1. Home
  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
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.
eclecticear
14 posts
 
Before jumping to conclusions about the Nova Physiscs Memeory Player go to their website www.thememoryplayer.com and read why their approach to get at the data on the CD is completely novel and does NOT resemble buffering, reclocking, oversampling, etc. Also remember that the Nova MP can only play back what has been recorded. It cannot reverse or correct any problems in the recording process and/or manufacturing stage. There is no DAC on this earth that can correct errors due to insufficient transport capability.
There are also two reviews out there on Positive Feeddback Online www.positive-feedback.com and The Stereo Times www.stereotimes.com
drubin
3,240 posts
 
I just re-read Robert Harley's comment on the Memory Player in a recent TAS. He had not heard it, but was so appalled at their claims about errors in reading discs (their Read Until Right process) that he felt compelled to speak up. Harley's a pretty cautious guy and has decent credentials in this area. Unusual for him to take such a strong position like this in print, and I commend him for doing so.

As I said earlier, I was mighty impressed with the sound I heard from the MP, and I have read the other reviews. Harley's point was that, if they are getting great sound, it is not because of Read Until Right. I hope we can get to bottom of this in the near future. It feels like an improved understanding of what's really going with transports and the like is just around the corner. You'd think, at any rate.
eclecticear
14 posts
 
Guys, guys, please let's keep the data straight.
The subject is alredy too technical for most us so let us not make things any more confusing.
I am referring to Drubin's comments on "Robert Harley's comments on the Memory Player" in TAS (Dec. 2006 issue, page 121). RH did NOT once refer to Read Until Right (RUR) in his comments. He DID made some very strong statements disputing the claims made by Nova Physics about CIRC (Cross-Interleved Reed-Solomon Code)error correction scheme, uncorrelated errors and error-concealment circuits. RUR is an extraction process used by Nova Physics to get the data off the CD and thus has nothing to do with CIRC.
Even if the claims by Nova Physics regarding CIRC are in dispute, their use of RUR and playing back from "flash" memory (and NOT the hard-drive) makes the MP a unique and technically superior digital playback component. Call it a transport if you wish, but it is a transport unlike any other.
drubin
3,240 posts
 
You are correct that he does not single out RUR. I had read HP's comments at the same time and the concept was top of mind when I wrote my post.

Still, it seems to me that RH would maintain that RUR is nonsense for the same reason he takes issue with their claims about CIRC: errors are not a big deal, so the basis for what they claim is the value of RUR is false. If the MP sounds better, it is not because of how it handles errors in reading the bits, is how I interpret his comments.
More to discover