When is digital going to get the soul of music?

Frank,

When it comes to top-quality, there are only several CD transport manufacturers in the world of which Sony, Philips and Pioneer are used the most for building audiophile equipment. There are some manufacturers building their own mechanisms, but the Digital Signal Processors (DSPs) used are still Sony, Philips or Pioneer (and strangely enough, some recent Sony and Denon products use Panasonic). This being said, I have extensive in-depth experience with all of the above that includes pure CD, CD/SACD and CD/SACD/DVD transports.

You are correct that it is much easier to obtain best results with a regular CD transport, but there are limitations to it. The processors are old, noisy and 16 bit (no headroom). The disc spins at x1 speed so there is not much room for large size memory buffering (only 512KB of FIFO memory is used), and the so called "read until right" is impossible, so you hit it and it skips.

On the other hand, most CD/SACD/DVD universal transports are built with newer, faster and quieter DSPs with at least 24 bit resolution (lots of headroom for CD data processing). The DSPs have built-in memory controllers and large SDRAM memory devices attached to them (16, 32 or even 64MB). The disc spins at x4 filling up the SDRAM memory. The laser pick-up can go back to a problematic passage and re-read it until the best information is retrieved, all while you are enjoying uninterrupted audio data coming from the memory buffer. The transport jitter is greatly reduced. But what is the problem with such transport then? Unlike CD-only transport, the “universal beast” needs multiple clocks produced by a PLL-based multi-clock generator, usually locked to a 27MHz video clock reference. The PLLs used are very jittery thus decreasing the entire transport performance. But what if the original PLLs and VCOs are replaced with a single PLL solution that is so advanced that its phase noise is as low as the one of a bare crystal? You have a winner, and there is no regular CD transport capable of competing with it, IMHO!

Best,
Alex Peychev

The 47 Lab Flatfish transport is house made. It is a top loader rigidly supported. The sound feeding my DAC is as pure as the driven snow. I share your thought on simplicity.

Muralman1,

The 47 Lab Flatfish transport is house made. It is a top loader rigidly supported. The sound feeding my DAC is as pure as the driven snow. I share your thought on simplicity.

Sure, the metal transport housing pieces are house-made, not the actual CD transport. CD transport is the laser/tracking/spindle motor assembly and associated Digital Signal Processing and Servo. That cannot be house-made so it is either Philips or Sony.

Best,
Alex Peychev

The laser tracking unit is outsourced to be sure. It is in it's implementation where the fruits of success is heard.

Albertporter, when I read your response to my earlier posting I was somewhat taken aback, and hence responded a little brusquely, I apologise for that.

Following that posting by myself, I went "Back to the Future" and looked at the thread material of late '08', and very vigorous it was too! To me, the nub of it in relation to yourself was your comment:

There was a time when I put all my effort into making digital right and at one time I had my system where digital and analog were very close. One day a friend who had not visited in a long time, a guy with excellent ears, listened with me and pointed out the fact that I had managed to "down grade" the analog source to make the digital warm and friendly enough to enjoy.

After that, I returned to my quest to make the music as dynamic, transparent, resolved and emotionally involving as possible and when that formula is applied, analog excels and CD falls.

I can very much sympathise with your "battle", as in many ways I have gone through similar myself: the difference being that in my case I was able to reach a positive, rather than negative outcome, with what would be considered pretty ordinary equipment, playing very ordinary CD's; others have seemingly achieved similar results. I will just repeat what I have said elsewhere that I have experienced very expensive, highly tweaked, at home vinyl setups that have sounded a) stunning, and b) excrutiatingly harsh and unpleasant, so I certainly am aware how there can be two ends of the scale, irrespective of the time and money spent.

The answer, to repeat myself, is system engineering, and yes, in digital it can be much harder to get it right, compared to vinyl, but superb results on that "nasty" 44.1k digital CAN be achieved.

Finally, a "thought" experiment. I would suggest that your own system, in top form, be modified by the addition of a black box completely hard wired in, with a bypass switch. This would be engineered so well that it would be 100% transparent with the bypass engaged (unlike how all these DBT setups most surely are typically set up,) to yourself and anyone else you care to have listen. In the black box is a "done right" 44.1 analogue to digital converter feeding a 44.1 digital to analogue converter, engineered CORRECTLY with current technology, and, you can guess what's coming, I would seriously suggest that the people listening would find it close to impossible to pick when the extra circuitry was part of the mix ...

Frank