Half the information on CDs is analogue

In some metaphysical sense there is no real distinction between analog and digital information, but practically speaking, particularly if we exclude the printed info on the CD disc/packing, 100% of the data (music) contained on a CD is digitally encoded. I honestly don't see how someone can get so confused on this issue.

I'm just trying to figure out why there is such a huge difference in the sound of various transports.

Some computer geek ought to record the digital data stream (after error correction)as generated by two or more transports. Then write a program to time slip one file until it syncs up with the other, and then do a bit by bit compare of the files. I bet they will match perfectly.

There may be other transport characteristics which affect sound. Jitter is often quoted. What if one transport ran slightly faster or slower than the other. Quite small pitch changes affect music.

Exlibris,

I have found differences in DAC's but these are usually very subtle, most often a slight difference in the treble and often not enough to make me worry that much. The only relatively much larger differences I have come across are all associated with analog gear (particularly mechanical systems that vibrate; such as speakers, listening room and turntable cartridges, and to a lesser extent tube amps, which add a bit of their own nice flavor to the sound).

My comments are relative - no doubt there are differences between CD players and improvements can be had for big $$$ but I would have difficulting in calling these differences "huge".....is there a particular CD player that you have in mind that sounds hugely different from others?

As far as digital sounding so bad...perhaps this is a matter of taste. IMHO, I find digital sounds more accurate and detailed....some might call this harsh and brutal but my perception is that it is more realistic....too each his own. When I used analog I used to buy Japanese pressings because they sounded better but now that I use CD it makes no difference where the CD was pressed (althouogh the quality of recording/mixing and mastering remains very important)

Here's a simple task that most everyone with a stand alone CD burner or computer based burner can do. That is, if they have the desire and means to do so.

Take an analogue source, record it onto a CD and then compare the original analogue source to the digital "cloned" recording using the same playback equipment. If you can't hear the difference between the original and the "digital clone", you better check into the office of an audiologist for a very thorough exam. You are either going deaf and / or are thoroughly lacking in listening skills.

Until one has done something like this, making comments about this subject is useless and a waste of everyone's time. Anybody that has done something like this will know why older analogue recordings pretty much HAVE TO BE remastered when released on CD. That is, they have to apply TONS of equilization in order to get something that even remotely resembles the "natural" tonal balance that was lost when converting to digital. Sean
>

PS... making digital to digital copies typically results in excellent copies. When going from analogue to digital, even using the shortest and purest path possible, it all goes to hell.