non redbook CD's

Mezmo. Seems I am guilty of the definition problem. I mean to say that the ability of a player to perform well with commercially manufactured CD's should not impress anyone. I want reviewers to say , "It sucks with my CD burns ", or "It played half my CD-RWs half the time.", or "It played most of my CD-RWs without hesitation" .

Also, MP3 is more of a problem than RW . But since I like to play music and artists I never heard before, I like to see what's playing in the display. Thus, I make my own misery.

Garn - To answer your question, in my case I don't really have or play any "burns" so whether my CDP plays them or not is of no concern. Maybe most are like me which is why reviewers don't mention it.

Just curious - What do you burn, from what, why? It's just something I haven't done much of so I dunno, maybe I'm missing something.

"Also, MP3 is more of a problem than RW"

CD-RW is a problem with older CDP that have weaker lasers since CD-RW has about half of reflection of CD.

Most of DVD players have inherent MP3 playback. They usually have poor sound but decent transport with good tracking. I use cheap DVD player as an addition to Benchmark/MacMini music server.

Kijanki,

I was made aware of the reflectivity issue in a forum here.
Where, I also was made to know that NAD payers are fussy. I get better results with RW in the .wav format with a loss of info trade off.

All said, it seems absurd that ones computer plays aftermarket discs better than ones component CDP or transport. I heard of a new Meridian that balked at "factory" new sealed discs !! So, we just accept this situation with "quiet resignation ", that burning is beneath Hi Fi and proper discs will play properly ?