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
askat1988
24 posts
 
I have been wanting to move to a pc-based front-end for awhile and have had the Transporter in the house before (returned due to defect). I have an EMM SE stack which just far surpasses the stock Transporter (wav files only).

But, Alex of Alphifi is working with the Transporter now, doing mods and i am quite excited about trying his modded version against my EMM or with the EMM DCC2. Alex thinks the modded Transporter may approach the EMM level. Check out his forum (i am in no way associated with him and own none of his products, but people I know do and say they are great).

I think the network server is the future, rather than USB, or things like Opus, etc.
tonyptony
613 posts
 
Yeah, I saw this on his web site forums. It looks like he really is going all out on the Transporter mods. I thought I saw one being sold here on the 'gon just a short while ago. It may have been Alex himself selling it.
mdconnelly
133 posts
 
Ncarv... I echo Tonyptony. Streaming lossy internet radio is good, FLAC lossless is far better, but still not quite the same as sourced from my CD transport. My comparisons were with FLAC lossless copies ripped from the same CD using EAC and volume matched.

I don't doubt that the highly modded units can match or exceed a good CDP or transport. But to be honest, there is something about selecting a CD and dropping it in the transport that I still enjoy almost as much as I do with vinyl. For that reason, I will likely always have a transport even though the vast majority of music playing in my house every day is via the Squeezebox.
unclejeff
1,313 posts
 
I bought one of the original Transporters which I am using at this moment. I route it through the Audio Aero Capitole's DAC as I think it sounds much 'warmer' while the Transporter's DAC which is relly good, just a bit too 'bright', or as some would say, more 'analytic'.

To get back to your question, my original CDs do sound better using the AA's transport than the music ripped into my Apple G5 using lossless routed to my Transporter via CAT6 cable and using the AES EBU cable to the Capitole.

I suspect the reason might be that the AA is first a CD player and it was made to work its magic on a CD, with the other digital sources not being so harmonious.

Still, last night I doownloaded the Transporter's latest software upgrade and this morning it sounds, I believe, even better.
vernonamiller
6 posts
 
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I'm pretty firmly in the digital camp and am moving toward the server/client model like lots of others here, so my intent is to use my SD Transporter (which I don't own yet, but soon will!) for 99% of my listening, even the serious stuff. But I'll still keep a good CD transport around, if for no other reason than the fact that selecting a CD and dropping it in feels good, as another poster mentioned.

(BTW, I have lots of sources, analog and digital, and I intend to keep them all :-)
More to discover