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
Ag insider logo xs@2x
drubin
3,277 posts
 
I just re-read Robert Harley's comment on the Memory Player in a recent TAS. He had not heard it, but was so appalled at their claims about errors in reading discs (their Read Until Right process) that he felt compelled to speak up. Harley's a pretty cautious guy and has decent credentials in this area. Unusual for him to take such a strong position like this in print, and I commend him for doing so.

As I said earlier, I was mighty impressed with the sound I heard from the MP, and I have read the other reviews. Harley's point was that, if they are getting great sound, it is not because of Read Until Right. I hope we can get to bottom of this in the near future. It feels like an improved understanding of what's really going with transports and the like is just around the corner. You'd think, at any rate.
eclecticear
14 posts
 
Guys, guys, please let's keep the data straight.
The subject is alredy too technical for most us so let us not make things any more confusing.
I am referring to Drubin's comments on "Robert Harley's comments on the Memory Player" in TAS (Dec. 2006 issue, page 121). RH did NOT once refer to Read Until Right (RUR) in his comments. He DID made some very strong statements disputing the claims made by Nova Physics about CIRC (Cross-Interleved Reed-Solomon Code)error correction scheme, uncorrelated errors and error-concealment circuits. RUR is an extraction process used by Nova Physics to get the data off the CD and thus has nothing to do with CIRC.
Even if the claims by Nova Physics regarding CIRC are in dispute, their use of RUR and playing back from "flash" memory (and NOT the hard-drive) makes the MP a unique and technically superior digital playback component. Call it a transport if you wish, but it is a transport unlike any other.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
drubin
3,277 posts
 
You are correct that he does not single out RUR. I had read HP's comments at the same time and the concept was top of mind when I wrote my post.

Still, it seems to me that RH would maintain that RUR is nonsense for the same reason he takes issue with their claims about CIRC: errors are not a big deal, so the basis for what they claim is the value of RUR is false. If the MP sounds better, it is not because of how it handles errors in reading the bits, is how I interpret his comments.
osgorth
109 posts
 
>>playing back from "flash" memory (and NOT the hard-drive)

And the difference between these two are what, exactly? Both are digital storage devices. Both methods can easily handle the 1411kbps bitrate required for Red Book playback. Any differences perceived must be due to implementation artifacts, hardly due to the storage devices used.
jsadurni
210 posts
 
The main difference of the Flash memory would be avoiding a spinning mechanical device and the problems inherent to these...
Now we will soon find out that "titanium" flash memory chips do sound better than the "normal" flash memory chips and we will never agree if spinning disks sound better than what kind of chip...untill they sell no CD no more...and we will only find CDs in Vynil sites!!!
We will buy music from sites and down load it to our computers, we will listen to the radio through our computer and if you like the song you can buy it instantly, only the song or the whole Long play...or a seleccion. I am sure there will be playlist sites that sell the whole potpurri like Buddha Bar CDs, those of us with a Good CD transport will have to burn a CD in order to play it from our transport, or will decide to go directly from the computer (which by then will be Full Flash memory anyway) even if it really doesnt sound as good!
But these will be Tomorrow`s Transport War....

Vynil anyone?
More to discover