Good CD player vs. Transport and DAC

B_limo, you will get a wide swath of responses to your inquiry. You have captured the essence of the viewpoint of some when you say, "So from what I'm hearing you say is that the transport doesn't matter in terms of sound, just get a good dac? Not to sound redundant, but I'm using my denon dvd 2900 as a transport and using a musical fidelity v-dacII with an upgraded pangea p-100 power supply for the dac. If I want better digital playback, I should just concentrate on getting a better dac..."

You couldn't get much worse advice when it comes to Redbook playback. The transport is of paramount importance, as is the digital cable, as is the power cord for each (transport/DAC). Every element of the signal, from reading to conversion, is profoundly important to achieve a digital playback which has some semblance of extreme beauty.

Put a crap transport in front of whatever DAC you wish, be it a $500 or $10K DAC, and the result will suffer. Put a beautiful player/transport feeding whatever DAC you wish, be it a $500 or $10K DAC, and the result will improve markedly.

It's a LoFi move to chintz on the transport. Take this advice from someone who has not only used the Denon 2900 with a variety of DACs, but has also used transports/players as transports from under $1K to $10K. One of the best ways to destroy digital sound is by using a low quality transport. Most people can only offer opinion in this matter. I offer experience, as I have compared directly low end players as transports to $10K players for the same function into DACs. It was a frustrating but unavoidable conclusion that the transport quality is absolutely essential to attain very high performance in Redbook playback.

Zd542 is absolutely correct; anyone who says the transport doesn't matter is wretchedly wrong in this matter.

zd542 & Doug Schroeder, Thanks for the knowledable responses. Okay, so to move forward, say you have $1,000 to spend on a digital source upgrade, where do I go from here? The reason why I was thinking about that oppo is because it seems to have a great dac (32 bit sabre...), it would serve as a transport, I could watch bluerays on it instead of my ps-3, and I could listen to pandora on it also. So, what do you guys recommend from here?
P.S. Doug, I've checked out your rig awhile back and it's really nice!

B_limo, I appreciate the complement; there are many years of budgeting and many, many components tried working up to the current rig, but all worth it.

The issue is that players do die, and if you put all your eggs in one basket you will sooner or later likely watch your entire digital source go kaput. I had the 2900 and used it very lightly; it was about as new as one can find on the market. Yet, it died on me about six months ago. (Same with my Xbox, which made me conclude that's about the last dime Microsoft gets from me for a game machine).
If the unit is at least three or four years old fixing it is diminishing returns, as the players continue to improve sonically.

Having a good DAC is worthwhile for a couple reasons, one of which Elizabeth alluded to; the DAC tends not to go kaput, but can last a while longer as it is not mechanical like a transport/laser assembly. As I said earlier, the quality of the transport is important. But you can also obtain some great advancement through upgrading the DAC. Trust me, there is a LOT of room for sonic improvement between the DAC internal to the 2900 and the newer 32 bit DACs. Using the 2900 as a transport to a $1K DAC will absolutely be an improvement.

Now, Oppo makes a good product, and their player is not bad. So, this is definitely a compellig option. I would not say it's a bad move, because all things considered it would yield a well-rounded experience in regards to several goals you have and not break the bank. Would the 2900 and a good DAC outperform the Oppo? Perhaps, perhaps not; too many variables to say easily, including the dig. cable, power cords, etc.

So... you're not going to get a nice tidy answer to the problem. Only a direct comparison would say which way would be superior. In terms of audio only, I assure you that you can get transport/DAC combos which would very likely stomp the Opppo, but it may take a fair bit of experimentation to find it.

Ask yourself if the Blueray improvement is a major goal, or is the ultimate sound quality long term the major goal. That may help you make your choice.

Doug, thanks again for the informative response! All out sound quality is really the goal. I can just watch blu-rays through the ps-3. No big deal. So next question, what DAC's should I start looking at if I am only wanting to spend $500-$1,000 (used is fine with me)? Remember, I am currently using a musical fidelity v-dacII with an upgraded power supply (pangea p-100), and I do like the sound this DAC provides, I just know that there is more to be had in terms of sound quality. My only source right now are c.d.'s, so a good dac is important to me. Also, I'm guessing that you just can't go by specs alone. I'm thinking there are dac's rated at 24/192 that sound better than 32/384; is this a correct assumption? If so, then, again, what dac's should I be looking at in the $500-$1,000 price range that are going to sound better than my current dac, or the oppo.

B_limo, my experience with 32 bit DACs is that they are holistically superior. There may be some extreme 24 bit players/DACS which compete well, but typically the 32 bit players/DACs have cleaned up in terms of superior performance.

I encourage you to read all my articles pertaining to Opamp rolling the EE DAC and DAC Plus, especially the article detailing discrete Opamp rolling the DAC Plus. But there are many favorites out there, and you'll find no shortage of enthusiasm for them.

At some point I would expect there will come along a DAC which is so profoundly superior to the EE Minimax Plus that I may find it worthy of giving up the discrete Opamp rolling. Just when you think you have the ideal system/methodology something else comes along and wows. But I'm having a lot of fun with this setup currently.