The CD player is dead.......


I am still waiting for someone to explain why a cd player is superior to storing music on a hard drive and going to a dac. Probably because you all know it's not.

Every cd player has a dac. I'll repeat that. Every cd player has a dac. So if you can store the ones and zeros on a hard drive and use error correction JUST ONCE and then go to a high end dac, isn't that better than relying on a cd player's "on the fly" jitter correction every time you play a song? Not to mention the convenience of having hundreds of albums at your fingertips via an itouch remote.

If cd player sales drop, then will cd sales drop as well, making less music available to rip to a hard drive?
Maybe, but there's the internet to give us all the selection we've been missing. Has anyone been in a Barnes and Noble or Borders lately? The music section has shown shrinkage worse than George Costanza! This is an obvious sign of things to come.....

People still embracing cd players are the "comb over" equivalent of bald men. They're trying to hold on to something that isn't there and they know will ultimately vanish one day.

I say sell your cd players and embrace the future of things to come. Don't do the digital "comb over".
devilboy
Post removed 
Devilboy: Going through the responses, I've noticed that the majority of you have not gone the hard drive route because you don't want to spend the TIME copying your music to a hard drive. That doesn't tell me WHY you think cd players are superior to hard drives. That tells me you are lazy.

Tvad: Speaking, I believe, as about the only participant who prefers a CD player over a computer-based front end, I can say unequivocally that laziness has nothing to do with my decision ....
I too use a one-box cd player, and at this time I have no interest in computer-based music playback. That is perhaps ironic in my case, because I am heavily into computers (I build my own high-powered desktop computers, and I am a moderator on an internet forum for computer enthusiasts).

I do not believe that either approach is superior or inferior; both are capable of providing excellent results if well implemented. And as Tvad seemed to imply, I don't see any point in ideological debates about the superiority of either approach. There is no one right answer that is universally applicable; it is a matter of individual needs, preferences, tastes, and interests.

In my case my music collection is relatively small by Audiogon standards, and it is well organized, so the convenience factor of having everything on a computer wouldn't mean a whole lot to me. I enjoy, to a minor degree, having a collection of physical media, although I could certainly adapt to not having one. I have lots of cd's and lp's that are as yet unlistened to. And having made some major changes to my system in the recent past, re-listening to much of my collection on the improved system will keep me happily occupied for a considerable amount of time to come. Mainly because of that, I will have no interest in acquiring hi rez downloads for the foreseeable future.

Given all of that, and along the lines of my earlier post, a nice side benefit of my present preference for a one-box player is that I don't have to concern myself with jitter issues.

As for the inflammatory and unfounded allegation of laziness, I don't consider it worthy of a response.

Regards,
-- Al
I would find the jukebox like convenience features of a music server less valuable I think if I listened only to classical music where compositions are often longer and consist of multiple parts that have to be listened to in sequence compared to most popular music.
Very good point, Mapman. I should add to my previous comments that my listening is 90% classical.

Best regards,
-- Al

@Almarg

a nice side benefit of my present preference for a one-box player is that I don't have to concern myself with jitter issues.

Are you saying cd players don't suffer from jitter just because they are cd players?