SMSL PL100 Review (CD Player)

[anibal66]

It would be great to have a top loader version of this PL100 or PL150. The PL200 is way too expensive. Transparent cover, of course.
Apart from looks and usability, I feel my CDs would be safer with a top loader. Probably a prejudice.
I don't like much tray loaders. I need to open too frequently my current dvd-as-cd-transport for belt adjustment.

 

[Billy Budapest]

I still really dislike that graphic in the front. Is it easily removable so you can swap it with something else?

No, but in person it doesn’t look that bad. It’s pretty light and easy to ignore. Plus, the rest of the aluminum casework looks fantastic. The OLED display looks really good too.

 

[Tell]

No, but in person it doesn’t look that bad. It’s pretty light and easy to ignore. Plus, the rest of the aluminum casework looks fantastic. The OLED display looks really good too.

Of course it looks bad in person, the pattern and color looks cheap and outdated. But good to know that it's not removable, thanks!

 

[FrostedOxen]

Of course it looks bad in person, the pattern and color looks cheap and outdated. But good to know that it's not removable, thanks!

You must be thinking of the PL100. The 150 looks spectacular. It's everything I could want in a transport. A $25K unit would have nothing over it.

 

[Billy Budapest]

Of course it looks bad in person, the pattern and color looks cheap and outdated. But good to know that it's not removable, thanks!

No, in person it is nowhere near as noticeable as it is in photographs. It barely registers with me.

 

[Billy Budapest]

You must be thinking of the PL100. The 150 looks spectacular. It's everything I could want in a transport. A $25K unit would have nothing over it.

This thread is about the PL100 so I assumed that is what he is taking about.

 

[Bleib]

The OLED display looks really good too.

Fairly sure it's not an OLED. It has the regular LCD quality to it

 

[Tell]

No, in person it is nowhere near as noticeable as it is in photographs. It barely registers with me.

Sure it might less noticeable over there in the shelf, but it's still ugly. It is a light grey background with some round shapes that looks bad even when squinting at a picture on my phone.

 

[Mart68]

Sure it might less noticeable over there in the shelf, but it's still ugly. It is a light grey background with some round shapes that looks bad even when squinting at a picture on my phone.

I agree it looks horrendous. What were they thinking? A plain front would probably have been a bit cheaper too.

 

[DavidM1]

Ha. There are a lot of ordinary looking bits of gear. This one is unique. My teenage daughter particularly likes the look. Design cues hit differently with different age groups and I’d expect most here to like a traditional looking box.

 

[Mart68]

Certainly it's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Billy Budapest]

Sure it might less noticeable over there in the shelf, but it's still ugly. It is a light grey background with some round shapes that looks bad even when squinting at a picture on my phone.

I don’t like how it looks in pictures, but in person on a desk it’s not really noticeable. Not “less noticeable”—more like “barely noticeable,” to me at least. If you want basically the same product but with a slightly bigger footprint, a nicer front, but a much less nice cast (bent sheet metal vs cast aluminum), shell out $50 more for a PL150.