Portable CD players see a resurgence in the UK

Unless you have some unexplained obsession with gadgets of yesteryear, you probably haven't been paying close attention to how many brands of portable CD players your local retailers have been stocking. According to Currys over in the UK, however, it's being pressured to order up truckloads of 'em to satisfy the 50 percent uptick in demand compared to last year. Moreover, John Lewis (a department store) has begun stocking the units again some four years after originally putting them to rest. Analysts are asserting that the lagging economy is leading people to select these devices as stocking stuffers, with their ease-of-use and rock-bottom prices making them highly attractive in the current market. Word to the wise, though -- chances are that special someone would much prefer a low-end 1GB DAP over something they probably already have. Or, you know, a Pizza Express gift card.

[Kris120890 @ Dec 8th 2008 5:21AM]

Nice cheap gifts for kids. CDs are now selling for less than digital this Christmas due to the big January sales.

[Richard Lai @ Dec 8th 2008 5:59AM]

And kids with CD players are less likely to be mugged than those with iPods.

[Cris @ Dec 8th 2008 7:45AM]

the key here is... which kids will want to be the trendsetters? Social status is at stake for them with this move...

[absinthe party @ Dec 8th 2008 7:47AM]

@ Cris

We're quickly approaching the 20-year mark since 1990, so now is the time for a proper retro comeback. I'm already hunting down some MC Hammer parachute pants and I suggest you do the same.

[Joe @ Dec 8th 2008 7:48AM]

Kids with CD players DO the mugging.

[zioncat @ Dec 8th 2008 9:41AM]

Come on seriously whats the point mp3 player are not that expensive. I would rather use a low end mp3 player than to go backwards and use a cd player.

[OneLove @ Dec 8th 2008 11:40AM]

Anyone who gives me one of those for christmas is going to be beaten with it.

[SNP @ Dec 8th 2008 5:26AM]

Sad....

[bot @ Dec 8th 2008 5:28AM]

CD players may be old stuff but they still produce better sound quality than the average MP3. Until FLAC or a similiar lossless standard becomes the norm they probably still have a place in the market.

[BobTurbo @ Dec 8th 2008 5:39AM]

But..... iPods play Apple Lossless......... and even on a 1GB DAP you would fit many more songs onto that than onto an audio CD.

[Ridgecity @ Dec 8th 2008 5:51AM]

cds sound better. But you are talking about a portable player with tiny crappy speakers, Even those $500 headphones sound like crap compared to $30 regular speakers.

It's like all that people that love how their vinyls had that natural sound with the added scratches. I guess there will always be a market for everything.

[nicholaelaw @ Dec 8th 2008 5:52AM]

@BobTurbo
However you still need to get the CD in order to convert it into Apple Lossless audio because, you know, iTunes store offers aren't exactly lossless.

[Wwhat @ Dec 8th 2008 5:53AM]

Yeah a 300 bucks ipod competes with a 12 dollar cd player, that's real sharp of you.

[j_g_puff @ Dec 8th 2008 7:31AM]

I like music, but i've never had a problem with sound quality in lossy codecs as long as they've been encoded at a sensible bit rate. 256kbps MP3s sound (to my ear at least) as good as the original, and if I'm listening on a train or in a car, any compression artefacts are going to be totally inaudible anyway.

Whilst i'm sure there are some people who can hear the difference between compressed and non-compressed audio, I suspect that most people are just moaning for the hell of it (possibly because you get MAD RESPECT for doing so). The whole point of perceptually lossy compression is that the effect on audio quality is minimal. My hatred extends to people who decry video compression for the same reasons.

Back to the topic, I much prefer buying CDs to buying MP3s. It's nice to get a case and pretty booklet, and to know that whatever happens to my computer, the music is still there on my shelf forever (or until the CD degrades in about 10 years).

[omureadhaigh @ Dec 8th 2008 9:30AM]

I think I want a portable record player for x-mas. It's the only real lossless media form. Analog sound waves FTW!

[Sarig @ Dec 8th 2008 10:18AM]

I can't tell the difference between 320kbps MP3's and lossless, or CD audio.

But I *can* tell the difference on the audio output of both my Creative Zen, and an iPod Touch, and neither compares to what I get from a 6 year old Sony Walkman that only plays cd's. Mind, it cost about twice what other cd players cost at that time, when they were starting to be phased out of the market, so it ought to be good.

But it surprises me mp3 players still haven't caught up.

Of course, this is all in the ear of the beholder, as it were.

[sts @ Dec 8th 2008 10:55AM]

This just the same audiophile comment that vinyl users said about cd:s :D

[Wolfticket @ Dec 8th 2008 11:23AM]

Continuing these rather audiophile-y sentiments, may I add:
No line level/digital output, no sale.

[bot @ Dec 8th 2008 6:56PM]

Eh, don't get all worked up about my comment. I'm not an audiophile although I do have an appreciation for higher quality components and recordings. I was just commenting on the article since it seemed to be dismissing CD players as old and useless tech. My point is that it's something that can play CDs which are uncompressed and better than MP3s. I'd rather buy a CD than MP3s. At least if you convert the tracks to MP3 you still have the untouched copy. With MP3s you're purchasing something that has already been degraded.

[r3loaded @ Dec 8th 2008 5:28AM]

Maybe it's something to do with the fact that digital music downloads aren't that much cheaper than CDs, even if they're high-quality DRM-free MP3s from Amazon. One pound extra gets you the uncompressed DRM-free tracks, a physical disc, jewel case, album art cover and inlay booklet.

And you still have the option of ripping to MP3 or any other format if you need to.

[jeesusfreek @ Dec 8th 2008 5:39AM]

Now, the Burr-Brown decoding chip in my receiver might be able to tell the difference. But as long as we're talking portable, there's no sense in saying that you need FLAC or lossless audio tracks. Plus with flash storage prices ever on the fall and with flash being so much more stable, i.e. no buffering...a 1 or 2GB flash player makes more sense to me.

[Wwhat @ Dec 8th 2008 6:10AM]

There's a difference between 'need' and availability, if you can get a CD for the same price (assuming you want to support the industry/artists) but with lots of benefits then it doesn't really matter if a mp3 is 'almost-as-good', especially since as was said you can rip yourself.

Of course the reality is that the huge advantage of (for the sake of argument; legal) downloaded stuff is that you don't have to pay for 10 filler songs and 2 real ones, you can just buy the 2 ones you like and let them keep the rest and so are still making a cheaper deal, but alas with either DRM or/and embedded personal info and in a lossy format with -yes, noticeable- reduced dynamics.

I'm glad I'm not into music much and am fine with the occasional (not-so-paid-for) download of a popular ditty.

[Macca @ Dec 8th 2008 6:39AM]

The cost of CDs versus Audio files has nothing to do with it. The fact is that walkmans are cheaper, and that's the only attraction. Even though CDs are cheaper, that doesn't mean they wouldn't burn it to their comp and sync it to a PMP. Also, the sound quality between CDs and say, AAC, is inaudible in my opinion. Even if CD/FLAC/WAV/AIFF is the tiniest bit better, that doesn't justify the 10x or more size of the files.

[democratsarefascists @ Dec 8th 2008 12:04PM]

I was waiting for somebody to get it right.
It's DRM, convenience and quality that are driving this.
People who don't want to deal with subscription services DRM and crap compression or the time lost in conversions are voting with their feet.

DRM is killing the "digital revolution."

[metalmayehm @ Dec 8th 2008 5:42AM]

satisfy the 50 "pervent" uptick in demand

spell check :)

[Pesmo @ Dec 8th 2008 6:29AM]

No, "pervert" is spelled correctly. I think you meant to say proofread.

[Ben @ Dec 8th 2008 5:43AM]

I actually had (and have still got) the CD player Engadget have used in the article, might even whip it out the loft for old times sake =]
You never know either, the headphones could be better then Apple's standard ones too ;)

[Dopefish @ Dec 8th 2008 7:17AM]

Any headphones which dont make your ears bleed are better than the bundled iPhoney's ;-)

[Ben @ Dec 8th 2008 5:50AM]

Might I also add how scary technology (and size) has evolved, take one of these CD players, a maximum of 700MB CDs and the best place to put it if you was on the move was in the backpack/rucksack. On the other hand look at the iPod shuffle, 2GBs worth of space (higher-end wise) and it's half the size of a matchbox.

[Muhammad-Oli @ Dec 8th 2008 6:07AM]

Funny you should mention matchboxes in an article about somewhat obsolete technology.

[bot @ Dec 8th 2008 5:59AM]

Ridgecity: I'm confused, why are you talking about speakers? I am comparing CD audio to MP3 audio which is compressed.

Wwhat: Sorry to break it to you but Ipods aren't exactly praised for their superior audio quality. That doesn't matter though because if you're playing an MP3 file you're playing a file that has been compressed and has lost quality. So, even if the Ipod had superior sound quality it would be wasted on a lossy file. MP3 players that offer better sound hardware are generally able to play FLAC because it would actually be useful.

[Laron @ Dec 8th 2008 6:03AM]

I wouldn't mind one of those...sony discman was like GOLD back in the day.

[J. Baker @ Dec 8th 2008 6:03AM]

I hook up a portable CD player to my decent set of speakers instead of my iPod or PC. The sound is superior, and its definitely noticeable on a decent set of speakers.

Really though, how has the economic crisis got this bad to the point where people are buying these to replace the convenience of a 1gb DAP? The difference in price is maybe £10?

[BobTurbo @ Dec 8th 2008 6:04AM]

nicholaelaw, yes, and then you stick it into the cd-drive of your computer and it magically turns into a file......... of course maybe some people do not know how to change the setting to apple lossless in iTunes, or even know how to use iTunes, or even have a computer. That would explain the reason people would want a cd player, not because of anything to do with audio quality.

[CraigJ @ Dec 8th 2008 6:05AM]

Never, EVER, recommend a gift card again, engadget. How very un-geek-like of you, a gift card that really is like cash but less functional.

I was born with a personal vendetta against such store vouchers..

[[e-mail] @ Dec 8th 2008 12:13PM]

But it's a Pizza Express gift voucher!!!! YUM YUM!!!

[Dan @ Dec 8th 2008 4:40PM]

I too share your hate for gift cards...
Those Visa ones are a tad more convenient, but they're still a pain to use online. :o

[JJ @ Dec 8th 2008 6:10AM]

I still use my CD player from time-to-time.

I may still buy music from iTunes, but when going for uncompressed stuff and for bands and musicians I'm a big fan of, buying a music CD of theirs is much better. Or, it could be the music fan in me.

[Adderz @ Dec 8th 2008 6:12AM]

Ive still got my portable cd player in the cupboard, i think i bought it 5 years ago....im SO glad we have moved on from that, optical media is the worst.

Durability is a MAJOR problem, along with read and write speeds.

I really cant believe theres been a resurgence. I also really cant believe the recording industry hasnt looked into other standards to sell music (other than..what was it..those sandisk micro cards)

[tekdroid @ Dec 8th 2008 10:10AM]

Optical media is the worst?
What do you back your stuff up on?

Some points to consider:
1) hard drives are not exactly pinnacles of reliability
2) flash media degrades the more it is written to
3) Apple and many others only allow computer-to-portable one-way transfers of content
4) a fragile spinning hard drive is exposed to environmental shocks, dust, heat, which all can play a part in its death and/or data loss. Not to mention viruses, spyware, sector corruption, general wear-and-tear, power surges.

I regard just about any CD or DVD from a semi-reputable manufacturer that's stored safely away from a computer to be infinitely more reliable. There are always 'exceptional circumstances' that can 'kill the faith', so to speak, but generally speaking, I think opticals rule for archival (for the common man) versus any of the current competition out there.

[Adderz @ Dec 8th 2008 11:10AM]

Given the context here of PORTABLE music, cd's would have a MUCH shorter lifespan than a hard drive. Carrying a few unprotected cd's around with you fucks them up very quickly.

I have never used optical media for archival purposes, instead relying on mechanical hard drives. I keep two externals, one i backup to and use regularly, and other one i backup to and never use for anything else.

What im trying to say it, i will not miss the day when optical media is replaced...with what..who knows.

[tekdroid @ Dec 8th 2008 9:04PM]

...but if you're comparing portable music, wouldn't it be fair to compare the hard drives in that same context: portable?

Each have their advantages and disadvantages for sure, but hard drives don't like being moved around, dropped, left in the hot car, etc either. Every medium has its trade-offs, none being perfect, but optical is still one of the better longer-term solutions to me.

[tekdroid @ Dec 8th 2008 9:09PM]

...there are also portable formats like MiniDisc / Hi-MD (Hi-MD can store more than a CD, losslessly too) with protective caddies and far smaller size. Blu-Ray was initially designed this way but gave way to the 'cheapness' of a bare disc.

[mike @ Dec 8th 2008 6:21AM]

fuck that shit.

[Alex Moyler @ Dec 8th 2008 6:25AM]

Yeah I was wondering why the John Lewis where I work stocks them. They're not bad bits of kit though, headphones are good quality and they have mp3 playback and all. Mostly only sold them to people 65+ though...

[Findeh @ Dec 8th 2008 8:02PM]

I work in John Lewis too and I haven't seen any portable CD players as yet O_o maybe they'll turn up soon..

I can see why they're resurfacing again, but I personally prefer ripping the CDs and just having them as a backup in case the songs are deleted from my phone/mp3 player.

[Neil @ Dec 8th 2008 6:33AM]

We use an old Sony CD Walkman at work, we just connect it though a Hi-Fi to amplyfy the sound - reason being is that the Hi-Fi doesn't playback MP3 files and the Walkman does but also the battery life on these things is insane if you're just playing MP3 CD-R's, we get around a week out of every charge of usage (probably around 35 hours playback time), sure we can only get 700MB of data into this thing but there are still no MP3 players as far as I am aware that can go for so long.

[AA @ Dec 8th 2008 6:43AM]

In Australia, portable CD players are very easy to find and are often at reduced prices around this time of year.


I've seen plenty of Sony CD Walkmans for sale in some stores-usually at "JB Hi-Fi" and at Target & Kmart stores-basic model is the D-EJ011 in Australia and goes for about $49, MP3 playback model is NE240-$80.

I have also seen Jensen and SONIQ models too-around $28-$39.

And at thrift stores too-like a D-181 for $1 (10 years old model but still good quality).

Sony has not updated its range of portable CD players since late 2006 though.

And I always have found these to be good sounding-the Sony players are very good with a bass boost called "MEGA BASS" enabled.

[rayza563 @ Dec 8th 2008 6:47AM]

"Analysts are asserting that the lagging economy is leading people to select these devices as stocking stuffers, with their ease-of-use and rock-bottom prices making them highly attractive in the current market."

Some analysts also claim floppy disks will be making a comeback the 1.44mb kind. Nvidia has begun mass producing.

[Level 5 @ Dec 8th 2008 7:14AM]

I would really hope that's sarcastic, hoss. Considering you can buy a 128MB flash drive in a grocery store check out lane for $4.99, I doubt we'll ever see floppies as a ubiquitous storage form again.