Need for CD player (revisited)

[Century L100]

I had seen a post somewhere in this forum stating that you don't really need a CD player anymore...you can use your PC as a jukebox of sorts.

This has occurred to me as I pondered what to do about an old CD player that died a while ago. Shall I replace it with a good (but not top of the line) unit like the Yamaha CDC-585, or should I go the PC route?

The problem with the latter is that my PC is in my den and my audio rack is in the living room. There's no reason to put the PC in the living room, since I need it in the den where I work, but moving the audio rack and my rather bulky JBLs into the den makes no sense either. The den isn't a good listening venue anyway, compared to the acoustics of the LR.

So is there some way to wirelessly stream audio from the PC to the audio rack, a distance of about 30 ft.? Thanks for any ideas.

P.S. Obviously, I'm a 70s sort of guy who isn't up on the latest digital/wireless technology. :-)

[Mr Peabody]

I am not up on all the computer to audio marriage stuff either. I prefer to keep them separate, so I vote for getting new CD player. You can buy CD players with built in harddrive if you want the jukebox thing. I believe Yamaha makes one as well as a few others.

[Mike Anderson]

Notice that all the anti-computer sentiment tends to come from people who have never seriously tried it.

I am not up on all the computer to audio marriage stuff either. I prefer to keep them separate, so I vote for getting new CD player.

I'd simply like to highlight this logic: you're basically saying, "I don't know anything about using a computer for audio, so based on my lack of knowledge, I think you should stick with a CD player."

I'm sorry, and I'm not trying to be rude, but there's no polite way to say this: That line of thinking makes absolutely no sense.

You can buy CD players with built in harddrive if you want the jukebox thing.

Why??? You already have a perfectly good hard drive in your computer. (And if you need one with more space, you're far better off getting a new hard drive yourself, rather than paying for one to come in a clunky CD player format where the manufacturer charges you extra for it.)

You will get *much* more flexibility and power if you do it on your own computer. If you want audiophile quality sound, spend the money on a high quality DAC (or something like the Transporter), NOT the hard drive.

[Rock789]

I'll suggest a cd player... but for a different reason:
for me, I like to have all my equpiment in one location...
having to go into the den (or any other room) to select what I want to listen too would be a downside for me...
just my 2 cents...

for audio with a computer,
I have 2 computers hooked up to non-computer audio equipment... both are using the optical out of the sound card... my gaming computer goes to the denon 2805, and my general purpose computer goes to the a denon dac for my 2ch system in my bedroom...
I listen to internet radio from time to time, and it doesn't sound too bad...

hope this helps...
Mike

[Mike Anderson]

I'll suggest a cd player... but for a different reason:
for me, I like to have all my equpiment in one location...
having to go into the den (or any other room) to select what I want to listen too would be a downside for me...

With products like the Squeezebox or Transporter, you don't have to go into the other room. The device has a display and an interface with a menu that lets you select your music, search through it, etc, all using a remote control.

You can also use a laptop or handheld computer to interface with it.

for audio with a computer,
I have 2 computers hooked up to non-computer audio equipment... both are using the optical out of the sound card... my gaming computer goes to the denon 2805, and my general purpose computer goes to the a denon dac for my 2ch system in my bedroom...
I listen to internet radio from time to time, and it doesn't sound too bad...

You can get better sound if you bypass your computer's sound card. The whole advantage of the setup described above is that the PCM signal generation -- in addition to the analog conversion -- is done far away from the noisy environment of the computer. This generally reduces jitter a great deal.

The other advantage over a CD player is that if you do your rips carefully (e.g. using error-correction software like Exact Audio Copy) you can get bit-perfect sound. CD players, by contrast, give you errors.

[basite]

The other advantage over a CD player is that if you do your rips carefully (e.g. using error-correction software like Exact Audio Copy) you can get bit-perfect sound. CD players, by contrast, give you errors.

i'm not completely against computer use in non pc audio equipment, but i'm not a big fan of it, so, here's my opinion.

pc's can give you decent sound, when you use the right equipment (dac's, audiophile soundcards, ...) the transporter is a good looking, and probably good sounding machine, but the transporter costs alot of money, and he did say "good (but not top of the line)" so, that's pretty much ruled out. then the squeezebox, at that price, you'll need a dac (or use the optical out, if you have a optical inputs on your amp), and yes, when you do your rips carefully, you can get bit-perfect sound, but that would mean the file is quite big, which also means that your hard drive will be stuffed with music, and only music that is. then there's wireless, wireless signals are very depending on distance, or it haves to go through walls and stuff, so they could lose bits of data, which would result in short pauses during songs,
and, decent cd players have bit correction too, and some of them (like the rega one) even has built in memory, so it streams the audio from the cd, resulting in a flawless and warmer reproduction of the sound.

but still, if you want your pc, then do it.

[hermanv]

...edit...The other advantage over a CD player is that if you do your rips carefully (e.g. using error-correction software like Exact Audio Copy) you can get bit-perfect sound. CD players, by contrast, give you errors.

This intregues me a great deal. I have always wondered why with CD players going for 20K and up, no reviews have done error rate measurements. They never even bother mentioning how many of the error correction layers are implemented. Some players are quite proud of custom transports, CD clamps, top loading etc. Lot of hype, little meat.

Do you have any links to sites that have measured the error rate, the effectiveness of the Audio Copy error correction? Error comparisons player to player or player to computer?

[JoeE SP9]

[quote=Mike Anderson]Notice that all the anti-computer sentiment tends to come from people who have never seriously tried it.quote]

What you are saying is not necessarily true. I am a professional in the computer field. MS in Computer Science and MCSE among other things. My specific objection to archiving a music collection on HDD revolves around the inherent failure rate of said hard drives. I suppose it's all right as long as you keep a hard copy (original CD) of all your music. Actually you should. The HDD is going to fail. It will fail with no warning and you will loose every thing on it.
That said, I realize just how seductive such products as the Squeezebox and others are. Just remember, you should always keep the original source material. You will need it.

[SlumpBuster]

I have an anti-CD player bent. But it isn't because I am pro-computer. Rather, a CD player is superfluous IMO. While I don't have a CD player in my main rig, I have a DVD player and a CD recorder. Both are connected optically, and accordingly, both act solely as transports re: audio reproduction. And that is where my anti-CD player bent comes in.

With the inclusion of top notch DACs in even mid priced AVRs, the CD player has essentially become a transport. Why pay for the DAC and all the other unnessesary junk in the CD player when your just connecting digitally anyway. To me, CD players only count if your sending an analog signal to your pre-amp. In my case, my CD recorder's DAC only comes into play when recording analog signals or copyprotected signals.

[emorphien]

I have an anti-CD player bent. But it isn't because I am pro-computer. Rather, a CD player is superfluous IMO. While I don't have a CD player in my main rig, I have a DVD player and a CD recorder. Both are connected optically, and accordingly, both act solely as transports re: audio reproduction. And that is where my anti-CD player bent comes in.

With the inclusion of top notch DACs in even mid priced AVRs, the CD player has essentially become a transport. Why pay for the DAC and all the other unnessesary junk in the CD player when your just connecting digitally anyway. To me, CD players only count if your sending an analog signal to your pre-amp. In my case, my CD recorder's DAC only comes into play when recording analog signals or copyprotected signals.

You wouldn't be saying that kind of thing if you had an integrated amp without a built in DAC.

[Mike Anderson]

What you are saying is not necessarily true. I am a professional in the computer field. MS in Computer Science and MCSE among other things. My specific objection to archiving a music collection on HDD revolves around the inherent failure rate of said hard drives. I suppose it's all right as long as you keep a hard copy (original CD) of all your music. Actually you should. The HDD is going to fail. It will fail with no warning and you will loose every thing on it.

That said, I realize just how seductive such products as the Squeezebox and others are. Just remember, you should always keep the original source material. You will need it.

I keep backups of all my FLAC rips on DVDs. I also store them offsite. If my house burned down or collapsed in an earthquake, I'd still have my music collection.

Can't do that with vinyl -- or CDs unless you copy them, and now you're back to your computer as the best solution.

I bring this up every time you raise this point, and you haven't really said why you still think this is a problem.

[noddin0ff]

My specific objection to archiving a music collection on HDD revolves around the inherent failure rate of said hard drives. I suppose it's all right as long as you keep a hard copy (original CD) of all your music. Actually you should. The HDD is going to fail. It will fail with no warning and you will loose every thing on it.

My solution... 2 hard drives. Much less effort for backups. $100 for 320GB. Drag and drop backup in a couple hours as opposed to burning 60+ DVD-Rs over several days. Updating the backup periodically is simple.

(And of course, keep the original CDs)

[emorphien]

I haven't heard many computer systems that really sound as good as a decent CD player. Some can probably accomplish it, particularly if you're using lossless or uncompressed audio, but I haven't been that impressed with the computer audio on the whole.

[Mike Anderson]

Yes, you can leave your computer in the other room and get kickass sound.

Check out the Slim Devices stuff:

http://www.slimdevices.com/index.html

The Squeezebox costs a couple hundred bucks and has great sound. If you want audiophile sound, the Transporter is the route.

Both can run wirelessly, although I prefer running a length of CAT 5 cable for mine (you can probably go up to 50 feet or more that way).

[Rock789]

I guess I answered this myself...
if the protocol changes, then the digital code will be changed to conform to the given protocol...
sorry

edit... so I guess the quality will depend on the ability of the drivers converting from one protocol to another and back...
if everything is done properly, no errors will occur...

[basite]

maybe you're right, but still, for some reason, i still prefer a cd player instead of a pc. and as far as i can remember, i never had any troubles with cd players.

for me, it just doesn't feel right, and if pc's were all that better, the cd player wouldn't exist anymore.

but you've made your point, and yes with alot of hard disk space (like you with your 500 gig drive, and me with my 420 gigs of space) you could store alot of music.
but i guess i don't like it that much. And believe me, it's weird for a 16 year old guy to prefer cd players above computers and ipods.

Peace,
Basite.

[Mike Anderson]

maybe you're right, but still, for some reason, i still prefer a cd player instead of a pc. and as far as i can remember, i never had any troubles with cd players.

It isn't so much having troubles with CD players (although that happens), it's what you're not getting. For example, I can select any song out of thousands, without getting out of my chair. I can build playlists, or have them randomly generated. I can search my collection, etc. etc.

for me, it just doesn't feel right, and if pc's were all that better, the cd player wouldn't exist anymore.

People always take time to adopt new technology. For one thing, it takes a little bit of time and effort. You have to rip your CDs, learn about the technology, etc. At first, it's not as convenient as just plugging in a CD player, but once it's all setup, it's actually much *more* convenient - and powerful.

Personally, I haven't turned on a CD player in a long, long time.

[Carl Reid]

I guess it's time I jumped into this discussion... since I have both a MAC and a NAD CD player connected to my Pre-Amp as source material.....

I have no external DAC (yet).... and I have my music stored on my MAC in AA3 (Not Apple Lossless as is recommended).....

I use the MAC's soundcard to send an analog signal to my Pre-amp.... and despite what I've heard from many about how BAD computer audio (especially compressed files) sound... I have not experienced that for myself....

Frankly, I find that just using the computer directly gives me a pretty good sound even when directly compared with tracks played from my CD player... I spent over 2 hours yesterday doing a listening comparision between the two and while I'll admit that the CD player sounded a bit better.. I was not overwhelmed.....

So based on the share convenience of using a computer to play your music... I'm willing to say that a dedicated CD player is unnecesary... and if you're computer has a crappy soundcard, then buy a USB DAC (which should eliminate any issues with Jitter).

An interesting side note though: when I tried playing a CD on my Panasonic DVD player I thought it was clearly the worst sounding of the 3 options.

[Century L100]

Wow, I didn't realize I would be setting off this much of a firestorm by starting this thread! But I appreciate all the input and it's an interesting thread to read.

Mike A., the Squeezebox looks interesting and there's probably something like it in my future, I suppose. But the thing alone costs than a lot of the CD players I've been eyeing, plus the fact that my current Dell desktop has no wireless capabililty at all, nor do I have any other use for a home network at this point. So I'd have to add a wireless card, which represents additional $$.

As for running cables, my house makes this difficult, what with inaccessible areas above the dropped ceilings in my basement and other complications. Ugh.

As for the superior cataloging/indexing/searching/jukebox capabilities of the computer hard drive method...my collection isn't that large or complex that I'd really benefit from that, I don't think.

So all things considered, a dedicated, moderately priced CD player will probably be my choice, at least for the interim. Thanks again for all the ideas and discussion.

[Mr Peabody]

Mr...... Anderson, my post was not meant to be a serious reply, you need to lighten up.

I am, interested, in audiophile playback. I have my doubts that computer digital playback would satisfy me. It has been my experience that all digital is not the same. Transports can make a difference as well as other links along the chain. If one has to spend money on a chain of gadgets to come close to good sound from a computer, I'd just as soon buy the player and get it over with.

The bottomline, IN MY OPINION, is dinking around with computer when I want to listen to music is a royal pain. But, If I ever should happen to change my mind Mr. Anderson you'd be the one I'd consult.

Another thing to add fuel to the fire, I can usually tell by listening if a disc is burned or not. The only discs I've heard that I couldn't tell without looking is some a friend recorded from a Phillips stand alone CD recorder. This is more doubt in my mind that computer could get the job done.

I also want to clarify by saying I'm not talking about getting a computer to sound as good as a A/V receiver, I was using a Krell 280cd, and now use an Audio Note DAC with an EAD transport.

[Rock789]

Mr Peabody, the burned cd's, were they direct copies or were they burned from some form of compressed file? if it was a direct copy, you should not hear a difference... unless the burner did a horrible job and burnt many errors, then you would hear odd beebs and such...

to those of you talking about hard disks and backing up stuff... why not just use a raid setup? then it is automatically backed up...

[Mike Anderson]

I am, interested, in audiophile playback. I have my doubts that computer digital playback would satisfy me.

Well, have you ever heard a decent computer setup -- something with a nice DAC that's separate from the computer?

If one has to spend money on a chain of gadgets to come close to good sound from a computer, I'd just as soon buy the player and get it over with.

But my main point is that you get better quality for the $$ if you go the computer route. You have to buy some gadget or another, what's the difference between buying a gadget and buying a CD player?

Another thing to add fuel to the fire, I can usually tell by listening if a disc is burned or not. The only discs I've heard that I couldn't tell without looking is some a friend recorded from a Phillips stand alone CD recorder. This is more doubt in my mind that computer could get the job done.

I don't understand what this has to do with computers getting good audio. Nothing in the process involves burning disks.

As far as burning disks goes, if you do it right, you shouldn't hear a lick of difference. You can prove it by comparing the digital files you get -- bit for bit, they should be the same. If they aren't, your burner is making errors. That can be fixed with the right setup, but the point is that there's nothing inherently inferior about it.

I also want to clarify by saying I'm not talking about getting a computer to sound as good as a A/V receiver, I was using a Krell 280cd, and now use an Audio Note DAC with an EAD transport.

Right. I guarantee you, you can get high-quality, audiophile sound from a computer.

Look, you can use your Audio Note DAC with the computer. The computer will deliver a bit-perfect digital signal to it, as long as you set it up right. Please tell me exactly how you think the computer is going to degrade the sound in such a setup?

[Mr Peabody]

Some were direct copies and others I can't be certain. My first clue when listening is the highs aren't as smooth as he original and the bass response is usually a dead give away. I can't explain in words the difference but the response is not the same.

[royphil345]

Yes, I've heard a slight difference in burned copies too. Blank disks and burners do seem to have improved quite a bit since I've done a comparison. CD players seem to read CD-R better now. And I've learned to rip and burn with more attention to quality. Would be interesting to try the comparison again.

[Rock789]

perhaps the issue here with burnned cd's is how the program "rips" the cd...

I haven't used any newer programs, but CloneCD was susposed to do a disk copy...
the burned disk should be a an exact copy of the original... no ripping, then reencoding...

eg... 1001001001 = 1001001001 with clone cd...
rather than ripping 1001001001 -> some other code then reencoding while burning a cd and hoping to get the same 1001001001 but possibly getting 1100110011001...

what programs are you guys using? and are you using an actual copy, or are you ripping first?