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
seandtaylor99
1,262 posts
 
The computer serves only to provide readable 1s and 0s, and evidently, despite their "noiseball" characteristics PCs are perfectly capable of reading 1s and 0s from CD roms, and hard-drives and streaming them over ethernet or USB without a single bit error. That's how you're reading this web site.

An external DAC can have its own power supply, and isolating any noise from the USB or ethernet inputs is not rocket science. Finally RAM based FIFO buffering and reclocking will feed the DAC a bit-perfect signal with noise removed and ultra-low jitter.

I understand that Alex produces respected machines, but I see no coherent engineering based arguments that refute any of what Steve (or I, or others) have said.
slothman
311 posts
 
Regardless of the way we choose to play our Redbook, it makes me wonder if those in control of the CD mastering process are truly as critical as we are in our listening. How perfect is the mastering process? For that matter, look around and see how many professional recording devices these days have a USB port - what do you suppose that's for? Connecting to a "Noiseball" I reckon. Tells me that somewhere in the recording process our beloved 1's and 0's are quite possibly passing through a Noiseball. If so, is it possible that some of that noise generated garbage is being passed on to us in the final product? Are we just trying in vain to fix garbage that was already there?

I'm using a Meridian 518 to send my 1 and 0's from my computer to my DAC. My SPDIF converter is a Waveterminal U24 - which happens to be a professional audio device with , you guessed it, a USB port. The Meridian is supposedly a unit that (according to the manual) has been used in the final mastering process by Chesky records and Sony Classical, to name a few. Considering the above, perhaps I am doing no worse with the end product than what is being done in the studios in the first place?
aplhifi
515 posts
 
The computer serves only to provide readable 1s and 0s, and evidently, despite their "noiseball" characteristics PCs are perfectly capable of reading 1s and 0s from CD roms, and hard-drives and streaming them over ethernet or USB without a single bit error. That's how you're reading this web site.

If this is what you believe in and makes you happy, so be it.

An external DAC can have its own power supply, and isolating any noise from the USB or ethernet inputs is not rocket science. Finally RAM based FIFO buffering and reclocking will feed the DAC a bit-perfect signal with noise removed and ultra-low jitter.

Simpe, isn't it? If you don't care how the "perfect" data was processed and transmitted that's fine too.

I understand that Alex produces respected machines, but I see no coherent engineering based arguments that refute any of what Steve (or I, or others) have said.

Thank you for the nice words! I am sorry but I can not further elaborate.

Regards,
Alex
pardales OP
652 posts
 
Okay, as of now (and this is just my read on the debate) the crux of the argument between the two positions I started this thread out with seems to be about whether the computer can send out a decent signal. Alex is suggesting that there is so much noise involved in the computer that it is not going to send out as clean/clear a signal as a classical CD transport will send to its internal DAC.

So, for now, I guess this is the question: is the average computer really putting out an inferior signal to that of the transport section of a good CD transport?

One camp says "no, not right now", and the other suggests, "yes, it now can".
Ag insider logo xs@2x
drubin
3,274 posts
 
Based on your answers, Pardales, I think the question you meant to ask is, Can the average computer put out a signal equal to that of a dedicated CD player or transport?
More to discover