t come close, the Pacific Mircosonics Model One/Two D/A A/D converters, try to buy a used one, just look at the companies that use them. 
http://www.goodwinshighend.com/manufacturers/pacific_microsonics/pacific_microsonics_model_two.htm

Cheers George

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.
georgehifi's avatar
georgehifi
10,312 posts
 
Please don't school me, what I'm saying is not so much HDCD but the 24/96 "Reference Recordings" CD's that you conveniently have not even mentioned.
You need the educating not me, you have nothing but a pair of ears that can't tell between a good CD being played on a good transport against that same CD being played from a streamer it was transferred to using the same dac in both cases.
rols's avatar
rols
22 posts
 
Interesting subject, one I do not understand, but I try to have an open mind on. Here is my experience and conclusion:

  • I used to just feed my PC into my DAC. Switching from using iTunes to specialist audio software did make a small, but noticeable improvement. No biggie.
  • Switching from a PC to a macbook pro made little difference to sound quality.
  • Switching from the Mac to a bog standard Intel NUC running Roon (sat on a LINUX operating core), getting its data from a NAS via a wireline ethernet network did sound a bit better, no biggie, but noticeably better. My partner noticed something had changed. Bit surprising to me given all those additional steps. 

On the scale above, changing DACs was a "biggie", a really significant improvement. 

  • Recently I changed from connecting the Roon NUC directly via USB to feeding my DAC from a Pro-Ject streambox (which I think is a Raspberry PI  running some sort of Linux system), which still uses USB, and this also made an improvement, of the scale of changing software on a Windows PC.
So this is where my head is now: 
  1. Bits are bits. I can't tell the difference between Tidal via internet and CD rip via my NAS or via my PC. All the network trickery in my house seems to have no negative effect on the sound.
  2. DACs are having a big affect on sound quality, and they do seem affected by what they are being fed by. I think grunge/noise or whatever you call it is messing with the DAC. My dac is a 2QUTE. 
  3. Something in the OS of complex PCs/Mac is messing up the sound a little, in addition to all the electrical noise. 

So short answer: I would guess that a stand alone CD player would sound better than a computer. But I think a good streamer could equal it. 


More to discover