|
|
|
hiredfox said:
Do any two makes of turntables sound the same? So why would anybody expect different manufacture disc transports to sound the same?
Surely this is about as complicated as why wheels turn....
Get a grip guys!
Apparently you do not know why wheels turn... Or you are trolling. Anyways...
Turntables have resonances and other physical faults which make them sound different. Also the interplay between the cartritge and the arm, turntable proper etc.
CD/SACD transport is only a data reader. All properly working transports read the disk practically flawlessly, just like any $30 PC CD-ROM and DVD drives do. There is absolutelly no difference* between the datastreams from two transports, thus there is not, and can not be difference in sound either. And besides that data is not sound, it is just the measurements of the waveform. Faults in the datastream would and could not show as a subtle difference in timbre, treansparency etc. It would show as a glaring read error.
You people must be kidding... If the blueprints (as CAD drawings) of your new house are sent to you on a CD-ROM, do these prints look better if you read them with a $15000 CD-ROM transport? They should by your reasoning.
Why would people expect transports sound the same? Because we understand the fundamental difference between analog and digital sound recording. Those who do not are fooled by the marketing based on the vinyl player legacy.
*) Jitter could affect the sound, but if the DAC is any good, it would not, as the DAC buffers and reclocks the signal. Then the "quality" of the transport is of no consequence, the first component to have any effect on the sound is the DAC, where the sound in reconstructed from the digital measurements (samples). Before that there is no sound that even could be affected, only computer data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Clark said:
Yeah, keep spinnin' that disk, man http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ozk7fnKilU
Apart from yours discussion this is a great soundtrack, I have it as a regular CD. It have very nice sound effects and music, a great disc to a SACD release.
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie February 6, 2010 (94 of 145)
|
|
Paul Clark said:
Yeah, keep spinnin' that disk, man http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ozk7fnKilU
So, in other words, Paul, the difference between an el cheapo transport and a more rugged, "elite" transport is the difference between ragweed and hydroponically~grown~mind~bending weed? I'll take the latter.......while your el cheapo variety goes "Up In Smoke!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by junchoon February 6, 2010 (96 of 145)
|
|
jullepoika said:
Turntables have resonances and other physical faults which make them sound different. Also the interplay between the cartritge and the arm, turntable proper etc.
You people must be kidding... If the blueprints (as CAD drawings) of your new house are sent to you on a CD-ROM, do these prints look better if you read them with a $15000 CD-ROM transport? They should by your reasoning.
okay, let's put this to a test
get a cheapo cd-rom, those external cd-rom is best for this test
then use another ubber-expensive (say $10k, or 20kg above) dedicated transport or cdp. sony scd-1 comes to mind, which weight about 27kg
place them on a table (flimsy is best!), connect to same make dac. play same disc, while hammering the table with your hands, u can use varying degree of strength. u can do a light hammering, or u can really shake things up. essentially to stimulate how sound wave from speakers will shake the table when playing really loud.
since yr theory is that digital transport have no resonance to speak of, it should not effect the datastream of a properly working transport, u should have the same sound coming from the dac, no matter how u shake or hammer the table. but i doubt if this is true.
let us know how it goes. i am really curious of the outcome.
cheers,
wps
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you listen to your music hammering the CD-player table this test might be the right one. I could produce a difference. You could also tweak the cheap player by placing 30 kg of stone slabs under it.
There is no need to arange a listenig (blind of course) test to test transports. Play a test CD/SACD and compare the output to a known dataset on a HDD. If the they are identical the transport is perfect. Were are talking about data read and output here, not sound, remember. Typically PC DVD drives make mistakes like once a week in continuous use (clean disks of course). Decent PC/SACD transports should be just as good, like their 100-500 times higher price makes one to expect.
|
|
|
Post by DSD February 6, 2010 (98 of 145)
|
|
To say all transports output data perfectly is in gross error, data is never read perfectly but better transports have less read errors. The Reed–Solomon error correction codes correct most but not all of the read errors.
Error concealment exists for "read" errors than cannot be corrected, and when concealment does not work you get audible "clicks"! The advantage of a great transport is less error correction that seldom needs error concealment.
With less error correction the servos in the player’s optical laser block are not generating excessive electrical noise by constantly working to eliminate bit errors. This purity of signal is undoubtedly beneficial to audio quality. In short the build quality of the transport is as important or even more important than the DAC in the final sound quality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSD said:
To say all transports output data perfectly is in gross error, data is never read perfectly but better transports have less read errors. The Reed–Solomon error correction codes correct most but not all of the read errors.
Error concealment exists for "read" errors than cannot be corrected, and when concealment does not work you get audible "clicks"! The advantage of a great transport is less error correction that seldom needs error concealment.
With less error correction the servos in the player’s optical laser block are not generating excessive electrical noise by constantly working to eliminate bit errors. This purity of signal is undoubtedly beneficial to audio quality. In short the build quality of the transport is as important or even more important than the DAC in the final sound quality.
The player/transport should also have a precision clock conditioner to reduce jitter over HDMI connection as found in the Sony BDPS-5000ES when I asked Sony if the BPS-1000ES/760 had this clock they replied as follows: An LSI developed for the signal demodulation circuit of a mobile communication base station (which has severe jitter performance spec.) is used. This device minimises jitter for the reference clock and also comprises other elements like PLL operation etc. As a result, the HDMI output clock jitter was reduced to approx. 1/10 that of the conventional type Y. Hope this makes some sense to the tech, minded.
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie February 7, 2010 (100 of 145)
|
|
What ever happened to the simple art of listening? Go into a high end audio store, bring your prized player and compare it with different transports and only then will this ridiculous discussion subside. We are NOT transporting words, people, we are attempting to replicate music and in order to achieve this, I would like the best playback device that I could afford and I wish it was under $1000 or even $1500 but it's simply not the case. Theorizing is one thing but listening critically will transport your ears to places you never knew you could go and it, unfortunately, comes at a price....the same way we are willing to pay MORE for our music in the SACD or DVD-A format. And your RBCDs will also sound better. Stop being in abject denial that there ARE better toys than we have in our arsenals and just because we cannot afford them does NOT mean that they don't exist.....thus my post THE FANTASY WORLD OF SOME SA~CD.NET POSTERS! Living in Denial will ultimately deny you of the advances made in SACD/CD replication in the last few years......can one untimately deny that the mastering has improved and will continue to improve and I, personally, would like to elicit every iota of sonic bliss I can from these advancements!
|
|
