CDROM vs transport

Leolabs · 29th May 2006, 02:01 AM

I know there are a few hi end manufacturers start using CDROM in their source components,but many are still using regular transports.In term of sound,technical and cost,who is the winner here?

anatech · 29th May 2006, 02:34 AM

Hi Leolabs,
If you are talking suppliers, the guys selling CDROM drives. If you are talking from the consumer side, a good CD transport.

-Chris

jleaman · 29th May 2006, 05:53 AM

I am starting to see people selling CD players use CD ROM's from computers as CD drives in high in audio CD players. I wonder if they really are good.?

tvicol · 29th May 2006, 10:14 AM

IMHO in term of sound, regular transports are best.
But, please, don't ask me why. The answer is not so simple ...

tibi

phn · 29th May 2006, 01:45 PM

What's the difference between a ROM drive and a transport other than the name?

Meridian uses ROM drives in their line. Does that mean the Meridian 808 is not a CD player? Does that mean that the Meridian 808 is sonically inferior to a "real" CD player?

tubenut · 30th May 2006, 08:40 AM

Implementation rather then technology used imo.

What Meridian are doing is unlikely to be a CD Rom with a 12 V and 5 V supply running it. I am sure they have gone to a bit more trouble.

I have generally been a fan of quality well built mechanisms like CDM1, VRDS, CDM9 pro etc. I was gobsmacked when a TACT CD player using a new plastic "designed for audio" VAM12 I think smacked the beautifully put together Levinson 31......

phn · 30th May 2006, 10:14 AM

Meridian adds a second buffer.

This is how I see it.

The 47 Laboratory PiTracer and Teac VRDS are impressive pieces of engineering. As a Garrard 301 owner, I can safely say I appreciate great engineering as much as the next guy. But there's a difference. A turntable benefits from mass, stability and such. Those things are of relatively little concern for a CDM. A CD rotates at various speeds and the information is interleaved.

What you need is a CDM that's "good enough." At best a laser can only read the CD without errors. But because of how the information is stored and because the speed of the CD constantly has to be adjusted, the stream of data will always be off. So the most important part of a CDM has to be the electronics--the FiFo and buffer.

Now, I'm no expert on CDMs. But I believe none of the psychobabble coming from 47 Laboratory and Teac. And the belt-drive CDMs out there are nothing but snake oil as far as I can tell.

The Philips CD-Pro still fills a purpose. It has native I2S support and comes with a remote, nice LED display and more. At €300 it's not cheap. But it's not a rip-off either.

anatech · 30th May 2006, 02:07 PM

Well, I am familiar with the VAM12 (trash) and Teac / Pioneer types. Phn, you are correct in that the disc must change speed very quickly to properly track the disc. Both the Teac and Pioneer transports did it wrong. They put them together as if they were turntables. Bad idea.

But, if you look at transports that do not use a "stabilizing platter" you will see some better examples. The best transport I have ever seen was the NEC used in the original Nak OMS-7 and Alpine (first) units. They were way too expensive to manufacture for the standard consumer market. The very best eye pattern ever displayed. They used a single spot (non-Philips) head. The Nak updated with the servo mod is amazing. It just needs a better DAC section (based on SAA7000 chip set).

Other good machines were ones using Sony heads and chip sets. Technics had a nice machine as well, except for the mash nonsense.

The VAM12 series has about the noisiest, jittery, unstable RF pattern I have ever seen. The RF level varies greatly between samples. Pure cheap junk.

The problem I see with CDR units is that the intention is to read the disc into memory. Once in memory you can process it. I don't know what the error rate is. The problem: You are now copying the CD, once in memory you can modify the unit to spit it out in digital format. Copy protection may be a problem here as some CD's incorporate errors deliberately. Fun and games. Buffering does not help these problems at all.

-Chris

Leolabs · 31st May 2006, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jleaman
I am starting to see people selling CD players use CD ROM's from computers as CD drives in high in audio CD players. I wonder if they really are good.?

Well,you can ask the guys from Audio Analogue and Ayre Acoustics.

phn · 1st June 2006, 08:38 AM

Chris, I'm not sure what you mean when you say a buffer can't eliminate/minimize jitter. As I understand it, there are two types of anti-jitter devises--clock and buffer.

Otherwise I think we are on the same page.

29th May 2006, 02:01 AM	#1
Leolabs diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bukit Mertajam	CDROM vs transport I know there are a few hi end manufacturers start using CDROM in their source components,but many are still using regular transports.In term of sound,technical and cost,who is the winner here?

30th May 2006, 08:40 AM	#6
tubenut diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: South Africa, Jhb	Implementation rather then technology used imo. What Meridian are doing is unlikely to be a CD Rom with a 12 V and 5 V supply running it. I am sure they have gone to a bit more trouble. I have generally been a fan of quality well built mechanisms like CDM1, VRDS, CDM9 pro etc. I was gobsmacked when a TACT CD player using a new plastic "designed for audio" VAM12 I think smacked the beautifully put together Levinson 31...... __________________ Guillaume Croak Audio Exploration

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DIY transport w/ CDROM drive vs player as transport	dw1narso	Digital Source	6	2nd September 2011 05:15 AM
Any one know this DVD/CDROM KIT ?	ECBLN	Digital Source	0	17th May 2008 07:05 PM
SCSI CDROM as transport	Mickey	Digital Source	0	27th February 2007 01:04 AM
LG52x (CDROM) as a transport	peakrc	Digital Source	2	4th March 2004 09:53 AM
Anyone knows NEC CDROM?	omar	Digital Source	2	8th January 2004 07:45 PM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

29th May 2006, 02:34 AM	#2
anatech diyAudio Moderator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Georgetown, On	Hi Leolabs, If you are talking suppliers, the guys selling CDROM drives. If you are talking from the consumer side, a good CD transport. -Chris

29th May 2006, 05:53 AM	#3
jleaman Banned Join Date: Apr 2002	I am starting to see people selling CD players use CD ROM's from computers as CD drives in high in audio CD players. I wonder if they really are good.?

29th May 2006, 10:14 AM	#4
tvicol diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Bucharest	IMHO in term of sound, regular transports are best. But, please, don't ask me why. The answer is not so simple ... tibi

29th May 2006, 01:45 PM	#5
phn diyAudio Member Join Date: Oct 2004	What's the difference between a ROM drive and a transport other than the name? Meridian uses ROM drives in their line. Does that mean the Meridian 808 is not a CD player? Does that mean that the Meridian 808 is sonically inferior to a "real" CD player?

30th May 2006, 10:14 AM	#7
phn diyAudio Member Join Date: Oct 2004	Meridian adds a second buffer. This is how I see it. The 47 Laboratory PiTracer and Teac VRDS are impressive pieces of engineering. As a Garrard 301 owner, I can safely say I appreciate great engineering as much as the next guy. But there's a difference. A turntable benefits from mass, stability and such. Those things are of relatively little concern for a CDM. A CD rotates at various speeds and the information is interleaved. What you need is a CDM that's "good enough." At best a laser can only read the CD without errors. But because of how the information is stored and because the speed of the CD constantly has to be adjusted, the stream of data will always be off. So the most important part of a CDM has to be the electronics--the FiFo and buffer. Now, I'm no expert on CDMs. But I believe none of the psychobabble coming from 47 Laboratory and Teac. And the belt-drive CDMs out there are nothing but snake oil as far as I can tell. The Philips CD-Pro still fills a purpose. It has native I2S support and comes with a remote, nice LED display and more. At €300 it's not cheap. But it's not a rip-off either.

30th May 2006, 02:07 PM	#8
anatech diyAudio Moderator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Georgetown, On	Well, I am familiar with the VAM12 (trash) and Teac / Pioneer types. Phn, you are correct in that the disc must change speed very quickly to properly track the disc. Both the Teac and Pioneer transports did it wrong. They put them together as if they were turntables. Bad idea. But, if you look at transports that do not use a "stabilizing platter" you will see some better examples. The best transport I have ever seen was the NEC used in the original Nak OMS-7 and Alpine (first) units. They were way too expensive to manufacture for the standard consumer market. The very best eye pattern ever displayed. They used a single spot (non-Philips) head. The Nak updated with the servo mod is amazing. It just needs a better DAC section (based on SAA7000 chip set). Other good machines were ones using Sony heads and chip sets. Technics had a nice machine as well, except for the mash nonsense. The VAM12 series has about the noisiest, jittery, unstable RF pattern I have ever seen. The RF level varies greatly between samples. Pure cheap junk. The problem I see with CDR units is that the intention is to read the disc into memory. Once in memory you can process it. I don't know what the error rate is. The problem: You are now copying the CD, once in memory you can modify the unit to spit it out in digital format. Copy protection may be a problem here as some CD's incorporate errors deliberately. Fun and games. Buffering does not help these problems at all. -Chris

1st June 2006, 08:38 AM	#10
phn diyAudio Member Join Date: Oct 2004	Chris, I'm not sure what you mean when you say a buffer can't eliminate/minimize jitter. As I understand it, there are two types of anti-jitter devises--clock and buffer. Otherwise I think we are on the same page.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)