Half the information on CDs is analogue

From the wiki link:
"In the same sense that one can correct a curve by interpolating past a gap, a Reed-Solomon code can bridge a series of errors in a block of data to recover the coefficients of the polynomial that drew the original curve."

One of things that I was refering to is the "analog eye pattern".
Contrary to popular opinion, tranports take analog information from a CD and 'build' a digital signal. Only then is the digital signal sent to the DAC for conversion back to analog.
The sound coming from our speakers is only going be as good as:
1. the transport's ability to pick up the raw analog input signal as a reflection of the laser bouncing off the CD (the 'eye pattern').
2. the transport's ability to use this analog information to create and generate a digital bit stream that is a close approximation of the digital bit stream that existed in the recording studio.

Put your CD player on top of your speaker and listen to how wonderful error correction sounds.
Using a mathematical algorithm to fill in gaps and help plot a wave by taking 'best guesses' sounds exactly how you'd expect it sound.

http://www.iar-80.com/page54.html

It's odd that something so perfect usually sounds so bad.

I'm just trying to figure out why there is such a huge difference in the sound of various transports.

Shadorne,

Currently, I do not find differences in DACs to be subtle. I find many DACs to be un-listenable and others to be quite good. Some DACs sound 'confused' while other sound 'right.' When it comes to transports, some sound threadbare and anemic while others are full-bodied and create an excellent sense of space. I have also experienced significant differences between digital cables (see my review of the Stealth Varidig Sextet, for example).

When I first started building a high-end system, however, the difference between various digital front ends was indeed subtle.

What many want to argue is that the difference between a good sounding digital front end and a bad sounding one essentially comes down to jitter (jitter in the time domain). In other words, its easy to get all the information off a disc, CD players, DVD player, CD drives in computers, all do an excellent job of extracting the information from CDs. The hard thing is to deliver all those bits of information to the DAC at precisely the right time.

I actually find it hard to argue with this.
After all, if the crappy CD drive in my computer missed picking up the information off a CD, the program (or whatever was on the disc) wouldn't run! I also understand how hard it is to deliver all those bits of information to the DAC at precisely the right time in order to make music.

What conclusion does this lead to?
It leads to the conclusion drawn on an excellent site on jitter (jitter.de) that is written by the maker of excellent digital equipment.
Here it is argued that all you need is a transport (any cheap transport will do) to send digital information, timing errors and all, to an EXCELLENT clock that is positioned right in front of the DAC. The excellent clock will re-clock all the perfect data that has been sent thus removing all the jitter. The DAC will then have all the information, nearly perfectly timed aligned, to then convert to analogue.

This sounds really good in theory and it will be my hypothesis going into a controlled experiment to see if it is actually the case.
If the experiment shows that different transports sound significantly different when feeding the same clock and DAC, we will have to scrap this hypothesis. I know that it will be hard for some of you to do but the scientific method demands it.

Some suspect that we will be looking for a new hypothesis after my ML 31.5 CD transport ends up sounding better than my DVD player. If this is the case, then, in the name of science and the honest and noble pursuit of knowledge, we can all start working on a new hypothesis. And those who continue to argue that transports DON'T make a difference because, in theory, they SHOULDN'T make a difference, will be politely ignored.

I like the sound of LPs but there are just too many things about the format that frustrate me.
It is disappointing that Laserdisc didn't catch on. It was certainly the most user-friendly analogue medium and I really think it had the potential to sound better than vinyl.
I'm surprised that someone hasn't invented a new analogue medium since its demise. There has got to be something better than vinyl and magnetic tape.
I think I'll start a new thread.

That is one of the 'frustrations' that I alluded to.
I remember dropping $30 to $50 on a few "audiophile" LPs only to find that they sounded awful.

I don't suppose there is any way for us consumers to undo the damage that is done at the mastering level?
I guess the reason that some of us grasp at staws to get better sound from our systems is because we know that we are stuck with the recording that we've purchased. The only thing we can control is the playback.

I had mentioned that I would run an experiment to see if the transport and digital cable really matter if you have an excellent clocking device in place right before your DAC.
Well, the "JISCO" is and excellent clocking device and the "Attraction" is an excellent DAC.
The bottom line is that there is very little difference in sound when one uses different transports or different digital cables with the JISCO-enabled Attraction DAC.
I have never, until now, come across a DAC where the transport and cable made next to no difference.
I honestly thought this experiment would once again show a significant difference between different transports and different cables.
I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong.
It isn't the first time I've been wrong about something and it won't be the last.

If I ever happen to come across a cable or a transport that makes any significant difference when paired with the Attraction DAC I will post my findings on the "Is the Altmann Attraction DAC really the best?" thread.

Now that I'm no longer conceited I'm perfect. :-)

Sean,
Thanks for the link.

Though I will always purchase the music that I love, regardless of how it is recorded or mastered, I would like to also actively support the labels that do cater to us, and produce the kinds of recordings that we want to hear.
The problem is that I generally only listen to 'rock.' I generally listen to independent bands and solo artists that are 'below the radar'.
I already know about all the small labels that are producing excellent sounding classical, jazz, easy listening, ambient, electronic, and 'world' music.

Does anyone have a list of labels (or mastering engineers) producing excellent sounding CDs from artists in the rock/alt/indie genres?

Thanks.

Unfortunately 'rock' is catch-all term that covers lots of music. Most of the music that I listen to is very emotionally involving and yes, my system portrays the intent of the musicians.
Sorry, chamber music just doesn't speak to me. Why should it, look who it was written for and by. I live in a huge urban centre in the 21st century; the music I listen to is generally written by people like me. I understand where they are coming from. I have no connection to those who wrote chamber music, nor do I have any connection to the audience they wrote it for.
Enjoy the chamber music and let me enjoy artists like:
Sufjan Stevens
Radiohead
Sun Kil Moon
Beck, etc.

By the way, your post is a little elitist and if the 'phd' that you end your ID with stands for what I think it stands for, well, in these circles that's a little elitist as well.
Best regards,
DH
MA, MLS