How Good a CD Transport is Required to Sound Better than Streaming?

There seems to be a fairly solid consensus (Lucasz Ficus, LL21, Al M, etc.) that CD playback or computer file playback, or perhaps both, sound better than streaming (assuming, of course, that all other variables, including the DAC, are held constant).

But I assume that one cannot assume that any device that can spin a CD necessarily will achieve better sound quality than will streaming.

So how good a CD transport does one need to achieve CD playback which sounds better than streaming? Where do the lines (rising sound quality of better transport and streaming sound quality) cross?

 

"the Studio Player, to my ears it sounded a bit thin and forward and 'plastic-y'. So in other words, like CD playback overall."

Maybe that's what CDs sound like in your system, but not in mine or several friends of mine. Mine has a superior resolution system (only partially SOTA). There is nothing plastic-y or thin in my CD playback unless the CD is drek, poorly recorded or mastered. I have disposed of those and have more to audition. I hardily disagree with your characterization of CD playback in general.

Plasticky sound is the typical sound signature that I associate with suboptimal streaming (and suboptimal computer audio in general). Physical CD playback usually distinguishes itself from that in a positive manner. And yes, good CD playback doesn't sound thin either.

 

Plasticky sound is the typical sound signature that I associate with suboptimal streaming (and suboptimal computer audio in general). Physical CD playback usually distinguishes itself from that in a positive manner. And yes, good CD playback doesn't sound thin either.

So why did you state like CD playback overall?

 

So why did you state like CD playback overall?

I am not sure I understand your question.

 

I think this kind of misses the point. One invests in a quality CD transport if one (like me) has accumulated many thousands of CDs over four decades, most of which are either unavailable (e.g., rare international releases) or released only on CD (e.g., the legendary Mosaic Jazz box sets). Of course, one can always "rip" a CD onto a hard drive (as I have done with most of mine), but my general impression after having listened to over 6000 ripped CDs is that the quality is not the same. A CD is ripped usually by a high-speed ripper, and unless great care is done with ripping, there is no guarantee that the errors made in reading a CD at high speed are in any way comparable to what a quality CD transport produces. So, CD ripping is certainly highly convenient, especially for someone like me who has CDs all over the house and often can't find a particular CD!

I have zero interest in investing huge sums of money in any kind of server, most of which go obsolete soon (and as a check on used audio markets show, their value often plummets to a small fraction of the original cost). At the end of the day, whether you invest in a quality CD transport depends on whether you have a large investment in actual CD software, which you intend to keep for the long haul. To me, CDs offer incomparable advantages: for one, there are valuable liner notes, e.g. the incomparable liner notes of Mosaic jazz boxsets, or opera libretti.

As someone who listens a lot to opera, there is no musical medium that is more harmful to opera than streaming. Most streaming software has no clue how to handle opera properly, and often Tidal or Qobuz are appallingly bad at handling opera tracks. A recent listen to a Verdi opera (Nabucco) on a DG CD that I have in my collection reminded me of how bad opera sounds on streaming. Gaps are skipped over, ruining the whole experience, liner notes and libretti are completely absent in almost all cases except for a small number, and well, the sound, that's subjective, but let's just say it leaves a lot to be desired.

Of course, if you are someone who listens to music as a kind of "elevator schmaltz", preferring to listen to endless streams of Roon Radio, much as you hear at a dentist's office or a mall, it's hard to beat streaming for the kind of endless playlist one can get. That to me is musical horror. But, hey, perhaps folks like me are a dying breed! The future is undoubtedly streaming, but I don't ever plan to get rid of my CDs (or for that matter, my vinyl). That's not to say I don't enjoy streaming: I have been a Roon lifetime member from the beginning. Streaming is a great way for me to hear exotic composers that I don't have in my collection, or rare albums that I missed. But, eventually if I like something I hear on streaming, I buy the album. With streaming, there is no guarantee that any release will stick around. Hundreds of albums on my playlist have just disappeared. No explanation. Just poof: one day it's there, the next day, it's gone. How streaming can ever be a reliable musical library is beyond me, unless you like the endless elevator schmaltz that streaming provides, and you care not what or who you are listening to.

Overall it seems we're on the same page, but what's the point I'm missing? The limited CD collection I've owned has been sold off, sadly, but even so; to me the incentive to acquire the Pro-Ject + linear PSU (which I'm going to soon) and re-acquire a CD collection over time is sound quality at the best price and true ownership, plain an simple, but also to be able to better control the choice of the actual recording and its digitally stored state. Streaming seems too dubious with regard to the latter aspect mentioned (not least also with the imposed high-res, remastered choices only), and high-res and its claimed sonic virtues compared to CD-quality has come to a halt for me. I must add that streaming will remain in my setup context, albeit with a lesser priority - at least as an outset. Like you streaming will become an inspiration to buy CD's.

Just to point that if we use some ripper we have objective evidence and confirmation that rips are bit exact. In such rippers the rips are checked with a database kept by AccurateRip.

Bit exact is only that; it doesn't determine the sonic end result as do other factors.

 

Overall it seems we're on the same page, but what's the point I'm missing? The limited CD collection I've owned has been sold off, sadly, but even so; to me the incentive to aquire the Pro-Ject + linear PSU (which I'm going to soon) and re-aquire a CD collection over time is sound quality at the best price and true ownership, plain an simple, but also to be able to better control the choice of the actual recording and its digitally stored state. Streaming seems too dubious with regard to the latter aspect mentioned (not least also with the imposed high-res, remastered choices only), and high-res and its claimed sonic virtues compared to CD-quality has come to a halt for me. I must add that streaming will remain in my setup context, albeit with a lesser priority - at least as an outset. Like you streaming will become an inspiration to buy CD's.

Bit exact is only that; it doesn't determine the sonic end result as do other factors.

Using EAC for decades by my friends and myself, including several equipment manufacturers who contend the resulting CD and/or thumb drive digital file sound is fantastic or equal to the CD must mean it works (most of our transfers have excellent sound, especially Jazz recordings). Using my Alessis Masterlink is not a consistent in making CDs. Burned CDrs are not always sounding the same despite using Taiyo Yuden regular, MAM-A gold and/or true black (no red centered) CDrs. The EAC method is generally the best.

 

My friends and I use EAC (Exact Audio Copy). It uses AccurateRip. When I copy a CD from EAC to a digital copy (e.g. thumb drive, hard drive such as an SSDs, etc.) they sound exactly the same through good quality Lumin and other servers I've heard. So, copying digital information can be done bit perfectly and sound the same.

A CD ripping program follows the same error correction used in a CD player, i.e. the Redbook Standard: "multiple levels of error correction, including lossless recreation of data, best-guess substitution, and even attempts to recover time codes and insert blips to keep the audio playing smoothly".

I used Windows Media Player for most of my rips, with "Error Checking" selected, which means it used Redbook Standard like a CD player, with upgraded error correction, using its own additional algorithms.

I used EAC for ripping a handful of scratched and/or damaged CDs. These CD's had audible distortion, a couple to the point of unlistenable in my Audiolab 8200CD player. EAC cleaned all of these CD's. All but one have zero audible distortion. Some of these problem rips took several hours. No CD player will match that.

It is my firm belief that either CD spinning or streaming can sound better, depending on the system, but streaming costs a lot more to get there. Streaming has been superior in my house for a long time, at much greater cost than CD replay. I digitized my LP collection, kept my CDs, traded music with a couple of other audiophiles and subscribed to Qobuz. I'm thrilled with my current setup.

 

..) Bit exact is only that; it doesn't determine the sonic end result as do other factors.

Bit exact is the assurance that we all get exactly the same content, as intended by the music producer and it will stay as so forever. There is also a feeling of equality and democracy intrinsic in this statement - any one can have access to the same bit content. Curiously, I never heard about audiophile hackers trying to get the high resolution original masters that recording companies keep locked in their hard disks ...

We do not have official statements or published papers on streaming being bit exact or having the same bit content as CDs or digital downloads. Common users can't easily check it, as streaming can't be legally downloaded. However, off the record I have been told by people who managed to do it and compared the files that the process is bit exact. But is just word of mouth.

As you say, the final sonic result depends on how the bits are handled. Currently IMO my streaming sounds better than any CD based system I have owned and I am happy with such fact.

 

A CD ripping program follows the same error correction used in a CD player, i.e. the Redbook Standard: "multiple levels of error correction, including lossless recreation of data, best-guess substitution, and even attempts to recover time codes and insert blips to keep the audio playing smoothly".

I used Windows Media Player for most of my rips, with "Error Checking" selected, which means it used Redbook Standard like a CD player, with upgraded error correction, using its own additional algorithms.

I used EAC for ripping a handful of scratched and/or damaged CDs. These CD's had audible distortion, a couple to the point of unlistenable in my Audiolab 8200CD player. EAC cleaned all of these CD's. All but one have zero audible distortion. Some of these problem rips took several hours. No CD player will match that.

It is my firm belief that either CD spinning or streaming can sound better, depending on the system, but streaming costs a lot more to get there. Streaming has been superior in my house for a long time, at much greater cost than CD replay. I digitized my LP collection, kept my CDs, traded music with a couple of other audiophiles and subscribed to Qobuz. I'm thrilled with my current setup.

It is fortunate that you have had success ripping CDs using EAC. As to pronouncement that NO CD player will match that is wrong. I have 16,100 CDs and made 1,000s of CDs as an amateur recording engineer. I have tried various computers with EAC and it wasn't EACs fault in not being capable of reading CDrs which had faded due to heat, abuse or poor CDr materials. Even my Alesis Masterlink couldn't revive faded about a dozen CDs.

Using my Jay's Audio CDt3Mk3, the transport portion of the CD player equivalent, was not only capable of reading those faded discs but without any loss of sonic resolution or hiccups. I used this transport through my DAC to copy to the Masterlink in real time playback. As to WBF, I know that the Jay's Audio transport is among the best for just this reason alone, it can read faded CDr information. I suspect only the best transports can accomplish that although I had success with the Shanling ET3 as well.

That you enjoy your music is great. It's just that at WBF, digitizing your analog has not proven as satisfying although I've done good work doing so as playing the record. That streaming from unknown sources of generally inferior quality mastered or presented material is superior to CD quality where the mastering was originally prepared I have found to be inferior to playing the CD in 85% of the instances. I have only rarely heard a great sounding streamed audio system at audio shows. Yes, obtaining optimum streamed sound quality if available from a stream requires an expensive outlay such as for the Taiko Olympus or similar high quality circuit board addition.

 

Bit exact is the assurance that we all get exactly the same content, as intended by the music producer and it will stay as so forever. There is also a feeling of equality and democracy intrinsic in this statement - any one can have access to the same bit content. Curiously, I never heard about audiophile hackers trying to get the high resolution original masters that recording companies keep locked in their hard disks ...

We do not have official statements or published papers on streaming being bit exact or having the same bit content as CDs or digital downloads. Common users can't easily check it, as streaming can't be legally downloaded. However, off the record I have been told by people who managed to do it and compared the files that the process is bit exact. But is just word of mouth.

As you say, the final sonic result depends on how the bits are handled. Currently IMO my streaming sounds better than any CD based system I have owned and I am happy with such fact.

That sounds a bit like GPS with the various modes of selective availability.

It sort of makes one wonder is bitcoin and the other digital currencies can work if the bits are random and change at will…

 

you mean this session?

scroll down for the report about the visit to my room. appreciated the kind words for sure. and that was prior to my addition of the Wadax Ref Power Supply and Akasa DC cables.

here is what you wrote then..... "His digital front end was a WADAX, and while we didn't play a lot of digital tracks, it was pure and open unlike other digital I've experienced."

Yes, your is the server system I heard. My sonic comments above are purely for the Studio Player, not for your reference system. While I loved the sound of your system, I did not warm to the Wadax front end, it was pure and open, but I seek more 'big' tone, fullness, organic qualities.

Top DACs I have heard capture full SOTA natural resolution, purity and openness along with strong tone and organic qualities include: Nagra HD and Reference DAC, the Master Fidelity NADAC, and the Viva Numerico.

And I didn't mean to say that ALL CD playback had the qualities I heard in the Studio Player. Quite the contrary, I almost never hear this sound from truly excellent systems. That's why it was a bit of a surprise to me with the Studio Player.

 

"the Studio Player, to my ears it sounded a bit thin and forward and 'plastic-y'. So in other words, like CD playback overall."

Yes, OK I mis-wrote that. Apologies! I should have said LEGACY CD playback. Today's playback on higher quality systems has overcome this.

 

It is fortunate that you have had success ripping CDs using EAC. As to pronouncement that NO CD player will match that is wrong. I have 16,100 CDs and made 1,000s of CDs as an amateur recording engineer. I have tried various computers with EAC and it wasn't EACs fault in not being capable of reading CDrs which had faded due to heat, abuse or poor CDr materials. Even my Alesis Masterlink couldn't revive faded about a dozen CDs.

EAC is software, designed to accurately copy a CD, but it needs an optical device to read the disc. I use a Pioneer external USB 3.0 Blu Ray drive, with PureRead:
"A drive normally makes a calculated guess at the unreadable data on an audio CD. PureRead, when enabled, makes the drive re-read the obscured data to extract the original music as accurately as possible."

If a Jay's transport, with decades old CD laser tech, reading in real time, is able to read a disc that a Blu Ray drive with EAC, running for hours cannot, then the CD transport is doing a LOT of interpolation.

 

...thank would be an interesting comparison of a file from both copies, based on a version the new tech could not resolve, for example. Interesting post, @audiobomber

 

EAC is software, designed to accurately copy a CD, but it needs an optical device to read the disc. I use a Pioneer external Blu Ray drive, with PureRead:
"A drive normally makes a calculated guess at the unreadable data on an audio CD. PureRead, when enabled, makes the drive re-read the obscured data to extract the original music as accurately as possible."

If a Jay's transport, with decades old CD laser tech, reading in real time, is able to read a disc that a Blu Ray drive with EAC, running for hours cannot, then the CD transport is doing a LOT of interpolation.

You maybe correct or the well known Philips CDM 2, 4 and 9 (2 are swingarms) were designed for CD only reading and not computer use. Whatever it does, it reads damaged CDRs perfectly without a problem. It does not read CDs with significant smudges on them but none of my other CD transports do either. (Stopped having smudges as I wipe the CD first with a eyeglass microfiber cloth then use the Furutech Destat III). There are significant sonic differences using an RD-2 disc demagnetizer (warmer sound with less resolution and highs) the Walker Talisman (best resolution less body/warmth) and what I've chosen by trial and error. Without doing anything, playing CDs causes a static build-up, possibly worse due to the top printed label inks. I'm not an expert, just listen to the results and I listen frequently/nightly with 16,100 CDs. I asked A.I. which confirmed trying my method over the others to obtain the best laser reading.

 

(...) If a Jay's transport, with decades old CD laser tech, reading in real time, is able to read a disc that a Blu Ray drive with EAC, running for hours cannot, then the CD transport is doing a LOT of interpolation.

Older Philips chips for CD mechanisms had logic pin outputs for interpolation, EA and EC correction. I could connect counters to each of these pins - only very damaged CD's would show interpolation - 99,5% of my CDs had zero interpolation. However on the few disks suffering from CD rot ( I only had such problem with a few Hyperion CDs, that were replaced for free ) the counter was running fast!

As far as I remember, using a x16 standard TEAC CD reader in my computer copies made with dBpoweramp with Accuraterip never lasted more than fifteen
minutes.

 

Older Philips chips for CD mechanisms had logic pin outputs for interpolation, EA and EC correction. I could connect counters to each of these pins - only very damaged CD's would show interpolation - 99,5% of my CDs had zero interpolation. However on the few disks suffering from CD rot ( I only had such problem with a few Hyperion CDs, that were replaced for free ) the counter was running fast!

As far as I remember, using a x16 standard TEAC CD reader in my computer copies made with dBpoweramp with Accuraterip never lasted more than fifteen
minutes.

Well, the older CD mechanisms such as mine run at real time so it does take time to transfer data. I have not tried dBpoweramp. I've used Plextors and a 25 year old Yamaha to attempt transfers of fading CDrs with no luck into EAC. Maybe I'll try dBpoweramp as you state it's much faster.

 

You maybe correct or the well known Philips CDM 2, 4 and 9 (2 are swingarms) were designed for CD only reading and not computer use. Whatever it does, it reads damaged CDRs perfectly without a problem. It does not read CDs with significant smudges on them but none of my other CD transports do either. (Stopped having smudges as I wipe the CD first with an eyeglass microfiber cloth then use the Furutech Destat III). There are significant sonic differences using an RD-2 disc demagnetizer (warmer sound with less resolution and highs) the Walker Talisman (best resolution less body/warmth) and what I've chosen by trial and error. Without doing anything, playing CDs causes a static build-up, possibly worse due to the top printed label inks. I'm not an expert, just listen to the results and I listen frequently/nightly with 16,100 CDs. I asked A.I. which confirmed trying my method over the others to obtain the best laser reading.

So does ^all that^ mean that if one uses the CD reader to just pull off the bits, that there are bits between and treated and untreated CD?

Or if one runs the untreated and treated into am ADC, that the two files would be different?

 

I found this website that gets into all the subtle nuances of ripping a CD.

Why I Ripped The Same CD 300 Times

john-millikin.com

What I found in my attempt to rip all my many thousands of CDs is that it is at best a luck-of-the-draw type of process. In some extreme cases, the ripped CD when played back with Roon exhibits a weird sonic artifact that sounds like "chunk-chunk-chunk". I'm assuming that the CD ripper was choking during error correction and not able to correct properly.

For convenience, nothing obviously beats having all your physical CD media ripped and available instantly on your favorite iGadget. Sadly, the reality is different. It is quite challenging to do the rips right, as the above website attests. Particularly if you try to rip opera CDs or CDs that just are not the "Taylor Swift songs" variety, the CD ripping software draws a blank. Also, another problem is getting the correct label information. Often, in my early rips, the standard CD databases didn't provide the right meta data. So, you have to enter all that manually.

Bottom line: there is, as usual, no free lunch. It's a pain to rip a lot of CDs, the process is inherently noisy, and the sound is in my experience not comparable to a high quality CD transport. But, hey, the convenience of having all your CD's ripped is unbeatable. So, I grin and bear it, and when I'm lazy, or I can't find the right CD, I just play the ripped version!

 

I found this website that gets into all the subtle nuances of ripping a CD.

Why I Ripped The Same CD 300 Times

john-millikin.com

What I found in my attempt to rip all my many thousands of CDs is that it is at best a luck-of-the-draw type of process. In some extreme cases, the ripped CD when played back with Roon exhibits a weird sonic artifact that sounds like "chunk-chunk-chunk". I'm assuming that the CD ripper was choking during error correction and not able to correct properly.

For convenience, nothing obviously beats having all your physical CD media ripped and available instantly on your favorite iGadget. Sadly, the reality is different. It is quite challenging to do the rips right, as the above website attests. Particularly if you try to rip opera CDs or CDs that just are not the "Taylor Swift songs" variety, the CD ripping software draws a blank. Also, another problem is getting the correct label information. Often, in my early rips, the standard CD databases didn't provide the right meta data. So, you have to enter all that manually.

Bottom line: there is, as usual, no free lunch. It's a pain to rip a lot of CDs, the process is inherently noisy, and the sound is in my experience not comparable to a high quality CD transport. But, hey, the convenience of having all your CD's ripped is unbeatable. So, I grin and bear it, and when I'm lazy, or I can't find the right CD, I just play the ripped version!

I am unsure I understand what you mean by ripping, that is both noisy and inferior in quality to a CD transport. I "ripped" about 40 classical and jazz CDs using EAC through my computer to a thumbdrive. I heard the thumbdrive through either a Lumin or similar high end server into the Lampizator Horizon DAC, then to a lower quality EAR 912 pre-amp into a pair of Westminster Labs REI monoblocks into my pair of Von Schweikert VR9 SE Mk2, all Masterbuilt Ultra cabling. I must say as did the others in the room, that the sound was OUTSTANDING. Not from a CD transport. The mids on vocals were a little thin due to the EAR 912 pre amp (I have a Quest 2-huge body for a SS preamp).

Unless you mean ripped in some other manner.

 

So does ^all that^ mean that if one uses the CD reader to just pull off the bits, that there are bits between and treated and untreated CD?

Or if one runs the untreated and treated into am ADC, that the two files would be different?

Unfortunately, the DAC receiving the CD reader will influence the sound. I feel confident that the Lampizator Poseidon does a more than adequate job which is then burned to CDr or transferred to a computer. My big contention is that treatment of CDs prior to play makes a difference just as the sound of CDs are affected by their manufacture, to a lesser extent than LPs though. I have up to four copies of some CDs that sound somewhat difference using the same digital file but pressed at different times and pressing facilities.