If CDs are obsolete, why old CD players are still expensive?

[sonci99]

I mostly use pc audio for regular playback, but still my cd players are my guilty pleasure. I use them mostly occasionally and they never fail to bring joy, unlike some difficult to set up streamers or usb dacs..
and since nobody is using cd format, I was hoping to further expand my inventory of cd players hoping that prices would drop anytime soon.
Cd players usually are not collectibles, they cannot spin forever and are going to die anyway, unless some top of the line vintage Sony or Philips, they look ugly and some don't sound that great anyway, though in my experience they sound better than most entry level dac.
So why they are still expensive? You cannot buy a 200$ player just for nostalgia and I'm not talking about the usual TDA 1541 cult, but anything old or new from Rotel to Marantz to some DVD/SACD players, that even defective demand more than 100$.

 

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Ignore asking prices. Look at actual sales.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

 

[sonci99]

Ignore asking prices. Look at actual sales.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

How to ignore prices? I want to buy...

 

[julian_hughes]

CDs are not yet obsolete. Any music available to buy is made available on CD or hybrid SACD (very common with classical music labels). And CD Players are not yet obsolete because people have been buying CDs for 35 years. Remember, you can still buy vinyl and new turntables from ultra budget to high end. CD is actually a very durable physical medium; expect to still be seeing discs and players around for decades to come.

 

[tvrgeek]

Because my old Rotel is a please to use. ( I really should sell it though and I would want more than $100)
Because some "audiophile" color glossy article says they sound better than the same file served from a computer.
Because not everyone wants to rip 1000 CDs and then debug crap players.
Because some buy equipment to look impressive not to listen to it.
All of my music is from a CD. Stored in the closet as the ultimate backup.

Originally, they suggested the CD would not last 10 years. Sony actually tried to kill them for the MD but the consumers revolted. We can be rather revolting. I think they improved the lacquer as my very first CD is still just fine. Are they archive quality? No. ( 100 years +) Ironically, an LP is.

 

[FrankF]

How to ignore prices? I want to buy...

Go to Ebay and enter a CD player in the search box. On the right of the box will be a option for advance search. Click on that and then click on sold listings. It will give you an idea of what they actually sold for.

 

[julian_hughes]

Because my old Rotel is a please to use. ( I really should sell it though and I would want more than $100)
Because some "audiophile" color glossy article says they sound better than the same file served from a computer.
Because not everyone wants to rip 1000 CDs and then debug crap players.
Because some buy equipment to look impressive not to listen to it.
All of my music is from a CD. Stored in the closet as the ultimate backup.

Originally, they suggested the CD would not last 10 years. Sony actually tried to kill them for the MD but the consumers revolted. We can be rather revolting. I think they improved the lacquer as my very first CD is still just fine. Are they archive quality? No. ( 100 years +) Ironically, an LP is.

Durability varies a lot between pressing plants and labels. I regularly buy, borrow and rip CDs from the 80s & 90s. Some labels went for the very cheapest product and their discs don't often last well, nor survive fairly innocuous looking pits and scratches. Other discs are robust enough to come out of being buffed & seem as good as new despite being very old.

 

[anmpr1]

Older CD players had many more features (programming, track selection, even indexing) that the new ones don't have. They looked a lot better, generally. Like anything old, the mechanical parts will wear out, and then it's a matter of whether it can be fixed at a justifiable price. Probably not worth doing that.

 

[DonH56]

Looked at the price of turntables lately?

 

[anmpr1]

Durability varies a lot between pressing plants and labels.

When CDs first came out, or shortly thereafter, there was a lot of talk about 'CD Rot'. The idea that the disc would somehow deteriorate over time. It was never an issue for me (don't know if it was really a widespread issue at all, or just something to worry about) but I did have some discs where the silkscreen labels rubbed off and/or faded. The disc themselves were playable.

 

[sonci99]

Looked at the price of turntables lately?

Ok, turntables can justify somehow high prices because they are a cliche product, those who buy vinyl can afford to buy a good turntable..
But Cd players are not high regarded by audiophiles, and they don't look as cool as a 70s amplifier..

 

[Robin L]

When CDs first came out, or shortly thereafter, there was a lot of talk about 'CD Rot'. The idea that the disc would somehow deteriorate over time. It was never an issue for me (don't know if it was really a widespread issue at all, or just something to worry about) but I did have some discs where the silkscreen labels rubbed off and/or faded. The disc themselves were playable.

CD rot happened early on. Only a few labels suffered from the problem---Nimbus, for one, which gives you an idea of how limited the problem was. Soon thereafter, the issue went away. CD rot is a red herring, nothing compared to the guaranteed destruction of LPs over time.

 

[andreasmaaan]

When my dad's CD player broke and he needed to replace it for little money, I suggested he buy a Blu-Ray player and just use it as a CD player. Cost him about $50 or $100 IIRC and worked fine (notwithstanding the lack of an LED display).

 

[anmpr1]

When my dad's CD player broke and he needed to replace it for little money, I suggested he buy a Blu-Ray player and just use it as a CD player. Cost him about $50 or $100 IIRC and worked fine (notwithstanding the lack of an LED display).

The thing about using a media player is that they load slowly. Often their controls are 'on screen' for programming or track selection. I had a Denon DCD-1500 that was great, ergonomically. An early Yamaha too. You could do everything from the front panel.

 

[andreasmaaan]

The thing about using a media player is that they load slowly. Often their controls are 'on screen' for programming or track selection. I had a Denon DCD-1500 that was great, ergonomically. An early Yamaha too. You could do everything from the front panel.

View attachment 98076

Yeh, the lack of display is an inconvenience. My dad isn't too bothered by it, he rarely skips tracks so it's just open/close -> play for him 99% of the time.

Didn't notice loading being particularly slow, but can't recall now. Anyway, again it's not a major concern when you're only using it to play albums from start to finish.

 

[julian_hughes]

When CDs first came out, or shortly thereafter, there was a lot of talk about 'CD Rot'. The idea that the disc would somehow deteriorate over time. It was never an issue for me (don't know if it was really a widespread issue at all, or just something to worry about) but I did have some discs where the silkscreen labels rubbed off and/or faded. The disc themselves were playable.

If the lamination is imperfect then the metal layer carrying the data will deteriorate. It's more of a problem in hot, humid climates. A tiny number of CDs were (are?) pressed with the metal layer being gold. These should last longest.

 

[M00ndancer]

I still have my CD player.

A couple of reasons, it always works. No drivers, no janky software and a build quality that will outlast me.

(It's not a cd player but a DVD player, my first one. I bought it soon as I could afford a CD player in 2001) Pioneer DV-444

So I think the CD player will stay, even if it's only a transport. Cheap or even free if you look around.

 

[Wolf]

I got a Sanyo CD boombox in about 1992 (my first player), and started the collection. I have over 1200 now, and still buy at Half-Price Books and places, as well as on-line and imports. CDs are not dead, and still better than the average mp3 download of the same.

My second player was a portable Panasonic jobby. It still works with the right DC plug but was awful on batteries. Later I grabbed a (last-gen?) Panasonic portable with an AM/FM radio, and it still suits me just fine. I also picked up an old Shockwave for nostalgia purposes.

My uncle gave me a non-working Pioneer 100 disc filer, and I fixed the miss in the rail operation and it still works great. It will play ALL of my discs, and still works GREAT!

My first home unit was a Panasonic 5-disc DVD carousel that DID NOT play burned discs- the burn acceptance came out about 6 months later. A home electrical surge took that one out about a year ago. It would therefore not play certain discs.

My first BD player was purchased in 2009, and a true Sony unit. It will not play Dual-Discs (half CD/half DVD), or some of my older CDs. The ones it won't play will play just fine in the older Pioneer. This Sony will not play the SACD layer.

I bought a Denon SACD player a couple years ago for about $50 used, and so far it has been a champ at anything I throw at it.

Yes- I spin reflective discs. Don't give me any crappy MP3s, and records are just cantankerous.

 

[Harmonie]

I enjoy very much my EAD T-1000 transport it's OLD but flawless (thank you Pioneer).

 

[RealityCheck18]

https://www.amazon.com/Marantz-Prof...FZWDG7GR9NE&psc=1&refRID=633CWQJ9NFZWDG7GR9NE

229 bucks, blutooth, SD/USB stick inputs, 3.5mm jack for headphone connections, remote control and so on...and on. Marantz makes it and if that don't get you going, Tascam also sells CD players.

Factor for inflation, that price is a pretty good deal so an option to look at.

I don't need one yet, my 1993 Kenwood is still puttering along and I have a Numark rack mount dual tray in the garage. Oddly enough, my wife loads CDs into the Bluray player instead of the Kenwood--whatever works!