The first CD players. - UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Discussion Forum

Edward Huggins · 8th Oct 2022, 9:57 am

Sometime back I had the opportunity to hear a well maintained Philips CD100 14 bit CD player, their first from 1983. It wasn't a critical test, but it sounded pretty damn good to me. I just wonder whether the average listener would be able to tell much difference betweeen that and a, say, Roksan of 20 years later?
Indeed, and whilst writing this, there seems to have been no real breakthrough in CD technology in recent times and the number of new CD products being released seems to be quite rare. Or, maybe I'm rar too out of touch with all- things-Digital now and stand to be corrected!

paulsherwin · 8th Oct 2022, 10:10 am

CD technology has been pretty stable for about 25 years.

The first generation 14 bit players do sound perfectly decent, but later DAC designs with more component integration do sound cleaner and more transparent.

Nickthedentist · 8th Oct 2022, 11:40 am

I'd say that to most people, the difference between CD players is subtle at best, and most would be hard pushed to detect any difference at all.

This is quite unlike turntables and cassette machines where speed variation and background noise are usually very apparent in lesser models.

ben · 8th Oct 2022, 11:58 am

I have a CD100 awaiting repair. Apart from the interesting look, what a nice sounding machine it was when it worked. Prior to that I had been using some early 90s Pioneer with twin trays (probably came originally with a system) and the Philips blew that away, despite being over a decade older.

paulsherwin · 8th Oct 2022, 12:07 pm

This article provides a concise description of the evolution of Philips/Marantz DACs: https://www.dutchaudioclassics.nl/th...igital_filter/

Radio Wrangler · 8th Oct 2022, 1:27 pm

It wasn't a straight 14 bit machine, it was also a four-times oversampler soit came to 16 bits of resolution and the real treat was easing the demands on the reconstruction filter.

Straight-forward 16 bit machines had to have a rather fierce anti-alias filter and it was this, I think, gave the Philips its reputation for good sound.

David

Aub · 8th Oct 2022, 1:45 pm

In 1987, I bought a Denon DCD 300. I used it, alongside vynal until 2001, when I replaced it with my current CD player, an Arcam Alpha 7se. The difference was huge. I can't remember how much the Denon cost. The Arcam was £300.

Cheers

Aub

Robert Gribnau · 8th Oct 2022, 2:34 pm

Being used to CD players of later years, I was very surprised when lifting a Philips CD100 for the first time. I didn't expect it to be so heavy (5kg). But I have no idea if its weight plays any role in how it sounds.

paulsherwin · 8th Oct 2022, 2:50 pm

The Philips/Marantz CDM0 based players have a lot of metal in the transport, and also in the chassis. They're really more like short run prototypes than mass produced consumer electronics. The Sony CDP101 was also quite heavy.

Players from the mid 90s onwards are mostly air inside.

stevehertz · 8th Oct 2022, 3:10 pm

I had a Philips CD100. I got it for about £225 (cheap) because the model had been out for a while and newer ones were on the market. It always sounded fantastic to me, but chase the dragon as you do, some years later I let it go in favour of a Philips 374 (?) that had a 'favourite track' facility. I can't say that I could hear any difference though. TBH, I doubt in blind listening tests that most people could hear any difference between decent quality CD players. As for there being breakthroughs in CD technology in recent times, the reasons are many. But basically, the sound quality was good from the off and any minor audible improvements that could have been done, have by now been done. Also, the world of listening to music has changed drastically and for many years now people having been selling off their CD collections preferring to listen to streamed music, or at least as well as. Personally I love the format, much as I did (and still do, vinyl). I just can't get my head around 'downloading' music, I feel the need to be part of the process, to take an LP or a CD from it's sleeve and peruse the cover and album notes. Call me old fashioned, but then I suppose that's why I'm on here!

Scott5591 · 8th Oct 2022, 3:16 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevehertz

I had a Philips CD100. I got it for about £225 (cheap) because the model had been out for a while and newer ones were on the market. It always sounded fantastic to me, but chase the dragon as you do, some years later I let it go in favour of a Philips 374 (?) that had a 'favourite track' facility. I can't say that I could hear any difference though. TBH, I doubt in blind listening tests that most people could hear any difference between decent quality CD players. As for there being breakthroughs in CD technology in recent times, the reasons are many. But basically, the sound quality was good from the off and any minor audible improvements that could have been done, have by now been done. Also, the world of listening to music has changed drastically and for many years now people having been selling off their CD collections preferring to listen to streamed music, or at least as well as. Personally I love the format, much as I did (and still do, vinyl). I just can't get my head around 'downloading' music, I feel the need to be part of the process, to take an LP or a CD from it's sleeve and peruse the cover and album notes. Call me old fashioned, but then I suppose that's why I'm on here!

Only CD player I could tell a noticeable sound difference was a Marantz CD63 KI.
Sounded really nice to my ears compared to a Sony ES player I had from the 90’s.

stevehertz · 8th Oct 2022, 3:24 pm

The Marantz CD63 was the same model as Philips CD100 - as I recall, no doubt I'll be corrected if wrong.

paulsherwin · 8th Oct 2022, 3:30 pm

This often catches people out. For some reason, Marantz used the same model number for 2 completely unrelated models, one from 1982 and the other from 1994. The 1994 one was indeed very well reviewed. I believe it used a non-Philips bitstream DAC, as the Philips and Marantz ranges were diverging by then.

https://www.radiomuseum.org/r/marantz_cd63.html
https://www.whathifi.com/features/wa...z-cd-63-review

stevehertz · 8th Oct 2022, 3:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulsherwin

This often catches people out. For some reason, Marantz used the same model number for 2 completely unrelated models, one from 1982 and the other from 1994. The 1994 one was indeed very well reviewed.

Indeed Paul, the one that is the same as the Philips CD100 is the plain Marantz CD63 (not KI).

paulsherwin · 8th Oct 2022, 3:40 pm

No, it's madder than that. The CD63SE was just a tweaked version. They really did use the same model number for two different players. I've never been able to work out why.

wd40addict · 8th Oct 2022, 3:53 pm

A colleague had an early Akai model and was delighted with it. I went to have a listen and you could immediately hear it was one of those early Japanese players that time shared one DAC between the two channels.

I didn't rain on his parade, but made mental note that any player I bought must have independent converters.

stevehertz · 8th Oct 2022, 4:23 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulsherwin

No, it's madder than that. The CD63SE was just a tweaked version. They really did use the same model number for two different players. I've never been able to work out why.

Crikey, you couldn't make it up could you?! I just googled the model!

Ted Kendall · 8th Oct 2022, 4:59 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by wd40addict

A colleague had an early Akai model and was delighted with it. I went to have a listen and you could immediately hear it was one of those early Japanese players that time shared one DAC between the two channels.

I didn't rain on his parade, but made mental note that any player I bought must have independent converters.

When CD first appeared, I was a recording engineer at Transcription Service. Liking to be on the cutting edge, we borrowed six players and set them up on blind test, yours truly driving. I kept my mouth shut so as not to influence the senior engineers who were listening, but it was remarkably easy to distinguish Philips-based machines from the rest on the disc we used - Gilels' Hammerklavier sonata on DGG, as I recall. The piano sound made sense on the Philips machines, was marginally worse on the NAD, which had a small inter-channel time shift, and not so good on the Sony and Hitachi machines, which had the 11uS time difference. The post-D/A filtering probably had something to do with it, too.

Bear in mind this was a long time ago, and before too long the Japanese cottoned on to oversampling and matters improved. I still have a CD104, and it still sounds good to me.

stevehertz · 8th Oct 2022, 5:21 pm

Interesting info Ted, I've learnt something there. I'm a bit bemused though because given that Sony and Philips created the famed “Red Book” standard, you'd have thought that manufacturers would have 'gone down the same path'? Apparently not, from what you say they didn't. Or did the Red Book only give so much information to get going?

paulsherwin · 8th Oct 2022, 5:56 pm

There was some dispute in the early days as to whether it was acceptable to multiplex a single DAC or whether you needed two. Sony claimed the phase shift wouldn't be audible in normal use, and went for a single DAC design for the CDP101, which was very influential among Japanese makers.

Of course, the chips soon became a lot cheaper, and single DAC designs became rightly seen as a false economy.

8th Oct 2022, 9:57 am	#1
Edward Huggins Dekatron Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Southwold, Suffolk, UK. Posts: 8,344	The first CD players. Sometime back I had the opportunity to hear a well maintained Philips CD100 14 bit CD player, their first from 1983. It wasn't a critical test, but it sounded pretty damn good to me. I just wonder whether the average listener would be able to tell much difference betweeen that and a, say, Roksan of 20 years later? Indeed, and whilst writing this, there seems to have been no real breakthrough in CD technology in recent times and the number of new CD products being released seems to be quite rare. Or, maybe I'm rar too out of touch with all- things-Digital now and stand to be corrected! __________________ Edward.

8th Oct 2022, 10:10 am	#2
paulsherwin Moderator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 27,996	Re: The first cd players CD technology has been pretty stable for about 25 years. The first generation 14 bit players do sound perfectly decent, but later DAC designs with more component integration do sound cleaner and more transparent.

8th Oct 2022, 11:40 am	#3
Nickthedentist Dekatron Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Oxford, UK. Posts: 17,871	Re: The first CD players. I'd say that to most people, the difference between CD players is subtle at best, and most would be hard pushed to detect any difference at all. This is quite unlike turntables and cassette machines where speed variation and background noise are usually very apparent in lesser models.

8th Oct 2022, 11:58 am	#4
ben Dekatron Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Madrid, Spain / Wirral, UK Posts: 7,499	Re: The first CD players. I have a CD100 awaiting repair. Apart from the interesting look, what a nice sounding machine it was when it worked. Prior to that I had been using some early 90s Pioneer with twin trays (probably came originally with a system) and the Philips blew that away, despite being over a decade older. __________________ Regards, Ben.

8th Oct 2022, 12:07 pm	#5
paulsherwin Moderator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 27,996	Re: The first CD players. This article provides a concise description of the evolution of Philips/Marantz DACs: https://www.dutchaudioclassics.nl/th...igital_filter/

8th Oct 2022, 1:27 pm	#6
Radio Wrangler Moderator Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Fife, Scotland, UK. Posts: 22,917	Re: The first CD players. It wasn't a straight 14 bit machine, it was also a four-times oversampler soit came to 16 bits of resolution and the real treat was easing the demands on the reconstruction filter. Straight-forward 16 bit machines had to have a rather fierce anti-alias filter and it was this, I think, gave the Philips its reputation for good sound. David __________________ Can't afford the volcanic island yet, but the plans for my monorail and the goons' uniforms are done

8th Oct 2022, 1:45 pm	#7
Aub Nonode Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Nuneaton, Warwickshire, UK. Posts: 2,041	Re: The first CD players. In 1987, I bought a Denon DCD 300. I used it, alongside vynal until 2001, when I replaced it with my current CD player, an Arcam Alpha 7se. The difference was huge. I can't remember how much the Denon cost. The Arcam was £300. Cheers Aub __________________ Life's a long song, but the tune ends too soon for us all.

8th Oct 2022, 2:34 pm	#8
Robert Gribnau Banned Join Date: May 2017 Location: Konongo, Ghana Posts: 516	Re: The first CD players. Being used to CD players of later years, I was very surprised when lifting a Philips CD100 for the first time. I didn't expect it to be so heavy (5kg). But I have no idea if its weight plays any role in how it sounds.

8th Oct 2022, 2:50 pm	#9
paulsherwin Moderator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 27,996	Re: The first CD players. The Philips/Marantz CDM0 based players have a lot of metal in the transport, and also in the chassis. They're really more like short run prototypes than mass produced consumer electronics. The Sony CDP101 was also quite heavy. Players from the mid 90s onwards are mostly air inside.

8th Oct 2022, 3:10 pm	#10
stevehertz Dekatron Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Rugeley, Staffordshire, UK. Posts: 8,839	Re: The first CD players. I had a Philips CD100. I got it for about £225 (cheap) because the model had been out for a while and newer ones were on the market. It always sounded fantastic to me, but chase the dragon as you do, some years later I let it go in favour of a Philips 374 (?) that had a 'favourite track' facility. I can't say that I could hear any difference though. TBH, I doubt in blind listening tests that most people could hear any difference between decent quality CD players. As for there being breakthroughs in CD technology in recent times, the reasons are many. But basically, the sound quality was good from the off and any minor audible improvements that could have been done, have by now been done. Also, the world of listening to music has changed drastically and for many years now people having been selling off their CD collections preferring to listen to streamed music, or at least as well as. Personally I love the format, much as I did (and still do, vinyl). I just can't get my head around 'downloading' music, I feel the need to be part of the process, to take an LP or a CD from it's sleeve and peruse the cover and album notes. Call me old fashioned, but then I suppose that's why I'm on here! __________________ A digital radio is the latest thing, but a vintage wireless is forever..

8th Oct 2022, 3:24 pm	#12
stevehertz Dekatron Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Rugeley, Staffordshire, UK. Posts: 8,839	Re: The first CD players. The Marantz CD63 was the same model as Philips CD100 - as I recall, no doubt I'll be corrected if wrong. __________________ A digital radio is the latest thing, but a vintage wireless is forever..

8th Oct 2022, 3:30 pm	#13
paulsherwin Moderator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 27,996	Re: The first CD players. This often catches people out. For some reason, Marantz used the same model number for 2 completely unrelated models, one from 1982 and the other from 1994. The 1994 one was indeed very well reviewed. I believe it used a non-Philips bitstream DAC, as the Philips and Marantz ranges were diverging by then. https://www.radiomuseum.org/r/marantz_cd63.html https://www.whathifi.com/features/wa...z-cd-63-review

8th Oct 2022, 3:40 pm	#15
paulsherwin Moderator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 27,996	Re: The first CD players. No, it's madder than that. The CD63SE was just a tweaked version. They really did use the same model number for two different players. I've never been able to work out why.

8th Oct 2022, 3:53 pm	#16
wd40addict Octode Join Date: May 2009 Location: Stevenage, Herts. UK. Posts: 1,519	Re: The first CD players. A colleague had an early Akai model and was delighted with it. I went to have a listen and you could immediately hear it was one of those early Japanese players that time shared one DAC between the two channels. I didn't rain on his parade, but made mental note that any player I bought must have independent converters.

8th Oct 2022, 5:21 pm	#19
stevehertz Dekatron Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Rugeley, Staffordshire, UK. Posts: 8,839	Re: The first CD players. Interesting info Ted, I've learnt something there. I'm a bit bemused though because given that Sony and Philips created the famed “Red Book” standard, you'd have thought that manufacturers would have 'gone down the same path'? Apparently not, from what you say they didn't. Or did the Red Book only give so much information to get going? __________________ A digital radio is the latest thing, but a vintage wireless is forever..

8th Oct 2022, 5:56 pm	#20
paulsherwin Moderator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 27,996	Re: The first CD players. There was some dispute in the early days as to whether it was acceptable to multiplex a single DAC or whether you needed two. Sony claimed the phase shift wouldn't be audible in normal use, and went for a single DAC design for the CDP101, which was very influential among Japanese makers. Of course, the chips soon became a lot cheaper, and single DAC designs became rightly seen as a false economy.