Reference Transports: An overall perspective

"every CD player, even the cheapest one, has C1 and C2 CIRC error correctors"

Alex, I don't know about audio CD players in this regard, but the context of my comments was WRT computer CD drives. And in that environment this is not always the case. If you look here

http://www.daefeatures.co.uk/search.php

(and just hit the Search button to get all results) you will find that there are quite a few drives that do not have C2 correction. You will also note that there are some drives (though few) that do not have Accurate Stream, perhaps even more importatnt than C2 for clean audio extraction.

"So, if there is no error flag, this does not meant that there is no error; it means that C1 and C2 were able to correct the errors."

If an error is corrected, would you then agree that the bit of information now in the system is identical to what was on the disk (minus any jitter component)?

I don't think either Bombaywalla, Lktanx, or I are saying that having an accurate data source is all that is needed for audio to sound good. In my case I am saying that a server based data stream (when done correctly) may in fact be a viable replacement for a transport - from the perspective of assuring an accurate data source as your starting point. Once the data is assured to be accurate then you may be able at least to remove that component from the equation.

I ran a small experiment before posting this reply. I have three different CD drives in my (computer) system. One (the Plex Premium) is used for audio ripping and software program installation. I pulled a few CDs which were ripped from this drive and did a binary compare against what is on my music hard drive, each CD being tested in all three of my CD drives. What would you propose to be the likelihood that one of these undetected errors would be undetected in exactly the same way on each drive, and that an undetected error was matched exactly against all three drives with what had been ripped to my hard drive? All three CD drives are from different manufacturers, BTW. It did not surprise me in the least that the ripped audio files exactly matched what was on each corresponding CD, when read from each of the three drives. My sample is certainly not exhaustive, but I suspect fairly representational.

Again, I don't know about audio CD players, but in the world of computer data if there was any substantive liklihood of that sort of undetected error from a CD read occurring, then how often would software installed from a CD fail to operate becuase what was on the hard drive did not match what was on the CD? Note that I'm not talking about corrected errors. In all the years I've spent installing software from CDs (assuming the CD was not damaged in some way) I have never had that happen. Not once. Ever.

I guess all I'm saying is that there is a way to generate a data source that (if done correcetly) will allow the service of that data to be as accurate as what is on the audio CD, in a way that removes jitter from the serving component. At this point the REST of the chain will determine how that data will sound. And in that respect I agree with you completely.

--------------------
Again, I don't know about audio CD players, but in the world of computer data if there was any substantive liklihood of that sort of undetected error from a CD read occurring, then how often would software installed from a CD fail to operate becuase what was on the hard drive did not match what was on the CD? Note that I'm not talking about corrected errors. In all the years I've spent installing software from CDs (assuming the CD was not damaged in some way) I have never had that happen. Not once. Ever.
--------------------------

I would like to further emphasize Tonyptony's statement above. With music CD players, the drive mechanism is running at 1X. When you install software, the latest PC CDROM drives are running at 48X or even higher. If the 48X drives are not producing errors, just imagine how trivial a 1X drive mechanism is with today's technology.

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.

As for transports, hard rides...don't know much about the latter but one thing for sure in 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.

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.

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 Esoteric’s approach to their recent Universal players. I spent a year working for a Japanese manufacturer in Japan in the mid 90’s. I would say I’m fairly comfortable speaking of their culture. High-end Audio is a culture of it’s 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 70’s also. You think the iPod will continue to be housed in the metal chassis for much longer? I’m 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.