That would be an overstatement, IMO.
FWIW.
And that’s what he was hoping we would convince him of. So when not enough people commented he takes that as being correct to start with.
1 Like
Better transports do sound better.
I continue to suggest trying out other transports to find out whether the differences are compelling for you.
4 Likes
I currently have the Pioneer Elite UDP-LX500, Oppo UDP-205, Sony BDP S-7200, Cambridge CXC transport, PS Audio PST, and a Esoteric N-03T transport. While the Oppo, Sony, Cambridge and Pioneer used as CD transports with coax to the PS MK2 DAC sounds pretty much the same, the PST is in another league, not close at all. You lose that hard thin digital sound with the PST, and using I2S with the PST just upped the ante. Of course SACD’s also has an advantage over CD’s. Just compare the SACD layer to the CD layer of a hybrid SACD and you’ll see. The Esoteric does not play CD’s or SACD’s, and do not have an I2S output. I use the USB output. What it does is play files with a fildelity that all my other transport cannot approach, not even the PST thru I2S. Playing DSD256 thru the Esoteric gets it closer in musicality to my vinyl than any other transports. And yes, it does cost much more than the other transports.
The secret is in the power supply.
[The N-03T is equipped with two large independent toroidal transformers, one for the internal network module and one for the other digital circuits, enabling the ideal supply of power to each circuit block. Unlike a standard switching power supply, these large linear power supplies are made with high quality components such as large filter capacitors and Schottky barrier diodes. The dedicated power supply for the network module also has an EDLC (Electric Double-layer Capacitor), a super-capacitor that has 1F (1,000,000μF) capacitance. These provide a dramatic improvement in audio quality.]
3 Likes
This is thinking about the right issue, but misunderstanding the details.
With a DS DAC (MkI, MkII or Jnr) the clock is a non-issue. What matters most in I2S vs Coax is the amount of electrical noise that comes into the machine via those pieces of wire. That noise might be generated by the transport internally, or it might be picked up from the air like an antenna. One of the big advantages of I2S with these specific DACs is that the HDMI cable is constructed in a way that can offer extreme resistance to electromagnetic noise.
More generally, I2S is better in terms of clocking because one of its wires is dedicated to carrying an explicit clock signal from the transport. With SPDIF and related protocols the receiver has to sync itself to the incoming data in order to generate a matching clock, and this extra step has a bit of uncertainty in it which causes jitter. So in most cases, I2S delivers lower jitter than coax.
But again it doesn’t matter at all with the DS DAC because of the way the machine syncs its own super low-jitter clock to match the average rate of the incoming data and doesn’t take an actual clock signal from the transport at all.
2 Likes
I tested my very expensive Gryphon Ethos Transport DAC against my Jay’s Audio CDT2-MKIII.
(both used the same Ethos DAC. Stealths top of the line AES/EBU cable was used between the Jay’s and the Ethos)
The difference was so obvious and the sound was so very much better it boggled my mind.
“They are both reading the same CD, how can this even be??!!”
@paul172 was with me. He heard the same thing. We both have Gryphon Ethos Transport DACs now.
Go get yours!
The reason I didn’t respond earlier is even if you believed me there is most likely zero chance you would spend the money required to see for yourself. The MBL 1621 performs the same miracles. It has no DAC.
Your question, can a CD transport make an important difference I would answer YES!
But most likely NOT in a price range you would tolerate. So my message isn’t likely useful to you.
My Jay’s Audio CDT2-MKIII cost $2500 new. I also owned a PS Audio PST for many months. With normal 16.44.1 Redbook CDs I could detect no difference in sound between the two. I never used the PST to play SACDs so I have no idea how that worked. No idea.
I am going to guess the new Jay’s Audio transport sounds better then the one I had. But I firmly do not believe any transport under $20K can come close to the Gryphon Ethos or the MBL 1621A. It would be easy to prove this to you. It only takes about five seconds of listening to hear the difference. It is WAY BEYOND OBVIOUS!
And it makes zero sense to me.
6 Likes
Has Gryphon ever made a Transport? I mean, without the DAC inside,
2 Likes
Yes, two of them I believe. I believe only the Ethos is available.
2 Likes
What’s interesting is Gryphon’s current top of the line DAC is the one in the Ethos. They do have a stand alone DAC the Kaliope but from what I’ve been told the Ethos is a better DAC. @aangen can confirm this.
1 Like
Yep. I loved my Gryphon Kalliope! I thought it was going to be my last DAC (LOL). The Gryphon Ethos is way better! But the Grimm MU2 DAC is the current top for me.
3 Likes
I’m still loving the Ethos. The V17 is making impossible not too! Damn it!!!
3 Likes
Thanks Al, and all, for clarification. This is the kind of information I was looking for. My takeaway, transports do make a difference but probably not at the price level that I would be willing to spend. Still could take the plunge on a used PST sometime in the future just to check out my few SACDs on my MKll. It’s such a shame the more music isn’t available on the format. I still might try DSD downloads in the future as well, but again, that doesn’t offer the choices that CDs do. All in all I’m pretty happy with the quality I can extract from good old reliable CD.
1 Like
Was the 205 feeding the DS via coax? I want to try the PSA transport to compare the Oppo 103D with the IS2 upgrade. I tried the digital out on the Oppo and Marantz SA8005 feeding the DS Mk1, but the IS2 out of the modded 103D was a significant improvement over the former two.
205 was feeding into a converter board to use I2S, and connecting to DS 1. I sold it before I bought PST. The SQ improvement was significant.
I don’t entirely agree with what might be the takeaway from OFA (Our Friend Al 
). When I migrated to the PST I had the previous gen DMP in my system. It was clear to me and my wife that the PST was better. To a degree of departure similar to that observed by Al with the Gryphon? I can’t say, of course. But my own feeling is that if the rest of your system is good enough, differences in transports, even priced at us poor man levels, are there to be heard. Whether it’s enough for any given audiophile is up to them to decide.
6 Likes
Were you able to also send a SACD signal through the converter, and was this an internal or external converter? I’m trying to learn as I go so bear with me…the I2S is new to me and I don’t doubt the PWT is excellent. Before I added the Oppomod board to the 103, I want to say I believe I read that this does the same handshake as the PWT to the DS with SACD…I could be wrong.
It’s an exterior converter because 205 has no room for internal converter. Every inch inside was occupied. The sole purpose of the I2S converter was to play SACD.
The change from OPPO to PST remained as one of the “wow” moments in SQ improvement from all my upgrades since then.
Were you using a I2S cable with both the DMP and PST and if so the same one? And how would you characterize the sonic differences between the two? Just to be clear, the rest of the chain was unchanged correct?
Yes, and the same type and length on each. Differences? Simple. The DMP sounded good for its day, the PST sounds better. Sorry for the lack of detail, but I’m neither Luca nor Donald. I used to do that kind of microscopic audio analysis (kudos to them for carrying that torch!), but not so much anymore. My recollection is that the PST just brought a more realistic sense of the music into my room. To paraphrase Al, it sounded nicer. Sometimes the decision making is easy. 
6 Likes
Sometimes it just comes down to that, it sounds more realistic.
1 Like