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
Well, I am one of the fortunate owners of the Memory Player (for just about a week or so) and I will post my extended opinion on this unit in the near future. However, for now my impressions are as follows:
1. the sound - the best I've heard in my system, period. Nothing more to say.
2. the ease of operation - very easy, considering you are using it more as a PC than a regular player. Quite straight forward.
3. software (you need a laptop to operate the unit) - very rudimentary, I would call it a work in progress. It needs a lot of fine tunning to satisfy an average customer like myself. Once this is taken care of, the MP will be the audiophile king of the source components. I am betting on this.
Alex, can you clear this up?

I am sorry but I can not clear up this matter. What can I say though is that, IMO, the best digital would be the perfect fusion of technology advancements, actual design implementation and art.

Regards,
Alex

....the MP will be the audiophile king of the source components. I am betting on this.

Great news Olesno! It seems like everyone who heard and reviewed the MP at "Stereotimes MP" :-) is using it as a digital transport only. Are you in the same boat having the MP hooked to your TACT or you're using it as a stand alone player (using the analog outputs)? Do you have the $5K tube output option? Would be great if you list the associated equipment too.

Lastly, are you in California? SF Bay area by any chance? I'd love to get together some day so I can take you up on your bet.

:-)

Regards,
Alex
Sorry, but I am not in California. I'm on the "right" coast in NJ. I do not have the tube output option as I am using it as a transport with my tact 2.2xp and the tact amp s2150. The rest of my equipment consists of Piega P10 speakers, Talon subwoofer, Audience Au24 cabling and Virtual Dynamics Nite power cords. In a few words the sound is very clean but not forward or bright. The soundstaging and focus are excellent. The most striking feature however is the smooth and liquid (but dynamic) sound without any edginess. It has the ability to fool me into the live event more than anything before it.