If the DAC is the same, how different do CD transports sound?

@coralkong

Once you hit a certain level of transport and DAC coupled with very clean amplification, good cabling, speakers, etc...the differences are pretty easy to hear.

Listening and comparing a couple sub $1000 transports probably won’t tell you much.

So the sub $1000 transports pretty much sound the same? Even on a system with very clean amplification, good cabling, speakers, etc.? That’s quite an accomplishment in consistency it would seem. I’d get the impression that the bad transports would sound much more different in their various flaws, while the more perfected transports would become increasingly difficult to tell apart as they approach perfection.

It’s conceivable that the cheap transports all have pretty much the exact same flaws, and it’s only when somebody makes an attempt to get past those practically uniform flaws that the differences become apparent. Each maker uses different approaches and gets slightly different results, but all are better than doing nothing at all. Maybe it’s kind of like adding coatings to lenses to reduce color abberations and glare. One maker might use a coating that looks blue, another purple, or orange. They all give slightly different results, but all are better than just leaving the lenses uncoated, which would be cheaper and perhaps fine for a lot of users.

I think the coated lenses analogy is pretty good, and one that I can relate too in my recent experience. My previous glasses had coated lenses. My newer ones do not. There is definitely a difference, but for the most part I’m seeing things just as good without the coatings as I was with them. Uncoated lenses are worthy of the best frames you might want to get with them. I’d also argue that a cheap transport is worthy of the best sound systems out there. Whatever a cheap transport’s shortcomings are, it’s never going to be the weakest link in any sound system, unless it’s just downright malfunctioning, or makes too much mechanical noise.

@asctim ,

Perhaps I am making the assumption that if someone is looking at a sub $1k transport, they're probably using a sub $1k DAC as well......so, point taken, I should have been more clear.

Now, that being said, if you start talking about using.....say.....a $5k+ DAC, the differences between a $600, $2500, a $5k and a $10k transport will be much more discernable.

In my room, paired with Aqua La Voce S2, Jay's CDT2MKIII transport yields far more detail and noticeably more bass than Sim Audio Moon 260DT transport. I found the degree of  improvement disproportionally high, given the price difference. Whether this is typical or atypical, I've no idea. 

@audphile1

don’t take it the wrong way, but I think you are too excited to see the conclusion of that video aligned with what you were hoping to hear. In other words you had a biased opinion going in and now it impairs your ability to keep an open mind.

You might be right. I’m going to accept your take as a reasonable hypothesis and reconsider why I’m posting this. The funny thing is, I have disconnected my CD transport because I’m not using it very much. I stream all the time. So, I’m not that motivated to keep what I have vs. upgrade. I find the question theoretically interesting and two audiophiles I admire for their acument (including @jjss49 ) make the same argument as the video. So, if I’m biased, it’s because the people I respect for their knowledge agree with the video, not because I have a dog in this fight.

Your argument on why the number of views matters is pretty weak as well.

I really botched explaining it. My apologies. Here’s another way to look at it. If you were on a youtube video accidentally slipping on a banana peel, would you want it to have 93k views or 10 views? Probably 10 views, because no one wants to be embarrassed. The same idea holds for those mentioned as participating in this review. He names them here: https://youtu.be/TAOLGsS27R0?t=528

If they have reputations they want to protect, then if the experiment in which they’re mentioned is a shoddy one -- with 94k views -- that works against them. That’s the best I can phrase the argument, but I’m happy to agree to disagree on this one.

Based on personal experience with both CD players and ripping CDs I suspect if or when a significant difference exists it is most likely due to how the player handles poor quality CDs that take longer to get the data off than good quality CDs.

For example I rip CDs using your basic usb CD drive. Poor quality CDs take much longer to rip with no errors, but eventually 99% of CDs do rip with no errors.

Thing is you CAN NOT tell a good quality CD from a poor quality one by just looking and the quality can vary to a great degree.

Meanwhile playing a CD requires the data be read fast enough to keep the music going. Lots of things can go wrong if the data is not buffered to faster more reliable storage before going through the D 2 A process.

So to me playing a CD is a bad idea and lots can go wrong. Some players are surely better than others. It’s not rocket science though so no need for a reliable CD player to cost a huge premium.

That means I always rip my CDs once then stream them. I never use a CD player anymore. It just makes sense and provides a greatly enriched user experience once a CD is ripped to disk in a music library.

My advice: Join the 21st century. Just rip and stream. I use dbpoweramp software to rip which does a very good job of providing accurate rips. Any decent computer CD drive will do and cost very little. Keep a CD player around for an emergency perhaps, if you must. I do but have not used it in years.