Curiosity got the better of me and I decided to look in the covered HDAM section. Also looked at the passives surrounding the DAC too.
Everything is as the schematics, except the following:
DAC:
CD15 and CD16 are 470uF, but the schematic shows 220uF (SE improvement?)
CD08 is 0.047uF (like all other small value caps round the DAC) but is shown as 0.01uF in the schematic.
HDAM:
C652 and C654 are 470uF, but the schematic shows 220uF (SE improvement again?)
RH18 is 100 ohm, but the schematic shows 33 k ohm
It's this last difference that concerns me most. It's wildly different. The way RH18 is configured connected between a low value cap to ground, and the rest of the circuit suggested it could be a new position for an inductor, perhaps? Removal of it showed a 98.4 ohm resistance, ostensibly like its markings. An inductor though? Shouldn't it be just a few ohms resistance if so? Isn't the capacitor it's connected to a bit low for an RCL network? And it's connected to semiconductors all round at the other end, so I don't know.
I found this close up photo on the web and its RH18 (in the middle to the right - you can only see the 'R' on the PCB) is the same 100 ohm as mine:
http://www.lampizator.eu/LAMPIZATOR/REFERENCES/Mar67/IMG_4843.JPG
Mooly... Anyone?
Everything is as the schematics, except the following:
DAC:
CD15 and CD16 are 470uF, but the schematic shows 220uF (SE improvement?)
CD08 is 0.047uF (like all other small value caps round the DAC) but is shown as 0.01uF in the schematic.
HDAM:
C652 and C654 are 470uF, but the schematic shows 220uF (SE improvement again?)
RH18 is 100 ohm, but the schematic shows 33 k ohm
It's this last difference that concerns me most. It's wildly different. The way RH18 is configured connected between a low value cap to ground, and the rest of the circuit suggested it could be a new position for an inductor, perhaps? Removal of it showed a 98.4 ohm resistance, ostensibly like its markings. An inductor though? Shouldn't it be just a few ohms resistance if so? Isn't the capacitor it's connected to a bit low for an RCL network? And it's connected to semiconductors all round at the other end, so I don't know.
I found this close up photo on the web and its RH18 (in the middle to the right - you can only see the 'R' on the PCB) is the same 100 ohm as mine:
http://www.lampizator.eu/LAMPIZATOR/REFERENCES/Mar67/IMG_4843.JPG
Mooly... Anyone?
Just checked a website with Marantz resources (circuit PDFs etc) and it seems that my CD-63(and SE) is almost identical to the CD-67(SE), apart from one capacitor and semiconductor in each channel of the HDAM! My CD-63 doesn't seem to have a CD-63 circuit in it, but a CD-67's?! The CD-67 has no 220uH inductor, and the 33K resistor in the HDAM is replaced by a 100 ohm! The only difference between my CD-63 player and the CD-67 schematic is CH01 and CH02 in the HDAM, which is still at the lower 47pF as indicated in the CD-63's schematics, while the CD-67 has a 150pF cap going to the 100 ohm resistor.
I give in. What is going on here!!! Should I change the 47pF cap to 150pF, and then have a pure CD-67 circuit in a CD-63 case?
BTW, does anyone know why the CD-67 has no 350kHz notch filter and the CD-63 does (except my one of course!)?
I give in. What is going on here!!! Should I change the 47pF cap to 150pF, and then have a pure CD-67 circuit in a CD-63 case?
BTW, does anyone know why the CD-67 has no 350kHz notch filter and the CD-63 does (except my one of course!)?
if I remember correctly Marantz was famous for bloating up their product range by just doing minor component/circuit changes!
regards
regards
But mine isn't even a 'different' product. It's a bizarre mix of two seperate products, even if they are quite subtle in their differences, like you say Juergen.
I'm a bit concerned that two component parts of the two subtle, but never the less distinct designs have been mixed in mine. That cannot be right. It's a bit Frankenstein... If I change that 47pF cap in the HDAM then it'll be just the box that's CD-63...
I'm a bit concerned that two component parts of the two subtle, but never the less distinct designs have been mixed in mine. That cannot be right. It's a bit Frankenstein... If I change that 47pF cap in the HDAM then it'll be just the box that's CD-63...
Well my feeling is this... not to go changing parts without a full understanding of the reasons why they are different to shown.
From all you say it does seem like the player has been modded in production... cost... performance... performance problems in some markets, who knows.
Inductors bring there own problems too... being a wound component they can pick up and radiate... perhaps that was an issue in some locations. So we don't know the reason for the changes.
If you want to fit the inductors and bring it all to as per the circuit you have then by all means try it.
From all you say it does seem like the player has been modded in production... cost... performance... performance problems in some markets, who knows.
Inductors bring there own problems too... being a wound component they can pick up and radiate... perhaps that was an issue in some locations. So we don't know the reason for the changes.
If you want to fit the inductors and bring it all to as per the circuit you have then by all means try it.
Hi Mooly,
I agree totally, and I'm glad I did check the rest of the circuitry. I don't know if you saw my latest posts on page 3 of this thread, but it's not about the inductors anymore. I'm not going to fit those. It seems I have a CD-67's circuit design in my CD-63 - almost exactly. And there are no inductors in the DAC filter for the CD-67. In fact I think there is a new mistake: CH01 and CH02 in the HDAM is still as per the CD-63. ALL other passives, and the circuit design as a whole, mirror the CD-67 exactly. Mine has one component value left over from the CD-63 - by accident I suspect - which I may change. And as stated it's the CH01 and CH02 caps in the HDAM.
I posted a link earlier to a close up photo on the web and you can see the 100 ohm RH18 and a 150pF CH02. I suspect this is a picture of a genuine, full CD-67 because I don't have that 150pF!!! Mine is still on 47pF (which should be connected to a 33K resistor if it was in a proper CD-63). And it's EITHER 100 ohms with 150 pF (CD-67), OR 33K with 47pF (CD-63). I've got 100 ohms with 47pF, which is from neither player's schematic!!! I should have to move the 47p to 150p, and that's it. Totally CD-67 in a CD-63 case.
I agree totally, and I'm glad I did check the rest of the circuitry. I don't know if you saw my latest posts on page 3 of this thread, but it's not about the inductors anymore. I'm not going to fit those. It seems I have a CD-67's circuit design in my CD-63 - almost exactly. And there are no inductors in the DAC filter for the CD-67. In fact I think there is a new mistake: CH01 and CH02 in the HDAM is still as per the CD-63. ALL other passives, and the circuit design as a whole, mirror the CD-67 exactly. Mine has one component value left over from the CD-63 - by accident I suspect - which I may change. And as stated it's the CH01 and CH02 caps in the HDAM.
I posted a link earlier to a close up photo on the web and you can see the 100 ohm RH18 and a 150pF CH02. I suspect this is a picture of a genuine, full CD-67 because I don't have that 150pF!!! Mine is still on 47pF (which should be connected to a 33K resistor if it was in a proper CD-63). And it's EITHER 100 ohms with 150 pF (CD-67), OR 33K with 47pF (CD-63). I've got 100 ohms with 47pF, which is from neither player's schematic!!! I should have to move the 47p to 150p, and that's it. Totally CD-67 in a CD-63 case.
It looks like you have a transition model from when production switched from the 63 to the 67. Often stock of cases and boards does not exactly line up and hybrids get made to use up the stock.
By the time the 67 came out, Marantz were very much aware of demand and planning for "SE" and "KI" model variants.
By the time the 67 came out, Marantz were very much aware of demand and planning for "SE" and "KI" model variants.
That's very interesting, davidsrsb.
Not too keen on the fact that mine's a hybrid chucked together out of what was kicking around the factory at the time. I like the idea that I have the circuit that the designer's intended to be in there, based on extensive testing - both electrically and through listening. Not something that's bodged together from what was about then and there.
Sure looks like there was some sort of transition going on there with the CD-63 and CD-67. As I drew attention to earlier, I'm strongly of the view that it should be one or the other. So I'm probably going to change CH01 and CH02 caps to 150pF like the CD-67. It will be a full CD-67 then, electrically. But does anyone know what type the caps are? They look like resistors and share a colour code for value identification.
Not too keen on the fact that mine's a hybrid chucked together out of what was kicking around the factory at the time. I like the idea that I have the circuit that the designer's intended to be in there, based on extensive testing - both electrically and through listening. Not something that's bodged together from what was about then and there.
Sure looks like there was some sort of transition going on there with the CD-63 and CD-67. As I drew attention to earlier, I'm strongly of the view that it should be one or the other. So I'm probably going to change CH01 and CH02 caps to 150pF like the CD-67. It will be a full CD-67 then, electrically. But does anyone know what type the caps are? They look like resistors and share a colour code for value identification.
Cheaper ones had ceramic and pricier variants had polyester - in the filter section.
edit: I can't think of any caps in the cd63 or cd67 that look like resistors, other than one or two perhaps. I reckon they'll be polyester. For a very subtle improvement the filter ones can be upgraded to PPS, polystyrene or silvered mica.
edit: I can't think of any caps in the cd63 or cd67 that look like resistors, other than one or two perhaps. I reckon they'll be polyester. For a very subtle improvement the filter ones can be upgraded to PPS, polystyrene or silvered mica.
Last edited:
I've found out the type for CH01 and 02. From the parts manifest it's reported to be a ceramic, but does anyone know of a good quality equivalent to replace mine? A Farnell stock number would be great, but that may be asking too much!!
I'd just search for the value (in pF) in the Farnell search box and then filter it to show only polystyrene caps, that should get you the items you need. You can usually order just 1 or 5 off at Farnell with nicer parts.
Hi SimontY
Sorry I didn't see your replies until after I did mine each time. I was one step behind!! Yes, I got all that about the types. I'm onto it!!!
Sorry I didn't see your replies until after I did mine each time. I was one step behind!! Yes, I got all that about the types. I'm onto it!!!
Yes, cheers for the advice on the polyester for ceramic swap, and the polystyrene in the filter. I've already started on the filter with polystyrene's, and I'll replace CH01 and 02 in the HDAM with polyester. Should be great!
Cheers
Cheers
You could order some 1% or 0.1% tolerance 10k resistors whilst you're at it, also for the filter part. I'm assuming the '67 also uses these. I tried this change once and if there was a difference it was quite subtle but it's cheap and others (on the BIG thread) swear by it.
Ooooh, I'm really into metal film 1% (and higher) close tolerance resistors - multimeter resistance matched by me by hand for even more accurate channel to channel level matching. I've got most of the resistors (if not all - haven't checked yet though) here in my workshop, so thanks for reminding me. I'll be doing that too!
(Just seen that the resistors are 5% for CD-63 and 2%-5% for CD-67 - be changing them then).
(Just seen that the resistors are 5% for CD-63 and 2%-5% for CD-67 - be changing them then).
I'm not convinced the resistance tolerance is the important thing in most applications but better resistors will often have a better temperature coefficient so vary less when warmed. Personally, being a sucker for shiny things, I like to consider resistors as tuning devices, with different types offering more warmth etc.
If you search for precision ones, however, I think you'll not go far wrong with those shiny black Holco ones many people use.
You can, if you like changing many small parts and are making a Farnell order anyway, replace various other resistors and caps for better versions for small gains here and there. The cd63 has lots to change in the servo section but the cd67 is far less "tweakable" in this area (and therefore it seems ultimately bottlenecked).
If you search for precision ones, however, I think you'll not go far wrong with those shiny black Holco ones many people use.
You can, if you like changing many small parts and are making a Farnell order anyway, replace various other resistors and caps for better versions for small gains here and there. The cd63 has lots to change in the servo section but the cd67 is far less "tweakable" in this area (and therefore it seems ultimately bottlenecked).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.