Vintage Philips CD-104 Player.

[pastoralguy]

I’ve mentioned before that I’ve been an enthusiast collector of Philips First Edition’Blue Face’ cds and my ambition is to amass the first 60 ‘Classical’ titles that the company released when cd first appeared. (I’m about 2/3 of the way there.)

So I suppose it was only a matter of time before I thought about buying a vintage cd player to go with them and this I managed today. I was browsing in one of my favourite charity shops in Morningside Road, Edinburgh when I spotted a beautifully preserved Philips CD-104 machine that was first introduced in 1984. It had the original box and the instruction book as well as a receipt from a now long defunct Hi-Fi shop that had serviced it in the 1990’s. It’s in lovely condition and it’s playing very nicely through my Quad System. There’s no remote control as this wasn’t a feature back in the dark ages!
I looked up the review in Hi-Fi News which has reviews of vintage equipment and this machine gets a very positive critique so I’m quite happy with my purchase which in 1984 would have been around £300 which is close to £1K adjusted for inflation.

Later on tonite I’ll do a side by side comparison with my Quad cd player and use one of my all time favourite Frank Sinatra songs to see what the difference is between this vintage machine and a comparatively modern cd player. Mind you, my Quad ‘Elite’ machine must be reaching vintage status itself.

The other test I’d like to perform is to see if it can handle a cd that lasts longer than 78 minutes. I know I have some around but I can’t remember what they are. Any suggestions?

This has been quite exciting since I always wanted a cd player when they first came on the market but it was well outside my budget in the early 80’s and, of course, the discs were extremely expensive as well. (No five for a pound in those days! ).

Oh, and it’s built like a tank and weighs about as much.

[Dave2002]

I'm not sure if that's the model of the first CD player I had. The first Philips player was a top loader, and I think mine was the one which came after that. It had the option to pre-program "play lists" for CDs it recognised, and it also had index points - something which very few players since or in recent years have bothered with. Also it had the circuits which came into action if some CDs with extended dynamic range were put in - though I only ever saw the light indicating that come on once. If you want to test/check for that you probably need to insert a CD with Japanese provenance.

Eventually mine became unreliable, so I passed it on.

I hope you enjoy it.

Here is a site which gives some details of the early Philips and Marantz models - https://www.hifi-advice.com/blog/rev...er-comparison/

[pastoralguy]

Many thanks for that link, Dave. I’ll look forward to reading it later. My ‘new’ machine is a tray type machine and the only fault I can identify is that it needs a tiny push to get the drawer to close. The first cd player I ever encountered was a top loading device that was owned by a famous conductor who invited some of his players to his chateau for drinks! He played me Perlman’s cd of the Elgar concerto with Barenboim. I was suitably impressed by both the machine and the performance! Like so many before and after me, I waited for the background noise which never arrived…

[Petrushka]

My very first CD player was a Philips model, bought in 1985, and I think, but am not sure, that it was a CD104. Mine was definitely a tray loader. It lasted until 2001 when I replaced it with a Technics SL-PG5 which still serves me well. Technics always had a deserved reputation for reliability and so it has proved.

As I know you have this disc, with it being in the Karajan 1980s box, you might like to try HvK's Bruckner 8 (disc 75) which clocks in at 82' 58'''.

I do have a CD lasting in excess of 86 minutes but can't for the life of me remember what it is!

[pastoralguy]

My very first CD player was a Philips model, bought in 1985, and I think, but am not sure, that it was a CD104. Mine was definitely a tray loader. It lasted until 2001 when I replaced it with a Technics SL-PG5 which still serves me well. Technics always had a deserved reputation for reliability and so it has proved.

As I know you have this disc, with it being in the Karajan 1980s box, you might like to try HvK's Bruckner 8 (disc 75) which clocks in at 82' 58'''.

I do have a CD lasting in excess of 86 minutes but can't for the life of me remember what it is!

Thanks for that, Pet. I’m about to find it!

Spinning as we speak!

[pastoralguy]

The Philips CD-104 coped with the 83” Bruckner cd with absolutely no problem at all!

[Petrushka]

The Philips CD-104 coped with the 83” Bruckner cd with absolutely no problem at all!

[gradus]

As the owner of 2 ancient Marantz CD players both of which sound good to me, I believe its the sound of the Digital/Analogue converter thingummy that gives them their excellent sound. Please forgive the technical terms used in this explanation.

[smittims]

I hope you get pleasure from your classic purchase, Pastoralguy. There is a special satisfaction in using geuine 'retro' equipment.

I have a Philips CD 720 I bought new in 1995 and which performs better than the Marantz I bought about nine years later and which doesn't like cold weather. And I still play my AR gramophone which is at least 50 years old and in perfect condition, though I keep expecting the drive belt to pack up. Even older is a Philips reel-to-reel stereo Tape recorder I inherited from my father and which must date from the early 'sixties.

I also have a Rolleiflex twin-lens camera, but can't get the 120-size film for it any more! Using it was like driving a vintage Bentley. .

[hmvman]

A friend of mine had the Philips 104 player which he bought, I think, in early 1985. It was a good machine but eventually he replaced it. Good luck, pastoralguy, with finishing your collection.

My CD player is a 32 year-old Rotel RCD-855 which is still giving sterling service.

I also have a Rolleiflex twin-lens camera, but can't get the 120-size film for it any more! Using it was like driving a vintage Bentley. .

120 film is still available. Not cheap but still available. e.g:

https://analoguewonderland.co.uk/collections/120-film?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=120film&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwkY2qBhBDEiwAoQXK5bXbCsd10QFJ7IIVjdjlnxKb7DFyMGoU7Nda2EFKf51ZAJBLJCx9SBoCMsMQAvD_BwE

I love vintage equipment, both audio and photo. I also have a Rolleiflex twin-lens which is a thing of beauty but doesn't get used much these days.

A photographic dealer was telling me recently that 35mm film is now eye-wateringly expensive.

[smittims]

Thanks, hmvman. One of my sons is an e-bay browser so I will ask him to look around. Some years after I disposed of my 1984 Vauhall Cavalier he told me I should have kept it as it was now a 'classic car'! It was a joy to drive.

[hmvman]

Thanks, hmvman. One of my sons is an e-bay browser so I will ask him to look around. Some years after I disposed of my 1984 Vauhall Cavalier he told me I should have kept it as it was now a 'classic car'! It was a joy to drive.

Yes, it's interesting how these things that were once obsolete become collectable. I do some work for a local charity which has several shops and a dedicated eBay department now. When I was in there the other day they were telling me that VHS video players are now highly desirable and sell well.

I have a load of slide projectors in my garage which I cleared from a friend's house and couldn't bear to throw out - there are several Leitz models and a Linhof. At the moment slide projectors are still not trendy but I'm hoping their time will come soon!

[richardfinegold]

Vintage is fine, but the biggest improvements in Audio over the past 3 decades have been in the digital realm, mainly in terms of DACs. Disc transport technology hasn’t changed much in the past decade or so as most of the transport developments have been in the streaming realm, but the error correction and jitter reduction on newer players is far superior to the vintage players under discussion here. If you dig having vintage 1980s tech on your rack because you enjoy the aesthetics, more power to you, but there is a world of sound staging and low level detail that is going missing. Of course if you don’t know what you are missing, then ignorance is bliss

[pastoralguy]

Vintage is fine, but the biggest improvements in Audio over the past 3 decades have been in the digital realm, mainly in terms of DACs. Disc transport technology hasn’t changed much in the past decade or so as most of the transport developments have been in the streaming realm, but the error correction and jitter reduction on newer players is far superior to the vintage players under discussion here. If you dig having vintage 1980s tech on your rack because you enjoy the aesthetics, more power to you, but there is a world of sound staging and low level detail that is going missing. Of course if you don’t know what you are missing, then ignorance is bliss

Well, I like to think I have a pretty good pair of ears and having done a side by side comparison of three discs using my ‘new’ vintage Philips machine and my Quad ‘Elite’ player and find they are both enjoyable in slightly different ways. The Philips is brighter in the top register whereas the Quad is generally smoother. The Philips is slightly lacking in bass so I simply adjust the sub-woofer and that compensates nicely.

Where I have noticed a difference is when a well off friend has loaned me his spare Macintosh player(!) Now THAT makes a huge difference and is superior to anything I’ve ever heard through my system. If I had a spare £8k I might consider buying one.

[smittims]

I'm sure Richard is right about technical quality, but the pleasure of using 'retro' equipment is another thing. After all, driving a vintage Bentley is a different kind of fun from driving a modern car. No heater, no stereo, no cruise control, and a much greater risk of death or injury if you're in a collision. But that's not the reason one does it.

I once spent an enjoyable day photographing next to an elderly gent with an ancient camera (huge box-like thing) . He had no liking for modern cameras that do everything for you automatically . Having to guess your aperture and exposure time was for him 'part of photography'. That's why I use a manual coffee grinder and a percolator, where I have to use experience and judgment to get the right density and volume, rather than a push-one-button bean-to-cup machine that does it all.