Decent Component CD Player?

[Talkin Horse]

My old component CD player died, and I'm looking for a replacement. My
stereo system is old (i.e., pre-dates digital) and medium-high-end, at least
for its day. All I want is a reasonably-priced CD component that renders a
clean audio signal, but most everything for sale these days is a monstrous
contraption. I have nothing against buying a carousel, but I figure a
complex mechanical device is more likely to break than a simple CD tray. I
only found one simple CD player; the TEAC CD-P1250. Does anybody want to
tell me I'd be stupid to buy this, and I'll get noticeably better sound from
a modern carousel or other specialty (but not too expensive) item?

http://www.teac.com/consumer_electronics/CDPlayers/CD-P1250.htm

[Bruce C. Miller]

Talkin Horse wrote:
> My old component CD player died, and I'm looking for a replacement.

Most, if not all, DVD players will play CDs as well. You can get one at
Walmart for about $40.

For about a decade, I used a Sony Discman as my CD player hooked up to
my main stereo. It eventually broke, so then I switched to a cheap Sony
single disc DVD player which had a remote. Recently, I merged my
computer and stereo, and now just use my DVD-RW drive to play CDs. Any
of these option will cost under $50.

[Talkin Horse]

"Bruce C. Miller" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Most, if not all, DVD players will play CDs as well. You can get one at
> Walmart for about $40.
>
> For about a decade, I used a Sony Discman as my CD player hooked up to
> my main stereo. It eventually broke, so then I switched to a cheap Sony
> single disc DVD player which had a remote. Recently, I merged my
> computer and stereo, and now just use my DVD-RW drive to play CDs. Any
> of these option will cost under $50.

Thanks, yes, I did think about that, and I may do it yet. The DVD players
are more versatile, and can presumably play a greater variety of formats.
But I was inclined towards a CD-specific player on the theory that 1) The
DVD players would be more complicated to use and would probably be optimized
to utilize an on-screen TV display, as opposed to the simple and complete
display on the face of a CD unit, and 2) A CD player might do a better job
rendering the audio, since that's the only thing it does, whereas the
function might be an afterthought for the DVD player.

[Bruce C. Miller]

Talkin Horse wrote:
> 1) The
> DVD players would be more complicated to use and would probably be op
> to utilize an on-screen TV display, as opposed to the simple and comp
> display on the face of a CD unit, and

All DVD players I've used didn't need an on-screen display just to play
CDs. The Sony DVD player I mentioned using was never hooked up to a TV.
The only buttons I used where the normal CD player ones. Most also have
LCD displays that will be adequate for showing the track info.

> 2) A CD player might do a better job
> rendering the audio, since that's the only thing it does, whereas the
> function might be an afterthought for the DVD player.

If it does, I can't tell the difference. The only thing I noticed was
that using a DVD player took about an extra 2 seconds to read the TOC
and start playing. Probably because it had to check the disc type
instead of just assuming it was a CD. The computer takes longer too.

The only downside I can see to getting a $40 DVD player is that they're
usually cheap and flimsy. They'll probably break in a few years of
daily use. CD-ROM drives seem to be the same way. After reading several
1000s of discs, the mechanical parts eventually fail.

"Talkin Horse" > wrote in message
k.net...
> "Bruce C. Miller" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Most, if not all, DVD players will play CDs as well. You can get one at
>> Walmart for about $40.
>>
>> For about a decade, I used a Sony Discman as my CD player hooked up to
>> my main stereo. It eventually broke, so then I switched to a cheap Sony
>> single disc DVD player which had a remote. Recently, I merged my
>> computer and stereo, and now just use my DVD-RW drive to play CDs. Any
>> of these option will cost under $50.
>
> Thanks, yes, I did think about that, and I may do it yet. The DVD players
> are more versatile, and can presumably play a greater variety of formats.
> But I was inclined towards a CD-specific player on the theory that 1) The
> DVD players would be more complicated to use and would probably be
> optimized to utilize an on-screen TV display, as opposed to the simple and
> complete display on the face of a CD unit, and 2) A CD player might do a
> better job rendering the audio, since that's the only thing it does,
> whereas the function might be an afterthought for the DVD player.

Your number 1 is definitely a concern. DVD players definitely take longer
to get going, and many of them have inadequate front panel displays. My
Technics CD player has a remarkably complete display, and for that reason I
still use it. Your number 2 should not be an issue. I haven't noticed the
slightest diminution in quality because CD is an "afterthought." I believe
that ALL DVD players must play CDs; it's one of the license requirements.

On that same subject, it will probably be a license requirement that all
Blu-Ray or HD-DVD players must play CDs as well as regular DVDs. The number
of optical disc protocols is staggering. What would a universal player have
to handle if it were to be capable of playing any 8 or 12cm optical disc:

CD, CDR, CDRW, VCD, JPEG, Kodak picture CD, CDR or RW encoded with mp3, wma,
aac, ogg, DVD, DVD-R, DVD+R, DVD-RW, DVD+RW, DVD-RAM. DVD encoded with
uncompressed or compressed audio at 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96 or 192kB/s, SACD.
DVDR encoded with the same compressed formats as CDR. The list is enormous,
and I'm sure I missed a few. I know of no player that will handle more than
a fraction of the above list, although it's theoretically possible.

Norm Strong

[Bruce C. Miller]

> wrote:
> Your number 1 is definitely a concern. DVD players definitely take
longer
> to get going, and many of them have inadequate front panel displays.

What exactly do you need besides a track number and the time
elapsed/remaining?

> CD, CDR, CDRW, VCD, JPEG, Kodak picture CD, CDR or RW encoded with
mp3, wma,
> aac, ogg, DVD, DVD-R, DVD+R, DVD-RW, DVD+RW, DVD-RAM. DVD encoded
with
> uncompressed or compressed audio at 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96 or 192kB/s,
SACD.
> DVDR encoded with the same compressed formats as CDR. The list is
enormous,
> and I'm sure I missed a few. I know of no player that will handle
more than
> a fraction of the above list, although it's theoretically possible.

My PC can :)

[[email protected]]

I would probably look at a moderately priced universal player, all
things considered.

[Andy Katz]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:11:36 GMT, "Talkin Horse"
> wrote:

>My old component CD player died, and I'm looking for a replacement. My
>stereo system is old (i.e., pre-dates digital) and medium-high-end, at least
>for its day. All I want is a reasonably-priced CD component that renders a
>clean audio signal, but most everything for sale these days is a monstrous
>contraption. I have nothing against buying a carousel, but I figure a
>complex mechanical device is more likely to break than a simple CD tray. I
>only found one simple CD player; the TEAC CD-P1250. Does anybody want to
>tell me I'd be stupid to buy this, and I'll get noticeably better sound from
>a modern carousel or other specialty (but not too expensive) item?
>
>http://www.teac.com/consumer_electronics/CDPlayers/CD-P1250.htm

I strongly dislike cd/dvd changers. I forget which ones are in which
slot, etc. I've had good luck with the Pioneer 578A which plays dvds,
sacds, mp3s, dvd A, WMAs, CD Rs, etc.. I paid 100.00 or so a few
months ago. I think it's gone down since then.

Andy Katz