Why should my streamer sound better than my CD transport?

[Clive197]

I rip my CD's via a HP laptop to my Western Digital 2Tb NAS drive using EAC flac @1411 KBPS. The CD transport uses the same make, model and length digital cable as my streamer connected to the pre-amp, so how or why does streamed music sound better?:scratch:

[AlfaGTV]

Because you have already ripped the information from theCD to harddrive?
TheCD-transport needs to do that in real time, with interpolation when missing or corrupt data is encountered?
Regards Mike

[Clive197]

Because you have already ripped the information from theCD to harddrive?
TheCD-transport needs to do that in real time, with interpolation when missing or corrupt data is encountered?
Regards Mike

The flaw in that argument as I see it is the cd reader in the transport is significantly better than the cd reader in the laptop. Both have to read the cd. I understand about the missing or corrupt data but that will affect both transport and laptop in one way or another.

[AlfaGTV]

The flaw in that argument as I see it is the cd reader in the transport is significantly better than the cd reader in the laptop. Both have to read the cd. I understand about the missing or corrupt data but that will affect both transport and laptop in one way or another.

Whether the transport mech is "better" than the data drive is arguable, but the major difference is still that the ripping process has the advantage to 'go back to the source' and re-read sectors where information is missing/inconsistent.
The transport have to treat the audio as a 'stream' where the data drive can treat tje audio as the very files they are stored as?

At least that's my theory! ;)
Regards Mike

[purite audio]

Are you playing both files through the same dac?
Keith.

[StanleyB]

The flaw in that argument as I see it is the cd reader in the transport is significantly better than the cd reader in the laptop.
Can the CD reader in the transport play a DVD? And can the CD reader in the laptop play a DVD?

[Clive197]

In reply to both questions.
1. Both files are playing into a Cyrus PreXdQx pre-amplifier and DAC.
2. My CD transport is a Cyrus CDXtSEII which does not play anything else but red book cd's with it's dedicated Cyrus transport and software. Cyrus make their own mech which is not a Chinese DVD/CD reader. The laptop on the other hand plays both CD & DVD's.

[DSJR]

Might it be anything to do with error correction, which is far better dealt with in computer audio rather than real-time working as in most 'red book' systems? Probably a load of cods on my part, but I thought I'd chuck it in anyway...

[magiccarpetride]

I rip my CD's via a HP laptop to my Western Digital 2Tb NAS drive using EAC flac @1411 KBPS. The CD transport uses the same make, model and length digital cable as my streamer connected to the pre-amp, so how or why does streamed music sound better?:scratch:

My Mickey Mouse theory is that the biggest challenge for the digital transport resides with the ability to accurately interpret zeros and ones. This challenge sounds brain dead easy, and at first you'd think that nothing could be easier than that, but in reality it would appear not to be that simple. Really good CD players are good because they do a good job converting the information read by the laser beam into a series of 0s and 1s. Lesser players are more prone at messing this up a bit, which results in degraded overall performance.

With a streamer (such as Squeezebox Touch, for example), the spinning disc/laser beam part has been removed from the equation. That part is pre-processed (i.e. ripped) at computer's leisure. Meaning, as the computer is ripping the CD, it takes its sweet time making sure that all the checksums check correctly. You end up to the close-to-bitperfect recording on your computer's hard drive.

When the computer streams the bits into the digital streamer, the quality of the bits has already been assured. The only thing remaining for the digital transport to do is to preserve this accuracy without throwing in any unwanted artifacts that are typically sourced from RFI or the mains power noises etc. Of course, not so good digital transports are capable of royally screwing up at this stage; that's why we've seen such huge leaps forward with EDO mods for the Touch etc. By tweaking the Touch (i.e. the mini computer that acts as a digital transport) we can significantly improve the quality of music reproduction. In other words, digital transports seem endlessly tweakable. Which is not something we could say about CD players.

[Macca]

I think you should send your theory back to Mickey for a refund, Magic ;)

I did some experiments using different transports into a DAC and they all sound different, and in theory they shouldn't. But it's nothing to do with the laser not reading the disc very well. It's all a bit of a mystery.

[struth]

You could try another cd transport and see if there is any improvement thus allowing you to decide if the problem lies with the cd player

[synsei]

Have you tried playing CD's on your OPPO via the DAC? If not give it a go and report back with your findings. I have a hunch but keeping quiet about it for now ;)

[synsei]

You could try another cd transport and see if there is any improvement thus allowing you to decide if the problem lies with the cd player

We are thinking along the same lines, must have posted together ;)

[Andrei]

Have you tried playing CD's on your OPPO via the DAC? If not give it a go and report back with your findings. I have a hunch but keeping quiet about it for now ;)
Not only that but have a go with your Oppo direct and use its ES9018 Sabre DAC.

[Clive197]

Funny I tried that. I much prefer the sound of the Cyrus over the Oppo when using a digital connection. The Oppo is closer to the Cyrus when using the analog interconnects as the 32bit DAC in the BluRay player is excellent but something in the Cyrus is still doing a better job.

[John]

To get the best out of the Oppo use the external USB input and try on DAC. You maybe suprised by the results

[sq225917]

The honest answer is, unless you've tested your assumption that one sounds better than the other blind, not knowing which was playing until after the fact then all you have is a sighted preference for one solution over the other. You have to remove those bias before you can realistically state one sound better than the other. Chances are they might well sound different, but assuming such is the mother of all f_ck ups.

[magiccarpetride]

The honest answer is, unless you've tested your assumption that one sounds better than the other blind, not knowing which was playing until after the fact then all you have is a sighted preference for one solution over the other. You have to remove those bias before you can realistically state one sound better than the other. Chances are they might well sound different, but assuming such is the mother of all f_ck ups.

Blind listening is unavoidably wrought with all kinds of insurmountable problems. It is a big audio myth that blind listening tests, including double-blind tests, are more 'objective' than sighted listening. It is relatively easy to trick the 'blind' testers into reporting significant differences in repeated reproduction coming from the identical sources. In other words, you make them expect that you'll be changing the components, while you keep everything exactly the same. And yet, some testers tend to report hearing 'huge' differences.

[pjdowns]

Personally I like Magic's theory best... It has to be said in my instance the Naim CDI still sounds better overall than the Squeezebox Touch and Beresford Caiman combo but not a lot which is saying something rather impressive considering the difference in pricing originally :)

[Macca]

Blind listening is unavoidably wrought with all kinds of insurmountable problems. It is a big audio myth that blind listening tests, including double-blind tests, are more 'objective' than sighted listening. It is relatively easy to trick the 'blind' testers into reporting significant differences in repeated reproduction coming from the identical sources. In other words, you make them expect that you'll be changing the components, while you keep everything exactly the same. And yet, some testers tend to report hearing 'huge' differences.

You are actually making an argument for blind ABX testing - It can show up expectation bias (if desired) as easily as it avoids it. I agree that the concept is flawed when it comes to audio, but that is not the reason why.

The differences that we discuss as enthusiasts are mostly very small and certainly nothing that the man on the street would worry about. But if you are listening seriously to your system, at home and relaxed, over time and with different material you will begin to notice differences in presentation. Slight, but enough to have some impact on you either positive or negative. Since no bit of kit is perfect it will probably be both.

[Sovereign]

Where is Figlet when you need him?

[struth]

the trouble with these tests is that your hearing changes by the minute while listening to music...I have listened to the same music on the same equipment several times and it sounds different every time.