Is there a Michael Fremer of CD transports? If no, DEAR GOD PLEASE SEND US ONE!!!!

Empirical Audio

Industry Expert
Oct 12, 2017
1,169
207
150
Great Pacific Northwest
www.empiricalaudio.com
Hi Microstip,
Yes I agree that we want experienced individuals and reviewers who positively contribute to enjoyment of this hobby. But we don't want just everyone . I haven't seen Ethan winer here, and I'm sure no one is complaining!

You want people that are not only knowledgeable, but also have respect for other members as human beings. The best way to tell that, of course, is to observe how they treat other human beings. If a guy disrespects the fans and his readers, misleads, greatly exaggerates, engages in ethically shady behavior by failing to identify obvious flaws (until the version is reviewed), trashes the competition as sounding colored compared to his favorite brand, makes fans travel to a different state, country, or continent to hear a comparison you have sitting in your listening room, do you really want him?!? So we want knowledgeable members, members who want share experiences, and who respect each other as human beings. Guys' nicknames reflect that...


The only 2 reviewers I remember on this site are "mellifluous" Myles B Astor phd and "Great" Peter Breuninger. I am busy and don't read all the threads , but I try to stay up on only for high end , reference products I'm interested in, and I don't know many of the guys. so there may have been other minor reviewers on the site that I am not aware of . Let's go through some of the guys:

"Mellifluous " Myles earned his nickname for a lot vinyl threads and fighting against audiophile re-education camps some were recommending. (What happened to a guy named pheloniois ponk? Didn't agree with him or share his frequently analytical taste, but he had a diverse perspective )

"Great" peter breuninger is harry Pearson's heir apparent, as his taste matches HP's closer than any living reviewer in the business today.

And "fearless" fremer earned his nickname and integrity for calling things in his writing as they really are, with little BS.

And Too bad ken Kessler doesn't post here! Another guy who gets it

So those who positively contribute are recognized!

Now fremer has his own site and he is busy posting there. And Mellifluous Myles and Great peter have their own sites, as I understand. So why would they compete with themselves and post here?

As for valin, I'm not sure how he got into this thread. He's a flawed genius. Yet because of his taste and preferences for the lean, clean, frequently analytical gear that he calls "transparency to source", its kind of like Michael Jordan choosing to play baseball instead of basketball. He as well may be dead dead to most fans. That is Too bad for the vast majority of us that don't share his tastes and preferences. Not sure he got into a digital thread, non-Magico thread, but I'm sure he will reappear when we discuss the next Magico model. But, again, why is it in valin's interest to contribute to any site other than the tas site and divert eyeballs/ advertising revenue from there?

As for Harley, again, he doesn't even contribute to the forums on the tas site. Last time I checked , and this was several years ago, those forums were deader than disco. So why would he post there? And, furthermore, what positive value does he add to the fans? In a time when there are so few dealers and fans have to travel to different Continents! to audition gear, this guy spits in the face of the fans and doesn't compare gear he has sitting in his room. So fans have to waste their precious time and money to travel to hear stuff they are not interested in. They have to go through the trouble to bring in gear into their home, instead of watching their kids smile or doing a million other productive and enjoyable things. And as they bring in gear ito their system, one has to disconnect, reconnect, risk banging stuff up, wait 24-36 hours to settle in- only to discover Harley has no fukkin clue. Harley's legacy is creating the fukk the fan audio culture. What would he contribute here? The conclusion to every piece of his writing is "this is a flawless piece of gear. It is the best because I LIKE IT." Same pattern all the time. I quit reading him a long time ago.

Fukk him! That product he loves is flawless only because he didn't do his job as seek a cohort of gear to compare it to. It is best because he likes the analytical sound and wants his friends to do well, so they can increase their revenues and make more gear with that same sonic signature. Let's not forget that the market resoundingly rejected the Q series after he claimed it was the greatest speaker of all time. Amazing Tom Martin, tas owner , lets him keep his job. Obviously, in his own mind , Harley had achieved great prominence, but he fails to realize that he treats the fans in a abusive, demeaning and arrogant manner. not only has he failed to help his readers achieve better systems THEY would enjoy, he has also wasted a lot of their time and money, and potentially made their systems worse.

In real life, measure of success is different: trying to teach my kids that their level of individual prominence matters less than how many customers' lives they help to make better and how many people they help grow to be better people.

There are a lot of reasons why one reviewer or another might be biased or not doing his job as well as he could. Some get really big heads and never come back down to earth. Some believe that only ultra-expensive gear from giant brand-names is worth reviewing. Others are just idiots that believe the latest technology will deliver them nirvana. Others are totally political or only care about ad revenue. They run the gamut. There are a few really great reviewers though and I know who they are.

I mostly focus on three things when I select a reviewer for my products. (That's right, they don't select my product for review, I select them and their system based on past history. This way I can avoid dealing with idiots and pre-biased individuals and instead focus on their listening and writing skills and the quality of their system.):

1) the quality of their system and whether they are smart enough not to go down the garden path (garden path can be jitter, tube harmonic distortion, cable filtering etc..) Many reviewers systems are just not up to snuff IMO, so my components are not going there.

2) their ability to understand the significance of the component I have designed and differentiate it in the marketplace. I am all-in for shootouts.

3) their willingness to insert it in their system and use it in the way that is optimum per my guidance

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
 

Empirical Audio

Industry Expert
Oct 12, 2017
1,169
207
150
Great Pacific Northwest
www.empiricalaudio.com
Since a lot of this technical stuff is way over my head and I don't have the time to dive into understanding it, what can manufacturers do to match up their transport to their DAC? How does dcs modify a top level esoteric transport to mesh with their DAC and clock?

dCS is a unique case. I believe they send a word-clock from the DAC to the Transport in order to synchronize the clock in the transport. This way, they can receive the data in the DAC and reclock it without needing to resample it. This maintains the exact same data while establishing a new Master Clock with lower jitter inside the DAC. This is probably the optimum way to achieve low jitter without changing the data.

Many inexpensive DACs instead put a resampler or reclocker on the input to reduce jitter. They are not 100% immune to incoming jitter, but they do reduce it. The problem with these is usually the master clock quality and the power supply inside the DAC for that clock. Also, there is usually no galvanic isolation of ground between transport and DAC, so there is ground-loop noise. This is the advantage of the external reclocker. It has an optimized dedicated power supply, a low jitter master clock and galvanically isolates grounds.

And what exactly is Chord doing, from my quote above?

("...The mathematical operations are most commonly performed within the DAC chip but some companies, like Chord, use an FPGA (Field-Programmable Gate Array) as this allows the DSP engineer almost unlimited flexibility in creating filters. Unless you want to keep increasing the number of filter coefficients, which Watts finds always gives a sonic improvement. The DAVE, for example, uses a Xilinx FPGA that allows a filter with 164,000 coefficients to be programmed. But even 164,000 taps was not enough for Watts, and the availability of a new Xilinx FPGA, the X7A200T, which has no fewer than 740 DSP cores, 215,360 logic cells, and 16MB of memory, allowed him to increase the number of taps to one million—actually 1,015,808!

So why is the filter in the Blu Mk.2 rather than the DAVE, I asked. "The FPGA draws up to 10A of current," Watts replied, "and DAVE's power supply just can't supply that much current without compromising the noise floor." The Blu can, he explained, so it made sense to put the filter in the Mk.2 version of the transport and feed the filtered data stream to DAVE....")

Jitter is the #1 problem for digital audio. Digital Filtering is #2 problem.

There are lots of companies trying to solve the digital filter problem by creating custom filters in FPGA's etc., like Chord. Other companies just eliminate the filter and live with the HF noise in the signal and eliminate as much as possible using analog filters. Both approaches can sound great. I actually prefer the latter. Upsampling the signal makes these things much easier, because the noise is much higher frequency and so it's easier to filter out without impacting the audio range.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
 

Empirical Audio

Industry Expert
Oct 12, 2017
1,169
207
150
Great Pacific Northwest
www.empiricalaudio.com
Yes, of course, we understand how your product works. The point is jitter is caused by a multitude of things. Many feel the optimization of those things is superior to a simple reclocking step like the one you sell. I think that's what people are talking about here.

Both approaches have the same jitter outcome, but the reclocking approach is much cheaper to get to the same jitter level. The main difference is that reclocking does change the data, where the transport won't. Listening tests demonstrate that this is does not affect SQ, in fact usually improves it because of upsampling, which forces most DAC's to select a better digital filter.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
 

Pb Blimp

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2017
518
25
140
USA
Both approaches have the same jitter outcome, but the reclocking approach is much cheaper to get to the same jitter level. The main difference is that reclocking does change the data, where the transport won't. Listening tests demonstrate that this is does not affect SQ, in fact usually improves it because of upsampling, which forces most DAC's to select a better digital filter.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

So I guess your point is that all anyone needs to do is buy your $599 reclocker to achieve absolute perfection in digital playback (essentially that everything all other designer and manufacturer in this space are doing is moot). And my point is I don't buy your point.
 

Empirical Audio

Industry Expert
Oct 12, 2017
1,169
207
150
Great Pacific Northwest
www.empiricalaudio.com
So I guess your point is that all anyone needs to do is buy your $599 reclocker to achieve absolute perfection in digital playback (essentially that everything all other designer and manufacturer in this space are doing is moot). And my point is I don't buy your point.

That is not my point. My point is you can:

1) spend $10k-$20K for a transport and cable that delivers bit-perfect data with jitter in the 20psec range

or

2) spend $2.3K for a Synchro-Mesh, Standard BNC cable, Reference BNC cable and Dynamo power supply that delivers upsampled data with jitter in the 20psec range

I am actually doubtful that ANY transport will deliver 20psec of jitter at the end of the cable, but it's possible. I know how difficult this is.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
So I guess your point is that all anyone needs to do is buy your $599 reclocker to achieve absolute perfection in digital playback (essentially that everything all other designer and manufacturer in this space are doing is moot). And my point is I don't buy your point.

The question is if the only critical parameter for subjective digital sound quality transmission is jitter minimization. Except for the DCS Vivaldi complete system, the best subjective sound quality I have experienced with SPDIF connections was using transports having significant jitter compared to current models - recently the Metronome Kalista/Calypso and in the old days the Mark Levinson ML31.5 and the Forsell air bearing CD transport.

About thirty years ago I listened to so called perfect jitter free systems from Sony and Krell - they used a dual optical fiber optical synchronous system, transmitting the DAC clock to the transport. IMHO they sounded extremely clean, but tiresome.
 

Legolas

VIP/Donor
Dec 27, 2015
1,042
387
455
France
That is not my point. My point is you can:

1) spend $10k-$20K for a transport and cable that delivers bit-perfect data with jitter in the 20psec range

or

2) spend $2.3K for a Synchro-Mesh, Standard BNC cable, Reference BNC cable and Dynamo power supply that delivers upsampled data with jitter in the 20psec range

I am actually doubtful that ANY transport will deliver 20psec of jitter at the end of the cable, but it's possible. I know how difficult this is.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Interesting. I gave up on transports many years ago. It doesn't take much to understand that physical spinning a disc live, then sending that data to a DAC has to have correction circuits and timing error issues, not to mention data read issues as well. If we send data from a file sat on an SSD there is no moving parts, so that in theory gets that problem out of the way.

As I see it, the sending of the data from a music server or PC / Mac is the next problem, how to get it with zero latency, and give the DAC the best chance of reading it.
And avoiding sending noise from the server to the DAC.

Then the DAC uses it's on board re-clocking / buffer to correct any additional jitter incurred in the sending process.

So far, I find sending via Ethernet sounds the best in my system, and my end point is SPDIF.

Steve, what is your preferred entry protocol to the DAC? Is it SPDIf, AES, I2S? I am talking Redbook or 96K~ dara rates, I don't use higher and don't upsample in my server, plus my DACs are NOS.

Thoughts?:rolleyes:
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,685
4,474
963
Greater Boston
Interesting. I gave up on transports many years ago. It doesn't take much to understand that physical spinning a disc live, then sending that data to a DAC has to have correction circuits and timing error issues, not to mention data read issues as well. If we send data from a file sat on an SSD there is no moving parts, so that in theory gets that problem out of the way.

In theory? Remember "Perfect Sound Forever"? That was also theory. Things are usually not as simple as the theorists want them to be.

I know this from my daily work as a scientist (biochemist) where hypotheses get shattered all the time by actual experimental results.

The worst are theorists that give us hypotheses that are in priniciple untestable. That's how we got the multiverse nonsense. And then they claim this is "science". Pathetic.

As I see it, the sending of the data from a music server or PC / Mac is the next problem, how to get it with zero latency, and give the DAC the best chance of reading it.
And avoiding sending noise from the server to the DAC.

Yes, and there's that. Noise.
 

Legolas

VIP/Donor
Dec 27, 2015
1,042
387
455
France
I have a pet theory for you. I have come across in the recent past, some CDPs sounding better than a typical PC / music server. Taking jitter out of the equation for a minute, I have a sneaky feeling some of the perceived SQ hike in a CDP example, is probably the better design (bigger budget) put into the power supply and noise rejection, vibration isolation and clean signal path, than the fact it is spinning a disc. We all now know a PC or Mac, even many purpose built servers are not so hot for high end music reproduction. It takes some major tweaks, time and care in noise avoidance and rejection along with good power supplies to beat a typical CDP or reasonable quality.

But I am convinced, once you attain that level, you can go on and get ahead of the spinners, basically leave them bitting the dust (or silver disc) Ha Ha. And by some effort it can be done without stupid budgets as well, no need to blow 10K+ getting there IMO.:mad:

Actually, I bet if you popped the hood on many 10K+ CDPs you would be shocked at the typically flimsy transports mechanism, weedy torroid PS, horrors a SMPS maybe, and basically a big case with little in it. So my view is forget the past and go all in to build a nice PC or Mac based music server, and have some fun while doing it as well. Or if you are lazy or rich, just buy an off the shelf solution, but again, make sure it is worth the price tag (big fancy case with not much in it).
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,685
4,474
963
Greater Boston
Actually, I bet if you popped the hood on many 10K+ CDPs you would be shocked at the typically flimsy transports mechanism, weedy torroid PS, horrors a SMPS maybe, and basically a big case with little in it.

Here's the thing. I have a Simaudio Moon 260 DT transport that cost only $ 2K. Yet they build their own transport mechanism which I don't think has anything flimsy about it.

Unlike perhaps some 'high-end' transports in the past with a cheap run-of-the-mill transport by another manufacturer built into a fancy case, as you suggest.

I guess Simaudio can keep their prices low since unlike boutique high end manufacturers they sell a ton of their transports, much more to Europe where they are still eager to spin discs, than to the US.
 

Legolas

VIP/Donor
Dec 27, 2015
1,042
387
455
France
Here's the thing. I have a Simaudio Moon 260 DT transport that cost only $ 2K. Yet they build their own transport mechanism which I don't think has anything flimsy about it.

Unlike perhaps some 'high-end' transports in the past with a cheap run-of-the-mill transport by another manufacturer built into a fancy case, as you suggest.

I guess Simaudio can keep their prices low since unlike boutique high end manufacturers they sell a ton of their transports, much more to Europe where they are still eager to spin discs, than to the US.

You sure? Made in China, and looks like a Philips standard Mech. Hope not....

260d-1b-moon-simaudio.jpg
 

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,606
5,415
1,278
E. England
Ditto here, run the €9k Eera Tentation cdp.
Beefed up, overengineered GyroPoint transport that goes further than most in isolating from vibration, and also great attention to detail on the dac output stage.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,685
4,474
963
Greater Boston
You sure? Made in China, and looks like a Philips standard Mech. Hope not....

Hehe. Keep looking, that's not the one. The transport has a big MOON on top of it, and it's in the middle of the chassis, not on the side.
 

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,606
5,415
1,278
E. England
Gosh.
The “Spot The Open Chassis Photo Online” game.
Endless fun for all the family LOL.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,685
4,474
963
Greater Boston
Gosh.
The “Spot The Open Chassis Photo Online” game.
Endless fun for all the family LOL.

Hehe. And by the way, my unit proudly proclaims "Made In Canada" in the back.
 

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,606
5,415
1,278
E. England
Is that good?
The only things I have “made in Canada” are my treasured Rush lps recorded in Montreal.
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
I have a pet theory for you. I have come across in the recent past, some CDPs sounding better than a typical PC / music server. Taking jitter out of the equation for a minute, I have a sneaky feeling some of the perceived SQ hike in a CDP example, is probably the better design (bigger budget) put into the power supply and noise rejection, vibration isolation and clean signal path, than the fact it is spinning a disc. We all now know a PC or Mac, even many purpose built servers are not so hot for high end music reproduction. It takes some major tweaks, time and care in noise avoidance and rejection along with good power supplies to beat a typical CDP or reasonable quality.

But I am convinced, once you attain that level, you can go on and get ahead of the spinners, basically leave them bitting the dust (or silver disc) Ha Ha. And by some effort it can be done without stupid budgets as well, no need to blow 10K+ getting there IMO.:mad:

Actually, I bet if you popped the hood on many 10K+ CDPs you would be shocked at the typically flimsy transports mechanism, weedy torroid PS, horrors a SMPS maybe, and basically a big case with little in it. So my view is forget the past and go all in to build a nice PC or Mac based music server, and have some fun while doing it as well. Or if you are lazy or rich, just buy an off the shelf solution, but again, make sure it is worth the price tag (big fancy case with not much in it).

I think this is a good way of saying there is design and there is implementation. Both are important when neither is totally perfect, (as in there is no perfection on earth.)

The reason i acquired the Zanden DAC nearly 10 years ago was because (unlike most digital in 2008), it was a standalone DAC with several digital inputs...and of course, i thought it sounded great. And my idea was to find a great server and connect them via a custom i2s cable that would go into Zanden's i2s input. People in the shop thought i was crazy when i bought this 2nd hand trade in for this purpose because at the time, few people were looking at servers (Meridien Sooloos was one such option).

So there i went...and 6 years later did not find anything that really did it for me...and eventually after 12 Zanden DAC owners all unanimously urged me to try the combination Transport/DAC from Zanden...i finally did. And it sounded way better than any transport or computer server that I had tried. And so i got the latest spec 4-box digital 2nd hand and traded in my earlier generation Zanden DAC.

I am convinced that some of these solid state drive options that are fully spec'd for audio are amazing, and can imagine that one designed with the Zanden DAC in mind would be better than the transport. But for now, particularly with CDs at 1 to 3 bucks each on Amazon, I absolutely enjoy the Zanden 4-box with its upgraded NOS tubes, isolation and emi/rfi shielding.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,685
4,474
963
Greater Boston

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,606
5,415
1,278
E. England
Lloyd, hi.
We resolute cdp owners and supporters, you, me, Al, Jazzhead, and many more, always seem to have to justify our course of action.
Well, we’ve stuck w cd (or cd/sacd) for good reasons.
I too have heard great streaming (SGM/T&A Dac8) that is borderline analog spooky in its low noise floor and silky flow and sweetness. But it doesn’t negate the “rightness” of our cdp choices we’re all ecstatic with.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,685
4,474
963
Greater Boston
I too have heard great streaming (SGM/T&A Dac8) that is borderline analog spooky in its low noise floor and silky flow and sweetness. But it doesn’t negate the “rightness” of our cdp choices we’re all ecstatic with.

Can't comment on the sound of the SGM server, but when I hear things like "silky flow and sweetness" all kinds of alarm bells go off in my head. What you describe can be a genuinely positive thing, but it can also be a result of an underlying lifelessness of sound.

Interestingly, I have now heard two or three times that a certain server that is highly regarded in the audiophile community sounds lifeless. If I hear that from one source, that's interesting, but when I hear that independently from different people having heard it in different systems, a pattern seems to emerge.

As I said, I have no doubt that computer audio can be stellar, but I very much doubt that the majority of implementations out there are.
 

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

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing