pure red book cd players vs.McIntosh mct transport

Discussion in 'Digital Sources' started by Modlin, Feb 12, 2019 at 2:24 PM.

  1. Modlin

    Modlin Active Member

    Messages:
    265
    Location:
    Canada
    Written info on 'only redbook cd' players (eg.Bryston, Lyngdorf, Rotel (?)...probably others as well) implies that because the setup (laser? clock?) is only for the above, they would produce a better output than those which can read dvd data discs as well (eg.McIntosh MCT Transports). Not considering their on board dacs, just digital signal. True? False? Not noticeable difference? Simply a marketing line?
     

     

    Please register to disable this ad.

  2. steerpike2

    steerpike2 Super Member

    Messages:
    3,369
    Location:
    Transvaal, South Africa
    That is not logical.
    However, older machines that were built before the creation of dvd, typically have better quality mechanics.
    Most (all?) new machines are based on computer disc drives, which are made for maximum economy, and not a long and reliable life.
     
  3. Modlin

    Modlin Active Member

    Messages:
    265
    Location:
    Canada
     
  4. charles 1973

    charles 1973 Super Member

    Messages:
    3,094
    I understand what you are saying. And in theory one would think that a dedicated CD drive could perform that function better than a multi-format drive, All else being the same. That said there are some vintage TOTL DVD players from Denon, Sony, and others that would give some of the better CD transports today a run for the money. The DAC's in those old players are no slouch either.

    I use my recently purchased Cambridge CXC CD transport to feed the DAC module in my Bryson amp and must say it performs admirably. I bought it because I wanted a good new CD transport for a reasonable cost. If you have a decent DAC, or plan on buying one, Cambridge makes a good matching DAC BTY, You might be better off with a dedicated CD transport.

    The Cambridge CXC is IMO a good value as a CD transport for most of us. If you want a high end contender at a reasonable price (Compared to McIntosh and Bryston), I would go with the Moon 260D.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2019 at 12:49 AM
  5. steerpike2

    steerpike2 Super Member

    Messages:
    3,369
    Location:
    Transvaal, South Africa
    It is not logical that a device that can ONLY play a CD, will do it better than a multi-disc player BECAUSE IT HAS ONLY ONE FUNCTION.
    In practice, things get skewed because manufacturers may cut costs to make multi-function players more affordable.
     
  6. bimasta

    bimasta Super Member

    Messages:
    3,031
    I've never had a multi-player that could play CDs nearly as well as a CDP. And I tried several.

    Another myth: any transport will 'feed' a DAC just fine. When I finally got a good DAC, I tried the same 'several' players as transports-only. The variance is SQ was clear and startling. Only two made the grade. One, Cal Audio, developed problems; my first attempt to fix it failed; I will try again some day. I'm now using a Panasonic DVD/DVD-Audio/CD player. It was an early model when DVD-A was launched, so I figured they didn't cut corners: the future of the new DVD-Audio medium was riding on it. So far so good. And the remote has some nice extra features too.

    I also discovered the importance of a dedicated 'digital cable'. I first tried an IC — a good one, high purity, well shielded, high end. Then I made a 'digital cable'; it made one of those fabled "Night and Day" differences.

    For the first time since CD was launched, I now love Digital.
     

     

    Please register to disable this ad.

Share This Page