Marantz CD63 & CD67 mods list

Jump to Latest
Malefoda

Malefoda

Member
Joined 2006
rx7france.com
Oops we both named it LM4652 when it's LM4562 ;)

With Glenn & Simon's infos I'm looking around for the cheapest "honest & not too much good or bad in any point & not tiring" cable... DIY requests to buy RCA plugs -wich are hard to choose from millions- then cable -the same- coz all my CAT5 here are not solid core but many small wires (how to say " multi-brins " in english?)... If you know a bargain like a DIY kit let me know, I'm ready to buy such for I'm a bit lazy ;)
I'll check in office with MIS for cable, or in workshop dpt.
Then will look for plugs...
Also, inside my player, the wire bypassing the HDAM pcb is made of solid copper insulated with red varnished stuff (from slef or something like that, a ferrite core with this wire around in many roll in a PSU...). As it's copper I think it does good. Maybe a bigger diameter? But the TNT "shoes" interconnect cable as all CAT5 design features a very small diameter. I'm quite lost, as if I should fit new gold & teflon RCA instead of the OEM RCA?

In fact what is "wise" to do with my -soundwise- 1000€ CDP, 1000€ Integated Amp, 600€ Speakers?
I mean my aim is to be efficient! Waste 100€ interconnect cable to have a try to my headphone amp as a preamp, some RCA plugs... to have a gain of 0.7% when shift to 1500€ speakers will give me 40% with my integrated amp...

Matthieu thinking too much when some are drinking too much...
 
Thomo

Thomo

Member
Joined 2006
Malefoda said:
[B
Matthieu thinking too much when some are drinking too much... [/B]
Click to expand...


Lol. I was one drinking too much, listening to old (1960-1990) records with my new stylus. I'm just about to upgrade the phono stage again...

Happy new year everyone

If you're after cheap, then I can recommend those cables from the tnt website. All you need is low-loss satelite coax, heatshrink sleaving, and plugs. Very easy, very cheap and sound very good.

Scroll down until you find "The UBYTE-I Cable - a large Byte?"

Very smooth and non-tiring sound. In my experience, as long as you use solid core cables, it always sounds pretty good. Just my :2c: worth.

Lee.
 
RCruz

RCruz

Member
Joined 2006
Paid Member
Malefoda said:
Oops we both named it LM4652 when it's LM4562 ;)

With Glenn & Simon's infos I'm looking around for the cheapest "honest & not too much good or bad in any point & not tiring" cable... DIY requests to buy RCA plugs -wich are hard to choose from millions- then cable -the same- coz all my CAT5 here are not solid core but many small wires (how to say " multi-brins " in english?)... If you know a bargain like a DIY kit let me know, I'm ready to buy such for I'm a bit lazy ;)
I'll check in office with MIS for cable, or in workshop dpt.
Then will look for plugs...
Also, inside my player, the wire bypassing the HDAM pcb is made of solid copper insulated with red varnished stuff (from slef or something like that, a ferrite core with this wire around in many roll in a PSU...). As it's copper I think it does good. Maybe a bigger diameter? But the TNT "shoes" interconnect cable as all CAT5 design features a very small diameter. I'm quite lost, as if I should fit new gold & teflon RCA instead of the OEM RCA?

In fact what is "wise" to do with my -soundwise- 1000€ CDP, 1000€ Integated Amp, 600€ Speakers?
I mean my aim is to be efficient! Waste 100€ interconnect cable to have a try to my headphone amp as a preamp, some RCA plugs... to have a gain of 0.7% when shift to 1500€ speakers will give me 40% with my integrated amp...

Matthieu thinking too much when some are drinking too much...
Click to expand...
Hi Matthieu

I believe there is always a compromise when choosing cables.

Solid core copper gives good results if the diameter is small because, as the electrons tend to travel faster in the surface (carriing high frequencies), if the diametter is too large, there will be a difference in speed between high and low frequences.

Best to use a combination of several strands with several diameters.

Silver cable gives very fast high frequencies so it is good for phono cartridge interconnect.

You can experiment with kimber cable and using good quality gold plugs (WBT).... the trick is in the plugs and the quality of the soldering (As I have seen your work, I believe you will do the finest job)

Thomo

What type of cartridge do you use ?
And the turntable ?

Have a perfect 2008....:wiz:

Ricardo
 
RCruz

RCruz

Member
Joined 2006
Paid Member
Super Reg

poynton said:

The Raygulator consists of 2 parts, the Gyrator (or capacitance multiplier) and the regulator.

The gyrator consists of R1, C1 and the BC547 (transistor).
The regulator consists of D1, D2, D3, R2, C2 and LM317(regulator).

The gyrator has the same effect as adding a huge capacitor to the input of the regulator.

D1, D2 and D3 raise the voltage at the reference terminal of the LM317 so that the output is 12v. As these pass little current, in the order of mA, they do not have to be big devices. So for the zeners 0.5w are fine. The other diode is only to provide a voltage drop of 0.7v approx., so again does not have to be big and the 1N4148 small signal diode is OK but you can use a 1N4002 - same voltage drop.

The BD139/140 are transistors as are BC547/557. The difference is that the BD139/140 are higher power than the BC547/557 hence the reference to current limits. However, they also have lower gain so the gyrator will not be as effective.
Click to expand...
Hi Andy

I need to build a SuperReg for the dac analog and another for dac crystal.

As I need 5V instead of 12, can you propose different values for the D1 D2 D3 diodes ?

Have a beautifull 2008.!!

Ricardo
 
Malefoda

Malefoda

Member
Joined 2006
rx7france.com
Thanks, I'll go for these cheap DIY cables.

About regs, I'll try to get some LT1086 fixed for free as sample. Any gain in changing the 7805 (Q811) on the PCB ? Any gain in changing the Raygulators, 337/317, to these?
I think I can use it also in some friend's CDP, in this this is better than OEM regs.
Have to check for their negative regs, are they matching those positive?
Also, when requesting samples, may I sak for LT1086CT or IT?

If any free gains I'll go for it, even if not in my player. If not I just don't want to waste my time, all advices are welcome guys as usual :)

Matthieu
 
RCruz

RCruz

Member
Joined 2006
Paid Member
Super Raygulators

Hi Ray

Just built my first super regulator following your design but replacing the diodes by two red led.

The output is 4.98 with a little fluctuation.

Is it any good ?

Must I use the diodes instead ?

I will use this reg to power the analog dac extracting +10v from +C13.

Can I expect improvements over my initial setup ( 1 Farad after Q811 replaced by LM340AT) ?

The sound is now very powerfull, detailed with lots of dynamics but I am searching for a wider soundstage).

Best Regards

Ricardo
 
RCruz

RCruz

Member
Joined 2006
Paid Member
Malefoda said:
Thanks, I'll go for these cheap DIY cables.

About regs, I'll try to get some LT1086 fixed for free as sample. Any gain in changing the 7805 (Q811) on the PCB ? Any gain in changing the Raygulators, 337/317, to these?
I think I can use it also in some friend's CDP, in this this is better than OEM regs.
Have to check for their negative regs, are they matching those positive?
Also, when requesting samples, may I sak for LT1086CT or IT?
Click to expand...
Hi Matthieu

I am following your ideas closely.

I replaced the Q811 by a LM340AT and the results are fantastic attack and overall greater body of the sound.

Off course this might be related with my BIG cap following it (C815 has in parallel the combination: 580000uF Sprague powerlytic+470000uF NEC supercap+3600pF ERO KP1832 5% 1.2kv+2700pF NSF Styrofoam + 3u3 AVX Tantalum (This modd further improves transient response.)

Ricardo
 
6h5c

6h5c

Member
Joined 2004
raylectronics.nl/index_en.html
Re: Discuss EZDAC

RCruz said:
Hi Ray
...
The output is 4.98 with a little fluctuation.
Is it any good ? Must I use the diodes instead ?
...
Can I expect improvements over my initial setup ( 1 Farad after Q811 replaced by LM340AT) ?

Best Regards

Ricardo
Click to expand...

Hi Ricardo,

4.98V is fine. LEDs are actually better than zener diodes because they produce less noise, so you made a good choice! There probably will be an improvement over the LM340 because the super-reg has better noise rejection. It is not my design by the way, but thanks for the credit :).

kvardas said:
Ray,

I would like to send you an email to get your advice on the EZ DAC.

Thanks

Kris
Click to expand...

Hi Kris,

No problem, just click the e-mail button... :)

Regards,

Ray
 
RCruz

RCruz

Member
Joined 2006
Paid Member
Re: Re: Discuss EZDAC

6h5c said:


Hi Ricardo,

4.98V is fine. LEDs are actually better than zener diodes because they produce less noise, so you made a good choice! There probably will be an improvement over the LM340 because the super-reg has better noise rejection. It is not my design by the way, but thanks for the credit :).
Click to expand...
Hi Ray

I also added the BC547, a 1k5r between the colector and base and a capacitor (120uF Pana) between base and common ground forming the "capacitor amplificator" (sorry... the correct name escapes me now).

My question regards the capacitor... can I use a 10uF OsCon instead of the Pana, or maybe a bigger 150uF OsCon ?

Best Regards

Ricardo
 
6h5c

6h5c

Member
Joined 2004
raylectronics.nl/index_en.html
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Discuss EZDAC

RCruz said:
I will do that. Thank you Ray.

Another question... it seems that the LM340 can output 1000mA and the LM317 just about 500mA... Is this enough for the digital parts ?

Ricardo
Click to expand...

The LM317 normally can output 1500mA. Where did you find that figure? But it's not really important, because both ways, it's enough for the digital section.

Regards,

Ray
 
Glenn2

Glenn2

Member
Joined 2006
Malefoda said:
About regs, I'll try to get some LT1086 fixed for free as sample. Any gain in changing the 7805 (Q811) on the PCB ? Any gain in changing the Raygulators, 337/317, to these?
Matthieu
Click to expand...


LT1086-5?

This may well be better than 7805 (or there'd be no point in it existing I suppose) but with no external adjust network like variable LM317/LT1086 there is no adjust pin to bypass (which lowers noise and output impedance).

I'd stick with the Raygulator!
 
RCruz

RCruz

Member
Joined 2006
Paid Member
Glenn2 said:



LT1086-5?

This may well be better than 7805 (or there'd be no point in it existing I suppose) but with no external adjust network like variable LM317/LT1086 there is no adjust pin to bypass (which lowers noise and output impedance).

I'd stick with the Raygulator!
Click to expand...

Hi

Should I stick to the Raygulator for the DAC analog or a SuperReg (Raygulator + capacitance multiplier) type.

I believe that the input BC547A I am using might limit the total output current. Does it matter ?

Need urgently some input because I will build and install it tomorow morning.

Regards

Ricardo
 
Glenn2

Glenn2

Member
Joined 2006
RCruz said:


Hi

Should I stick to the Raygulator for the DAC analog or a SuperReg (Raygulator + capacitance multiplier) type.

I believe that the input BC547A I am using might limit the total output current. Does it matter ?

Need urgently some input because I will build and install it tomorow morning.

Regards

Ricardo
Click to expand...

DAC analogue draw is only 1-2 mA. See DAC data sheet.
You'll be fine.

Drawing too little is more of a concern but with 120R resistors between o/p and adjust terminals on your Raygulators you have the required 10mA. (I=1.2V/120R=10mA).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom