Ripping hardware

@kraftwerkturbo 

isn't a transport by definition a 'CD player without DAC', something that reads the digitial informaton on a CD/DVD/SACD (physical media)?

Yes.

Never heard of a 'transport' that 'transports' digital files to a DAC. Unless you refer to a streamer as a 'transport'?

A transport is whatever device directly feeds your DAC.  I can't say with 100% certainty that that is an official definition.  But whether the data is being transported from a disk, or being transported from a solid state drive, or being transported from a digital-to-digital converter, or from a computer / streamer, to me it is all the same.  The above choices differ only in regards to the storage medium that has the bits that get fed / transported to your DAC.

If so, why would I put a 'transport' between computer and SACD?

Do you mean between a computer and an SACD player (one that has an input to be fed by a computer)?

You do not have to do so.  But by introducing a stand-alone, purpose built transport / re-clocker between a computer or streamer (streamers are computers of a sort), then that re-clocker has the last word (in a manner of speaking) as to the timing of the bits that your DAC turns into voltage (the birth of the analog signal).

If you use a low-end re-clocker between a quality streamer and DAC, you can do harm to the sound quality.  But a quality re-clocker will feed your DAC the best timed bits, resulting in better sound quality.

Computer already has the file the DAC can convert and feed to the analog parts. 

Computers do a relatively poor job in the clocking department.  They use their CPU cores, which are always crunching numbers for other processes.  Even if your computer is 99% idle, it is multi-tasking.

A quality, stand-alone transport does one job, and only one job.

Also, the accuracy of a quality transport's clocking will be more accurate (likely far more accurate) than a computer's clocking.

The best re-clockers have two clocks; one for songs with 44,100 Hz sampling rate and its multiples, and one for 48,000 Hz sampling rate and its multiples.

One of the expenses of building a high quality transport is the rejection rate of the manufactured clocking crystals.

For the truly exceptional quality transports, they will use only the clocking crystals that are the most accurate.  I do not know how they test them for accuracy.  But they do.

So with a quality transport, you will feed your DAC an uncanny accurately timed bit stream, and your ears will hear the difference.

Also note that computers generate lots of electrical noise.  A quality transport box will be designed to not pass that electrical noise to the DAC.  Using quality digital cables also helps in rejecting the noise.

@dwest1023 

I purchased a Hi Fi Rose CD transport. This thing is all metal anti-vibration. Thinking this would somehow enhance my rips, it absolutely made no difference in the sound compared to my cheap Chinese ripper. I was using dbpoweramp for my ripper program, but found that using iTunes sounded better to my ears. Dbpoweramp, sounded brighter than iTunes, and I preferred the slightly darker sound from iTunes. That was my experience.

The ripping hardware will not make any difference.  Any functioning computer's CD player can 100% accurately rip a CD.  It is akin to making a copy of files.  Any computer will make 100% accurate copies of files.

The magic is in playing the digital files.  That is the hard part, in terms of getting better sound quality.

@seymour-krelborn Very helpful. I like to stay with my definition of 'transport' vs 'streamer' for the source of the digital information. So that is on the start of the signal chain, with the DAC at the other end. 

Now regarding the clocking: if PC (or network drive) to DAC lacks clocking control, you suggest to splice in a 'clock conditioner', which could be a quality streamer? I assume there is hardware out there that has file storage (hard drive) AND dedicated 'clocking control' to feed a DAC (or even a quality DAC built in for an all in one)? Then ripping the source material to file, copy over to 'streamer' (and if needed, external DAC) would be the best setup?

@kraftwerkturbo 

Now regarding the clocking: if PC (or network drive) to DAC lacks clocking control, you suggest to splice in a ’clock conditioner’, which could be a quality streamer?

I want to be as accurate as possible, so I am not sure that a clock conditioner is a proper label.  The word "conditioner" is conveying a function of helping out the clock, which is not technically correct, as I understand the roles of the hardware.

I do not believe that any clock can be conditioned or helped.  A clock will be as accurate as it is (although giving it additional tasks will result in each task having fewer slices of the clocks time, which is bad for sound quality).

I recommend inserting a dedicated, external clock, that is designed to do one thing, and only one thing.  It takes whatever streaming bits were sent to it, and it re-clocks those bits.  My understanding is that even poorly timed bits will be re-clocked and become highly, precisely timed.  I have read that the more the improvement that you hear, with a re-clocker, the worse that your initial box (now feeding the re-clocking box) was.  For some streamers with excellent clocking, the improvement is minor, because the re-clocked bits are only slightly better timed than the streamer’s already very accurately timed bits.

I assume there is hardware out there that has file storage (hard drive) AND dedicated ’clocking control’ to feed a DAC (or even a quality DAC built in for an all in one)?

I would think so.  Although I have never looked into that.  But such gear must exist, and probably lots to choose from.  You wrote "hard drive".  Use only a solid state drive (probably what you meant).

Then ripping the source material to file, copy over to ’streamer’ (and if needed, external DAC) would be the best setup?

That is very close to what I do (depending on the definition of a streamer).  Is it the best?  I do not know.  It is certainly very good, based on my experience before and after using a re-clocker.  And I read a review from The Absolute Sound, where the author wrote that his review sample made any stereo sound better (I forget his exact wording, but he was referring to cost-no-object stereos).

I have ripped all of my CDs, in order to play all of my songs, directly from my laptop (which is my streamer).  I have also purchased thousands of flac files that I play from my laptop.

One high-end store owner told me that he gets the best sound quality, after he purchases songs, and plays them directly off of his Mac with Audirvāna.  He gets excellent sound quality having it streamed from Qobuz.  But he told me that when he purchases the song, and plays it from his Mac, it sounds better.

I cannot confirm, as I never did that.  I do not see why it would sound better when not coming from Qobuz?  Perhaps when his Mac is not using its network port, it generates less electrical noise, and one less job for the power supply?  But I believe him that it sounds best when the files are stored on his Mac’s solid state drive.

I am doing the same thing, with a Windows 10 laptop.  I want to transition over to a Mac, but there are some complications.  I will probably visit an Apple genius, customer service location to get the answers I am seeking.  I know nothing about Macs.

What you suggested doing sounds good.  Just remember that the device that is directly feeding your DAC will have the most impact on the DAC’s sound quality.  If you use a cheesy re-clocker, you can make things worse.

An external clock (or re-clocker), that has two clocks, is probably a quality box.  Each clock will be dedicated to different sampling rates.

But read reviews, and ultimately let your ears judge.

Lastly, the input on your DAC will likely make a sound quality difference.

I²S or AES/EBU will likely give you the best sounding results (assuming your DAC has those inputs).  SPDIF might be an excellent choice, if your DAC has that input.

I have read that Singxer's SU-2 and SU-6 re-clockers (DDCs (digital-to-digital converters)) are very good, with the SU-6 being slightly better, and neither one will break the bank.

@seymour-krelborn you refer to laptop and MAC, but no re clocker in your/your friend's setup, but no re-clocker. Didn't you earlier state that PC/Mac are terrible clockers? So what machine (examples of models, known best bang for buck) should go between terrible computer and DAC?