Would you bother with a CD player?

I don’t think you should, as long as you are satisfied with playing the discs. I ripped my whole CD collection a decade ago, but that was closer to 500 CDs, and mainly because I bought an iPod and lived a more mobile lifestyle at the time. I wouldn’t bother ripping them now that mobile streaming pretty much has me covered when I’m not at home.

 

Of course it counts as a CDP; a hell of a CDP !

 

I had never had any form of digital playback in my main system until last year- when I made a modest (in comparison to my vinyl front end) "investment" (not really an investment, eh?) in a C.E.C. transport, a very basic DAC - Border Patrol (with the better power supply, but only coax 'in') and set up an on the cheap 'server' using a Mac Mini with an external hard drive.
I have a lot of CDs that were acquired or given to me over the years and I've been buying more, in part b/c I can get a handle on the sonics-- one of the big questions about streaming services and masterings used (not what this thread is about, sorry). But, insofar as my user behavior is concerned, I'll fire up the system and let it warm up using a few CDs. Sometimes, I just keep playing the CDs, though I have quite a bit of music stored on the hard drive. It's more primitive in terms of 'user interface'-- I guess I'm still a luddite in that respect, handling physical media rather than pressing an icon on a tablet to activate a song. I haven't really spent the time to compare the CD v the rip.
But, the "investment" in the CD spinner was a good one for me-- and it's easy to use- one of the arguments that is often made in favor of going to files. As to storage of media, the CDs take up far less space than records. And now that the CD market has taken a dump, I've been buying some pretty good old or highly regarded ones- not necessarily for pennies but still less than the sticker shock of some of the original LP pressings.

 

I have my CDs ripped to a dedicated desktop computer and have enjoyed the performance and convenience of my setup. I also have a CDP in my system for the very simple advantage of being able to easily play a CD if a friend drops by with a new one to hear. It is also nice to have a way to play my CDs if my computer based system is down for some reason.

 

Whoa! You got me thinking. This hasn't happened to me in at least 15 years. Maybe 20.

 

The trouble is that CD transports were designed to connect to DACs via i2s not via spdif. i2s has advantages in jitter reduction over spdif .That is why one box CD players tend to sound better.Certainly many CD players do not sound great but there are many which do.Like the Sony CDP715 I quoted.
There are some CD transports that output i2s and dacs that input i2s but they are rare.

Here is a link to 199 pages documenting the extraordinary lengths some people have gone to to try to get computer files to sound as good as their CDs.And basically failed.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...usic-server/&usg=AOvVaw2ip-OdTRsd1lSbUuE0vuPU

 

I’m lucky to have a couple friends who are also into music so I get to hear their latest finds from time to time. A CDP is also handy to preview a yard sale or thrift shop purchase before committing it to my hard drive. I’m not sure I’d purchase one just for that task but since I have it...

 

Maybe I'm too disgusting, maybe I'm too hard, but I think, however, that very often who does so, pretends not to know...

I also believe that those who buy
used cd / lp, do very well and do absolutely nothing wrong.
Are my two theses in conflict with each other? are there no inconsistencies in these two answers?
I do not think so...

 

The problem with discussions on the legality of copying discs for personal use is that forum members are based in many countries with different laws.

I've always retained the original discs. However, is it really such a terrible crime to dispose of the physical copy that was purchased at a high cost? I don't consider there's any thing wrong with it from a purely moral point of view. The vast majority of discs have very little secondhand value. In any case, many of the individuals concerned will also be paying Spotify, Qobuz, etc for the right to stream the same material. Surely, it's beneficial from an environmental point of view that discs are recycled.

In the UK, the courts ruled that the owners of the music were entitled to payment for copies made, but there is no practical system for purchasers of discs to compensate the rights holders. Under these circumstances, it's not fair to call disposing of discs copied for personal use stealing.

 

For me, keeping the CDs is both a moral decision and a realistic backup, should the worst happen.

It also is a bit of a nerdy collector's thing, I admit it.

But playing a CD through my system gives me satisfaction and joy, even though I can do it other ways.

The physical handing is also a part of it, as well as browsing any insert notes.

On a personal basis, I would not feel right having a digital copy without retaining the source I purchased.

I also feel that having to subscribe to access something like this is just not for me. I'd rather own the physical item.

Consequently I lead a very cluttersome existence, and, possibly am a bit 'retro". But from time to time, browsing the spines on the shelves, pulling the odd one or two out, rearranging them, polishing dust off them, admiring the artwork, comparing one edition to another - even without actually listening to anything, at the time - is a pleasant thing to do, I find.

 

This.

 

I look at it as software. When I used to buy games and programs on physical media I wouldn't re-install the program just because the disc it came on wasn't being used.

 

In Italy we call your defense "arrampicarsi sugli specchi"... (Glass climbing)

 

Yes

 

Absolutely yes.

 

But they’re not disposing of the discs. They are selling the discs without giving up the content of the discs, and the rights owners are being paid only once when they should have been paid twice. It’s the same as installing software from discs and then selling the discs to someone else. Also, we do not seem to be talking only about people owning music and then deciding they don’t want it anymore, so they sell it, but rather some people buying CDs with the intention of ripping them, then selling them as a matter of practice. I see some distinctions and nuances to this, and varying degrees of innocence and guilt. The end result to the rights owners in any case, though, is that they have not been paid what they should for the number of distinct copies in circulation.

Point taken about legality in different countries, and about the environmental angle. My counterpoint to that would be that the disc does not go to a landfill or the ocean if the original owner keeps it.

 

Agreed on all points.

The other part of the debate is about the position of the buyer of secondhand CDs who inevitably has no idea whether the previous owner has ripped and kept the digital files or not.

I do not believe that the buyer is exposed legally, at least not in the UK (although I am not a lawyer), but there is something of a moral dilemma albeit one that I choose to hide from.

 

I see no moral dilemma for the buyer of used media, unless the buyer is, in turn, also ripping and then selling the media.

 

If one were to take this to it's (il)logical conclusion, one could argue for a similarity to receiving stolen goods, which is an offence in the UK and the US if done knowingly. The clear issue here us proving that it was done knowingly.

 

But...in this case, the buyer is not receiving stolen goods. The physical CD was paid for. The "stolen goods" are the copies made by the previous owner.

 

... It was offered as a rather loose analogy. Certainly in the UK the 'goods' do not have to be physical, so as the files are on the CDs one might be able to argue the case.
Lots of ifs, buts and maybes!

 

For me, a dedicated CD player is a necessity....not an option.

 

I agree with you .

 

The UK law prohibited owners of CDs (and other media) from making copies of these CDs for use on their personal computers and other devices. The government naturally wanted to update the law, but the copyright owners took the government to court and won. It is still illegal to make copies of your music collection. The only copies you can make are copies of software (computer programmes) and broadcasts (called time shifting, although nobody knows how long you can hold on these copies).

 

I don't even see much of a moral dilemma in that case. There's entirely too much holier than thou posing among audiophiles when it comes to this stuff.