CD transport into Apple Mac

[Neil McCauley]

Dear colleagues ...

I'm in ignorance about this and I seek enlightenment Is there any published evidence to support or contradict the view that the quality of the transport, when transferring onto an Apple Mac either via the on-board DAC or an external one influences the sound?

I'm in the process of investing in this. I’ll use my North Star 192 Transport (Philips PRO-2 mechanism) through my Benchmark and will transfer a few tracks and I’ll do the same with a cheap ‘n cheerful transport from eBay via the same route. However during the interim, useful links and observations will be grateful received. Thank you. Howard.

---//---

[Filterlab]

Well, I have an offboard drive which is vastly better than the built in drive (in terms of construction) in the Mac, I've imported using both drives and I can tell no difference whatsoever. Granted I haven't done a serious set of tests, but the Mac drive certainly seems to be an exceptional import drive when used with the right software.

To import I use Max which utilises CD Paranoia - basically put it does as many passes as the user wishes (I go for three) and then compiles and averages that data for each track removing as much error correction work as possible and replacing it with the undamaged hard data from each pass of the disc. Great for injured CDs, not quite so necessary for perfectly unscratched CDs (i.e. mine).

However Howard, now you've got me thinking about it I may just sit down and do some back to back import tests to see if I can note any difference.

[Marco]

Howard,

Have you read the 'CD transports - do they matter?' thread?

If not, I think you should read it: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=645

There are 'transports', and there are Transports, if you see my meaning.

When importing CDs to a hard drive, providing the computer used can accurately resolve the difference in the source signal, the quality of the transport most certainly does matter, just as it matters when playing a CD through a normal hi-fi system.

Why should it be any different?

The goal is still maximum resolution and faithfulness to the source music.

And a cheapo transport will lose information or add more coloration to the signal than something seriously good, like my Sony or others of its ilk. The key thing here is to successfully differentiate between what constitutes as a top-notch transport mechanism and what doesn't. IMO, 95% of what's made these days doesn't. I'm not even sure, despite being better than most, if the Philips PRO-2 in your North Star qualifies as 'top-notch'.

Marco.

P.S Is the valves thread we discussed imminent? I'm rather looking forward to that one

[Neil McCauley]

Well, I have an offboard drive which is vastly better than the built in drive (in terms of construction) in the Mac, I've imported using both drives and I can tell no difference whatsoever. Granted I haven't done a serious set of tests, but the Mac drive certainly seems to be an exceptional import drive when used with the right software.

To import I use Max which utilises CD Paranoia - basically put it does as many passes as the user wishes (I go for three) and then compiles and averages that data for each track removing as much error correction work as possible and replacing it with the undamaged hard data from each pass of the disc. Great for injured CDs, not quite so necessary for perfectly unscratched CDs (i.e. mine).

However Howard, now you've got me thinking about it I may just sit down and do some back to back import tests to see if I can note any difference.

Thank you. Very helpful indeed. i am most appreciative. This forum yet again proves, if indeed any proof were needed, its value!

[Filterlab]

My pleasure, I'm glad my experiences can be of help.

[Neil McCauley]

P.S Is the valves thread we discussed imminent? I'm rather looking forward to that one

- said Marco

============

Re the valves thread, this is what I have in mind:

1976 to 1988: To include direct personal experiences with Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, Beard, EAR, Radford and Michaelson Austin / TVA. The highs, the lows, the danger (from equipment and paranoid importers) and my disenchantment with the who silly valve thing.

2005 to 2008: To include direct personal experiences with Audio Research (curiously positive) Manley, and the reversal of my disenchantment with the who silly valve thing.

Might take me a few days to get my act together on this one. Contemporaneous notes to find and then refer to, missing brain cells to be located, plugged in and tested, fretful customers to look after, and stuff like that.

Meanwhile, as for the missing years 1999 to 2004, they were valve-less, fun-less and ultimately lucrative. You can read about it here: http://www.stereonow.co.uk/history.html

---//---

[Marco]

Sounds great, Howard - no rush

Valves are a hot topic at the moment and I think the forum would benefit from hearing your 'take' on it, based on obviously extensive experience. What intrigues me most is the disappointment you've had with some of the famous hi-end brands such as CJ, etc. This mirrors my own experience, and in some cases what I heard still continues in that area of the valve amplifier market today.

Where it's 'at' now, valve-wise, is what's available from small specialist manufacturers, and the Chinese. And of course, D.I.Y!

Manley products could do with some serious plugging. It's little known (to most people) but excellent. Their entry-level stuff offers particularly high sound-per-pound value.

I'll leave the task in your capable hands!

Marco.

[tfarney]

If you're talking about getting data into the Mac, it shouldn't make a bit of difference if you use the data cd drive built into the Mini or the most expensive transport you can get your hands on. The error correction software will check the zeros and ones on the hard drive against the cd and sample as many times as it takes to ensure that they are a bit perfect match. The transport's stability is irrelevant at the end of the day. It may reduce the need to re-read, speeding up the process, but I've never noticed the process being anything but consistently quick, and I've ripped my entire library.

Tim

[Tony Moore]

Hi Howard,

Forgive me if I'm being dense but I don't quite understand how you intend to hook the CDPro2M up to your Mac to read audio data. As far as I'm aware the CDPro2m is just a redbook cd player mech with s/pdif and analogue outs, no parallel data for computer interface and control. If you mean to connect via s/pdif then yes, the quality of the transport and associated power supplies, s/pdif electronics, etc, will affect the sound quality.

As far as CDROM drives go, yes to a certain extent I'd agree that with multiple reads (EAC or similar) then it may be possible to eliminate most of the errors in reading from CD. Within reason! Some CDROM drives are total rubbish!

Anyway, CDPro2M is a good drive, streets ahead of most modern plastic mechs. 300 Euros gets you the drive module only, so once you add controller, display, power supplies and case any commercially made CD transport based on it would be expensive and therefore probably badged as "top notch".

Marco, I'll bring my CDPro2M along to ChesterFest and you can listen to it on your DAC if you like? I don't tend to use it much anymore though, now I use SqueezeBox3 and my TDA1541A based DAC. The SB3 and music server just fit in with our way of listening to music much better. AudioScrobbling, finding new music, LastFM etc.

This is my DAC and SB3 project:



This is a home built effort! I'm using I2S to connect the SB3 to the TDA1541A for ultimate performance and eliminating the s/pdif connection. Also in there are Tent XO clock and a CPLD board to convert the format of the digital signal to the form needed for the TDA1541A.

I'll bring this along to the ChesterFest too if anyone's interested?

Cheers,
Tony

[Marco]

Tim,

If you're talking about getting data into the Mac, it shouldn't make a bit of difference if you use the data cd drive built into the Mini or the most expensive transport you can get your hands on. The error correction software will check the zeros and ones on the hard drive against the cd and sample as many times as it takes to ensure that they are a bit perfect match.

I was under the impression that the more times it done this sound quality (in some ways) suffered. Perhaps I'm wrong, though.

Also, IMO, similarly when judging transport mechanisms on dedicated CD players, some reproduce the zeros and ones more 'accurately' than others (or rather some protect the 'integrity' or 'completeness' of the zeros and ones better than others) due to a host of factors, mainly to do with the engineering of the transport mechanism itself, the resonance properties of its construction, and how the data it reads remains intact and 'untainted' by any anomalies in the supporting hardware design before the signal reaches the next processing stage.

My view is that it's better to achieve the most accurate data retrieval of the music signal in the first place with the need for little, if any, error correction later, than the opposite. Every 'process' involved in reproducing the music signal has a knock-on effect on sound quality, so one should seek to minimise 'processes' where possible. This is fundamental hi-fi methodology and is implemented in the design of quality CD players and throughout audio.

If one is a true purist (and if you're not, why post on a specialist audio forum like this?) *everything* matters in *all* areas of music reproduction and I see no reason why one shouldn't seek to achieve the same goals detailed above with computer audio in general, and as far as this particular discussion is concerned, importing CDs to a hard drive.

That's why I believe quality transports make a difference in any digital audio application.

Marco.