What COULD it be about files vs CDs that many find CD transports more "Real" than digital transport?

audioguy said:

(...) Furthermore, I lost my "audiophile card" long ago when I started listening to 2 channel music up-mixed with AuroMatic or DTS:Neural-X !!!

Click to expand...

Can you elucidate ignorant people as me how this affects 2 channel listening?

audioguy said:

Close. Lots of changes to the server since then. It is entirely possible that many of the newer transports would shift our decision. But at this point, it would not be enough to cancel out all of the upsides of the server approach that I have grown accustomed to (and spoiled by!!).

Click to expand...

There are indeed upsides of convenience to the server approach. Also, if my habits of listening to music were such that they would greatly benefit from a Tidal subscription, a server would be a no-brainer for me, regardless of sound quality.

If I were to go the server route, I'd probably choose Baetis with their AES/EBU output and their attention to the noise problem. I assume that their better models might match or even exceed the sound quality of my CD transport on 16/44.1 files (at least if everything is properly configured which apparently can be a pain too). In that case, the extra expenditure might be worthwhile. Yet currently I have bigger fish to fry than that when it comes to system upgrades.

Obviously, I am not in principle against servers. But superiority over transports is not guaranteed.

Al M. said:

One word: Noise.

Digital is extremely susceptible to noise, and computers/servers have their noise problems. Not that they cannot be overcome, but success apparently does not come automatically.

(There may be other issues, but this strikes me as the potential main contender.)

Click to expand...

Unfortunately just one word can be largely insufficient and ambiguous. If addressing electrical noise, noise is a random fluctuation in an electrical signal - but the critical point in the transmission seems to be the correlation between sources of non random or pseudo-random spurious signals in digital systems and the subjective sound quality.

This subject is not easy do debate technically - we must be prepared to listen to experts who tell us that digital is very robust and experts who tell us that digital is extremely fragile - and both are right!

Al M. said:

There are indeed upsides of convenience to the server approach. Also, if my habits of listening to music were such that they would greatly benefit from a Tidal subscription, a server would be a no-brainer for me, regardless of sound quality.

If I were to go the server route, I'd probably choose Baetis with their AES/EBU output. I assume that their better models might match or even exceed the sound quality of my CD transport on 16/44.1 files. In that case, the extra expenditure might be worthwhile. Yet currently I have bigger fish to fry than that when it comes to system upgrades.

Click to expand...

Mine has both AES/EBU and SP/DIF outputs as well.

microstrip said:

Unfortunately just one word can be largely insufficient and ambiguous. If addressing electrical noise, noise is a random fluctuation in an electrical signal - but the critical point in the transmission seems to be the correlation between sources of non random or pseudo-random spurious signals in digital systems and the subjective sound quality.

This subject is not easy do debate technically - we must be prepared to listen to experts who tell us that digital is very robust and experts who tell us that digital is extremely fragile - and both are right!

Click to expand...

All of these are good points.

audioguy said:

Mine has both AES/EBU and SP/DIF outputs as well.

Click to expand...

You have the Music Vault Diamond, right?

microstrip said:

Can you elucidate ignorant people as me how this affects 2 channel listening?

Click to expand...

I can try. Instead of listening to 2 speakers, I am listening to 11 speakers (plus subs). Left, center, right, left surround, right surround, left rear, right rear and 4 on the ceiling. Each of my (non sub) speakers utilizes the same tweeter and midrange. So, in no particular order: more stable center image which requires no "head in a vice" listening position; when set up correctly (can take lots of experimentation) the sound stage can widen dramatically but if overdone, can become very unrealistic; the addition of the height channels provide vertical cues that are almost always present in a live performance that are seldom even hinted at with 2 channels. In a nutshell, the use of surround and height channels provides (USUALLY) a much more realistic representation of a live performance. I must admit that on some recordings, it does not work as well and some others, it can detract from the music. But in 90+% of the music I listen to, it adds a degree of realism and three dimensionality (to my ears) that no 2 channel system at any price can approximate. I also think it is just a lot more fun ---for whatever that is worth.

It took me a very long time to get used to it as I listened to 2 channels for over 40 years. And it is not for everyone. Many years ago, I owned a Meridian processor that had some kind of proprietary faux-surround capability and that introduced me to the possibilities of listening this way. It took the newer 3D listening modes to get me to make the switch - Dolby Up-mixing (my least favorite); DTS:Neural-X and now Auro(Matic) still experimenting.

Hope that helps.

audioguy said:

..even if a transport were a tiny bit better, I would still use a server - and now Tidal on a reasonably good streamer. The convenience factor, the ability to listen to music I might never hear (Tidal), the ability to quickly move from one album to the next, etc would (and has) become my defacto listening methodology.

Click to expand...

Actually, the JMF universal transport has a connectivity for streaming Tidal.

Kind regards,
Tang

microstrip said:

This subject is not easy do debate technically - we must be prepared to listen to experts who tell us that digital is very robust and experts who tell us that digital is extremely fragile - and both are right!

Click to expand...

The analog parts of digital - by which I mean the analog circuits in the DACs (chips and appliances) are fragile. Pure digital blocks not so much.

Biggest issue limiting digital playback sound performance is memory retention.

Sonic issues related to memory retention within digital devices can occur during the optical disc playback process, and it sure as hell can happen during the optical disc ripping process.

Digital files playback can sound a lot better if the track-selection control is not nested within a computer-like environment where every single action/operation accumulate memory retention. If the track-selection is instead externally controlled like in an app, digital files playback can sound a lot better, and especially, if subsequent track to be played is across another album. The motto is - don't repeat the same song, and try not to play another song within the same album folder. Always choose the next subsequent song from another folder/album. Crossing albums to choose next subsequent track triggers some kind of memory erase, so that when the next song starts playing, the sound us fresh, more openes spacially, more dynamic and flows with better sense of ease.

Some optical disc players/transports allow the user to delete residual memory prior to playback and some allow the user to play the desired track directly without leaving a memory imprint at the point of the player commencing playing.

Al M. said:

You have the Music Vault Diamond, right?

Click to expand...

Correct.