Half the information on CDs is analogue


I would like to argue that one of the reasons that some transports sound significantly better than others is because much of the information on a given CD is actually analogue (analog) information.
An excellent transport does not just read digital information: 1s and 0s (offs and ons); it must be sensitive enough to pick up the other information that has been stored as a physical property of the CD medium. This 'physical' information, like the tiny bumps in the groove of a vinyl record, is analogue information.

Before I say more I'd like to hear what others think.
exlibris
I had mentioned that I would run an experiment to see if the transport and digital cable really matter if you have an excellent clocking device in place right before your DAC.
Well, the "JISCO" is and excellent clocking device and the "Attraction" is an excellent DAC.
The bottom line is that there is very little difference in sound when one uses different transports or different digital cables with the JISCO-enabled Attraction DAC.
I have never, until now, come across a DAC where the transport and cable made next to no difference.
I honestly thought this experiment would once again show a significant difference between different transports and different cables.
I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong.
It isn't the first time I've been wrong about something and it won't be the last.

If I ever happen to come across a cable or a transport that makes any significant difference when paired with the Attraction DAC I will post my findings on the "Is the Altmann Attraction DAC really the best?" thread.
Exlibris,

Your findings match what Bob Katz widely reports...the DAC is where most subtle differences in digital tend to happen. (Clocking from transport is related but in the end jitter can be controlled at the DAC with appropriate design)
Exlibris...Thanks for the info.

I also made a mistake once. I thought I was wrong about something, but I wasn't :-)
I said: "How is the average person supposed to know what "sounds good" or "sounds right" when those supposedly devoted to "high fidelity audio reproduction" don't even know what it is?".

Mlsstl said: "Such touching devotion to the common man! ;-)".

Honestly though, think about it and the specifics of the other things i made mention of before making that statement. If amplitude linearity and low distortion don't really matter, audiophiles using and recommending highly expensive but highly distorted components really have nothing to do with the "high fidelity" reproduction of music. It might be "high end" in terms of cost and so-called "glamour", but it surely isn't "high fidelity" by any means. THAT is what i meant by "audiophilia" sending the general public "mixed signals".

I guess that this boils down to whether one REALLY is a "music lover" or an "audiophile". The distortions ( regardless of types or amplitudes ) don't really matter to the music lover, so long as it "sounds good" to them. On the other hand, the "true" audiophile is more concerned with the purity of signal being reproduced than the actual sonic characteristics of the recording.

Having said that, it is nice when both the recordings and the systems are reasonably "accurate" AND "musical", which is getting to be more rare rather than commonplace. One would think that with the advent of greater technology, just the opposite would be taking place. I say that because the recordings are getting worse, and in order to make them more "listenable", the end user's are resulting to introducing further distortions into the chain. Kind of a band-aid effect, but i guess that if one truly wants to enjoy listening to music, they'll do what they think is necessary.

Too bad none of the schools for recording technology offer some type of class in "audiophilia". Maybe if those going into the industry had a better idea of how good things really could sound without massive signal manipulation on even a decent system, they would better strive to achieve such results. After all, to most folks going into such a field, they have no idea what they are missing. To them ( and the rest of the world ), a "good sounding" system consists of a Pioneer / Sony / Kenwood / JVC / Technics cd player stacked on top of a Pioneer / Sony / Kenwood / JVC / Technics receiver plugged into a $1.99 power strip / surge protector feeding some Bose speakers connected through Monster Cable. This is as good as it gets, right? After all, this is all "brand name" stuff that cost them hundreds of dollars, right???

If we were to change the point of reference for those making the recordings via exposure to better quality gear and system installations, we might be able to change their goals and motivations too.

I wonder if it would be worthwhile for audiophiles, working together as a group both regionally and nationally, to contact local recording schools and studios and work with them on something like this? Just giving them access to a "decent" audiophile grade system on their premises might make for a world of difference. Even our old "junk" properly set up would be a step up from what they are used to using and listening to.

Any thoughts / comments from the peanut gallery??? Sean
>