Question Is hi-fi like wine?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

JDL

Well-known member
Jun 13, 2023
814
515
1,270
Visit site
More than £500 apparently...think I best keep quiet about mine :)
Ha ha Doug. Nice one. What's your CD spinner then? How much for it?.......just kidding, I don't need to know.
If money was no object, I'd think nothing of spending up to £5000 or more for a CD spinner.
I've just got this thing about them. I think they're a fantastic invention and having looked deeply into CD players, I know there was a time when the manufacturers were all vieying with each other to produce the best players.
Some of the engineering and technological prowess not to mention the ingenuity and imagination of those engineers and designers that went into those players, displayed and available to the public were and are truly stunning to a machinery enthusiast such as myself.
There's so much that goes into a CD player and so many variables, a lot of which many of us don't even know about, like clocks and jitter and all sorts of stuff that it becomes obvious why all CD players absolutely do sound different from each other, and it's also obvious why a top notch player costs an awful lot of money.
I believe there was a golden age of CD player manufacture and generally speaking, the quality of players made in the 1990s is superior to many of today's players. One small example of this is laser lenses are now apparently made of plastic instead of glass on some players.
I was told by a guy who worked for Meridian for a number of years, that whilst the laser on my Meridian 206 is no longer available new, that they very rarely fail.
I'm one of those weirdos that likes to have a small collection of 1990s CD players because some of them are superbly built, sound beautiful and are cheap to buy.
I've also bought some books about learning how to maintain them, that's my next step if I'm clever and dextrous enough that is.😄
 
  • Like
Reactions: DougK1

podknocker

Well-known member
Ha ha Doug. Nice one. What's your CD spinner then? How much for it?.......just kidding, I don't need to know.
If money was no object, I'd think nothing of spending up to £5000 or more for a CD spinner.
I've just got this thing about them. I think they're a fantastic invention and having looked deeply into CD players, I know there was a time when the manufacturers were all vieying with each other to produce the best players.
Some of the engineering and technological prowess not to mention the ingenuity and imagination of those engineers and designers that went into those players, displayed and available to the public were and are truly stunning to a machinery enthusiast such as myself.
There's so much that goes into a CD player and so many variables, a lot of which many of us don't even know about, like clocks and jitter and all sorts of stuff that it becomes obvious why all CD players absolutely do sound different from each other, and it's also obvious why a top notch player costs an awful lot of money.
I believe there was a golden age of CD player manufacture and generally speaking, the quality of players made in the 1990s is superior to many of today's players. One small example of this is laser lenses are now apparently made of plastic instead of glass on some players.
I was told by a guy who worked for Meridian for a number of years, that whilst the laser on my Meridian 206 is no longer available new, that they very rarely fail.
I'm one of those weirdos that likes to have a small collection of 1990s CD players because some of them are superbly built, sound beautiful and are cheap to buy.
I've also bought some books about learning how to maintain them, that's my next step if I'm clever and dextrous enough that is.😄
I agree with this. If CD players were still like the Sony ES range and actually used quality parts, then yes, you might be spending more money. There are so many stories on this forum about new £750 CD players not reading discs and sounding average and nowhere near the sound of yesteryear. There's a reason for this. The market for CD players has shrunk, even with the recent increase in interest. Many people will be digging out their CD players and dusting them off. Why would anyone want a new and expensive CD player that won't read CDs, or it will spin itself to death within 2 years? Sony made very good players and now they don't make any, apart from Blu Ray kit. I have no idea what I would buy, if I needed a new CD player as there are very few brands making quality devices.
 
Last edited:

Jasonovich

Well-known member
Jul 28, 2022
1,042
615
2,070
Visit site
I totally agree they are evolving and the Shangling is a perfect example. What I'm arguing is that when you put a CD in this Shangling thing, it does nothing more with that CD than my Philips CD473 from 1988 or my current Audiolab player. The Red Book standard was defined and is still exists, but it's the same spec. Buy a Blu Ray Audio disc and pop that into a Sony 4k Blu Ray player and yes, it's better sound quality.
That is true, the DNA of CD doesn't change but it isn't exclusive to, if it was just a CD player. With this all in one approach, you got the flexibility of DAC and the freedom of Internet streaming 😊
 
  • Like
Reactions: podknocker

DougK1

Well-known member
Jan 4, 2024
271
361
770
Visit site
Seriously though, the data is finite, it gets read at 1411kbps and it travels along and through chips and circuitry, governed by the laws of physics. CD playback quality cannot be improved forever and I would argue CD reached a technical dead end about 25 years ago. It started and ended with Sony in my opinion.

'Our CD players are made of gold and they are shiny.'

'Ooooh, here's my credit card'.
I hear what you say and can't disagree. All I can go by is what I'm hearing compared to previous CDPs I've owned. I have no idea how it does it but my current player is head and shoulders above previous players regarding clarity, detail, definition, accuracy. It gets you so close to the music it's almost headphone-like except with the physical immersion only speakers can give. I can be two rooms away from where the music is playing and none of the above attributes are lost.

I don't know whether the above is a combination of the amp and CDP, but many on here would state source is of the utmost importance as all an amp does is amplify the signal it is given - just need a decent set of speakers on the end for it to perform its charms.

The drive in mine isn't an off the shelf item, apparently it is a ground-up Marantz design and the gubbins behind it converts everything to DSD. I think Nopiano said these are no longer classed as just CD players but DAC-transports due to inputs/outputs available on them.
 

DougK1

Well-known member
Jan 4, 2024
271
361
770
Visit site
Ha ha Doug. Nice one. What's your CD spinner then? How much for it?.......just kidding, I don't need to know.
If money was no object, I'd think nothing of spending up to £5000 or more for a CD spinner.
I've just got this thing about them. I think they're a fantastic invention and having looked deeply into CD players, I know there was a time when the manufacturers were all vieying with each other to produce the best players.
Some of the engineering and technological prowess not to mention the ingenuity and imagination of those engineers and designers that went into those players, displayed and available to the public were and are truly stunning to a machinery enthusiast such as myself.
There's so much that goes into a CD player and so many variables, a lot of which many of us don't even know about, like clocks and jitter and all sorts of stuff that it becomes obvious why all CD players absolutely do sound different from each other, and it's also obvious why a top notch player costs an awful lot of money.
I believe there was a golden age of CD player manufacture and generally speaking, the quality of players made in the 1990s is superior to many of today's players. One small example of this is laser lenses are now apparently made of plastic instead of glass on some players.
I was told by a guy who worked for Meridian for a number of years, that whilst the laser on my Meridian 206 is no longer available new, that they very rarely fail.
I'm one of those weirdos that likes to have a small collection of 1990s CD players because some of them are superbly built, sound beautiful and are cheap to buy.
I've also bought some books about learning how to maintain them, that's my next step if I'm clever and dextrous enough that is.😄
At full RRP it was out of my reach... but I play the waiting game and never pay full RRP :) However, the one thing I would never buy is a used CDP, too risky for me.
 

podknocker

Well-known member
I hear what you say and can't disagree. All I can go by is what I'm hearing compared to previous CDPs I've owned. I have no idea how it does it but my current player is head and shoulders above previous players regarding clarity, detail, definition, accuracy. It gets you so close to the music it's almost headphone-like except with the physical immersion only speakers can give. I can be two rooms away from where the music is playing and none of the above attributes are lost.

I don't know whether the above is a combination of the amp and CDP, but many on here would state source is of the utmost importance as all an amp does is amplify the signal it is given - just need a decent set of speakers on the end for it to perform its charms.

The drive in mine isn't an off the shelf item, apparently it is a ground-up Marantz design and the gubbins behind it converts everything to DSD. I think Nopiano said these are no longer classed as just CD players but DAC-transports due to inputs/outputs available on them.
I bet your CD player sounds incredible, but would spending double give an appreciable improvement? If you were the richest person on the planet and spent years and millions on a new CD player, it would sound great, but how much better than the latest and greatest around now? This has always been my point, a CD player, like many things, cannot be improved forever, considering the materials available and the laws of physics. Some on here, not you by the way, do think spending thousands guarantees a better sound. I would love them to explain how and why. The most advanced chips and optics are now giving us studio master sound and picture quality, on 4k Blu Ray discs and as I mentioned, TVs have stunning picture quality, especially the OLED models. I was in Currys the other day and spent a few minutes gawping at a few LGs. Incredible images, even in my 50s. As I also said before, there will be a point and I think it's soon, where there can be no technical improvement to any entertainment technology, as the physics will hit a wall and/or humans won't be able to see or hear any difference. We'll then need a gamechanger and a new way of doing things perhaps. Blu Ray is a refinement of DVD and this was a refinement of CD optics etc. It's all been about improving current technology and however great optical and streaming media sound, it can't be improved forever.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DougK1

JDL

Well-known member
Jun 13, 2023
814
515
1,270
Visit site
I agree with this. If CD players were still like the Sony ES range and actually used quality parts, then yes, you might be spending more money. There are so many stories on this forum about new £750 CD players not reading discs and sounding average and nowhere near the sound of yesteryear. There's a reason for this. The market for CD players has shrunk, even with the recent increase in interest. Many people will be digging out their CD players and dusting them off. Why would anyone want a new and expensive CD player that won't read CDs, or it will spin itself to death within 2 years? Sony made very good players and now they don't make any, apart form Blu Ray kit. I have no idea what I would buy, if I needed a new CD player as there are very few brands making quality devices.
I've read quite a few accounts lately, of people buying new CD players, going on that assumption that newer must be better. Progress right?
Then in a few years time these people have dug out the old nineties player, plugged it back in, in place of their newer one and been blown away by how good it sounds and even left it there and retired the newer one.
 

podknocker

Well-known member
If my numbers come up, I'm going to buy a NAD M33 and a pair of Spendor D7.2 in cherry finish. I think I'd use a CD quality streaming service, as Spotify have lost any interest in providing one. This post should have gone under 'dream system' I suppose, but I've had a rough day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DougK1

DougK1

Well-known member
Jan 4, 2024
271
361
770
Visit site
I bet your CD player sounds incredible, but would spending double give an appreciable improvement? If you were the richest person on the planet and spent years and millions on a new CD player, it would sound great, but how much better than the latest and greatest around now? This has always been my point, a CD player, like many things, cannot be improved forever, considering the materials available and the laws of physics. Some on here, not you by the way, do think spending thousands guarantees a better sound. I would love them to explain how and why. The most advanced chips and optics are now giving us studio master sound and picture quality, on 4k Blu Ray discs and as I mentioned, TVs have stunning picture quality, especially the OLED models. I was in Currys the other day and spent a few minutes gawping at a few LGs. Incredible images, even in my 50s. As I also said before, there will be a point and I think it's soon, where there can be no technical improvement to any entertainment technology, as the physics will hit a wall and/or humans won't be able to see or hear any difference. We'll then need a gamechanger and a new way of doing things perhaps. Blu Ray is a refinement of DVD and this was a refinement of CD optics etc. It's all been about improving current technology and however great optical and streaming media sound, it can't be improved forever.
Doubling the price, no! The only significant improvements I have personally heard have come with trebling the outlay and there is no way I would ever want to explore further than what I currently have - I have reached my spending limit! Are there improvements to had by spending silly money? I don't know and I don't want to find out! I'll leave this for you to discover :)
 

Oxfordian

Well-known member
I'm reading through many of these posts and I get the feeling people don't understand how technology works and believe companies just waste billions of pounds and years of research, to make something that doesn't sound, or perform better than something from 50 or 100 years ago. CD is better than LPs, or cassette tapes and new TVs, although perhaps becoming overspecced for the broadcasts and people's eyeballs, are better than the bulky, heavy CRTs we all suffered. I hope there's nobody here mourning the loss of analogue TV and all the poor reception etc. I mentioned the nasty word Luddite a few post back and sadly, I'm standing by it. Just because you have a preferred way of doing things, doesn't mean that's the best way of doing things. I don't mind being moved out of my technological comfort zone and offered, or even forced to use a new method, or product. I work in IT and I've had to change and adapt to keep my job. I'm in my 50s and know things change and so will society. I'm hoping to see LPs and even CDs replaced by CD quality streaming, over 5G or whatever. Walking around with lossless quality music would be great. Shuffling through 12" records and all that stuff is all over for me. The last record player I owned was in 1988 and I preferred cassettes anyway, until CDs arrived. I'm honestly not wanting to insult, or ruffle feathers, but all I hear is 'people want to do what they want and that should be enough' and it is, if you genuinely seek the best possible sound quality, for your budget. I don't think many people want this and just want to show off their turntables, under blue LED lights etc. I had a friend who did something similar to his PC and again, I didn't see the point. It didn't make his PC faster. Things improve and these improvements should be welcomed. Having 80 million tunes, at the double click of a mouse, at CD quality or better, is a GOOD thing and is better than LPs in every way. Your preferred choice of sniffing your sleeve notes etc. has no bearing on the ultimate outcome. SOUND QUALITY!
The bit you don’t get is that people are free to choose how they listen to their music.

You like your music streamed - that is absolutely fine

I like to play LP’s - that is absolutely fine.

It is not just about sound quality, sure SQ is important as none of us want to listen to a strangled parrot squawking out of our speakers but it’s not the whole story.

I have said before and I’ll say again I enjoy the physical interaction that I get with vinyl, I like the whole process, the visit to the record shop, the trawl through the vinyl in stock, finding that gem, buying it, getting home, giving it a wash and brush up, then sitting down to relax, unwind and enjoy the sound that comes out of my speakers.

A luddite I am not, I have the facility to stream music in a basic way but at this moment in time it is not a main source of listening for me, and is unlikely to be in the immediate future.

No doubt and much to your dismay I am going to invest in my system this year but it will be vinyl that gets that spend, I will not be leaping on the one box bandwagon to listen to those 80,000,000 tracks in super HD that you hold so dear.

I get a lot of pleasure and enjoyment from listening to my small vinyl collection, I plan to continue to do this for as long as I can.

Oh, and I don’t sniff the sleeves or the actual vinyl.
 

JDL

Well-known member
Jun 13, 2023
814
515
1,270
Visit site
At full RRP it was out of my reach... but I play the waiting game and never pay full RRP :) However, the one thing I would never buy is a used CDP, too risky for me.

The bit you don’t get is that people are free to choose how they listen to their music.

You like your music streamed - that is absolutely fine

I like to play LP’s - that is absolutely fine.

It is not just about sound quality, sure SQ is important as none of us want to listen to a strangled parrot squawking out of our speakers but it’s not the whole story.

I have said before and I’ll say again I enjoy the physical interaction that I get with vinyl, I like the whole process, the visit to the record shop, the trawl through the vinyl in stock, finding that gem, buying it, getting home, giving it a wash and brush up, then sitting down to relax, unwind and enjoy the sound that comes out of my speakers.

A luddite I am not, I have the facility to stream music in a basic way but at this moment in time it is not a main source of listening for me, and is unlikely to be in the immediate future.

No doubt and much to your dismay I am going to invest in my system this year but it will be vinyl that gets that spend, I will not be leaping on the one box bandwagon to listen to those 80,000,000 tracks in super HD that you hold so dear.

I get a lot of pleasure and enjoyment from listening to my small vinyl collection, I plan to continue to do this for as long as I can.

Oh, and I don’t sniff the sleeves or the actual vinyl.
Very eloquently put.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oxfordian

Oxfordian

Well-known member
80 million tracks you will listen to a tiny fraction of.
If I have my math right then;

80 million tracks x 3.5 ave mins per track = 280,000,000 minutes

Divide that number by 60 to get total hours then by 24 to get days and then by 365 to get years and you end up with it taking you 532 years listening 24 hours a day to enjoy those tracks in wonderful Hi-res.

Oh, and just hope that no more music is released in the intervening period, and if you sleep, take meal breaks and comfort breaks, that time frame will expand rapidly.

In reality my vinyl set up is far more manageable as I have listened to every LP in my collection at least once.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JDL and DougK1

podknocker

Well-known member
80 million tracks you will listen to a tiny fraction of.
But more tracks you can find on the old LPs and even if you could find them, they would cost a fortune. I still can't believe people think access to 80 million tracks at CD quality, at the click of a mouse is a step back in some way. It's the future and it's a better method of accessing any music you want to listen to. Again, LPs are limited and it could take years and thousands of pounds to start a collection. Other posts here confirm the fact that it's not all about the sound quality, but the ritual etc. That's fine, but this forum is called What HIFI and not What Faff. It's bonkers and I still don't understand why people still put themselves through it. More tunes, at higher quality, easier to find and cheaper and no bulky physical media. That sounds fantastic to me.
 
Last edited:

Dom

Well-known member
But more tracks you can find on the old LPs and even if you could find them, they would cost a fortune. I still can't believe people think access to 80 million tracks at CD quality, at the click of a mouse is a step back in some way. It's the future and it's a better method of accessing any music you want to listen to. Again, LPs are limited and it could take years and thousands of pounds to start a collection. Other posts here confirm the fact that it's not all about the sound quality, but the ritual etc. That's fine, but this forum is called What HIFI and not What Faff. It's bonkers and I still don't understand why people still put themselves through it.
I'm not saying it isn't amazing and having so many tracks at your finger tips is nothing short of impressive, but I wanted express its lack of significance.

Maybe, it would better to market such hyperbole as "Any track anytime", rather than 80 million tracks to listen too.

Sorry pod if it sounded inconsiderate, pal.
 

podknocker

Well-known member
I'm not saying it isn't amazing and having so many tracks at your finger tips is nothing short of impressive, but I wanted express its lack of significance.

Maybe, it would better to market such hyperbole as "Any track anytime".

Sorry pod if it sounded inconsiderate, pal.
Don't apologise fella. I've got one of the thickest skins out there. I don't want to upset people, but the inpracticality and expense of this old format doesn't seem appealing to me at all. When a more convenient, cheaper and high quality format appears, it usually becomes the preferred method and gets adopted my the masses. We have so much choice and I certainly don't want to take choice away from people, but I will never understand why anyone would prefera very old format over a new way of doing things. I get excited wondering what's coming next and wish I was much younger, so I could experience what the future holds. I still have decent hearing, but could struggle in my winter years, like many of us will.
 
I totally agree they are evolving and the Shangling is a perfect example. What I'm arguing is that when you put a CD in this Shangling thing, it does nothing more with that CD than my Philips CD473 from 1988 or my current Audiolab player. The Red Book standard was defined and is still exists, but it's the same spec. Buy a Blu Ray Audio disc and pop that into a Sony 4k Blu Ray player and yes, it's better sound quality.
Funny you should mention Bluray audio discs as I have some brilliant ones and some (Rolling Stones) that are dire.
All down to the quality of the recording I believe. Just because it's an expensive format it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to sound better.
 

podknocker

Well-known member
Funny you should mention Bluray audio discs as I have some brilliant ones and some (Rolling Stones) that are dire.
All down to the quality of the recording I believe. Just because it's an expensive format it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to sound better.
Exactly. Poor recordings and/or mastering will sound dreadful on a high res format and will expose the limitations of the recording equipment. We've had the mastering issue with CDs for decades. It would be great if every album on CD was released on the Blu Ray Audio format, but if DVD Audio and SACD are staying niche formats, then the chance of a new one becoming the new standard is approaching zero. Fitting all your favourite musician's back catalogue, at better than CD quality onto one disc would be incredible. All Dire Straits on one disc and sounding better than the CD/HDCD/SACD releases. We can dream!
 
Last edited:

Oxfordian

Well-known member
I still can't believe people think access to 80 million tracks at CD quality, at the click of a mouse is a step back in some way. It's the future and it's a better method of accessing any music you want to listen to.
No dispute that having all this music at the click of a mouse isn't convenient because it is, but it isn't the way that some of us folk want to listen to our music, I am one of them.
Again, LPs are limited and it could take years and thousands of pounds to start a collection.
True but why are there so many Generation Z folk buying vinyl, having a vinyl collection however small is fashionable at the moment, many will stream, play CD's and collect vinyl, you only have to look at the number of TT's that are available under £300 in the likes of HMV or online, these products wouldn't exist if there wasn't a market for them.
Other posts here confirm the fact that it's not all about the sound quality, but the ritual etc. That's fine, but this forum is called What HIFI and not What Faff.
Define HiFi and what it stands for, when I first started reading HiFi mags your sources were radio, cassette, 8-track and vinyl but they were all covered by the HiFi press. Of those vinyl was the preferred choice for the vast majority of music lovers, vinyl was and still is very much a popular HiFi choice.

And listening to vinyl is not under any circumstance a faff, it may be seen as a faff by those who don't have vinyl and don't understand the format but for me and I suspect many others, there is no faff involved in listening to vinyl.

Making derogatory comments about the name of the forum is just plain daft, What HiFi has been around for decades, long before the format you love so much was even thought of.
More tunes, at higher quality, easier to find and cheaper and no bulky physical media. That sounds fantastic to me.
Listening to music through a streaming service is incredibly popular, from memory over 85% of music is now streamed in the UK, but a lot of that music is streamed to a speaker or speakers that are anything but HiFi, not everyone streams their music into an expensive standalone HiFi unit and out to a pair of expensive speakers.

Of all the streamed music I wouldn't be surprised to find that you are a small minority in the overall streaming world, in time the youngsters who are streaming music through non hi-res units and speakers will ultimately upgrade to better kit and from there to hi-res audio.

Hi-res streaming audio will grow and grow of that there is no doubt, but for now it is very much in the development phase.

Please go and enjoy your potential 80,000,000 hi-res tunes all of which are available at the click of your mouse, and please allow those of us who continue to support the vinyl format to do so without the constant bashing.
 
Last edited:

podknocker

Well-known member
I'll say it again. More tunes, cheaper, better quality. Streaming is better than LPs. Sticking with this old format seems pointless, when there's a better way of accessing music. The Gen Z you mention buying LPs is simply fashionable like you said. It's nothing to do with the pursuit of high quality music reproduction. All the youth today have not been buying HIFI for decades, like I have and they possibly don't see the progression in quality. It's 'cool' to buy an LP from a very limited catalogue and you won't get the quality of a state of the art format. Most of the tunes I listen to on Spotify cannot be found on CD, never mind LPs. It just seems very limiting and cliquey and possibly an attempt to rebel against new and modern things. People NOT streaming are missing out on a great deal of music. The music I'm offered on Spotify is amazing. I can listen to loads of tunes instantly and I could never do this with CDs as it would cost a fortune. Streaming's amazing. It's true most of the 80 million tunes I can access won't be stuff I want to listen to, but there are many others out there with different musical tastes. It's incredible and ignorant how people deride the amount of music available online, when a lot of it will be stuff they listen to. Go ahead and spend lots of time and money buying an ancient music format with inferior sound quality. Crackers.
 
Last edited:

JDL

Well-known member
Jun 13, 2023
814
515
1,270
Visit site
The optical disk drive I use for ripping CDs to my PC, cost less than £30, several years ago. As all such devices must do to perform their usual jobs in a PC, it reads the data accurately, that's all I need it to do.

I'll say it again. More tunes, cheaper, better quality. Streaming is better than LPs. Sticking with this old format seems pointless, when there's a better way of accessing music. The Gen Z you mention buying LPs is simply fashionable like you said. It's nothing to do with the pursuit of high quality music reproduction. All the youth today have not been buying HIFI for decades, like I have and they possibly don't see the progression in quality. It's 'cool' to buy an LP from a very limited catalogue and you won't get the quality of a state of the art format. Most of the tunes I listen to on Spotify cannot be found on CD, never mind LPs. It just seems very limiting and cliquey and possibly an attempt to rebel against new and modern things. People NOT streaming are missing out on a great deal of music. The music I'm offered on Spotify is amazing. I can listen to loads of tunes instantly and I could never do this with CDs as it would cost a fortune. Streaming's amazing. It's true most of the 80 million tunes I can access won't be stuff I want to listen to, but there are many others out there with different musical tastes. It's incredible and ignorant how people deride the amount of music available online, when a lot of it will be stuff they listen to. Go ahead and spend lots of time and money buying an ancient music format with inferior sound quality. Crackers.
I have no objections to streaming services. I can see it's good idea and works for hundreds of people.
The reason I personally ain't doing it is because I don't want to pay subscription fees to anyone for any more than I have to. In addition to that I'm slightly technologically backwards, where computer type stuff is concerned. I don't have the right equipment and I have "direct-debit phobia." I can just about tolerate letting my car insurers do it, but that's enough for me right now.
I must admit though, as my CD collection grows along with my discovery of new (to me) composers and becomes more difficult to manage, I have started to think about ripping into FLAC or WAV and playing that through my system.
Trouble is I haven't got a computer and rather like the look of the Bluesound Vault or Innuos Zen or something along those lines, which can be operated with my Android phone.
But I'll have some saving to do. I don't like the look of the Brennan it seems to have reliability issues. I do accept that I'll have to get over my dislike of subscription fees though I think.
There is as well the issue that if everyone stops buying CDs, they'll stop being made. I think that would be a shame because it does at least give us complete independence from the internet if we want or need it.
 

podknocker

Well-known member
I need to rip my CDs to FLAC and find a way of playing them through my current system. Having thousands of tracks on a USB drive, or external HDD, makes it difficult to find tracks easily, with the indexing and navigation etc. Most of the music I have on CD is online, although some albums are nowhere to be found on Spotify. I think my next streamer will give me an easier way of trawling through my collection of FLACs. I'm really into ease of use and efficiency and I don't like kit or gadgets which are cumbersome and tricky to use. I don't mind CDs disappearing IF I can get CD quality music online. I've always loved CDs as they sound fantastic, but my experience with transports failing is the main reason I want to move away from the physical formats. My Audiolab Omnia sounds great with CDs, but I think I'm the unluckiest person I know with regard to failing CD players. I won't buy another CD player, but might buy another and final Sony 4k Blu Ray player, just in case I buy new TV etc.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JDL

JDL

Well-known member
Jun 13, 2023
814
515
1,270
Visit site
I need to rip my CDs to FLAC and find a way of playing them through my current system. Having thousands of tracks on a USB drive, or external HDD, makes it difficult to find tracks easily, with the indexing and navigation etc. Most of the music I have on CD, is online, although some albums are nowhere to be found on Spotify. I think my next streamer will give me an easier way of trawling through my collection of FLACs. I'm really into ease of use and efficiency and I don't like kit or gadgets which are cumbersome and tricky to use. I don't mind CDs disappearing IF I can get CD quality music online. I've always loved CDs as they sound fantastic, but my experience with transports failing is the main reason I want to move away from the physical formats. My Audiolab Omnia sounds great with CDs, but I think I'm the unluckiest person I know with regard to failing CD players. I won't buy another CD player, but might buy another and final Sony 4k Blu Ray player, just in case I buy new TV etc.
Maybe you should look into an Innuos Zen or Bluesound Vault or something like that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: podknocker

Oxfordian

Well-known member
I'll say it again. More tunes, cheaper, better quality.
You can have all the tunes you want but it doesn't make the set-up better in any way shape or form, it is just the way that you like to listen to your music, I have no issues with that but it doesn't make it better, it just works for you.
Streaming is better than LPs.
Why? It is just a choice of source material, you like streaming I like the vinyl format, neither is necessarily better just the preferred choice of an individual.
Sticking with this old format seems pointless, when there's a better way of accessing music.
Why is an old format pointless, it is not a format you like but that doesn't make it pointless to others. Why is your way better, it doesn't seem better to me, a cold un-involving format in my eyes but you like it so that is fine.
The Gen Z you mention buying LPs is simply fashionable like you said. It's nothing to do with the pursuit of high quality music reproduction. All the youth today have not been buying HIFI for decades, like I have and they possibly don't see the progression in quality.
This is such an inaccurate statement it beggars belief, you are mixing up people getting pleasure from listening to a vinyl set-up with your perception that only streaming is high quality. Quality is a very subjective thing, what sounds just perfect to me can sound bright and overpowering to another.

Listening to music is about getting pleasure and enjoyment from the artist that you have chosen to listen to, it doesn't matter whether that is on a £50k super system or via a £99 record player from HMV if it had the listener smiling that that is all that matters.
It's 'cool' to buy an LP from a very limited catalogue and you won't get the quality of a state of the art format.
Quality from the state of the art format??? The quality that I had listening to my LP's last night was just fine, the music played and I was happily tapping my feet and nodding my head in time to the music. Awesome quality, wonderful enjoyment.
Most of the tunes I listen to on Spotify cannot be found on CD, never mind LPs. It just seems very limiting and cliquey and possibly an attempt to rebel against new and modern things.
Sure there are far more songs on a good streaming service than there are in most peoples physical music collection, but that doesn't make streaming the best thing going as most users don't listen via a super expensive hifi unit and expensive speakers, they listen via whatever they can get, bluetooth speakers, headphones, home pods and other devices, not all of which are going to be HiFi quality.
People NOT streaming are missing out on a great deal of music.
No, you can only listen to one track at a time, so the vast diverse catalogue in a streaming caters for a wide range of listeners, most people stick within a fairly narrow band of music going out of their comfort zone only occasionally, so in reality will listen to no more music than if they had a physical collection at home.
The music I'm offered on Spotify is amazing. I can listen to loads of tunes instantly and I could never do this with CDs as it would cost a fortune. Streaming's amazing. It's true most of the 80 million tunes I can access won't be stuff I want to listen to, but there are many others out there with different musical tastes.
Yep, absolutely true.
It's incredible and ignorant how people deride the amount of music available online, when a lot of it will be stuff they listen to.
You miss the point, people aren't ignorant just because they don't want to listen to a streamed music source, they simply prefer other sources.

If streaming is for you then that's fine, go for it.

Go ahead and spend lots of time and money buying an ancient music format with inferior sound quality. Crackers.
Vinyl and CD's are not inferior sound quality wise, when I stream via Apple Music to my system it doesn't sound any better than my vinyl, it sounds okay but it doesn't suck me in and involve me in the way that my vinyl does.

So, I'm sorry but I am going to continue to search out vinyl to add to my collection, seek music that I want to hear and enjoy it. If I can continue to sit and listen to my vinyl and get the same level of enjoyment from it that I did last night for the foreseeable future then that is fantastic.

Please go and enjoy your music in the way that you like, I am delighted that you have found a source that brings you the same level of enjoyment that I have. Long may it continue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al ears and DougK1

podknocker

Well-known member
I never said CD was an inferior format to streaming, but vinyl is. It is incredible that some people readily admit they are not interested in sound quality, it's just about the pleasure derived from the process, or ritual. If you're happy with this system you have, then fine, but I was under the impression this site was the pursuit of better sound quality. I must have misread the title.
 

TRENDING THREADS