• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Philips CD150 measurements

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,703
Location
Hampshire
Produced 1985-1987, the Philips CD150 is basically a cost-reduced version of the original CD100. While the CD mechanism and chassis are cheaper, the DAC section remains the same. The digital audio data from the CD is oversampled 4x by the SAA7030 chip before a pair of TDA1540P chips (one for each channel) perform the D/A conversion. This is a 14-bit switched current source converter with current output. The analogue circuitry consists of two LM833N opamps for I/V conversion and low-pass filter followed by a DC-blocking capacitor.

philips_cd150_cd_player.jpg


The unit tested here was purchased used on eBay for a few quid. Cleaning (it was filthy inside) and replacing electrolytic capacitors brought it back to fully working order. Date codes on parts inside suggest it was manufactured in late 1985 or early 1986.

A 1 kHz tone at 0 dBFS yields this spectrum at the output:
1581004412051.png


Lots of harmonics interspersed with other distortion products make for a rather ugly picture. THD up to 20 kHz is -85.4 dB (0.0054%), close enough to the specified figure of 0.005%. THD+N (20 kHz, unweighted) is -84.1 dB (0.0062%). This places the CD150 on similar footing to the Totaldac d1.

Looking at one cycle of the waveform, we see something that isn't quite smooth:
1581005509978.png


Lowering the signal level to -60 dBFS gives a surprising result:
1581006517091.png


The spectrum at this level is normally clean, yet here we have harmonics approaching -40 dB below the signal resulting in a THD figure of -36.4 dB (1.52%).

On the bright side, this player is capable of reproducing a -120 dBFS tone cleanly:
1581007036547.png


Moving on to the frequency response, the unit remains unimpressive with a stopband attenuation barely exceeding 50 dB. Still better than the Totaldac, though.
1581007232768.png


A closer look at the passband:
1581007323655.png


Those are some serious ripples, but at least there's none of that slow roll-off nonsense.

For completeness, the transition band looks like this:
1581007484237.png


To finish, we look at the jitter performance. There's some skirting and a few side tones, but nothing too bad:
1581008478763.png


In conclusion, this 35-year-old low-cost device landing above a good few devices in the chart is saying something. What it's saying is about those other devices, and it isn't something nice. I would only recommend it if the only other option is a Totaldac (or worse).
 

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,827
Do you have a personal site @mansr? I remember reading your AudioQuest Cobalt review and really liking it, as I do this one.
 

sergeauckland

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,456
Likes
9,145
Location
Suffolk UK
When I read a test report on vintage equipment like this, I'm most impressed by just how good they were, not how bad. THD of 0.005% was undreamed of with analogue equipment, and a frequency response completely flat to 20kHz equally so, when the alternatives were usually +-3dB to 20kHz.

Add in low noise, when -60dB was excellent, and effectively no wow & flutter, and it was pretty much transparent in every respect.

It shows me that even if measured performance has improved hugely, audible performance has hardly improved at all. It was, and still is, for all intents and purposes, Pure, Perfect Sound, Forever.

S
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
58
Likes
95
I think my brother still has one of these, it was sold in the US as a Magnavox 1041, a 2nd tier American brand that Phillips bought. It was a cost engineered version of the original Phillips (Magnavox 1040), which was built like a tank. Both were made in Belgium. The only trouble we ever had with either was mechanical: the drawer mechanism. They both sounded fine, noticeably better than my then current Sony Discman for instance.
 

Wes

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
3,843
Likes
3,790
you had me at "quid"
 
OP
mansr

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,703
Location
Hampshire
With the help of a logic analyser, I extracted the impulse response of the SAA7030 digital filter chip:
1581015845602.png


From this we can calculate the frequency response:
1581015884522.png


The upward tilt seen here matches (more or less) the downward slope of the analogue post-DAC filter, resulting in a flat overall response in the audio band.
 

Veri

Master Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
9,597
Likes
12,039
Love these articles. I concur with @pozz, do you have a blog or a website mansr? :)
 
OP
mansr

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,703
Location
Hampshire
Sony CDP-101 review next? ;)
I have one that I picked up broken. I've mostly fixed it, just a little fine-tuning still required. It's annoying since some of the trim pots are on the bottom, and the focus servo goes crazy if it's not sitting horizontally.
 

Billy Budapest

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Messages
1,838
Likes
2,753
I’ve always wanted to purchase one for my “vintage system” but the eBay prices have been about 4x what I’m willing to pay!
 

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,118
Likes
12,307
Location
London

cjm2077

Active Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2020
Messages
160
Likes
261
When I read a test report on vintage equipment like this, I'm most impressed by just how good they were, not how bad. THD of 0.005% was undreamed of with analogue equipment, and a frequency response completely flat to 20kHz equally so, when the alternatives were usually +-3dB to 20kHz.

Add in low noise, when -60dB was excellent, and effectively no wow & flutter, and it was pretty much transparent in every respect.

It shows me that even if measured performance has improved hugely, audible performance has hardly improved at all. It was, and still is, for all intents and purposes, Pure, Perfect Sound, Forever.

S

Judging from that -60db fs measurement there is some chance that at a moderate playing level, depending on the amp and the speakers, you could hear a few harmonics over the background noise. But it would have to perform similarly at whatever attenuation ended up as a 1W output from the amp, and you'd need a relatively quiet room, etc, etc. Certainly at full output you're not going to be hearing much, unless the intermodulation was really bad. Certainly it's a huge step up from the competition in tech, which was an LP.
 
Top Bottom