Should I sell my CD player?

Posted by: Bart on 09 August 2012

I am committed to digital replay at home, but nevertheless still own a CD5XS.  I use the cd player as a transport into my nDAC, and at this point it does seem rather redundant to my uServe and NAS.  The only advantage it seems to provide is the ability to play a cd without ripping it (yes, the uServe could do that too although for some reason I'm not fond of using it that way).  Selling it to buy a pure transport would not be how I'd go -- I got a good deal on it slightly used and can probably sell it for what I paid for it.

 

And I could really use the rack space if I move to 282/250.2 from the Nait XS.

 

Am I just being OCD or old-fashioned by wanting to keep a cd player, or might I really miss it at some point??  (Well sure if the server stuff fails it's a backup so I don't have to be music-less, but that seems relatively unimportant to me at this time.)

 

 

Posted on: 12 August 2012 by Simon-in-Suffolk

Dr Mark, I agree good discussion and thank you :-)

 

I like you it seems enjoy obscure recordings from both our continents. I love listening to live music, but the smaller venue or gig in town halls, village halls and pubs. The expierience us usually more intimate and intense... At these events there is always CDs for sale, often on independent labels, or some self published. This is a fantastic bonus for CD, we have a quality medium that is cost effective that all bands can easily create.

 

Mp3s/ AAc  are great, but akin  probably to the compact cassette or 45 single. Convenient but not usually great for quality replay, which I read there is now greater interest over in new younger consumers . So there appears a market for quality media. (CD or better)

 

To be honest if PCM downloads became ubiquitous that would be great, ironically I would burn my own CDs to play in the car etc. but managing, delivering and marketing these sort of downloads seems more involved that getting 1000 CDs cut and carting them to outlets, venues and specialists to sell, which is probably why the format is booming in these areas and why I maintain we are in a global age of CD.

 

I think downloads are easier for the big labels, and IMO they are ripping off (pardon the pun) the consumer currently, often inferior quality and  (often significantly) more expensive than physical media. Whilst that remains CD will exist to fill the demand.

 

For downloads, reduce   the price, increase the choice, make it PCM, and then the CD will start to become redundant. I am not holding my breath, but you are correct I am sure, at some pont it will happen ....

 

Simon

 

 

 

Posted on: 12 August 2012 by DrMark

Simon - just to veer the thread even further off course, I have a good friend Jeff who is a professional photographer and has done a fair bit of work for Paste magazine, which covers the indy artist music scene.  As a result of this involvement he often attends the big music festival in Austin, TX called "South By Southwest."  One recent year Robert Plant was there to speak, and Jeff went to the talk, not expecting much, but he said the talk was great.

 

Then, during the open Q&A, someone asked Plant what advice he would give to a new artist looking to establish themselves in the industry.  His answer was essentially, "Whatever you do, DON'T sign with one of the Big Four."  I think this idea has gained some traction with new artists, for whom a big record contract is no longer seen as an essential ingredient, and as a result there is a lot of really cool music out there that is more obscure, while the Corporate. MBA/accountant run music industry tries to shove the formulaic/same crap down our throats.

 

And to veer it somewhat back on course, I think it is downloads that have helped make this possible, but as well the ability (as you point out) to make quality CDs without major corporate backing - then you can sign a distribution only agreement should your career begin to take off.  (Which is the strategy the Stones wisely began using fairly early in their careers, and why they were much more business savvy than & didn't get ripped off like the Beatles did back in the day.  But they could pull that off because they were the Stones - now this option is more open to much less financially influential artists as well because of the newer technologies.)