I think this is true but the demand for transports is still there. CD and SACD playback has a big advantage over streaming: the user controls the selection of the mastering and hence the sound quality to some extent.
And ownership, physical contact and ritual of handling the media. For me , it is still much more comfortable to pick something in my CD collection than selecting music in the 70 millions recordings of Qobuz.
But surely CD handling was more ritualistic with the impressive Forsell CD toaster than with the dCS drawer transport.
Some will say that the frisson of knowing if the gas spring rod was operating properly or not also added emotion to the ceremony ...
IOT partner with dCS they (CH) need to make a CD/SACD transport first. The transport used in CH D1.5 is a Marantz unit bolted on metal block. Unlike Sony, Philips, Marantz or Sanyo, the companies like CH and dCS don't have the resources, engineering background and the desire to build a transport. I highly doubt they built an IC yet, let alone a full transport with control electronics.
On the other hand buying a good transport from a respectable manufacturer putting it onto a metal block and designing a fancy case for the unit full of ICs from Japanese companies is much easier and profitable. We can not blame CH or dCS for diong this cause same is true for almost all high end companies.
Seems they buy the Marantz, then grab the spindle and laser eye, and then thrown everything else out. So it’s very much a full rebuild. new operational software too,
Not so much a CD/SACD player, more a sophisticated dedicated, modular and upgradable digital music computer. Alan Sircom checks out the CH Precision D1.5 from Switzerland.
Seem like a strange idea to me.
Almost Reads as a sneaky advertisement for DCS,
“Partnered with dCS it would be great PR and a huge seal of approval for CH”
“CH Precision: Our new transport is so good dCS wanted it!”
why on earth would CH want to offer a competitor something they invested money in, why would it be so good for CH to have a seal of approval from DCS,? Wouldn’t CS claiming even DCS wanted it equate to them saying DCS is awesome?
The companies are in competition for a very small customer base!
None of this makes any sense to me.
“There’s a new king in transports”
This all reeks of marketing jargon to me and would only make me wary of a companies own confidence in their engineering chops.
Seem like a strange idea to me.
Almost Reads as a sneaky advertisement for DCS,
“Partnered with dCS it would be great PR and a huge seal of approval for CH”
“CH Precision: Our new transport is so good dCS wanted it!”
why on earth would CH want to offer a competitor something they invested money in, why would it be so good for CH to have a seal of approval from DCS,? Wouldn’t CS claiming even DCS wanted it equate to them saying DCS is awesome?
The companies are in competition for a very small customer base!
None of this makes any sense to me.
“There’s a new king in transports”
This all reeks of marketing jargon to me and would only make me wary of a companies own confidence in their engineering chops.
Lee, I can play this game all day if that is what you want.
Only a (omitted) would start a thread without checking any facts - or an alleged lame arse reviewer regurgitating manufacturers marketing blurb for cheap gear.
IOT partner with dCS they (CH) need to make a CD/SACD transport first. The transport used in CH D1.5 is a Marantz unit bolted on metal block. Unlike Sony, Philips, Marantz or Sanyo, the companies like CH and dCS don't have the resources, engineering background and the desire to build a transport. I highly doubt they built an IC yet, let alone a full transport with control electronics.
On the other hand buying a good transport from a respectable manufacturer putting it onto a metal block and designing a fancy case for the unit full of ICs from Japanese companies is much easier and profitable. We can not blame CH or dCS for diong this cause same is true for almost all high end companies.
i think if information wise many do not know this, we can still reword the original post as does it make sense for dCS to take the marantz unit bolted on a metal block from CH to convince the market to pay a premium for the venture between a company resident in the U.K. (high talk estate and labour costs) and a company resident in Switzerland (high real estate and labour costs)?
i think if information wise many do not know this, we can still reword the original post as does it make sense for dCS to take the marantz unit bolted on a metal block from CH to convince the market to pay a premium for the venture between a company resident in the U.K. (high talk estate and labour costs) and a company resident in Switzerland (high real estate and labour costs)?
I think it would be more appropriate. Alternately dCS can buy the transport directly from Marantz and bolt it onto a metal block in house. We can discuss that too.
It’s written at the hifi+ magazine CH D1.5 review "only laser block and motor are scavenged from Marantz unit" as if it doesn't mean the whole transport. A CD/SACD transport means a spindle motor, a laser block and servo control cards, nothing else. Servo cards are needed to control motor and laser and proprietary to original manufacturer.
I think it would be more appropriate. Alternately dCS can buy the transport directly from Marantz and bolt it onto a metal block in house. We can discuss that too.
Doesn’t sound cool enough, will make people think they are getting fleeced for lower quality products rather than suspend disbelief it is a high quality, proud-to-announce purchase. Don’t think this will be statistically preferred
I think it would be more appropriate. Alternately dCS can buy the transport directly from Marantz and bolt it onto a metal block in house. We can discuss that too.
It’s written at the hifi+ magazine CH D1.5 review "only laser block and motor are scavenged from Marantz unit" as if it doesn't mean the whole transport. A CD/SACD transport means a spindle motor, a laser block and servo control cards, nothing else. Servo cards are needed to control motor and laser and proprietary to original manufacturer.
That’s not correct. The platform, the control software, the sled were all changed. It’s a significant redo. As Alan himself says::
”A big part of the reason for the D1.5’s significance in 21st Century top-notch disc-spinning comes down to the transport. That high mass transport mechanism (MORSe to its friends) is a thing of beauty. There are two parts of a transport that are ludicrously expensive to fabricate for a company that isn’t making transports by the millions; the laser eye and the spindle. Technically, a company could even fabricate the spindle if it went a little crazy, but even in the highest of high-end there’s a degree of pragmatism that holds when facing vast tooling costs to make something that is already well-designed and engineered elsewhere. The laser eye… well, that’s simply outside of the wheelhouse of almost all companies in the audio world. In making its transport mech, CH Precision used the spindle-housing and laser eye from top-end Denon/Marantz CD/SACD players and engineered the rest. In other words, this is a massively engineered, 3kg transport mechanism that uses two parts from another company’s CD/SACD sled. The cynics in audio – of which there are many – will doubtless claim this means the D1.5 ‘is built around a Denon or a Marantz’ but that’s like saying a gin and tonic that’s in the same room as a bottle of vermouth is a martini!”
Lee, I can play this game all day if that is what you want.
Only a (omitted) would start a thread without checking any facts - or an alleged lame arse reviewer regurgitating manufacturers marketing blurb for cheap gear.
Only a (omitted) would start a thread without checking any facts - or an alleged lame arse reviewer regurgitating manufacturers marketing blurb for cheap gear
Not to mention some of the back and forth on the Towards a Better WBF thread. The above two posts definitely shoot down the initial premise of that thread Lee
WBF gets held up as above the commentary on Audiogon and yet
Not to mention some of the back and forth on the Make WBT Better thread. The above two posts definitely shoot down the initial premise of that thread Lee
yeah, I should not have called him a (omitted) but I was frustrated by the lack of respect. This was a thoughtful and well intended thread and it should not be called BS. That’s the lack of respect we see here daily on WBF.
