The transport doesnt affect the sound.
It just picks up the digital data stream.
So long as it does it reliably they will all sound the same.
Thank you very much. Very interesting!
I will use a cd player as transport. You stated that; there will be no any (or much) sound difference between if my cd player contains any of them. Please warn me if i understand wrong. Thanks a lot for the answer.
Noyan
I would strongly disagree with the 'transport mech doesn't matter statement'.
I have long held & repeatedly proven to my own ears that a mechanism with low 'inherent jitter', i.e., low wow/flutter, will ALWAYS sound better than a higher jitter mech with any kind of 'super clock' patching the signal up afterwards.
So, I would, out of the Philips mechs, give a strong vote to the CDM-0 as best, and also about the most bulletproof reliable(w/slight platter thrust bearing adjustment every five or ten years), but this is WAY out-done by the massively lower wow/flutter laserdisc/cd combo units of high quality, e.g., Pioneer CLD-95 & Panasonic LX-200, both of which have beautiful, massive, brushless platter motors, with very high current servos driving them. Only hitch is needing to ditch the optical out & replace with(or add) a well-run coax digital output. Of course, the CLD95 is a perfectly beautiful sounding cd player by itself.
I have long held & repeatedly proven to my own ears that a mechanism with low 'inherent jitter', i.e., low wow/flutter, will ALWAYS sound better than a higher jitter mech with any kind of 'super clock' patching the signal up afterwards.
So, I would, out of the Philips mechs, give a strong vote to the CDM-0 as best, and also about the most bulletproof reliable(w/slight platter thrust bearing adjustment every five or ten years), but this is WAY out-done by the massively lower wow/flutter laserdisc/cd combo units of high quality, e.g., Pioneer CLD-95 & Panasonic LX-200, both of which have beautiful, massive, brushless platter motors, with very high current servos driving them. Only hitch is needing to ditch the optical out & replace with(or add) a well-run coax digital output. Of course, the CLD95 is a perfectly beautiful sounding cd player by itself.
You have to get back to the future, promises of "perfect sound forever" didn't last long
We had very good results with a simple $15 transport, certainly better than all the Philipses I tried: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digi...affordable-cd-transport-shigaclone-story.html
Attachments
Darn! I've been trying for ages to keep out of transport discussions. They always end up a polarised debate. Neither side budging.
I do often wonder how a transport can affect the sound. I think if you're using SPDIF, then there may well be cause for comment.
I think SPDIF has some flaws wrt jitter, considering that it is muxing several signals into a single, self clocking, channel, and it requires extra, considerable stages on both sides of the cable.
It's very possible that the servos add ripple on the power rails that could be a problem for other stages. Perhaps the transport implementation can affect that.
I think you'd probably get better results avoiding SPDIF, rather than worry about the transport.
I use a Philips based Transport, because I like to use I2S and not SPDIF, and I can slave it to the DAC's master clock. I've used CDM4 and now use CDM9 and think they both work well. CDM4 might be able to read more CD-Rs than the CDM9, but CDM9 looks cooler.
I prefer swing arms to the worm gear tastic CDM12 because I think they're quieter and faster seeking different tracks (and you can harmlessly kill the power to a swing arm, you don't have to wait for it to park itself when you press stop).
Point is, IMO there's not too much to worry about, my decision making process is not based on typical criteria for transport selection, because I don't regard them hugely important in my experience.
If you're stuck with SPDIF, then there may well be other issues, explained above.
Having said all that, I've been interested in having ago at building a shigaclone, but that is purely because I can, and I'd find it interesting. Thing is, I believe the circuitry involved with that transport is SPDIF only, not I2S.
I do often wonder how a transport can affect the sound. I think if you're using SPDIF, then there may well be cause for comment.
I think SPDIF has some flaws wrt jitter, considering that it is muxing several signals into a single, self clocking, channel, and it requires extra, considerable stages on both sides of the cable.
It's very possible that the servos add ripple on the power rails that could be a problem for other stages. Perhaps the transport implementation can affect that.
I think you'd probably get better results avoiding SPDIF, rather than worry about the transport.
I use a Philips based Transport, because I like to use I2S and not SPDIF, and I can slave it to the DAC's master clock. I've used CDM4 and now use CDM9 and think they both work well. CDM4 might be able to read more CD-Rs than the CDM9, but CDM9 looks cooler.
I prefer swing arms to the worm gear tastic CDM12 because I think they're quieter and faster seeking different tracks (and you can harmlessly kill the power to a swing arm, you don't have to wait for it to park itself when you press stop).
Point is, IMO there's not too much to worry about, my decision making process is not based on typical criteria for transport selection, because I don't regard them hugely important in my experience.
If you're stuck with SPDIF, then there may well be other issues, explained above.
Having said all that, I've been interested in having ago at building a shigaclone, but that is purely because I can, and I'd find it interesting. Thing is, I believe the circuitry involved with that transport is SPDIF only, not I2S.
Last edited:
Which transport
Yesterday late night I opened inside my Marantz CD60 cd player. Then i carefully connected it's i2s communication using 4 pieces cable to my external 8xTDA1541A dac. I could listen very silent on late night But it sounded me very well. Today I will listen it at normal listening volume. Then I will bypass the digital filter and modify the CD60 i2s communication to non os mode. I will compare the nos sound with non os.
Noyan
Yesterday late night I opened inside my Marantz CD60 cd player. Then i carefully connected it's i2s communication using 4 pieces cable to my external 8xTDA1541A dac. I could listen very silent on late night
But it sounded me very well. Today I will listen it at normal listening volume. Then I will bypass the digital filter and modify the CD60 i2s communication to non os mode. I will compare the nos sound with non os. Noyan
Last edited:
CD60 non os modification + I2S connection to external dac
Hi Guys,
I have already finished all these things. Non oversampling modified CD60 is more better sounding than 4 x oversampling mode. Sounding more natural and detailed. Bass is extended and controlled (tight). Expensive sounding...I have also connected my 8xTDA1541A parallel nos battery powered dac to Philips CD60 via I2S protocol. I cancelled the CS8412 digital receiver chip. Actualy it sounds very very good but now, even better! Bass is more extended, sounds more earfriend, and natural. Background is dead silent. Very closer to analog. Mids are so loud. Shortly, now my 8xTDA1541A parallel battery powered dac sounding perfect for me and fixing me for hours on my armchair
-Now, I am thinking why oversampling is popular while the non oversampling is better souding???
-I am so sorry to delay on trying to connect my external dac via I2S protocol. Hey! İt is another world! Hear it and believe it!
I am strongly advice you to try both; non oversampling mode and I2S connecion.
For the pictures of modification:
Stereo Mecmuası Forumları • BaÅŸlık görüntüleniyor - Marantz CD-60 cd calar NOS modifkasyonu projesi
Hi Guys,
I have already finished all these things. Non oversampling modified CD60 is more better sounding than 4 x oversampling mode. Sounding more natural and detailed. Bass is extended and controlled (tight). Expensive sounding...I have also connected my 8xTDA1541A parallel nos battery powered dac to Philips CD60 via I2S protocol. I cancelled the CS8412 digital receiver chip. Actualy it sounds very very good but now, even better! Bass is more extended, sounds more earfriend, and natural. Background is dead silent. Very closer to analog. Mids are so loud. Shortly, now my 8xTDA1541A parallel battery powered dac sounding perfect for me and fixing me for hours on my armchair
-Now, I am thinking why oversampling is popular while the non oversampling is better souding???
-I am so sorry to delay on trying to connect my external dac via I2S protocol. Hey! İt is another world! Hear it and believe it!
I am strongly advice you to try both; non oversampling mode and I2S connecion.
For the pictures of modification:
Stereo Mecmuası Forumları • BaÅŸlık görüntüleniyor - Marantz CD-60 cd calar NOS modifkasyonu projesi
Last edited:
I think it has a lot to do with the oversampler in question, but also the fact that the digital filter can inject a lot of jitter into the signal, and noise into the power rails.
Also, no oversampling means that the clock frequency in the I2S signal is much lower, and less prone to jitter.
However, I believe, if you pay attention to your power supplies for both digital filter and the rest of the system (i.e. try and isolate them as best as you can), and consider a decent clock, you will find oversampling much better.
Likewise (I don't know if you've done this) if you completely disable your digital filter (remove the power to it, and bypass the clock signal back to the decoder - if possible) you may find your implementation improve a bit more - because you're injecting less noise on the power rails, probably shared by the DAC.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.