replace ceramic resonator with quartz crystal in cheaper CD players

[wa2ise]

I have a Denom DCD590 that came with a ceramic resonator for its clock oscillator. According to the specs in its service manual (also covers their DCD 690, which uses a quartz crystal) s/n is 103dB, but the one with the quartz crystal it's 105dB, separation 100dB vs 103dB,dynamic range 1dB better, 97 vs 98dB. The only difference between the two players is the use of a ceramic resonator or quartz crystal, an extra button on the front panel, and a digital out jack on the back. Only the crystal would make a difference in the above specs. Looked at specs for ceramic resonators and quartz crystals, and quartz is about 100 times more accurate in frequency. Probably less jitter, though neither sets of specs mention it.

In any event, I replaced the ceramic resonator and two small associated caps in my Denon machine. I used a quartz crystal salvaged from a computer sound card. Even though this particular one is a tiny long skinny cylindar, spec sheets for such are as good as the more normal looking crystals. Also used silver mica caps to replace the ceramics associated with the oscillator circuit. The orignal caps were 5pF, Denon uses 10pF with the quartz crystal in the 690, so that's what I put in.

How does it sound? Well, the machine still works and should achieve the better specs of its big brother mentioned above. The system I have here I wouldnt think I'd hear the extra few dBs of performance, but it did sound ever so slightly better.

If your player has a ceramic resonator for the system clock reference, changing it to a quartz crystal should improve it. At way less than one of those fancy clock modules.

[Jay]

Hi wa2ise,

Can you tell me more about this ceramic resonator? I know one component that I think is a ceramic resonator, but it has 3 legs (mostly blue, some are orange). Is this the resonator you're talking about? Because the crystal doesn't have 3 legs, does it? Well some have, to ground the metal case, or just connected legs.

Then how about the frequency? Did you use the same frequency for both oscillators?

[Fidelity Audio]

A resonator has the caps built in where the crystal does not.

[davidsrsb]

I am not convinced that you can hear a few hundred ppm frequency error, but the much lower Q of ceramic resonators will make jitter worse which will be audible on oversampling dacs.

Frequency accuracy becomes important when you have a separate transport and dac when it might cause locking problems.

You should be able to just drop in a crystal and add a couple of 22pF capacitors to ground. Usually ceramic resonators are harder to get working than crystals.

As for the package, the tube type is mostly used for 32768 Hz watch crystals, brcause they use a tuning fork crystal cut

[Fidelity Audio]

I changed my 50ppm crystal in my Marantz CD-63KI to a custom made 5ppm and cal of 5ppm crystal.
There was more clarity to the sound with a tighter bass

[Elso Kwak]

Originally posted by wa2ise
I have a Denom DCD590 that came with a ceramic resonator for its clock oscillator. According to the specs in its service manual (also covers their DCD 690, which uses a quartz crystal) s/n is 103dB, but the one with the quartz crystal it's 105dB, separation 100dB vs 103dB,dynamic range 1dB better, 97 vs 98dB. The only difference between the two players is the use of a ceramic resonator or quartz crystal, an extra button on the front panel, and a digital out jack on the back. Only the crystal would make a difference in the above specs. Looked at specs for ceramic resonators and quartz crystals, and quartz is about 100 times more accurate in frequency. Probably less jitter, though neither sets of specs mention it.

In any event, I replaced the ceramic resonator and two small associated caps in my Denon machine. I used a quartz crystal salvaged from a computer sound card. Even though this particular one is a tiny long skinny cylindar, spec sheets for such are as good as the more normal looking crystals. Also used silver mica caps to replace the ceramics associated with the oscillator circuit. The orignal caps were 5pF, Denon uses 10pF with the quartz crystal in the 690, so that's what I put in.

How does it sound? Well, the machine still works and should achieve the better specs of its big brother mentioned above. The system I have here I wouldnt think I'd hear the extra few dBs of performance, but it did sound ever so slightly better.

If your player has a ceramic resonator for the system clock reference, changing it to a quartz crystal should improve it. At way less than one of those fancy clock modules.

Hi are you going for specs or are you going for sound?
You should really build a clock, you don't need fancy clock module.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...928#post199928

[davidsrsb]

But is that just the crystal or a complete clock?
If it's just the crystal, the actual value will depend on the capacitance of the chip, tracks etc.
If it's a clock module then we are back to clock modding

[Elso Kwak]

Originally posted by davidsrsb
But is that just the crystal or a complete clock?
If it's just the crystal, the actual value will depend on the capacitance of the chip, tracks etc.
If it's a clock module then we are back to clock modding

That's a clock AND a crystal. Don't go for less. (stray capacitance has nothing to do with it)

[wa2ise]

I am not convinced that you can hear a few hundred ppm frequency error, but the much lower Q of ceramic resonators will make jitter worse which will be audible on oversampling dacs.

That's my thinking as well. That the ceramic resonator's lower Q would make for more jitter, even if it's in a free running oscillator and not a PLL trying to lock onto another source.

Can you tell me more about this ceramic resonator? I know one component that I think is a ceramic resonator, but it has 3 legs (mostly blue, some are orange). Is this the resonator you're talking about? Because the crystal doesn't have 3 legs, does it? Well some have, to ground the metal case, or just connected legs.

In a tuner, some 3 legged creatures are filters for the intermediate frequency amplifiers and are not oscillators. But in a CD player there would be no such IF amps, so they would have to be oscillator circuit components.

Then how about the frequency? Did you use the same frequency for both oscillators?

Yes, I used the same frequency. Otherwise I'd get a stable but wrong clock frequency. 16.9344MHz Other machines use 12.2somethingMHz.

Ever hear of the trick of playing vinyl records a little too fast by radio stations? Supposidly to make the songs sound a little "brighter"? If you wanted to do such a thing with CDs you could use a slightly higher frequency crystal for the clock (assuming it will be the reference system clock and not a PLL locking onto some other source).

[Elso Kwak]

Originally posted by wa2ise


That's my thinking as well. That the ceramic resonator's lower Q would make for more jitter, even if it's in a free running oscillator and not a PLL trying to lock onto another source.



In a tuner, some 3 legged creatures are filters for the intermediate frequency amplifiers and are not oscillators. But in a CD player there would be no such IF amps, so they would have to be oscillator circuit components.



Yes, I used the same frequency. Otherwise I'd get a stable but wrong clock frequency. 16.9344MHz Other machines use 12.2somethingMHz.

Ever hear of the trick of playing vinyl records a little too fast by radio stations? Supposidly to make the songs sound a little "brighter"? If you wanted to do such a thing with CDs you could use a slightly higher frequency crystal for the clock (assuming it will be the reference system clock and not a PLL locking onto some other source).

Pls DO NOT DO this to me! Don't confuse a ceramic resonator integrated with 2 small caps with a ceramic IF frequency filter in FM tuners AAAARGH. You workspace looks like? OK I know have seen too many already........