Are CD Player still relevant?

[Thad E Ginathom]

If you assume that all the digital information on a CD is extracted, then it doesn't matter what does the extracting. If you then assume that all those bits reach the DAC, then it doesn't matter if they are in the same box. For the purpose of this mental example, optical disk is the same as disc on an HDD: it's all data.

These are not assumptions that everybody is prepared to make, so there is plenty of room for the conversation to go on

 

[dheerajin]

These are not assumptions that everybody is prepared to make, so there is plenty of room for the conversation to go on

Thad, i think there is no room for discussion..so take your debate[emoji2] some place(website) else...what about cablization of amplification with sensitivity and impedance of speakers with DBT and blue jeans' ultrasonic technology with upsampling.....etc etc..
[emoji16] [emoji16] [emoji16] [emoji6] [emoji6] [emoji6]

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I'm perfectly happy not to debate it

 

[ranjeetrain]

Thanks JLS,Thad and Ranjeet
That means if I am understanding correctly-It is the transport where a well optimised computer beats the CD player in price to performance ratio apart from adding flexibility ,assuming the DAC part perform equivalently.
Cheers

Generally, a CDP is two-in-one box solution. It includes the transport and the DAC. Exception would be new generation products that can be used as either a transport, or as a DAC or as a CDP.

Similarly, a computer may be configured as a transport or as a DAC or as a transport cum DAC. A computer is a general purpose device. We can make it do whatever we want.

A CDP these days is a specialized computer. It doesn't (need to) have all the stuff a general purpose computer has, but essentially they are computers, too.

Many well known ultra high-end transports and DACs are more-computer like than their entry-level brethren. Names like Wadia, dCS, MSB immediately spring to mind when we talk about products that are more computer like.

A computer makes for a great transport at a price everyone can afford. The fact that it also makes life simple and more enjoyable due to it's media management abilities and enhanced accessibility is only an added bonus.

To address your post; yes, you are correct. A computer based playback is more economical than a traditional CDP based solution, even if it takes a bit of effort to get it right.

 

[himadri]

What is the availability of high resolution downloads of music of all types(western and indian) as compared to CDs?
Can someone clarify?
Cheers

Just to further qualify my other query on the availability of software for all kinds of music ,there seems to be the following modes for computer audio:
-Rip your existing CDs into lossless formats.
-Rely on internet downloads
At present the only large music software library seems to be I-tune.How does the I- tune playback through the computer compare against ripped CDs quality wise?
If it does not, then are we just making a provision for the future and waiting for at least CD quality downloads for all kinds of music to happen at the earliest and in the meantime keep on buying CDs and ripping them?
cheers
__________________

 

[hitechah]

Just to further qualify my other query on the availability of software for all kinds of music ,there seems to be the following modes for computer audio:
-Rip your existing CDs into lossless formats.
-Rely on internet downloads
At present the only large music software library seems to be I-tune.How does the I- tune playback through the computer compare against ripped CDs quality wise?
If it does not, then are we just making a provision for the future and waiting for at least CD quality downloads for all kinds of music to happen at the earliest and in the meantime keep on buying CDs and ripping them?
cheers
__________________

tbh, unless you have a really really high end audio install or have been in the audio business for a really long time you cant really tell them apart. a 320kbps mp3 and a normal flac sound the same and have nearly the same amount of data. Flac is just a better and optimized version of .wav
and itunes music quality is as good as it can get.

 

[greenhorn]

I recall reading a few reviews singing the praises of the teac VRDS Transport. I've always wondered how one fully functional digital transport was better than the other?

 

[sarith]

tbh, unless you have a really really high end audio install or have been in the audio business for a really long time you cant really tell them apart. a 320kbps mp3 and a normal flac sound the same and have nearly the same amount of data. Flac is just a better and optimized version of .wav
and itunes music quality is as good as it can get.

"or have been in the audio business for a really long time" is quite amusing. I hope you just voiced your opinion and wasn't trying to generalize. BTW, I wonder how your name was accepted (profanity?)

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Oh yes! That's a great user id, HTA! Doesn't look profane to me, but is certainly evidence of a sense of humour!

I'd agree that tests seem to show that, blind, 320k MP3 cannot, generally, be told apart from from lossless --- as long as the listeners don't know what they are listening to. I think this stands as an accolade to the genius of the MP3 and other successful lossy codec developers. Even if only nine out of ten people couldn't tell, it would still be an amazing achievement.

When the music we want is only available as MP3 (hopefully 320) I believe we can go for it without qualms, probably even for high end systems. But where there is a choice... That's another matter, and I'll go FLAC every time, for several reasons, including the all-important personal choice

I don't have time, space or use for iTunes. or iAnything, I suppose. Perhaps if I listened to a lot of contemporary music I might feel different. Might.

 

[Naturelover]

HTA, what's that? Do let the uninitiated learn

Oh yes! That's a great user id, HTA!

Thad, have you actually checked out iTunes? Please do and let us have your opinion if the SQ is good. I believe it is excellent even if it is 256 kbps.
And if you haven't checked it out, you might be very pleasantly surprised at the sheer range, in quantity and vintage, and the prices of the music that is available on the Indian site :licklips:.

I don't have time, space or use for iTunes. or iAnything, I suppose. Perhaps if I listened to a lot of contemporary music I might feel different. Might.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Thad, have you actually checked out iTunes?

Not for twenty years or more. You know office rules like not installing your own software on company machines? Well, iTunes, on PCs (granted: it must have been an early version) used to be one of the messes that I used to have to clear up, so I have been prejudiced against it for a long time I'm afraid!On top of that, Apple experience just never came my way, so I never had the opportunity to get to like them, and to get over the fact that I dislike their business model just a little bit more than than of Miscrosoft. This is just personal baggage, sorry for the past history, but maybe it's better than just "No."

HTA: a quick abreviation of user id hitechasshole :lol:

What little music I buy these days, if it isn't a physical CD, then I look for FLAC download sources. And I do the same, where possible, with music that I, errm, don't buy

My preference is always for lossless, but, in practical terms, if I want to hear a song, I'll take the Youtube version, even highly compressed, if I have to. It's about the music, and listening to it beats not listening to it just because it is not available in my favourite format

But whether it is Apple or Microsoft or Amazon [?] or whoever, I have, so far, completely avoided any DRM-infested music as I do insist on the right to choose my software player, where, when and on what to play it, etc. I hope to be able to go on doing that for the foreseeable future.

Just for completeness, the final reason for avoiding iTunes is that I live in the Linux world.

 

[square_wave]

Is it relevant as a essential medium for quality digital music distribution ? No !

Is it relevant to people who already own 1000s of cds and is used to a life associated with the motions and culture of playing cds. Yes it is ! I like it too..

From the point of a lifecycle discussion, it is silliness to draw a parallel between redbook cd and Vinyl. Vinyl never died because a small group of people always liked analogue. It is still the only viable way to distribute analogue. Hence it came back. In the case of the redbook cd, it is being replaced by a pristine downloadable digital format for distribution. Redbook cd was invented because that was the cleverest format someone could think of. It will not be missed once an easier, convenient and hassle free distributable form replaces it. The cd will never come back once the market completely manages to move on.

 

[sarith]

Oh yes! That's a great user id, HTA! Doesn't look profane to me, but is certainly evidence of a sense of humour!

Once I used 'ah..fudge' for which I received an infraction (1 point deducted). I apologized and deleted that comment and profanity was forgiven (deducted point reversed)

 

[hemantwaghe]

Not for twenty years or more.

Itunes was released just14 years back in Jan 2001

iTunes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So what you were smoking 20 years back ????

 

[dheerajin]

All things have been said for transport, Dac , CDP and Vinyl.There is more confusion among FM's regarding PC playback- flac,mp3, pc optimization. So it is better for us to do some google about it before putting your opinions on the same..anyway..it is like this-
"Opinions are like wrist watches..
everyone's watch shows a different time from others..
But.,
everyone believes that their time is correct..

 

[crosstalk]

The less you handle the CDs the longer they will last.

Have been playing CD images for the last 2 years happily. The being said, I occasionally spin a CD just to ensure it is still good.

But for everyday listening loading 10 CD images makes me feel like owning a 10 - CD changer. It is convenient and if I feel the urge to touch a CD, I can do that too at any time.

Keep it flexible, I would say.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

So what you were smoking 20 years back ????

Hmmm... I just managed to eject tobacco from my life some time before that. It didn't make me any better at numbers, though.

"twenty years, give or take a year or five." or... the other day! hyeah:

 

[Naturelover]

Oh shite, I should've got that. Must be getting old

HTA: a quick abreviation of user id hitechasshole :lol:

 

[captrajesh]

Any decent computer from the current generation, can be instantly converted into a great transport that will at least match any commercial transport costing up to Rs 1 lac. A well tweaked computer customized for only music playback sounds as good as anything on the market including transports in the range of Rs 2-3 lacs. I have heard some expensive transports and can say a customized computer comes eerily close to the absolute best there is..

That's interesting! It would be helpful to noobs like me if you could elaborate on how to convert a computer into a great transport and how to tweak and customise it az music only PC.

 

[square_wave]

Hey Capn, Unless you are using the PC to output digital ( spdif ) via a sound card, it is very easy for a PC to perform as a very high end transport via usb if you use a high end usb dac.

Using PC for digital out :
Recording studios have for a long time mastered the art of assembling pcs to output very high quality digital using custom designed pcs with SOTA sound cards / master clocks etc. It is just that it has not trickled down to the masses. It was costly, cumbersome and easy to screw up.. Most high end network players pretty much do the same. This is a bit tricky area and one has to tread with caution and need a pro's help..