I understand your complaint about the seemingly non-sequitur responses you received. It's just that for some of us, the question seemed so Utterly Weird that we wondered why it was being asked! I mentioned the following in another post, but it can't hurt to repeat it. My D-FJ75TR Discman -- which is _not_ a budget unit -- has a switch that shuts off the skip protection, primarily because the buffer and clocking circuitry draw a significant amount of current, reducing battery life. If a player has such a switch, you might reasonably assume it completely cuts off the buffering. But I don't know for sure. David Satz wrote... > William Sommerwerck wrote: >> You can't compress the disk's data until you get it and have it. And that >> "getting and having" are influenced by the player's skip resistance. >> Compressing it -- which raises the cost of the player for no good >> reason -- offers no advantage. > Hi, Bill. Your first statement is perfectly true, but the players I'm > talking about have two buffers "in series." The first buffer follows the > logic of every other CD player ever made, which is what you're defending > here. But once the usual anti-skip (relocating/splicing) logic has been > applied and the buffer is full of contiguous, uncompressed samples, its > contents are compressed and copied into a segment of a second buffer. > This allows the secondary buffer to hold many seconds' worth of audio. > The player magically acquires a new specification value, plus the amusing > ability to continue playing a track from RAM for some time after the disc > has been stopped or even removed from the player. > Such players have been around for several years now. I don't want to buy > one of those unless it's clear that the compression can be turned all the > way off. > --Folks, this thread is mimicking that well-known parody of R.A.P.; I asked > for specific information that I really need, and the 12 responses so far > have [a] extolled the virtues of HD players over CD players or else they've > argued about the existence or non-existence of data compression. > And oh, yes, there's been a bit of name-calling, or nearly so. > I don't want to diminish the interesting discussion, but strangely I would > _also_ really like to have some recommendations for a low-cost portable > CD player that is known to have relatively high-quality audio ... if possible.