Half the information on CDs is analogue


I would like to argue that one of the reasons that some transports sound significantly better than others is because much of the information on a given CD is actually analogue (analog) information.
An excellent transport does not just read digital information: 1s and 0s (offs and ons); it must be sensitive enough to pick up the other information that has been stored as a physical property of the CD medium. This 'physical' information, like the tiny bumps in the groove of a vinyl record, is analogue information.

Before I say more I'd like to hear what others think.
exlibris
I don't suppose there is any way for us consumers to undo the damage that is done at the mastering level?
I guess the reason that some of us grasp at staws to get better sound from our systems is because we know that we are stuck with the recording that we've purchased. The only thing we can control is the playback.
Axelfonze,

Your point about the recording/mixing/mastering being important is so true. More important than CD vs Vinyl, IMHO.

For example, Doug Sax masters were good in the days of vinyl (Sheffield labs) and are even better today with digital....

This difference is so big that some remastered CD's are worse than the original vinyl (especially if the CD was mastered to sound loud).

Here is some info on why some CD's sound pretty bad on audiophile systems and lists some that make the "honor roll" for good sound (this does not mean that Redbook is a poor medium but that professionals are deliberately producing compressed material for poor quality systems);

http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=93/
Axelfonze,

I totally agree with you. Brave of you to enter the fray. Unfortunately whatever you care to point out will be dismissed as "digital dogma" by many on these forums.

My efforts to explain what is well accepted by most professionals and supported by both science and lab measurements, almost always ends up producing these kind of retorts.

BTW: Both formats can produce excellent sound, IMHO. Digital, if properly used has greater potential. Although the loudness wars have produced some recordings on CD that are worse than what you can find on vinyl.
I had mentioned that I would run an experiment to see if the transport and digital cable really matter if you have an excellent clocking device in place right before your DAC.
Well, the "JISCO" is and excellent clocking device and the "Attraction" is an excellent DAC.
The bottom line is that there is very little difference in sound when one uses different transports or different digital cables with the JISCO-enabled Attraction DAC.
I have never, until now, come across a DAC where the transport and cable made next to no difference.
I honestly thought this experiment would once again show a significant difference between different transports and different cables.
I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong.
It isn't the first time I've been wrong about something and it won't be the last.

If I ever happen to come across a cable or a transport that makes any significant difference when paired with the Attraction DAC I will post my findings on the "Is the Altmann Attraction DAC really the best?" thread.
Exlibris,

Your findings match what Bob Katz widely reports...the DAC is where most subtle differences in digital tend to happen. (Clocking from transport is related but in the end jitter can be controlled at the DAC with appropriate design)