Thanks guys, I’m going with the Teac CD Player CD-P650-B because of great reviews on forums and it seems to have a good Burr Brown internal DAC although maybe not their newest model. And is only $180 new. I’ll post a note here sometime after trying it.
Anyone have any recommendations on shock absorption feet that make a difference in sound (even if a placebo, LOL) and are affordable?
PS - maybe @g_bryan knows, and I meant to give props to you for the above recommendation
And for a Toslink optical cable I’m leaning towards a 1300 strand plastic one from Sys Concept, which I read was preferred by someone over another glass cable, and that glass strands are prone to breaking over time. The description makes a pretty strong argument on the design too.
http://www.sysconcept.ca/product_info.php?products_id=364
I looked up the Teac CD P650 specs and reviews and think you have found a winner for $180. Make sure you burn-in the player and listen to it as a CD Player and as a Transport, as the DAC should be pretty good inside the Player.
I have used a lot of different shock absorption dampening devices in the past. I would recommend you try a number of things and listen for the differences to determine what works best in your system. I have used marbles and steel bearings (balls) under the feet of my CD Players and Transports in the past–the idea is to free up the horizontal stress (x - y axis) on the player–make sure it doesn’t slide off of your rack.
Next remove the balls and try some absorption material: foam, memory foam, pillow, or rubber foam (I am using a Purple Pillow now) and make sure the CD/Transport is level by buying a bullseye circular bubble level purchased from amazon.com or eBay–use non-marking weighted objects and place them on the CD/Transport to level out the player. The idea is to get the foam/pillow to compress 20-60% of the way, and then be able to easily compress another 5-20% with minimal weight/effort–this will create a good low-frequency suspension system.
There are more exotic systems and springs/dampeners, rubber absorption feet, etc. but these two ideas above will be fun to try and will sound different from each other.
I think the Teac CD P650 may be able to play FLAC files from ripped CDs. If so I would also recommend you rip some CDs into lossless FLAC files and play them thru a USB stick with the Teac CD Player, and also try to play with the CD Player and your external DAC to see if it sound different than just playing CDs and CDs with your external DAC.
Some of the fun of Audio is listening for the differences in your set-up and equipment. It doesn’t necessarily need to sound better every time; it is fun to hear differences no matter how small they may be.
Note: The marbles/steel balls only work if the Teac CD/Transport has feet with the middle area cupped-out; they usually do this so they can “screw”/fasten the feet to the bottom of the chassis.
The next upgrade to the marbles/steel balls is to place them on a very smooth surface, such as a glass disc, cupped-glass or hard material “discs”, or plate/platter. Again, make sure your CD/Transport and other equipment to do this with do not slide off of your rack/table–the cupped glass or hard material discs should help.
I have done this at trade shows and had people touch my equipment, and they nearly fell off the rack…LOL!
Thanks much for your advice Bryan! For the file / source comparisons I’ll try that, not only FLAC via USB device vs. the CD player, but also vs. played on either format from my laptop to DAC.
For the vibration absorption ideas, I think I’ll stick with more of a basic method for now. I’ve found a few really good seeming and well reviewed options that seem to eliminate the need for a experimental options mentioned.
There’s this option Bright Star IsoNode feet on Audio Advisor that seems to has consistent positive reviews on a broad range of audio equipment from CD players to speakers, amps and even laptops (not sure if that has any practical function?), and the polymer material seems to be durable and absorbs wide range of vibration.
Then there’s this option, the Vibrapod support cone which seems similar to your suggestion. It seems to have a suction cup eliminating the need to screw in to the device. I would have to see if the provided feet can be removed or if these are taller. With this method I believe vibrations are absorbed by both the vinyl material, as well as the ball bearing being able to roll around - but this poses the question of the ball being only able to absorb left-right (horizontal) vibrations(?), and which direction vibrations are emitted from my CD transport (or other device), which probably has a lot to do with the positioning of the internal motor that spins the disc.
But I suppose a caveat of the above method would be that it has the potential to slide freely around the desk, if I understand correctly. So for this I would likely need to level it out as you mentioned or with a marble on the device to test whether it rolls around, then if not level I would need to get an isolation cone with adjustable pike like this.
And with this type, as far as I can tell they are only useful for leveling out a device or perhaps acoustic treatment of speakers by raising them off the floor a little - unless these also have any damping benefit somehow.
With footers, one basically has to try as many combinations as possible under each component and speakers to come up with the desired final effect, but really, the main effect will be heard with speaker systems.
As a general rule, I would say a certain footer will tend to sound like how they feel to touch. Squishy, rubbery footers will tend to sound softer, rounder, with bloomier bass. Really soft footers overdo it, but harder polymers like IsoNode minimize it. Metal cones will tend to tighten up bass but can make things sound more detailed, sharper. This is why the vibrapod support cone combines hard metal ball with softer polymer to try to minimize the downside of both materials.
I often end up with combination of different footers under the same component, tuning by ear.
Oh I see, it makes sense that a harder material would tighten up the bass more - but I would assume that applies to speakers but maybe/not at all for the likes of CD players or amps. So with the likes of Vibrapod support cone are you saying the ball bearing should sit on some kind of damping material such as foam, rather than directly on a hard table or the other direction against the device itself?
The killer thing with all this tweak stuff is that what sounds good under my components may sound very different under yours. Soft footers are supposed to “isolate” the component from the shelf/room, and hard cones are supposed to couple the component to “drain” the vibration away to the shelf.
IME, things are way more complicated than that, and everything you put under (and on top of) components/speakers tend to change the sound (we’re talking about speaker systems). With vibracones, you will find they will sound different with ball down vs. up. Same with metal cones. If you put something between the footer and component, sound will change a bit again.
There is no easy way other than to just try different configurations until YOU are happy. In fact, sometimes the cheap stock hard rubber footers can sound better than expensive footers/cones.
The old-school / crude-school method involves stuffing tire inner tubes under the base:
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?32833-Turntable-suspension-thread
Or, buy two pairs of Air Jordans and set your cone feet on shoes. 
My optical Toslink cable came in today so I finally got a chance to A/B my CD transport to PC source. As mentioned it’s the Teac CD Player CD-P650B and this Sysconcept Toslink cable. It may be a bit early to post impressions but I honestly don’t think the sound of either will change much because I’ve already been burning in this CD player nonstop for 4 days and my PC system has substantial burn-in.
At first I was a bit underwhelmed, until I realised my sound was colored a bit by darker headphone cable and amp tubes. Fast forward to about 40 A/B’s between the PC source vs. the Teac as a digital transport, I was surprised that I am indeed hearing an improvement with the transport! Nothing extravagant, but noticeable and repeatable. I hear improved subtle texture in the highs and better control in the bass, making the PC source sound modestly muddy by contrast, and ever so modestly hazy presentation of treble and miniscule details. The soundstage & tonality was the same on both systems. If I had to put a number on it, I’d say the sound is a maybe 3-5% better on the CD transport. Oddly the improvements were most noticeable on my tube amp + dynamic headphones (Quad PA One + amp and Senn. HD-600 with upgraded silver cables), but less noticeable on my more detailed electrostatic system (Stax SRM-1 MKII energiser + Stax L300 L.E. headphones).
And the odd thing is that this $190 CD transport is overtaking an approx $1,000 USB PC transport system, which includes an iFi iPurifier + Wyrd + Singxer SU-1 then out to my Qutest DAC via a BNC cable from reputable company. Knowingly the comparison is not on equal footing being the CD transport uses Toslink optical vs. BNC coax from the PC system, but I’d suspect the two input types are not so far off from eachother on the SU-1. Admittedly though all three of my USB components / DDC are a bit outdated 1st-gen models so that could make a difference too.
I certainly hadn’t thought I was missing anything with my PC as a source and definitely still enjoy it for the convenience but now I’m starting to question this setup a little.
PS - per my usual the comparison was done with a well mastered rhythmic song that I’m familiar with on a loop (CD on the transport vs. a FLAC copy on my PC which I earlier confirmed to sound equal to the CD on my laptop), same song on both systems.
PS two - I’ve already compared the RCA analog output of the Teac CD player with its’ internal Burr Brown DAC to that of my Qutest DAC from PC source both using the same test track and confirmed the Qutest to be a substantial step up with a much more lifelike sound, better detail, separation, etc. But its’ optical out to the same DAC bested my laptop USB setup even with a series of three USB-‘decrapifiers’.
Those are fairly typical types of differences I hear when comparing good physical transport to PC audio.
If one cannot give up the convenience of PC audio, then streamlining the PC audio signal chain will narrow the gap. Qutest owners are lucky because the thing is so darn small and can be positioned in such a way to get rid of at least two cables, USB cable and BNC cable, which makes a sizable difference.
I’ve got PC/SoTM USB card->DXIO USB-BNC converter->Qutest without a single USB cable or spdif cable, connected back-to-back with USB adapter and RCA/BNC adapter.
0113201945_HDR by drjlo2, on Flickr
Wow Jon, your system looks special! First question, did you notice a difference with BNC input on that setup vs. CD transport, if tried it?
And that PC/SoTM USB card looks interesting, but darn I don’t think it would work with my laptop. For your gold DXIO box, I’ve just read it may be comparable to the SU-1 but can’t be certain yet. But then what’s the concept behind the desire to get rid of a few of the cables?
And which RCA cables are you using? It looks like they’re dual per channel. I was thinking to make a DIY RCA cable from this material, per a tip from an experienced Head-Fi’er.
Also I noticed from your adjacent photos you’re using a THX SMSL amp. Check this link for a very special tube amp called Oblivion and Citadel from Ultrasonic Studios. Another user has a similar looking THX 788 amp and he is amazed by the performance of the Ultrasonic amp.
It’s mainly because IME EVERY cable, no matter how exotic or expensive, sounds far less transparent when compared to NO cable at all. For example, even my Wireworld Platinum Starlight USB cable sounded hopelessly colored when compared to no cable bypass. Spdif/digital cables are the same way.
Well, it continues to other cables, which is why you see me doubling up on PS Audio Transcendent pure-silver interconnects in Schroeder method to try to minimize that handicap since I can’t quite configure my system to get rid of the interconnect also.
Those Ultrasonic Studios amps look interesting, but although I do have THX SMSL, I also use 300B SET amp (well along with EL84 amp, 2A3 amp, etc), Jotunheim R for Raal SR1a, so another amp is the last thing I need… 
My first thought on reading your method was concern about potential issues arising on the PC due to going through so many devices and cables. I’d personally retest the PC with a minimal chain, as the intermediaries may have unintended consequences.
I liked that RCA splitter. Is this a regular one or more premium grade? A link is appreciated. Thanks much!
It’s the Audioquest RCA splitter Schroeder used.
I do have other ones, and the ones that are made just as sturdy and substantial sound about the same as Audioquest and not cheaper. The cheap ones with really thin tinned metal contacts and flimsy plastic housing sound worse than Audioquest ones, so beware…
IMPORTANT. I have a variety of interconnects at home and tried them all, even in combinations of 2 different interconnects in the Schroeder method. In MOST cases, they sounded worse to me than the single interconnect. Only the double run of Transcendent silver cables gave me more positives than negatives, so YMMV as usual.
Of course I’ve tested / compared with more vs. less. That’s how I’ve built this chain - less than optimal results with a bare bones setup. My particular series of three USB purifiers / components are to enhance what seems to be either a sub-bar USB output from my laptop or middle of the road DDC (first-gen SU-1), and each component has yielded incremental improvements across the board. The ‘unintended consequences’ being improvement in micro detail, texture, definition, realism, you name it all elements are now ‘closer to the truth’ of the recording and closer to the sound of the pure direct Toslink output of my new CD transport. I’ve also re-tested USB direct to DAC vs. every iteration of 1, 2 and 3 USB purifiers / components each of the four times I’ve upgraded DACs over the last 5 years and all but once has all 3 connected in series made an improvement. I urge you to look up the specs for the iFi iPurifier and Schiit Wyrd to see how they benefit a digital connection, and the former doesn’t even use a cable. Nonetheless it is a makeshift setup and I’m looking to upgrade my DDC… perhaps either to a Gustard U12 or Singxer SU-6.
At first I was fascinated in your dual RCA concept, but due to your mention of dual cables sounding worse in most cases I think I’ll go another route, tailoring a cable out of renowned UP-OCC silver wire linked in this post, which are worth around $1,500 per meter as a finished interconnect but I may be able to get the cost down substantially with a DIY approach.
Out of curiosity though, can you share a link to those specific Transcendent silver cables? I couldn’t seem to find it from Google. Maybe I would even try one of each.
