Do Transports Matter???

Redbeard, maybe this site isn't for you. People here have learned to believe what they are hearing and even if its not possible to measure a change doesn't mean a sonic improvement hasn't occurred.

Redbeard, your an audiophile after my own heart. Long ago, on this site, I infuriated a few folks by suggesting that since what the speaker is moving is the air in the room, it should be fragrant to sound better. I even suggested that French perfume was the only thing for products from that country, such as JM Lab Utopias and the like, but that, having Bryston and Canadian speakers from a large manufacturer because of my limited means, that a pine scented air-freshener was best in my case. Insofar as the paint on the walls, obviously the colour of the paint does have psychoacoustic consequences. The texture is very important also, the best being an eggshell finish. You may have a tough row to hoe with this crowd though if you only bring science, technical know-how or plain common sense to the table. Good luck.

I had a Rotel transport. Used it with an Adcom600 D/A converter stuffed with conductive foam.
Well I took a leap! and bought a demo Sony SCD 777ES machine, because it was supposed to be a 'killer' redbook player too.
Got it home and WOW! that really does sound better.
BUT: the redbook from the Sony via a Kimber ADGL to the Adcom 600 sounded just as good as the Sony redbook direct via Kimber silver to my preamp. Compared to either the Sony alone, or the Sony via the Adcom D/A... the Rotel transport sounded like junk (only after comparing... before that I thought the Rotel transport sounded pretty good... I felt kinda like I was cheating the person who bought the Rotel, cuz it was junk compared to the Sony as transport.)
Well the Sony retailed for $3,500 then $2,500 ( I paid $1,700) compared to the Rotel at $700... so they got what they wanted...
I was surprised at how big a difference the Sony's transport made.
I have: Adcom 750 pre, Forte'4 amp, Infinity IRS IIa speakers, Audioquest Midnight spkr cable and Kimber silver interconnects.

I find it funny when people proclaim that science is the only thing that really tells us anything about anything. They think that science is black and white, and that it can be bundled and bound in a nice little book or on a webpage.

One of my undergrad degrees is in the History of Science, and I have come to the conclusion that science is pretty darn subjective in more ways than many folks realize. For starters, measurements are only as accurate as 1/2 of the unit they are measured in. This in itself is a subjective call by a scientist making a measurement. The way data is analyzed is AMAZINGLY subjective. Look at how many scientific studies CONTRADICT each other. Many times it is all in the data analysis. Heck folks, scientist have even figured out (not too long ago) that the earth's grativitational field is NOT UNIFORM. What does this mean??? Well it means that something that might weigh on a scale 2000 pounds in the USA may weigh 2001 pounds somewhere else in the world. This to me is pretty strange... especially since I was taught that on earth at equal distances from the center of the earth the pull of gravity is constant. Go figure.

Science is constantly proving what we think we knew because of 'science' is well... not right or slightly wrong.... or totally off base. (I could go on and on on this subject... so many things that science only gives us a 'likely story on').

So I kinda give a little chuckle, when someone brings science into audio. Music itself is art. Why would someone want to pick apart or analyze music/musical reproduction using science as the ONLY yardstick. When it is what we HEAR that only matters. I have heard vast sonic differences in AC cords on components. Can I explain why? Nope. DO I really want to know why? Heck, yeah, but so far I have only heard what I would call 'likely stories' to explain what I have observed.

There are also many many things science has not ven began to expain. Maybe in the near future someone will write a paper on AC cords and why they make a sonic difference?

KF

I seem to have a very different experience than most here. Either my Pioneer PD65 as a transport is incredibly excellent or my Muse Model 8 transport is not all that good as I have swapped back and forth these many times and I am still not sure if a difference exists between them. Is it my poor hearing on this or were the Stereophile ratings A vs C truly nonsense in this case? Both of these with so many DACs bring on an excellent redbook CD presentation.

I have had many DACs here: Audio Alchemy, ARC DAC3 II, Counterpoint DAC10, Muse 296, Electrocompaniet ECD1 and now the incredibly awesome tubed Manley DAC....I own all but the ARC now. The differences between each of these is immediately apparent. In some cases it is extended bass that is quickly noticed or a more in-the-room vs back-of-the-room presentation, more energy on the top, etc. Perhaps I need to try the transport comparison again with the Manley DAC.

I just recently tried a MIT digital cable and yes, this indeed brought on a level of smoothness over the cheapo cable that was previously used. I did convince me that the timing issue is critical with cables. But even this was not a huge difference right away like the DACs. Perhaps a return to the previous cable would make me think otherwise.

And I have not played with power cord swapping yet but it sounds like everyone's claims on this will bring on yet a huge change too. I thought I'd play with a Genesis Lens for a month or so and then remove it to hear what it does or does not.

So if anyone has any ideas as to why so many other things make a far bigger difference than the transports mentioned, I'd love to hear it. And if anyone is interested in the differences in the above mentioned DACS, send me an email.

Thanks.

John