How Good a CD Transport is Required to Sound Better than Streaming?

Esoteric-CD.jpg
There seems to be a fairly solid consensus (Lucasz Ficus, LL21, Al M, etc.) that CD playback or computer file playback, or perhaps both, sound better than streaming (assuming, of course, that all other variables, including the DAC, are held constant).

But I assume that one cannot assume that any device that can spin a CD necessarily will achieve better sound quality than will streaming.

So how good a CD transport does one need to achieve CD playback which sounds better than streaming? Where do the lines (rising sound quality of better transport and streaming sound quality) cross?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: shel50 and wisnon
I see an advantage of purchasing the RS2T. It is not just smaller but is VERY small and lightweight compared to the Jay's Audio CDt3. So, for some installations/users, it is the alternative. I am grateful to have a solidly built, dependable superb sounding transport for my now 16,300 CDs (box sets from an on-line charity boosted my collection significantly).
If the unit you are referring to is the CDT3 from J's..... I think you made a GREAT decision. If my 3rd try didn't work, that one or the CDT2 would have been my choice. They have a service center in TX too, an added bonus. Enjoy!!!!!
 
If the unit you are referring to is the CDT3 from J's..... I think you made a GREAT decision. If my 3rd try didn't work, that one or the CDT2 would have been my choice. They have a service center in TX too, an added bonus. Enjoy!!!!!
I sincerely hope that the third try works for you. My unit requires 5 inches of clearance on an inner shelf (so easy though I place the puck/CD on without looking).

I tried the Shanling ET3. It was good for the price ($729 retail) but the black one with 8 inches of clearance didn't matter. That big glass puck was tough to center easily into the well. Not comparable in sound quality to a Project or Jay's but superior to dozens of others I tried (DVD players, under $1000 CD players, Cambridge & PS Audio transports).
 
I sincerely hope that the third try works for you. My unit requires 5 inches of clearance on an inner shelf (so easy though I place the puck/CD on without looking).

I tried the Shanling ET3. It was good for the price ($729 retail) but the black one with 8 inches of clearance didn't matter. That big glass puck was tough to center easily into the well. Not comparable in sound quality to a Project or Jay's but superior to dozens of others I tried (DVD players, under $1000 CD players, Cambridge & PS Audio transports).
Not to talk your ear off, thanks for the info. Just wondering if you wouldn't mind:::: is yours the CD2 or CD3? Reason I ask, I have a second system that is using a 6000CDT and would like to upgrade around Xmas time. Thanks Robert
 
Not to talk your ear off, thanks for the info. Just wondering if you wouldn't mind:::: is yours the CD2 or CD3? Reason I ask, I have a second system that is using a 6000CDT and would like to upgrade around Xmas time. Thanks Robert
No problem. It's the CDt3 Mk3. I recently upgrade to a near SOTA system and was talked out of saving a few $1000s for a last transport ever. For 3 years I considered the CDt2 especially when the Mk3 came out with the new spring/bone anti-vibration adapter system became available. The Denafrips Avatar that was discontinued looked nearly identical yet was reportedly 4 lbs heavier. They used the same chassis and transport. I bet the Avatar and CDt2 Mk3 are both outstanding transports as well.
 
There is no audible difference between these two file types. Flac uses lossless compression. Compact discs do not use the wav file format.
On my computer, all CD files under Properties where it states
Type of File: Wave Sound (.wav)
Okay then, what files do compact discs use instead of wav file format (CD1 or CDA?-is that a file type of just a placeholder for wav files).

There is a substantial difference between the FLAC and WAV formats; however, there should be no quality difference when used in the appropriate manner. See answer to Rexp. for a full explanation and link to more detailed analysis.
 
Does anyone feel WAV sounds better than FLAC? That could be a reason for preferring CD.
Both FLAC and WAV audio file formats offer high-quality sound, but they differ in terms of file size, compatibility, and usage. When choosing between the two, it's important to weigh their respective merits and demerits. By understanding the differences between FLAC and WAV, you can make an informed decision and get the best out of your audio experience.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs):​

1. Is WAV the highest-quality audio format?
No, WAV is not necessarily the audio format providing the highest quality files. This depends on a lot of factors like bit depth, sample rate, and compression levels. As such, FLAC files can rival the quality provided by WAV.
2. Is there a quality reduction when you convert WAV to FLAC?
As FLAC is a lossless compression format, there is no data or quality loss when WAV files are converted to FLAC files.
3. Why does FLAC sound better?
FLAC can sound better than WAV files in some cases because it uses the lossless compression technique. Therefore, it can offer better apparent sound quality while consuming less storage space in comparison to WAV files.
4. Is FLAC better than WAV?
Whether FLAC is better than WAV depends on the user's specific requirements, as both audio file formats are suited to specific applications and unfit for others. FLAC uses lossless compression and generates files with smaller sizes. WAV, on the other hand, is simpler and uses uncompressed files that are larger in size.
5. Is WAV lossless?
Yes, WAV is lossless because it is an uncompressed audio file format. As such, there is no data or quality loss.

With 16,100 CDs and use of streaming with lesser quality connections for very occasional use, WAV sounds great. CDs transferred to servers/thumbdrive and high end servers, they still sound great and possibly better. I just prefer to use CDs especially since most of my music on LPs, 78s and CDs are not available for streaming (or at CD quality-about 15% are equal to or superior, that's it).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rexp
Compact discs use Red Book audio.
You are correct. Audio CDs use the same underlying uncompressed PCM format as WAV files, but they are not WAV or any kind of “computer file”. Redbook audio is the original uncompressed 44.1kHz, stereo, 16 bit linear PCM format used on CDs, and the data that comes out is a 1:1 copy of what was originally recorded. Basically the most important difference is the lack of buffering. The CD drive doesn't buffer data when playing audio tracks, it relies on the disc spinning at the exact speed required to feed the DAC in real-time. The drive can't do anything else while playing CD audio tracks. WAV files = Redbook CD-DA files on a CD in data and usually sound quality. That's why I hear no or even occasional superior sound when listening to WAV files on a thumbdrive plugged into a superior quality server, no reading or moving parts to degrade the signal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Young Skywalker
If you use j river to burn cd s the various methods are shown
flac stock uses a compaction to store and reply like a zip file
In audio this means we loose data period
there is a setting to use no compression
This makes it better no loss of data
wav does not compress but stores the meta data on the file where flac is its own file
some dacs make noise while reading the meta
most don’t
in Addition there is also 2 wav file options
one is stock the other is wav 64
wav 64 is same data but has different packet size
a packet size is now much data per packet larger some feel is better
J river allows us to pick
DB power amp as well.
if you really listen closely you may changes
I like AIFF it’s a lossless like wav but on certain dacs I feel it may sound better
Tidal has some albums in this format
 
Any cd transport is doing a lot more then just reading data
you can take 3 different cd transports and use the same cd and it’s pretty obvious most times
it’s why a cd transport is important and needs to be heard and understood
next is cable to transmit data
if a made for the purpose to specs spidif cable non boutique is used this most times works best
it simply does not add jitter
I use a spidif re clocker above type cabel

This may not me like a transport but it does level the playing field for a compare
 
  • Like
Reactions: SCAudiophile
View attachment 128827
There seems to be a fairly solid consensus (Lucasz Ficus, LL21, Al M, etc.) that CD playback or computer file playback, or perhaps both, sound better than streaming (assuming, of course, that all other variables, including the DAC, are held constant).

But I assume that one cannot assume that any device that can spin a CD necessarily will achieve better sound quality than will streaming.

So how good a CD transport does one need to achieve CD playback which sounds better than streaming? Where do the lines (rising sound quality of better transport and streaming sound quality) cross?
I'm late in answering this. I have found equally spectacular sound results after transferring CDs via EAC to a thumbdrive and inserting into very high audio systems servers (like an Aurender and Berkeley) as playing the CD with a high end transport.

I'm just too lazy to transfer 16,100 CDs and have to use another device to search and retrieve the recording. I guess simplicity of use is my preference plus the lack of streamable material (maybe 30-35% of my collection is available). Also, maybe 15% of streamable content is of an equal or higher quality resolution than CDs. Streaming is fun for new music/performances but I prefer CDs for serious listening and broader range of (my preferred) recordings.

To date, at no audio show have I experienced better sound than at home on CDs (or analog) with a streamed recording. LPs and CDs have surpassed streamed content at shows (I've been to about a dozen shows in the past 25 years and heard about 1000 systems-so many with bad sound/music not qualifying for a thorough audition).
 
View attachment 128827
There seems to be a fairly solid consensus (Lucasz Ficus, LL21, Al M, etc.) that CD playback or computer file playback, or perhaps both, sound better than streaming (assuming, of course, that all other variables, including the DAC, are held constant).

But I assume that one cannot assume that any device that can spin a CD necessarily will achieve better sound quality than will streaming.

So how good a CD transport does one need to achieve CD playback which sounds better than streaming? Where do the lines (rising sound quality of better transport and streaming sound quality) cross?
This is a response to the Ron Resnick statements. For me, number 3 on your requirement list is number 1 for me with alteration. Create a sound subjectively pleasing to everyone. I most enjoy sharing my music with wife, family and friends. I want them all to experience enjoyable immersive performances. Even with lesser equipment in the past several decades, visitors/friends don't want to leave after several hours. Now it will be really difficult with a near SOTA system and room.

It is interesting that you have been a stat aficionado. I had stats for 20 years until I met my wife 27 years ago. She hated the ML Monolith IIIs. The room was big, 6,000 cu.ft. and purpose built for sound. She thought they were beamy, lacked adequate dynamics and bass. She listened to rock (exposed me to 1970s on rock) and didn't like it. I sold them and replaced them with Legacy Focus (temporarily with superior Signature IIIs). She loved them for rock. Now I have VS VR9 SE MK2 and a really fine system. She likes the sound even more (as do all of my friends).

Otherwise, your thoughts on audio equipment/cables, etc. are very similar to mine. My journey in higher end audio began with Acoustat X speakers I purchased at 25 just after marriage to my late first wife. She was shocked when I brought home a pair of coffin looking speakers which could only be enjoyed sitting down. Soon upgraded to Acoustat 1+1 and 2+2, then ML Monolith IIIs. Should have kept the 2+2s instead.

I only sell equipment if I have an upgraded replacement. I have a fabulous 1989 purchased SME IV tonearm radically modified by Brooks Berdan. Sounds great 35 years later. Cables made by GroverHuffman at reasonable price ($700 top cost speaker/IC/power cables) and Belden/Blue Jeans balanced IC/digital cables (for now). As a former beta tester for a boutique cable manufacturer for 25 years, having tested 150 cables (mostly ICs), it is apparent that cables act like tone controls.

I agree that there are almost an infinite way to create a great sounding audio system but it takes time and work unless one knows an experienced expert. Unfortunately, most of my wealthy audiophile friends spend too much and the results are mediocre to okay but not worth the price/complexity. My three best friends with limited resources find respected older and used equipment and created excellent musically enjoyable systems.
 
With digital playback the rule is: the less cpu activity, the less noise, the better sound.

If your streaming program requires more cpu activity than file playback, then the file playback will sound better. Otherwise not.

An old skool cd player has literally no cpu and therefore less noise and better sound than pretty much any computer source. A cd rom or dvd based player has more digital logic and therefore more noise and poorer sound.

With something like an old philips based player, im not sure the lines will ever cross. Try it!
Four friends use a Philips CDM transport old school CD player or transport, usually CDM 2, 4 or 9 or even more obsolete but well built machines (Kyocera 410, Denon 1500). I previously used Arcam CD players and transports with a CDM 9 drive for two years. They can be very good when upgraded. Then I switched to a Shanling ET3 briefly, now a Jay's Audio CDt3 Mk3. I'm done transport wise, pending installation of a Poseidon DAC. The other benefit of a old school CD player is lack of an external digital cable connection/clocking/jitter between two devices.

I mentioned it is possible to have excellent streamed sound but at some difficulty/complexity probably at high cost. Analog playback also doesn't require any CPU. None of my numerous audiophile friends (over a dozen) use streaming (they're all over 50 years old) as their primary source. One friend has a friend who is blind and only uses a server with 8 million recordings. Three are only analog or only digital/CD collectors. Their loss of the alternative source.
 
I don't know. That's not my field.

In my interview with Lucasz at Steve's during the debut of the LampizatOr Horizon, I asked Lucasz about CD versus file playback versus streaming. The answer is in there.

Off the top of my head I don't remember Lucasz's general preference between CD and file playback.

Please see:
... well, the Hard Drive beats the CDT every time, even the best CDT he has ever layed his hands on... that`s pretty definitiv and also makes sense as long as you have a perfect rip of the CD, be it with dBPoweramp or any other software... to avoid negative interference from any ethernet/in House network, store the files on the drive and have them feed the streaming bridge and from there the DAC directly, that way theres no need for the files to travel through the ethernet and the only reason internet connectivity is required will be to access the playback software... sounds logical... from there it all comes down to using the right/best DAC.
 
... well, the Hard Drive beats the CDT every time, even the best CDT he has ever layed his hands on... that`s pretty definitiv and also makes sense as long as you have a perfect rip of the CD, be it with dBPoweramp or any other software... to avoid negative interference from any ethernet/in House network, store the files on the drive and have them feed the streaming bridge and from there the DAC directly, that way theres no need for the files to travel through the ethernet and the only reason internet connectivity is required will be to access the playback software... sounds logical... from there it all comes down to using the right/best DAC.
I’m not sure it’s quite that straightforward. Firstly. IME, the rips using the dedicated Innuos CD ripper were significantly superior to those created on a PC running dBPoweramp. I put that down to the inferior, noisy drive on the PC and very poor power supply.
Then there’s the avoidance of passing files through the network. A good thing if you’re running a regular consumer grade network with no optimisation. BUT…the network provides an ideal opportunity to clean and optimise the file coming from the hard drive, which are usually fairly noisy devices with poor quality power supplies for audio applications. In my experience a fully optimised network will sonically blow away any directly connected drive. Direct connection negates one of the major advantages with streaming, namely the ability to dramatically improve the quality of the music file’s physical layer that’s delivered to the DAC.
 
I’m not sure it’s quite that straightforward. Firstly. IME, the rips using the dedicated Innuos CD ripper were significantly superior to those created on a PC running dBPoweramp. I put that down to the inferior, noisy drive on the PC and very poor power supply.
Then there’s the avoidance of passing files through the network. A good thing if you’re running a regular consumer grade network with no optimisation. BUT…the network provides an ideal opportunity to clean and optimise the file coming from the hard drive, which are usually fairly noisy devices with poor quality power supplies for audio applications. In my experience a fully optimised network will sonically blow away any directly connected drive. Direct connection negates one of the major advantages with streaming, namely the ability to dramatically improve the quality of the music file’s physical layer that’s delivered to the DAC.
I don't remember if I previously mentioned this. The most incredible sound from my CDs came at hearing my system with an Aurender server using my Exact Audio Copy CDs on a thumbdrive plugged into the Aurender. The 60 CDs on the thumbdrive took quite a long time (hours) and the meta data was not always available so just track 1, track 2... on some CD folders. I have neither the time nor inclination to transfer 16,100 CDs to a hard drive or other server format for listening. So, I guess I'm choosing a lesser quality, mechanical linked method with a CD transport.

I was told by a major audio retailer at the L.A. Show that there exists a very rapid extractor to server that can do maybe 100 CDs in minutes-that would be good as a back-up or sharing device-no name given of the device though. Does someone know of such a device?
 
If the server beats the transport after copying a CD its DAC ( if using same dac) Input related , favoring one input type over the other..!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lagonda

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu