Read somewhere that they use Denon transports (stereophile?).
1 Like
yes, found it- it was on their “Recommended Components 2023”:
dCS Rossini SACD Transport: $26,500
Unlike the earlier Rossini Player, which only played CDs, the Rossini Transport uses a new mechanism from Denon that plays both SACDs and CDs. The Transport outputs audio data on twin AES/EBU links, to allow it to send native DSD data and CD data upsampled to DXD, DSD, or double DSD (these both encrypted) to a dCS DAC. JA used the Transport with a Rossini DAC and was mightily impressed by what he heard. He consistently preferred the sound of SACDs played on the Transport compared with the same data sent to the Rossini DAC over his network, feeling that the low frequencies sounded more robust. “Once these words have been laid out on the pages of this issue,” JA concluded, “I’ll have to return [the Rossini Transport] to dCS. It breaks my heart.” (Vol.42 No.5 WWW)
3 Likes
Yeah, the VRDS Mark-3 Mech on the Vivaldi Transports. I believe the SilverStrike JPL-2800 CD Mech on the Rossini Player, and the D+M Mech (not Denon per se I believe) on the Rossini Transport (don’t know the exact model though).
1 Like
I believe it’s the SACD-M3 though it is possible that the OEM version has a different identifier. I remain impressed with its performance in the Rossini Transport.
2 Likes
It says a tremendous amount that dCS does not own its own transport technology. Businesses nearly always own or acquire technologies they view as critical to their mission. Ferrari does not outsource the engine.
The core of a transport is its disc mechanism. Three years ago, when dCS launched the Rossini Player, the Esoteric mechanism they’d used in the Puccini had been discontinued, along with the necessary chipset from Sony. The only mechanism available to them was the CD-only Silverstrike, from StreamUnlimited, in Vienna. However, according to dCS Americas’ John Quick, in 2017 the main man at dCS’s Japanese distributor, who is also the president of the Tokyo Audio Society, told dCS that both Pioneer and Denon were looking to introduce OEM mechanisms that would play both SACDs and CDs. dCS tested them and found the Denon mechanism more appropriate, from the standpoints of both performance and interface. But because the Denon was too big to retrofit into the Rossini Player, dCS opted to bring to market the Rossini Transport.
From:
2 Likes
Miguel, I’m not so sure. It seems to me that those examples of streaming and their known problems have little to do with properly implemented network audio (such as dCS), which is quite different from streaming into SPDIF or USB. And neither of those examples support your assertion that sometimes your Cambridge player beats streaming (as a physicist, ask yourself why that should be “sometimes”). And none of this rebuts what has been mentioned elsewhere that two identical data streams from discs and streamer should not sound different if they are processed identically by the DAC in identical signal paths. This isn’t about 1s and 0s. That’s an old red herring. This is about actually getting down to what might be different between two signal paths.
I’ve owned transports for my PS Audio gear, and my MSB gear. These were transports made by the two firms respectively, definitely with Oppo drive in the case of MSB (though I am not sure which drive the PS Audio contained). It is possible the PS Audio transport sounded slightly better than their network renderer. I believe McGowan wrote a post at one time explaining why that might be case, and IIRC, it was related to the different paths that the bits were processed in the DAC. I think it might have also had something to do with the various network cards that PSA used over time. Short explanation: the signal paths were different.
I agree that a properly designed and optimized transport connected directly to the DAC over I2S can in fact sound better than a network interface if the latter has not been properly optimized. That’s what’s wrong with all these “discs sound better or network sounds better” subjective comparisons: few of us actually seem to know if we are comparing apples to apples.
If the DAC maker short-changes either interface compared to the other, it is quite possible that the signal paths are different in some audible way. That seems pretty simple to me. But it doesn’t support a flat assertion that one medium is better than the other.
I’ve listened to a Rossini transport and compared it to Rossini network. It was not a blind comparison, but it was over the course of several hours. I could detect no difference, but it was also not the focus of my listening session. In contrast, as good as the combo of my Oppo 205 and the GeerFab DBOB were, they weren’t even close to the same tracks ripped from the SACDs. (No surprise there; I think it makes the point.) I’ve listened to my MSB Transport compared to the MSB network renderer. It’s a close call, but I like the network renderer better. That same MSB transport has ripped the majority of my SACDs, the files from which of course sound great through either the MSB or dCS stack.
I agree with you that the ear can hear things we might not even know to measure or how to measure. But that shouldn’t keep us from hypothesizing about where the the differences our ears/brains are hearing might be originating. If there is a difference in sound between the playback of a disc, and the playback of the same bits of a file from that disc, that difference is IMHO probably in the equipment between the source and the speakers, not in differences between sources.
I know some people enjoy handling physical media, and I respect that completely. I’m the opposite. I can’t wait to get those discs ripped, stored, and out of my way. And I wouldn’t be surprised if those two different POVs contributed to our differential sense of enjoying the music itself. That one might be harder to measure. 
3 Likes
Silver disc transports are not a core part of dCS’ business. I doubt that more than a couple of handfuls of Rossini Transports are made annually. I hope you appreciate how small dCS is. Transports are nice to have but the business core is expressed in the company name ; Data Conversion Systems. For that they own the intellectual property.
Companies making audiophile ( and non-audiophile) CD/SACD players have always used outsourced transports made by a few large companies in the far east ( since Philips in the Netherlands pulled out). In 2023 the remaining number of suppliers is limited.The investment to manufacture from scratch is too large.If this is news to you read this and see how many companies make or made their own transport mechanisms:
https://www.dutchaudioclassics.nl/the_complete_d_a_dac_converter_li
3 Likes
This is such a strange way to address a person you don’t know.
No, Pete, it’s not news to me.
In fact, it supports exactly the point I was trying to make: if dCS viewed this as a core technology it would have likely brought it in-house. It clearly doesn’t see it that way.
1 Like
What I find more amazing than how few companies actually make disc transports is that they are not compatible with each other.
I would have thought the industry would have long ago settled upon a command interface that would have made whether you use a Denon, Esoteric, Panasonic, Philips, StreamUnlimited or Sony transport no bigger an issue than which brand of hard drive you purchase, but instead even different transport lines within a manufacturer’s range cannot be substituted for one another. 
So for example, though you can plug and play most any CD-R drive into your computer and it will just work, you can’t do the same for a dedicated CD player.
2 Likes
Claiming you make a “great” transport today is like claiming you make the “best” horse drawn carriage in 1908 (in New York City, later/earlier elsewhere).
What will undo the transport is not lack of engineering acumen, or its appreciation/affinity by audiophiles like me (or you?). Eventually the large music studios will simply stop producing CDs.
IMHO, this is why dCS will never own or manufacture its own transport mechanism.
dCS has never owned its own Transport mech, from the very beginning, and even when CDs were a roaring business. They were Sony, Esoteric, StreamUnlimited (ex Philips Transport folks), and now D+M.
dCS’ disc Transport tends to be more than just the physical CD/SACD spinner/reader. The Vivaldi Transport for example has built-in Upsampling, transcoding, encryption, etc.
Not sure I understand the fixation on whether the drive mech is OEM or in-house. dCS’ “engine” are the Ring DAC and digital signal processing, not mechanical disc spinning 
2 Likes
Hi @Anupc, I agree with you. The broader point I was trying–apparently unsuccessfully!–to make is that dCS doesn’t really invest in the transport product.
If Ring DACs were failing across the product line that would be a “five alarm fire,” b/c is one of the core products/technologies that dCS has developed. In contrast, if one has a problem with a loud transport mechanism, as I did, and many others have mentioned, and apparently as @sourav has now, it’s a different level of priority.
Yeah, it’s a pity you can’t even find a high-end turntable these days. 
Yep, just like they stopped making LPs in the 1990s.
If they stop making CDs in 2024, I can’t wait to start buying major label CDs again in 2035. 
1 Like
@Anupc Anup Rossini Transport also has built in Upsampling.
Not sure about ‘transcoding and encryption’ - what exactly you meant by these two in the context of transport ?
Regards,
Sourav
@PAR I have also owned PS Audio’s Direct Stream Transport and Direct Steram Dac. And also I have trailed their new SACD Transport. In both cases the transport sounded better (may be because they have used two different kinds of interfaces). And that’s one of the reasons when I decided to upgrade to dCS I also wanted to have Rossini Transport.
You are right, if the processing interface for data coming through i2s or over ethernet are same (and if we ignore the difference due to the underlying transport protocol used, ethernet vs i2s; which I am not sure if we can) then rest depends on the signal path.
In my experience, ensuring the reliability of that signal path in case of using transport is much more simple (just because one has to just connect the transport to the dac).
In contrast to that, ethernet based streaming from a music server, relies on many s/w and h/w components - the Music Server processor/memory, the music server s/w implementation (upnp vs proprietary as in case of Roon), meta data management layer (say in case of Roon one can run Roon core in a separate server with different h/w than the music server ), type of storage (SSD vs regular drive with different iops), router, network cable, power supply of the music server, etc. One can easily go wrong selecting one or more of these components and keep on wondering where is the bottleneck if the sound quality is not up to the mark.
Regards,
Sourav
True, that they don’t invest in disc mechs specifically, but no doubt it takes quite a bit of R&D investment to incorporate an OEM part like that into the overall Transport platform. I disagree that dCS treats Transport issues with a different level of priority. What gives you that impression?
dCS Dealers have a key part to play in providing the appropriate level 1 support. When I had a problem with my Vivaldi Transport tray belt - the one and only issue I encountered in 10 years of daily use (touchwood) - my dealer took care of it immediately. In Sourav’s case, it sure looks like his dealer was asleep at the wheel until prodded by dCS.
Upsampling to DXD, or transcoding redbook disc into DSD/2. Sending it out over dual-AES, Encrypted or as DoP to your DAC, etc., all within the Transport itself - I’m not sure about the Rossini Transport, but the Vivaldi Transport has a whole Control Board exactly the same as in the DAC itself, so it’s pretty powerful.
1 Like
Anup thanks for the clarification.
In Rossini Transport too all those features are available. I compared the manual of Vivaldi and Rossini transport and functionality wise I have not found any difference except 2 sdif (ch 1 and ch2) outputs and track/disc remaining timing .
Regards,
Sourav
1 Like
One can easily go wrong, I agree, especially if one doesn’t understand what one is doing, but it is also not difficult at all to do it right. I also agree that plugging a company’s transport into that company’s DAC is much simpler than the initial effort required to establish a reliable network and network connection. [But just from my POV, the two efforts are almost diametrically opposed. You don’t invest in a network in order to duplicate transport functionality. You do it for something different. And vice versa. One being easier than the other is probably pretty low on the heirarchy.]
But networking is not rocket science any more, if it ever was. Many server/streamers (like the Roon Nucleus) border on plug & play. One can make it as complicated—and potentially more error-prone—as one wants, but that’s a choice. A proper network is not difficult, and the delivery of those bits into the DAC (or Bridge or Upsampler) then places the onus on the DAC maker to have a proper network interface.
Apologies for this digression on a thread about transport mechanical noise. We can debate elsewhere–and have at length! 
—what things on a network can affect audio quality. Cheers! 
3 Likes
You Can find lots of great high end turntables, but, alas, no “great” horse drawn carriages.
This analogy misses the mark. I was not arguing that LPs do not have advantages over digital recordings. They do, namely (often) being an analogue recording (unless pressed after DSD/DXD recording/mixing).
In contract, CDs have no such advantage. They are simply a storage device of the bits, just like a thumb drive might carry a PDF file. No one would reasonably claim that the same PDF file on a thumb drive is better/different/higher resolution than the same file in PDF format emailed. Spinning the thumb drive around thousands of times per second also won’t change that. Any “perceived” gap between spinning things around to get the bits, and delivering them over a network has either closed completely, or is rapidly closing, depending on who you ask.
Interesting static: Less than 10% of US population under 35 bought a CD last year. Graph depicting CD sales below. As demand and production collapse, transport is dead. That doesn’t mean there won’t be a few audiophiles still alive who swear by them, and if that is your “bag”, enjoy! : )
1 Like