Thanks, Menoetius. I couldn't have put it better myself.

well that may be your opinion, but i bet i could put together something and play it and people would think it sounded great, including the OP


that's a good idea. however having a bluray player means most discs can simply be inserted and played immediately without mucking about, including bluray and sacd and dvda. a bluray player doesn't need to cost much but the additional features it can bring, such as streaming from pc or online, spotify, netflix etc can make it a very worthwhile purchase


you use a ps3 in your own AV system? it must sound like someone is doing the hoovering whilst you are listening

going from no hifi to having a hifi with a bluray as the main disc player, i'm sure the OP won't be saying the sound quality sucks. i have a denon universal player and it sounds great to me and plays all formats, plus does streaming and netflix and umpteen other things i don't need or use as my pc connects via hdmi plus i have a separate media streamer. i also have a bunch of consoles such as xbox and ps3 if i want the neighbors to think i'm doing the hoovering


i don't have a sub £200 bluray player, but i did have for a short time a pioneer bluray. however my old arcam amp was part of stereo setups, and the last cd player i bought was £600 nearly 20 years ago now. i upgraded so much from amp to speakers as well as player so i've never had a true like for like comparison, but what i can say is my current setup does sound considerably better, and what i can say is with an hdmi amp and bluray player the sound is great, i can notice the difference when playing HD audio and i've blind tested a few people who similarly noticed the difference. so from the point of view of someone who has spent a lot of money on hifi on a continually upgrading path since getting my first pay in my first job, and aiming to improve and upgrade with the times, i can easily say that a bluray player and hdmi amp can easily provide an enjoyable listening experience, and i've not noticed any reduction in quality of sound from swapping from my arcam stereo amp and cd player to my current system

if someone is used to listening on ipods or speaker docks and moving to a proper hifi with amp and speakers, they aren't going to be dissapointed in listening to cds on a bluray player. you would really need to start jumping gears in changing equipment for someone to notice a difference in sound that they would consider notably different/better/worse to warrant a move of equipment


you forget about dvd audio which has been mentioned a number of times on this thread. and in addition to HD audio on disc, HD audio can be purchased on certain download sites

in addition to all of this, for the collector, many bootleg records are also available in HD audio - both live and studio


i think it would be more like telling people not to buy a cd player back in 1987 as the available cds were only a tiny fragment of the recorded music pool.

one thing i've mentioned frequently is future proofing. a bluray player can play most common disc formats now, plus older formats. there's not new format on the horizon thats just about to come out that a new bluray player won't be able to play, so a bluray player will set someone up for some time to come


absolutely anything can be played from pc. you can rip blurays and play from pc, but it depends what the OP wants to do. i have thousands of cds and whilst most are ripped to the pc, sometimes i spot something on the shelf and it's not ripped, but i can just stick it in and play instantly. if i have guests looking at he shelves they can pick up something and play it. you don't know the status of the OP's pc, how noisy it may be, or how close it is to the amp, etc etc etc

personally i prefer to play from my pc, but i use a streamer, mainly for playing videos. i have this in addition to a bluray player that also offers streaming options. in fact i have 2 or 3 dedicated streamers in addition to a bunch of other gear that provide the same functionality, but i prefer the dedicated streamer. with the right bluray player with streaming functionality, music can be streamer from the pc, with a remote control to skip, play, pause etc just like a cd player. sometimes that's more convenient than using a pc keyboard. that's one of the reasons i prefer to use a streamer to watch videos. no pc menu stuff, and it's like using a dvd player remote with pause and skip

ultimate it depends on what the OP wants really. certainly a bluray player can offer great sound as part of a balanced setup, plus offer a huge range of features and a degree of future proofing

First, (BIB) Why do you have a problem with other people expressing their opinion? Most odd that; especially as this is a forum and that's exactly its reason d'etre.

Anyway, back on track, I'm sure I could grab 10/20/100 people or more who would be more than satisfied with a Blu-ray player as a source. But that's not the same as having the best audio performance for CDs at a given price, is it.

If you look at my statement I prefaced it quite specifically towards CD and about getting the best sound from them. That was one of Matilda.cs's aims. So while I agree aout the convenience aspect of a Blu-ray player and the ability to play the odd SACD etc, should that really be good enough reason to compromise the audio performance on CD which is one of the two main sources? Is that really what you believe is the best answer?


All this was addressed in the previous post and again in my reply above. All of the above can be achieved with an £80 streaming BD player..... but it'll still do a poor job of playing CDs. There's no way around this.


Of course there's a games console in my system. How else is my little lad to play Call of Duty and Gran Tourismo with his Dad?


No Hi-Fi to BD player as a source, that's simply a lack of a point of reference. I know plenty of folk who think their all-in-one surround kit is great; that is until they hear an entry-level AV receiver and 5.1 surround kit.

This keeps coming back to the same point: What's the best quality for playing music from CD and a media library within a fixed budget. The answer is a CD player, a Hi-Fi amp and the existing PC for streaming.

Your recommendation appears based on your own experience of owning a £300/£400/£500 universal player. I don't doubt that you think it's the bees knees. But why did you spend that much when a sub £100 BD player offers the same range of features and convenience? Could it be that you thought it would sound better. That's the whole point of this debate.

Do you remember what you wrote? I'm quoting you directly and verbatim here: "if buying new then the hdmi amp and bluray combo would be my recommendation"

Well, in order for Matilda.cs to own a similar performance player to yours from new then there's going to have to be some compromises made either with the speakers or the amp. The budget is fixed, the speakers have more or less been decided (£220 for the white Zensors) and there'll be some accessories required too (stands, cables etc). So after deducting a further £280 for the cheapest of the Denon universal players then that leaves roughly £200 for an amp capable of accepting the HDMI signal from the player. I've heard plenty of budget AV receivers, and one thing seems to be universally true: They are not audiophile music amps.

So tell me again, is it your recommendation that Matilda.cs should hobble the system with the crappy AV receiver or the crappy BD player?

Most here could too, but the main aim is to recommended components that fit the OP's agenda, not yours.



The OP wants to listen to their CD's, why keep insisting they would be better off with a universal Bluray, have they mentioned they want SACD, DVDA, Bluray playback. As previously mentioned, pound for pound a CD player will out perform a Bluray playing CD's, so why recommend something of lesser audio quality to what the OP is asking for? What the hell has Spotify and Netflix got to do with listening to vinyl and CD's?


In that case why not recommend an all in one system, why bother mucking about with separates, I'm sure they'll be happy with the sound quality, especially if they have nothing to compare it with, and if they choose a smart player with DNLA they can watch YouTube on the telly.

The OP's aim is to get the best sound quality from their budget, you get that by choosing components that are dedicated to doing a particular job, not by purchasing items that cover a multitude of others, simply because the cost and quality are going towards components, circuitry and features the OP doesn't want instead of what they do want.


My HTC one playing FLAC over my Pioneer SC LX88 is enjoyable, but I'm not going to recommend it to the OP.

They may not be disappointed, but the quality can be increased by choosing the equipment carefully, not just getting something that's an all rounder for the sake of it. Because they may not be able to compare sound, or they are use to lower quality is not justification to keep recommending universal Bluray players, because on that line of thinking, they'd probably be more than happy with their CD's ripped to an mp3 player connected to an amp.


Not really, SACD has had time to mature, it just there is little take up of that format.

I'd agree on Bluray, multichannel amps and future proofing if the OP had said they may be interested in surround sound, HD movies etc etc in the future, but they haven't, and quality is compromised going for such equipment rather than sticking to what was originally asked - 2 channel playback of vinyl and CD's.


There's no 'depends' about it, the OP has specifically requested advice on 2 channel playback of three types of media, vinyl, CD and iTunes, not Bluray, surround sound, Netflix etc etc.

I'd suggest a Naim amp, Naim CD player and a pair of PMC speakers. That's be good, and as relevant to the discussion as some childish on-going multi-multi-quoted dispute about how good a blu-ray player might be for playing music.

OP - do what everybody else does. Buy something to get started with, then over time enjoy the progression from cheap box of noise to something that makes you want to keep feeding more & more music into it, so that you can carry on discovering music that you didn't know you owned. Hi-Fi is as much about improving things here & there as it is about getting it right first time, and no-one does that anyway. Buy whatever lights your candle, then start the improvements based on what you learn as you go along.

Well that's hardly a surprising conclusion. I'd be rather disappointed in any system that couldn't make the differences clear.

Once again though you're focussing on the small subset of recorded music that is HD audio and seem to be forgetting that main requirement to play CDs well.

If you'll forgive me for making the observation, but it's coming across as a bit of an obsession. Is this the first time you actually heard something "good" from the various systems you bought?


Ah, right. That answers a lot then.

What you wrote above tells me everything I need to know about the sort of sound you're looking for. It's not about musicality; you're focused on detail and stereo effects. The more twinkly bits you can hear then that equates to "better" Hi-Fi.

Okay, you're in a different camp to the audiophiles. You might have bought audiophile gear in the past but you missed the whole point. You're listening to the equipment rather than the music that plays through it.

I'm not going to bother addressing the weak points other than to say "well... duh!!" in regard to Hi-Fi sounding better than speaker docks. I would have thought that was self evident.


I left it out specifically so you'd bring it up as a point. It would then give me the opportunity to show just how significant (or not) the HD audio formats are in the bigger picture.

The following is simply a rough snapshot of the music market based on physical disc media (CD, Vinyl, SACD, DVD-A, BD Audio) and it's taken from Amazon's web site figures.

Music in CD format - 4.18 million titles (69.95% of the sample market by volume)

Music in DVD-A format - 5,800 titles (0.10% of the sample market by volume)
Music in SACD format - 6,700 titles (0.11% of the sample market by volume)
Music in BD-Audio format - 483 titles (0.01% of the sample market by volume)

Even if you add up all HD audio physical media together then it still amounts to less than one quarter of a single percentage point (0.21%)

Music in vinyl format - 1.87 million titles (30.83% of the sample market by volume)

We could all pick holes in the numbers; for example, CD singles and vinyl 7" and 12" adding some weight to the numbers, and that would be a valid criticism if the comparisons were closer. But even if you only looked at albums then the gulf between HD audio and CD/Vinyl would still be enormous.



Now you're just clutching at straws.

The market was different back in the 80's. For many folks used to the sound of poorly cared for vinyl played on less than stellar equipment then CD was a revelation. The format wasn't an overnight success though; more of a slow burn from 1982 until the mid-80's when Amstrad released the first home stereo at an affordable price which included a CD player. Up to that point CD was very much the preserve of the well to do. Players were expensive £400-£600 even back then. A good basic turntable (Dual CS505-1) was around £130 by comparison.

CDs were pricey too. A vinyl album would have cost between £5 and £8 on average. CD's were £12~£14. I remember this because I was buying both formats in 1985.

I also remember quite a few of the early CD releases were mastered on analogue desks and by engineers far more used to compensating for vinyl. The CDs sounded harsh and brittle.

So from a simple economic point of view, if you wanted a quality Hi-Fi system then a turntable, amp and speakers was far more affordable from both the hardware and software point of view. The media was more abundant and often sounded better too. The tide was turning of course, and the debate still rages on, but in 1987 CD was still playing catch-up.

SACD, DVD-A, BD audio haven't taken off in a mainstream way because they don't make the performance leap that CD did compared to vinyl for the average non-Hi-Fi listener. They'll always be niche, and that's coming from me who is an early adopter.




Spoken like a true gadget freak, no disrespect.

You're more concerned about niche markets and the vague paranoia of being to play "everything". There's a phrase for that: Jack of all trades and master of none.


True. It's not a perfect world, but Matilda.cs seems happy enough to play media files some way at the moment so I'm going with the flow until she says otherwise.

Any audio encoded at 44100Hz and 16-bits won't be classed as HD audio either - that's CD quality! Higher than that is classed as HD audio. And typically costs more. And has never been proven, in and of itself, to sound any better than CD quality. But some people have great imaginations, and/or like to pay for better mastering, which is sometimes what you get when you pay for more bits.

Cheers,
David.

http://advanced-television.com/2015/...andard-agreed/




I bet the OP has been scared off by now. Probably playing their vinyl on an old Dansette or something

Cheers,
David.

My mistake, of course it should have read 'above 44100Hz sample rate'.




...or decided to just listen to live music.....

Ohww... Da-a-ad

I thought you liked these little tête-à-têtes. You seemed most disappointed when I called time a couple of days ago. You do realise, I'm only doing this for your benefit ha ha ha

I don't have a problem. once again you are wrong. I'm pointing out that what you say is an opinion as opposed to fact. something that's commonly done on a forum



so again, you agree what I say is correct then?


what I and what you believe is irrelevant, it's what the OP believes that matters as that's who is looking to make a purchase. allow them to make the choice


again, your opinion it would be poor. however many would disagree with that, if not most


from your post it sounded like you used it for listening to audio. I use mine for playing a game on rare occasion, but never for watching or listening to movies or music. with all the advice you give about hifi and it sounding like that was a source for music playback, it would have put things into perspective a bit


that's generalising, which means the answer isn't always true. however the OP didn't ask that question at any point


when you make assumptions, you typically end up being wrong, as you are again

a sub £100 BD player won't always give the same range of features and convenience as one in a higher bracket. notice for example how many times I've mentioned DVD audio. if you had any idea about bluray players you would know that it's not realistic to expect one that plays bluray audio under £100 new


I remember, and it's still my recommendation. you have your recommendation. it's up to the OP to choose what they want. why do you have such a problem with what I suggest? it's not you doing the deciding


really? more presumptions there



again, really? I wonder what the OP actually thinks. you are making a lot of presumptions, and as pointed out before you are making a number of mistakes by making these presumptions. instead you could ask a simple question to find out the answer. gain information before giving a reply


no. my recommendation is to buy a hdmi amp and bluray player


and once again you are wrong


I don't suppose you expect an actual answer, but if you made your question clearer, rather than aiming to score some points in an argument, you may have had an answer


and wrong yet again. more presumptions again


wrong again. more presumptions


so why say or suggest something is going to sound crap?


I did think of OCD earlier. my presumption is I may be correct

again, think back to 1987 and people could say the same thing about cd players only having a small amount of source material. think about the future



wrong again


you clearly miss the point. the point being that when cd players came out there were few cds available. likewise the same could be said about HD audio. in the future there is likely to be an increase in HD audio



the OP is looking to buy now, not in 1987


wrong again


at least you end with some form of agreement

I'm aware of that, however still said the same thing as it's not going to be readily available realistically for a while (with sufficient stuff to play on it)

that's what I'm doing. I have no agenda


firstly, I'm not insisting. secondly, I suggest a bluray player as it can play cds and a lot more


all in one systems are something I avoid, and something I know little about as a result. it's not something I would recommend for someone looking to get into hifi. it's easier to upgrade with seperates


that's your opinion. I've stated mine


again, it's the OP's choice. they may want to go one way or another


there is a lot the OP hasn't said. why don't you ask them what they want?

an hdmi amp can play stereo as well as multichannel as has been pointed out before. it gives more options, just as the bluray player can give more options. it's up to the OP to choose

You were aware that a new generation of BluRay discs are coming out later this year - discs that won't play on any brand new player bought today - but you wrote...

...?!?!?

You really don't get it, do you. Ho hum.


Even the hands on a stopped clock are right twice a day. You appear to be confusing the lowest common denominator with some kind of validation. Oh dear.


It should be a choice made based on some sound (no pun intended) reasoning, given from a point of view that respects their intentions. Sadly you don't seem interested in what Matilda.cs wants. You're just pushing your own agenda, and it's looking increasingly desperate.


But we are not dealing with "most people" are we. "Most people" buy iPod docks or all-in-one surround systems or little shelf Hi-Fi's.

This isn't a forum for "most people". It's a forum for the exceptional who have the intelligence and courage to go a different direction and look for sound quality rather than features. So, we're dealing with one person's wish to get the best sound for their money. That's something many of us in this thread recognised immediately. Why is it so hard for you to do the same I wonder?


If you'd have bothered to ask rather than making silly comments about vacuuming then I'd have been happy to fill in the background for you.

I tested the PS3 for audio as being representative of what might be achieved from a typical sub-£200 BD player in the context of my own system.



Actually, the OP said very clearly (and I'm paraphrasing, so don't get your knickers in a knot) "I want to play vinyl at audiophile quality. Here's the kit list I've been recommended."

You then turned up and told the OP they were wasting their time with vinyl. That's on record, in black and white, in your own words. Matilda.cs's second post indicated a change of direction to CD and iTunes now, then a turntable to follow.

Now if you want to be pedantic about her exact phrase and word choice then go ahead. Some of us here though can see the bigger picture.


So you've just confirmed what I asked towards the end of my previous post. You're quite happy to see Matlida.cs sink a big chunk of cash in to a universal BD player just to satisfy your own ego.

That's pretty telling, right there.


You're correct in that it's not me doing the deciding (finally, you got something right ). However, if you remember the original brief to get "audiophile" performance, and bearing in mind the change of direction on sources, then a sensible person interested in audio quality first wouldn't recommend a new Blu-ray player as a source and a new AV amp to play it through. It's really that simple.



Yes, really.

And yes, the best information we have from Matilda.cs is that the budget is fixed. You should have a read of her posts.[/quote]


Okay then, if it's not an AV receiver then you tell us all about these new "HDMI amps" that you're recommending. Give us a make model and price.




In what respect: you ignoring CD as a priority source?, or are you referring to a decent Hi-Fi and being able to the difference between CD and HD clearly audible? i.e. you think I'm wrong and that there shouldn't be a difference.

What exactly is it you're trying to say?


The question is very clear. It's not about scoring points. I'm genuinely interested if you've been chasing the Hi-Fi 'holy ghost' for a while without success when suddenly you stumbled across HD audio and that was your epiphany moment.


It's not presumption at all. You were quite clear in what you said "i've not noticed any reduction in quality of sound from swapping from my arcam stereo amp and cd player to my current system"

Either you've gone very top-end in an AV system (in which case why do you feel that what's good for you with hi-end gear will be good for the OP with budget gear?) , or you're not looking for the musicality of the ARCAM gear (and begs the question about you commenting on audiophile aspirations at all), or you just can't tell the difference one way or the other, which means you're not really qualified to disagree on product choices based on sound quality. If it's something else, then please tell us.


Does that comment even relate to what you quoted? You're a bit vague, aren't you.


There's nothing wrong with a little factual information to back up a position. Is that a problem for you?


I already addressed that. You should go back and have another read.


I understood your point. You think HD audio is the future.

I'm saying very clearly that as long as CD is around, and there's acceptable (but by no means great) quality streaming available for free or at a low cost, that HD audio has been, is now, and is likely to remain a niche audio market.

SACD has had 12 years to establish itself as a rival to CD. There's still barely over 1/10th of a percent penetration in Amazon's music store. Where was CD 12 years after launch?.... oh yeah... everywhere.

DVD-Audio, introduced in 2000........ and according to Wikipedia which you were happy to use for references on other things... "has been described as "extinct" by 2007"

Blu-ray Audio...... launched two years ago to a resounding media silence

Yup, the future sure looks bright and rosy for those formats. CD is quaking in its boots..... Not.

Sadly for a collector like myself, the future of HD Audio isn't discs. If it's anything then it's streaming. But quite frankly, to believe that somehow the world of average Joes listening through mobile phones (because let's face it, the iPod is dying a death too) really gives a stuff about HD Audio is, at best, a deluded thought.

If you know anything about human nature then you'll see the pattern. Acceptable quality is king. Better than that... meh. Look how long iTunes managed to last peddling highly compressed MP3s. It took years to get the bar raised.

HD audio streaming services exist, of course. But unless there's a major sea-change in associated factors such as lower cost and uncapped data network tariffs, wider and more consistent 4G coverage, a broader base of compatible devices and much better headphones than in-ears, then the average person trying it won't get what the fuss is about.... just like SACD / DVD-A and BD-Audio.




You're the one that brought up 1987, not me. I simply illustrated how your presumptions and analogies were flawed, and I used some experience from back in the day to highlight the issues for you.


Ah, yes, you agree that she doesn't need a BD player for media file playback. Well that is good news. See, we're making progress.

yes. what i said is correct. there is no new format just about to come out. of course that's a vague statement. i don't consider a format that's only just been agreed, but hasn't yet been manufactured, that may or may not come out around the end of the year, as just about to come out

my understanding is that having started a thread in february, the OP is probably looking to buy something around now, not towards christmas time

in addition to that, they don't appear to be looking to be an early adopter, plus the emphasis on what the OP is looking for is about audio, whilst UHD's main feature is 4k video. by the time decent players are on the market and prices get to a reasonable level you are realistically talking about another 2 years or more, and of course need a 4k panel to benefit the most from it

now others have said i've been getting away from what the OP has requested info on, even though they originally looked for info on a turntable setup and from the bat i suggested either a second hand setup or a new one with bluray, to which many comments about why mention digital, yet after the OP's second post the emphasis now is on digital, with people originally talking about turntables now talking cd vs bluray. it's a bit ironic now that someone takes a step further the other way. i don't think an UHD player, which you can't actually buy at the moment, is what the OP is going to end up buying if they are asking about a setup now

wrong again


wrong again. i've pointed out a few times that making presumptions without simply asking questions to gain info usually ends up in being wrong, yet you continue doing it


wrong again. and again that is your opinion, not a fact

the long and short of it is that what i've posted is all factually and technically correct. the only digs you can come up with are simply opinion based on what you think and/or wording that you disagree with

i have no agenda, unlike yourself who has admitted to selling hifi products, so it's in your best interest to promote products you have sold. i don't sell anything. i only offer advice, to which the OP can choose what advice they want to follow. you will see from the outset i mentioned digital over turntables, to which you disagreed with, yet now the discussion is about one form of digital over another. if anyone seems to have a better understanding of what the OP wants, it appears to be me. although i'm sure yet again you will disagree, but ultimately you will just need to live with the simple fact that people will not always agree on everything. however it appears i'm more comfortable in accepting that fact than you are


again that is your opinion, to which i don't agree with. i think this forum is open for most people. perhaps you haven't spent enough time looking around it


i think you have made the most silly comments on this thread.


if you are knowledgable about consoles like the ps3 you would be aware that references to it sounding like a vacum cleaner in use are quite common. stick ps3 hoover noise into google to prove my point


the problem with what you call "paraphrasing" is that ultimately you end up being wrong

at no point did i say she was wasting her time with vinyl or words to that effect. in fact i suggested to look down the second hand market if she was interested in vinly, and suggested for new products to look at bluray. i gave two very differnent OPTIONS for the OP to CHOOSE from, without pushing any

from that you critisised what i had said for suggesting something other than what the OP asked for, however as we are now arguing over digital formats, and not vinly vs digital, it appears quite clear that my perception of what the OP is looking for is closer than yours

at the same time, i have no issue with anyone suggesting anything else, whereas for some reason you do. you seem to have little respect for the OP to be able to choose for themselves based on the suggestions and help and recommendations as to what to buy, and seem more interested in arguing the toss


wrong again


yes it is. you simply can't read and empathise and understand what someone is saying, and at the same time you jump to incorrect conclusions rather than asking a question to clarify the meaning before coming to a conclusion. that's a pretty terrible method of deduction


everything i've said has been correct, technically and factual. there are people like yourself to point out if i make a mistake. however the only thing you can point at is simply a differing of opinion, not a fact


a change in direction of course to digital, which i suggested from the start, even though people like yourself argued the toss about


wrong again. that's just generalising for a start, and yet another attempt to try and slot in another sly demeaning topic as you can't put your point across on a factual basis to disprove anything i've said, which is all correct and checkable


wrong again. the OP never mentioned a fixed budget at all. in fact if you search the thread, the first mention of the word "fixed" was from you.

the OP actually said "So in theory, if I were willing I drop £700 on a complete record plYer system....What would you guys recommend?"

perhaps you should read and try and understand what people are saying, instead of paraphrasing or misinterpreting and coming to the wrong conclusion, as you've done that numerous times on this thread


i'll leave that to the OP. you and anyone else are free to throw in your advice


my advice is to the OP, if they need clarification they can ask. you aren't the buyer so why should i explain to you when all you are doing is arguing?


your posts don't come across that way howeve


wrong again. it is nothing more than presumptions, as this part confirms


yes it does. obviously i'm correct or you would have argued otherwise


that info was irrelevant really, and you haven't managed to argue that any of the facts i've stated are incorrect, rather than just argue a difference of opinion, when it's not your opinion that matters, but the OPs


no need to do that. you obviously can't prove me wrong on that either


so if streaming is the future, then a bluray player that can play most common formats from cd to bluray and sacd and dvda and stream, is therefore not a bad recomendation


actually you didn't. that's just your opinion yet again. i think i proved you wrong, yet again


wrong yet again. i don't know why you bother to reply so often when you are so often proven wrong. obviously you like to argue a lot

Ignoring for a moment all the ridiculous arguments that got us to here, you absolutely should not buy a BluRay player to play future hypothetical HD audio streaming services.

Anyone who has been paying attention will know that TVs, BluRay players, and such like do not keep up-to-date with support for new streaming services. If anything, the opposite is true - the services which worked when the device was new, quite often stop working with 2-3 years.


If the OP is still reading this thread (heaven help them!), they must have noticed how listening to high quality audio turns you into a really happy person who no longer feels the need to argue

Cheers,
David.

I tried using my Sony blu-ray player as a disc spinner, taking the optical out into the DAC to get a decent sound. It sounded okay if nothing special, but the time it took to load & read the CD in the first place was a joke. You want to play another CD? Hold on a bit then - unload the current disc (dog slow), load next disc & be ready to play - dog slower than slow can be. Compare that to the CD player I now use - press stop, open the door, swap CDs, close the door, wait a handful of seconds and bosh we're away again.

I prefer something that's built for the job thanks.

Nowt wrong with an old Dansette

that's a matter of opinion, and a fair warning. however i'll just point out that at no time have I mentioned a bluray player or any other device will be able to play any future hypothetical media.


this is generally true, however there are sometimes exceptions. one thing is for certain, a turntable or cd player certainly won't be able to play any potential new formats other than what they were initially designed for, whereas more modern hardware sometimes has the ability to do so through firmware upgrades and other updates, but buying something now and expecting it to be able to do something in the future that it wasn't designed to do is being presumptions


unfortunately not always. but often it helps

unless you are a dj or often playing cd singles or just one song, it's not really an issue. I see people moaning about the time it takes to load a bluray and go through the menus etc, but you are typically doing that to play a movie for a couple of hours. you have to consider things relatively. usually you stick on a cd for 45-80 minutes and just play it

And a Blu-ray player won't be able to play 4K BD disc, same as a DVD player couldn't play Blu-rays, and CD players couldn't play DVDs. Guess what, wax cylinder players couldn't play 78s. Things progress..... that's what happens. But that's no reason to write off a device simply because it's dedicated to do a specific job.

Having one device that does its job very well is better than a hybrid device that compromises performance for the sake of versatility.

Oh really? Did you hear that everyone. Waiting for the Blu-ray player to spit your CD out and load the one your guest brought round to the dinner party or get together isn't a big issue apparently, Unique said so. Well that's alright then [where's the roly eyes smiley when it's needed]

I realise it might not be the case for you, but some of have friends and a social life where these things are important. It would be nice if you actually acknowledged real world issues once in a while

There are very few CDs that I play end to end, esp if I've got the house to myself for a couple of hours and fancy a bit of variation before I'm engulfed again. It may not sound much but the long long delay whilst it unloads the current disc followed by the long long long delay for it to load the next CD, is a pain, esp when it happens a number of times through the evening. So too is the slow response on selecting the Next track via the r/c.

It may be what people like to call a first world problem, but it is one all the same. A proper CD player does the job much more fluently. It's also nice that Prev on the CD player works logically, going to the previous track not the start of the current. Small things, but they add up.