Network Transport vs. CD Transport


So I decided to conduct an experiment. I pulled the old Marantz cd player circa 1999, around $400 retail, from storage along with few CDs. Using a coax digital cable with a $4.97 rca to bnc adapter from amazon, I sat down to listen. I played the CD, the ripped version (AIFF) of that CD, and a Qobuz redbook version thru my zmac Mini. Long story short...the reason why I did it was because there is something missing in the Mac Mini sound quality and I got tired of trying to figure out what the heck is going on. 
Anyways, that old cd player used as a transport into the Qutest DAC sounds considerably better  than the Mac Mini that right now I will need a few days break before I can can listen to the Mac again. I figured (assumed) that a dedicated network transport will pretty much better the Mac Mini and be comparable or better than what I heard with Marantz player as transport. Eyeing Auralic G1, Lumin D2 and Lumin U1 Mini as candidates (I need wifi capability), will any of these be comparable or better than let’s say a decent CD transport feeding the Chord Qutest? For example a Cambridge CXC, or a used high end player?
I can go back to spinning CDs, but figured I don’t want to give up on streaming just yet.
What are your thoughts - Auralic G1, Lumin D2, Lumin U1 Mini, or a dedicated CD transport for high quality playback. Forget convenience, let’s talk purely sound quality...thanks!

System:
Rogue RP-1, Rogue ST-100, Martin Logan Montis, Chord Qutest dac. 
128x128audphile1
Yes I know it’s on Youtube, but even it shows what "compression (loudness) can do to your music", imagine the difference if it were played to you on a hi-end cd/dac source and not Youtube, with CD bitrate as explained in my last post..
https://youtu.be/3Gmex_4hreQ

More in depth longer explanation of what "compression (loudness) does to your music)
https://youtu.be/kL13b9hCYjc

Cheers George
Everybody on this thread uses usb which is flawed. If you get a quality network dac, there is no reason for a music server. All these music servers are computers with hacks to try improving usb. Sure, if you have to use usb, then go for it and keep trying all the tricks to make it better and then spend the $10k that some of these servers are getting so they can try to optimize the USB port.
For a dozen years now, it’s been proven that ripped music sounds better than played they a cd player. It doesn’t have to be ripped to cd, it can be ripped to the slowest hdd out there, there is no difference in sound in ssd or hdd.
I laugh when I read the headlines about the 256G ssd in the Aurender for caching or the review of the Wolf music server, wolf claims its ssd can read 3.5G per second. Big f&$&ing deal!
How much cache do you really need when a song is 50-100M. Do you want to cache 2500 songs? For the Wolf, do you want to read 35 songs a second? What are you going to do with all this songs? If you think ssd cache is going to help in streaming (remember all data has to be fetched into ram before going out they usb) or you need to read 5 albums each second, go for it
Let's get real here.

If you are using a CD transport to send digital data to your DAC and use a computer or streamer to send digital data to your DAC, they are both sending the exact same data.

Let's assume the CD transport sounds better to you. Why would this be the case? Either the CD transport is sending a better (cleaner) electrical signal along with the digital data or you like the distortion the CD transport's electrical signal creates more than the distortion the computer's or streamer's electrical signal creates.

Ultimately, a small electrically quiet streamer, like an ultraRendu, should be able to provide and cleaner electrical signal than a CD transport. There is just a lot more going in a CD transport than a streamer. You have motors and lasers and probably DAC circuitry in a CD transport.

Note: There are no CD's, which are Redbook, that play 24/96 music.
There are no CD’s, which are Redbook, that play 24/96 music.
Take that up with Professor Keith O Johnson who owns "Reference Recordings"
Ok, 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other, they are still CD’s able to be played on normal CD player even with non HDCD and they sound magnificent.
https://referencerecordings.com/format/hdcd
https://referencerecordings.com/format/hrx

And he was the inventor of HDCD, as well as the very sought after, even today dacs don’t come close, the Pacific Mircosonics Model One/Two D/A A/D converters, try to buy a used one, just look at the companies that use them. 
http://www.goodwinshighend.com/manufacturers/pacific_microsonics/pacific_microsonics_model_two.htm

Cheers George

George,

Please get your facts straight.

CD = Redbook = 16/44.1

HDCDs are 16/44.1. HDCD uses a proprietary algorithm to to compress the peaks of a recording so that when played back on an HDCD decoding device, the peaks are extended and approximate the dynamic range you would get from a 20/44.1 recording. 

HDCD is most certainly not 24/96.

Also, HDCDs with "Peak Extend" used can sound not so very good when played on a regular CD player. Read here:

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/ive-decided-not-to-run-my-masterings-through-an-hdcd-converte...

I hope this has been educational.