April 15, 2008 6:54 AM PDT

The 30-year-old iPod?

Does anybody buying an iPod in 2008 expect to get more than a few years of use out of the thing? My five year old iPod still plays, but I can't get it to work in newer iPod docks or iPod speakers. My iPod is too old.

Linn's turntable has been around since 1972.

(Credit: Linn Products)

A good friend of mine plays his 30-year-old Linn LP-12 turntable almost every day. It was an expensive turntable in 1978 when it sold for around $1,200. But he's gotten 30 years of use out of the thing, and even now listens to a lot more vinyl than CD. So his $1,200 investment works out to around $40 a year to own the thing. Can you imagine anybody buying an iPod today still using it in 2038? 2028? OK, how about 2018? Hmm, I don't think so.

Linn still makes the LP-12 turntable, the model has been in continuous production since 1972, and most parts are readily available. How's that for customer service? My Linn LP-12 is almost brand new, it's just 13 years old.

OK, iPods aren't high-end devices, they're disposable technology. Fair enough, how much do you imagine you'll spend on iPods or their equivalents over the next 30 years? There was one guy who responded to my "How many iPods have you owned?" poll who has already bought 26. So he's already made Steve Jobs richer by many thousands of dollars. Over the next three decades he'll spend a lot more, and still wind up with a closet full of useless junk.

I get it. Convenience trumps quality in most things. Fast food vs. slow food; fresh ingredients vs processed, which is pretty much the same deal with music. CDs, once the height of convenience and advanced tech are now viewed as archaic. CDs are too big, too easily damaged, and cost too much--so lower-fi MP3s and iTunes have put the CD on the road to oblivion. But to vinyl loving audiophiles LPs still sound better than any digital format. Everyone else couldn't care less about the sound quality their music, it's just not all that important to them.

Or is it that people are so busy now they simply don't have time for quality. Strange, our affluence makes us go for the quickest, lower quality option every time. Back in the day writers would use the same typewriter for decades, but now we have to toss out our computers every three or four years. We're living in a disposable culture, so we need to keep buying new, ever cheaper stuff, but if you have to keep rebuying it, is it really cheaper? High-end audio can be expensive to buy, but not to own.

I'd like to hear from you guys about your turntables, have long have you had yours? Is yours even older than my friend's 30 year old Linn?

Originally posted at The Audiophiliac
Steve Guttenberg is a frequent contributor to a number of magazines and websites including Home Theater, Stereophile, and Robb Report Home Entertainment. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
Recent posts from Crave
Yelle, 'Je Veux Te Voir': Free MP3 of the Day
Looking back, looking ahead: The week in laptops
Attention back-to-school shoppers: Find your laptop reviews here
Gear4 shrinks 'BlackBox' speaker to travel size
Review: 2009 Acura TSX
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 33 comments (Page 1 of 4)
by emsabh April 15, 2008 8:08 AM PDT
I have a cheapo Technics turntable that I bought in college in 1981, for around 120 dollars. Other than changing the needle once, it's been working without complaint since then.
Reply to this comment
by shawnoBlawno April 15, 2008 8:09 AM PDT
I honestly don't know how old my turntable is. Its a pioneer PL-255 fully auto direct drive model and I bought it used 5 years ago for about 20 bucks. I think its from the 70s or 80s, anybody have any idea how old it is? Anyway, needle on it was almost new and it came with a spare. It wasn't playing at the right speed when I bought it, so I took it took a local repair shop and for about 20 bucks more they totally cleaned it up, inside and out. Now it works perfectly and I use it almost every day (funny enough its hooked up to my vintage 1978 pioneer amp). I see used turntables all the time on a local usedstuff website, most in the $20 to $75 range so when my pioneer finally dies, I'll just pick up another. I'm really dreading the day my ipod dies. Not only because I'll have to shell out big bucks for a new one, but it will be a pain to put all music back on.
Reply to this comment
by Ken_1st April 15, 2008 8:24 AM PDT
I recently resurrected my "old standby" Denon DP-60L table to once again listen to vinyl on a consistent basis. I received it as a wedding present in 1982, it outlasted the marriage. My daughter who is in college uses a Dual 1229 ca. 1972, renovated in 2005 for about $150, works great and brings her a lot of enjoyment. Her 2 year old iPod still works but has a funky headphone jack...
Reply to this comment
by screature April 15, 2008 10:41 AM PDT
I am afraid to say I think a turntable and iPod comparison is a dumb comparison, apples and oranges. A more appropriate comparison would be between a Walkman and an iPod. If you want to make a point about the durability of a product of yesteryear vs. today compare the Linn turntable to AppleTV or some other media streaming device, that is used in an equivalent manner. The point would still be valid and undoubtedly true without the weakness of the products being compared having little in common in terms of application aside from that they both play music.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
by zip22 April 15, 2008 11:14 AM PDT
Adjusted for inflation, you friend spent around $3,900 in todays dollars.
Reply to this comment
by The Noble Robot April 15, 2008 6:09 PM PDT
Man, this is such an easy argument to make. COST: You know, every future device I own will be able to play my MP3s (no thank you, DRM), but my CD player won't play my LPs. So the cost is redistributed. Not completely, of course, but if you are a responsible consumer, you won't be screwed. And what you forget is that people used to go through Walkmans or portable CD players at the same rate (or faster). Of course, those didn't cost as much, but now that we have iPods/Zunes/etc., we don't buy home stereos or boomboxes anymore. We plug our iPods into our home surround systems or our cars. In the end, a lot of people save money. If you want to listen exclusively to LPs and have them sound better than your iPod, you're going to spend a lot more money: first on discs (if you want new ones *or* vintage ones, anything except the scratched up 80s used bin) and especially on sound equipment, amplifiers, speakers, etc. You can't argue both that "people buy mp3s because they're cheap" and "people who buy mp3s spend too much money." The more money you spend, the better sound equipment and audio experience you get (you can get high-fidelity digital files, or make them by ripping lossless from CDs or LP, you know), no matter what format you choose. QUALITY: I'm tried of so-called audiophiles decrying the horrid sound of CDs and mp3s, as if mp3s sound like they're coming out of a telephone. Of course the quality is lower, but people buy iPods not in spite of the lower quality, but because mp3 truely sounds *good enough.* LPs are better, yes, but few people ever listened to them on properly calibrated (and expensive) systems anyway, so those LP fanatics aren't gettting a better sound, either. I'm a audio engineer, so I know what I'm talking about. DISPOSIBLE: iPods get replaced not just because they become "out of vogue." When new iPods come out, sometimes they *are* better products. I've owned exactly 1 iPod, which I inherited from my brother when he got a new one. My point isn't that I'm frugal, but that my brother's old 3rd gen iPod didn't get thrown away. My wife is on her third iPod, a 5th generation 80gig that she inherited from my mom when she got an iPhone. Her 1st and 2nd iPods were both given to friends and relatives when she got a new one. Of course, anyone who has bought 26 iPods is an idiot. We can agree on that. My point is that you should really get off your high-horse.
Reply to this comment
by b_baggins April 16, 2008 7:42 AM PDT
What a dumb article. You admit right off that your iPod still works fine, but it won't work with the newest speakers or docks. You therefore conclude it is junk. Then you go on to praise the turntable because it still works after thirty years. Hey, it won't play any of the newer formats like casettes, 8-track, or CDs, but it's not junk, because, uh, well, because it isn't.
Reply to this comment
by BRMperc April 16, 2008 7:51 AM PDT
LPs sound great. I think we can all agree on that. But I think you have to keep in mind how much our collective listening habits have changed. When you're on the subway, just being able to hear the music is the first priority. The best sounding headphones in the world don't block out every screechy rail. Also, we demand music (and podcasts, and video) pretty much everywhere now. You certainly can't watch the crave podcast on your turntable, and I'd like to see you with your turntable on the subway. As a Massage Therapist, it is certainly easier to use an iHome and just let the music play for an hour (or more). My other point is in order to achieve that great LP sound you need a few things: First, in order to get that wonderful LP sound, you need great components. Your whole signal chain has to be good. Second, if your LP gets a scratch, it's done. And third, you need the time at home to sit down and just pay attention to the music. If you're cooking while listening, your attention is divided, and you're not getting everything you can. I love high quality audiophile sound. And there are times where I can be in the moment with my music. About once a year.
Reply to this comment
by MastaShake1138 April 16, 2008 8:55 AM PDT
What a useless article. I mean, I totally agree with what an earlier commenter wrote about comparison. First of all, as one said, adjusted for inflation it would've cost almost $4000, compared to $250 for an iPod. Another point is how fast the technology sector moves. The iPod has been around in just years, and since then have way more capacity, longer battery life, can play movies, is smaller, etc. The rate at which new technology is introduce by EVERYONE is much faster, hence the appearance of a throwaway consumer market. This really is just another one of *yawn* many attempts by Cnet to tear down apple and give them a bad name in any way they can. I really think its gotten to the point of ridiculousness where people can tell (as previously seen). You know, the media always like a good competition. Makes for a good story, eh? ; ) Oh, and by the way, a disclaimer - I do have apple products. Proudly.
Reply to this comment
by emil serban April 16, 2008 9:37 AM PDT
Let's do the math: $1200 in 1978 = $4000 in 2008 $4000 divided by an average price of $300 for an Ipod = 13 Ipods Change your Ipod every three years => 13x3 = 39 years Having a new Ipod every three years: PRICELESS We are, however, creatures of habit and collecting things is a real treat for most, wether that is cars, stamps, records, guitars, watches, shoes, purses, memorabilia or Ipods, and that cannot be measured in dollars.
Reply to this comment
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement

About Crave

The name says it all. Crave is our blog about gorgeous gadgets and other crushworthy stuff. If you would like to contact Crave with a tip or comment, please write to: crave@cnet.com

I Crave

advertisement
Click Here.
Crave home

Crave

Switch background color:
A Blog from CNET

A Blog from CNET

Visit other CNET Networks sites: