2. digital
  3. 1200161112

Why use CD Transport instead of computer source

I have been seeking a new digital front end setup and would like some advice on what solution will produce the highest quality digital playback.

My current plan is to add a Slim Devices Transporter possibly mated to an external DAC, after evaluating the Transporter on its own to determine the quality of the internal DAC (which I understand is quite high).

Why would I consider a CD Transport and DAC as an alternative to a computer based source such as this? If I am using EAC to get bit-perfect rips of my CDs and I encode them in a lossless format like FLAC, there doesnt seem like there could be any benefit to using a CD Transport, in fact, the computer based source should be better if the rips are done bit-perfect.

Any comments on why there is still a high end market for CD transports given the availability of top computer based sources like the Slim Transporter?
superquant
mr_bill
347 posts
 
If your not comparing the same CD to the same CD ripped lossless - high bit rate, with a low jitter server such as SB3 or Transporter, then your comments on this question will not be valid. You can still share your experience, though.
I've compared my Sony dvp7000es transport with my SB3, both feeding a Benchmark dac1 and the differences were very neglible. Slight differences but hard to nail down and I liked the streaming better - more open, bigger soundstage. Granted the Sony 7000 is a real world decent transport but not a real high dollar cd transport. With a better streaming transport like the 'Transporter' then the jitter levels would be even lower streaming than optical read with a cd transport.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
I did compare the same cd with a ripped lossless version, but I know nothing about SB3 or Transporter. Neither used a Benchmark dac but the Exemplar uses the Benchmark board. Neither uses the USB connection nor any sound board. I don't know what the transport was for Blue Smoke but in the case of the Exemplar a stand alone cd player was used. It is the Exemplar modified Shanling CD-3000. I have much experience with the SCD-3000 with the same mods. A much better clock is used in both.

The differences were not at all subtle. Everyone in both rooms immediately heard the differences. I like the convenience of servers but never before heard one I would own.
mr_bill
347 posts
 
My post wasn't directed at you Tbg, but rather to the posters above and to get us all on a level playing field!
tonyptony
617 posts
 
I'm curious, because of the recent discussion in one of the audio rags concluding that high-end servers sound better than transports.
Also, is the Transporter an advantage over the SB run through a high-end DAC?

Ncarv, I read this too. I will not for a minute say that my modified SB3 is not musical, or that I am not happy listening to it. I am pleased with how it sounds, but in this world of "something has got to be better than something else" audio, it is still not quite as good as my PDT3.

As for the digital out of the Transporter vs. SB3, I'm not sure. I understand the Transporter has (I think) linear power supplies all the way around. The SB3 has one switching regulator. The Trans supplies are also very tightly regulated Jung types. That may be enough to make for some improvement (if possible) to the digital out.
unclejeff
1,313 posts
 
Folks at slimdevices say that the digital out is the same.

I own both and I use the AES EBU digital output from the Transporter and this works well.

Still, who am I to second-guess the guys who made it all happen......?
More to discover