.

[Harmonie]

@Angsty
It's a good idea. I'm sure there significant differences; nevertheless, I will compare my 20+ year old DVD player that I bought what 29 or 39€ with my EAD T-1000 transport some day. I believe that the dvd player has a Toslink or something ? I haven't looked at it's back since decades
My EAD has only a coax and an expired ? AT&T Glass optical bayonette output.

But before buying Cambridge Audio CXC v2 a; why don't you trust your ears and try a cheapo dvd player ?

 

[Standing in the rain]

I’m looking at the Cambridge Audio CXC v2 and the Audiolab 6000CDT. Any first hand observations of build and error handling quality? My Cambridge Audio Azur player has worked well for about 15 years without a problem, so I’m inclined to trust Cambridge.

I have them both and sound wise they are about the same, but I prefer the slot loading on the audiolab. If I had to sell one, it would be the cxc. The strange thing I find is that the cxc has a lot more components inside than the Audiolab but sounds no better !

 

[Alexanderc]

I’m looking at the Cambridge Audio CXC v2 and the Audiolab 6000CDT. Any first hand observations of build and error handling quality? My Cambridge Audio Azur player has worked well for about 15 years without a problem, so I’m inclined to trust Cambridge.

I looked at both of these once and discovered the Cambridge has no number buttons on the remote control. I select specific tracks from CDs all the time and pushing the skip-forward button 15 or 20 times to get there would be inconvenient.

 

[Angsty]

But before buying Cambridge Audio CXC v2 a; why don't you trust your ears and try a cheapo dvd player ?

I do have a functioning Cambridge 540C that I use as a transport today. It sounds identical, to my ear, to my NAD CD changer when used as a transport.

Here’s the core issue: I have no measurements that would suggest that the CXC or Audiolab would be better than the either CD player, only anecdotes. Furthermore, no one has been able to identify which measurements I should use if I could find them. I find it curious that on a forum dedicated to the measurement and science of audio gear that we cannot collectively find measurements we should consider. I may need to dig into my 90’s archives of Stereophile to see what John Atkinson measured back then.

I’m not willing to do a test purchase without some justification beyond anecdotes. I’m just angsty like that.

 

[Angsty]

I may need to dig into my 90’s archives of Stereophile to see what John Atkinson measured back then.

I did consult the Stereophile archives and found this little bit from JA from April 2019 in reviewing the dCS Rossini transport:

“There are only two meaningful measurements of a disc transport's output quality: how well it copes with disc errors, and the amount of timing uncertainty or jitter there is in the datastream it outputs.”

From there he proceeded to observe the “eye pattern” of the output on an oscilloscope compared to his Audio Precision unit and the audible handling of defects using the Pierre Verany Digital Test CD.

Of course, these are not widely published measurements and “try before you buy” would have to be the default for finding these issues. Bummer.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/dcs-rossini-transport-sacdcd-transport-measurements

 

[restorer-john]

I did consult the Stereophile archives and found this little bit from JA from April 2019 in reviewing the dCS Rossini transport:

“There are only two meaningful measurements of a disc transport's output quality: how well it copes with disc errors, and the amount of timing uncertainty or jitter there is in the datastream it outputs.”

From there he proceeded to observe the “eye pattern” of the output on an oscilloscope compared to his Audio Precision unit and the audible handling of defects using the Pierre Verany Digital Test CD.

In my opinion, there are plenty of other serious considerations, not merely "two".

Speed of operation- loading, reading the TOC and slewing from inner to out and outer to inner tracks. I use a 99 track test disc which takes considerably longer than a normal disc to load the TOC and the differences can be stark. Most modern machines, regardless of price are as slow as a wet week. Reviewers used to measure and comment on all these parameters.

Noise in operation. Most older TOTL machines are silent, with heavy sound insulation, again, easily measured.

Resistance to impacts/vibration in both vertical and horizontal are a huge consideration. Many players are easily provoked to mistracking, in the presence of high level bass or even footfalls. The standard knuckle rap test.

Usability. A member above commented on poor remotes with no numbered track buttons. At least 20 is necessary IMO, with >20 direct entry. Repeat/Single/Program modes. There are only two systems I considered perfect. Sony's and Akai's. The Akai one was truly brilliant with what they called 'natural logic'. The machine had "and", "to" & "without". Example: "1 to 14 without 2 and 7".

 

[Daverz]

nobody wants to be messing around waiting to EAC to exhaust its error correction and give up when you could simply play it on a proper player and be done with it.

EAC will rip the vast majority of discs very quickly using the AccurateRip and CueTools checksums. Unless you are fussy about artwork and tagging like I am, then you just scan for the new files, and you are ready to play. You can then put the CD into storage. It's true that the occasional disc causes more trouble than it may be worth.

 

[Angsty]

Bear in mind every CD player from day one had ~16K of RAM in it for buffering between the transport/ram control/error correction and the D/A.

To what extent is the size of the buffer an indicator of output quality? Audiolab says of its transport:

“the transport uses read-ahead digital buffering to reduce disc reading failures and deliver the highest level of digital signal extraction from a wide range of CDs, even capable of reading scratched and damaged CDs that are unreadable by conventional mechanisms.”

Is there a well-established correlation between buffer size and the ability to read less than perfect discs without errors? It would seem to me that the read performance was more a function of optics and read mechanism than buffers, per se.

 

[typericey]

I also planned on getting a CXC as I wanted to get back into the ritual of opening jewel cases, reading album pamphlets, loading discs, etc. But I cheaped out and got the cheapest new CD player a Marantz CD5005. Currently hooked up to my D90 via coax with no less than an ancient Monster Cable composite video cable!

The Marantz is serving me well so far with fast loading time (compared to DVD players, CD roms), no skips, no errors, functional etc. Does the job as a proper transport.

If anything maybe the only advantage of the CXC is durability/reliability.

 

[Angsty]

If anything maybe the only advantage of the CXC is durability/reliability.

That counts for me! I like to use my audio gear for a long time.

 

[restorer-john]

To what extent is the size of the buffer an indicator of output quality? Audiolab says of its transport:

“the transport uses read-ahead digital buffering to reduce disc reading failures and deliver the highest level of digital signal extraction from a wide range of CDs, even capable of reading scratched and damaged CDs that are unreadable by conventional mechanisms.”

Is there a well-established correlation between buffer size and the ability to read less than perfect discs without errors? It would seem to me that the read performance was more a function of optics and read mechanism than buffers, per se.

Perhaps the Audiolab "reads ahead" by spinning the disc faster, buffering the data and giving itself a chance to re-read should it need to. Many of the CD/DVD rom based machines do that.

The buffer (RAM) is used for error correction and also means the data can be clocked out perfectly (no jitter) regardless of what variable rate it goes in (within reason).

Audiolab make these extraordinary claims- let's see if they can back them up. I've asked them via email what the machines can achieve on standard Philips Test disc 5A interruption to data stream tracks in micrometres. Should be interesting...

 

[ernestcarl]

Olasonic nanocompo NANO-CD1 CD Transport, Platinum White

4

(21)
World smallest stationary CD transport - Crafted out of seamless, die-cast aluminum, the device measures less than 6" square and 1.5" tall. Designed ...
I was considering that option for a bit and heard good things about this....

I like the compact form factor. Very similar in compactnes to the Panasonic DMP-BBT01 Blu-ray Player (also a CD transport via SPDIF toslink or HDMI) which I still have -- no point in buying a CD-only design... I Kind of wish they they made more of these tiny blu-ray players.

 

[Canuck57]

@ restorer-john I respect your opinion & experience - so do you feel the youtube review below is pretty much bull crap?

 

[Angsty]

so do you feel the youtube review below is pretty much bull crap?

I’m not @restorer-john, but I found the review set off my BS meter. This one from SoundStage! seemed much more balanced:

https://www.soundstageaccess.com/index.php/equipment-reviews/1022-audiolab-6000cdt-cd-transport

 

[ernestcarl]

So much saliva and pages just for a CD transport. Zero measurements test comparison data, and not even a component-build teardown. Video review is all anecdotal. Written review is much the same — just more words!

His own bullet point summary:
GOOD: expansive soundstage, tonal realism, 3D presentation, simplicity of design

Take from it what you will.

 

[Angsty]

Audiolab make these extraordinary claims- let's see if they can back them up. I've asked them via email what the machines can achieve on standard Philips Test disc 5A interruption to data stream tracks in micrometres. Should be interesting...

@restorer-john - did you get a response back from your email?

 

[restorer-john]

@restorer-john - did you get a response back from your email?

I had a virtually immediate reply from the UK (to their credit) where they suggested I query to the Australian distributors for answers.

As is typical with Australian distributors in general, they basically ignore technical queries. Three weeks later- absolutely nothing...

I'll email the UK once again, but so far, they have provided absolutely nothing to justify their extraordinary claims.

 

[Wombat]

I had a virtually immediate reply from the UK (to their credit) where they suggested I query to the Australian distributors for answers.

As is typical with Australian distributors in general, they basically ignore technical queries. Three weeks later- absolutely nothing...

I'll email the UK once again, but so far, they have provided absolutely nothing to justify their extraordinary claims.

Duck Shove

 

[TonioRoffo]

I'm gonna say no to your question. Choose the prettiest or easiest to use transport.

OTOH, I don't think anyone has ever done a double blind, matched level listening test on CD transports...

so if you want to toss a buncha $$ and time at that -->

Do we need to? I think the best transport is a computer CD-ROM drive. Rip the CD, check vs AccurateRip DB to see if your rip matches what others ripped before -> perfect CD read, play back with your favorite streamer.

 

[Kaiede]

Do we need to? I think the best transport is a computer CD-ROM drive. Rip the CD, check vs AccurateRip DB to see if your rip matches what others ripped before -> perfect CD read, play back with your favorite streamer.

With the right setup, I do think streaming is the better call. I’m running across more independent music where I can cheaply get 24bit, 44-96kHz FLAC, but may only be able to get a physical copy on vinyl if at all. The drawback is that there seems to always be some sort of downside to streaming no matter how you set it up right now, and I don’t think it really ever got to the “it just works” stage.

I did want a CD player/transport though, since I do have a sizable CD collection. I went with a used SACD player for less than the CXC or the Audiolab 6000T mentioned here. Mostly because I didn’t want to spend much on the player, and I wanted to see if there was anything to this SACD/DSD thing. End result? I wind up listening through my streamer 99% of the time. I paid quite a bit more for my streamer than the SACD player, so it wasn’t a great value. But it at least ticked the boxes of the features I wanted. Features for streamers are all over the place right now too, along with their price.