Philips CD100

[bluetomgold]

What about using a CD100 as a transport? Would it be possible to get a good quality digital output?

[martijn]

104,204 and 304 run on philips chips.The earlier models needed Sony support.There is a mk2 version of the 304 that has aTDA1541 DAC.It's no improvementverblown bass and thin high
frequencies.If someone built an IIR replacement for the FIR saa7030filter.........that might give those old machines a new live!
As it stands I would only restore it to the original specs.
I have (had) some of these machines,the unmodified are simply the best!

Martijn

[jean-paul]

I have (had) some of these machines,the unmodified are simply the best!

Controversial to say the least. I guess it all depends on the skills of the person who modifies it.

[martijn]

How did that silly face appear in my reply?I typed ""


Blutomqold,

to transform your cd100 into a transport you will need some chip that transforms the old digital interface into spdif.I wonder if it exists.I have once taken a 202 apart:it appears it even used 2 different interfaces because of some non-Philips chips.
I would keep your 100 as a working museumpiece:more fun.

Martijn

[martijn]

Jean-Paul,

I don't call a different opamp a modification.
I have heard a 204 that was rebuild using faster opamps,new capacitors,new regulators etc but without changes to the original board.It sounded amazingly good.But so it had 18 years before.
Martijn

[jean-paul]

Originally posted by martijn
Jean-Paul,

I don't call a different opamp a modification.
I have heard a 204 that was rebuild using faster opamps,new capacitors,new regulators etc but without changes to the original board.It sounded amazingly good.But so it had 18 years before.
Martijn

Did I mention changing opamps ? I merely reacted to this quote:

I have (had) some of these machines,the unmodified are simply the best!

Which you contradict by saying you heard a modified one that sounded amazingly good. Which you contradict again by saying that it also sounded amazingly good 18 years ago.... They sounded good at that time because there wasn't much to compare them with. Amazingly good is a too high qualification IMO.

So what do you mean exactly ? BTW I am 100 % sure one can not compare modified cdplayers with the original that was heard 18 years before. Impossible.

I avoid CD202, 304 etc. because I think they're too old and not up to par with the "newer" old Philips cdplayers but I dare to say that every cdplayer can benefit from even the smallest mod which includes changing opamps, diodes, changing caps, rerouting cables and fitting low jitter clocks etc. I call those things modifications because I don't know how to call them else.

Best practice is to compare with a second cdplayer of the same type. I admit that there are people out there that can mod the most beautiful cdplayers to hell with their melting glue guns but I know more skillful people as well. If modifications don't make things better it is better to stop modding IMHO.

[martijn]

Jean-Paul,

it looks to me that we essentially share the same opinion.
What I consider a repair you tend to call a modification.
Since these old players will brake down you can't escape a decent repairjob.I think you will concur with me that in such a situation you will still choose the best option available while retaining the original schematic/printed circuitboard(I'm talking repair,not redesign )
The moment I choose a different clocksystem or a transformer that can output more current or a different analogue filter etc I would call it a modification.
I understand that some of my repairchoices would constitute a modification in someones opinion.And indeed they sometimes are borderline in my opinion.
I concur with you that these machines don't deliver the best you can get from CD.If well restored they are very enjoyable machines.If heavily modified they seldom retain that nice compromise.
Martijn

[vallen]

The Philips CD100 was the first commercial CD-player on the market, so really it is a vintage-object. The value depends srongly on the fact of the completeness of the original package, i.e. the original box, manual and first demonstration/test-CD (I do not remember exactly this CD). The naked apparatus has a commercial value at this moment (6-6-07) of E 125.
When the CD100 was promoted on television in 1981, Philips showed a CD with a nail-hole in it and claimed the CD was still usable. But afterwards, this was far away from the real truth.
I used it a few years in the eighties; the sound was somewhat cool /unnatural. Therefore here in the Netherlands are some companies specialized in upgrading it.
The CD-drive + laserunit however is of a very good mechanical construction and was sold worldwide in many years for everyone who wanted to build his own trademark CD-player.
The system works slow, and copied CD-R have sometimes problems with the automatic track-sequence, but you can manually go forward or backwards with the tracks.
Also the system has a limitation in showing the amount of tracks, dueing to the amount of LEDs in front of the CD-player.

[flavio81]

Originally Posted by vallen

The system works slow, and copied CD-R have sometimes problems with the automatic track-sequence, but you can manually go forward or backwards with the tracks.

I thought my cd player [Marantz CD-63 1st gen] was the only one with that problem!! Are you sure it's not a problem of faulty electrolytics on the servo?

I've found the black-colored CD-R disks (a la Playstation 2) work perfectly with this player, by the way.