This tickled me (regarding their HDAM modules):
I assume they mean 'Creek' btw!
"Marantz, Greek, Musical Fidelity, Aqvox, Sphix, and other Hi End brands have long discovered the limitation of standard dual Op-amps. Each of them has developed their own module for the most important stages of the signal process and guarded the construction of their modules with pride. The costs of these modules are the obvious reason why these modules can only be incorporated with their flagship products. You will not find a HDAM in anything less than $3,000."
Hmmm.... $3000, that's just over a grand in Blighty is it not.
I don't recall a big 'CENSORED' sign over the HDAM in the Marantz service manuals either.😀
I assume they mean 'Creek' btw!
"Marantz, Greek, Musical Fidelity, Aqvox, Sphix, and other Hi End brands have long discovered the limitation of standard dual Op-amps. Each of them has developed their own module for the most important stages of the signal process and guarded the construction of their modules with pride. The costs of these modules are the obvious reason why these modules can only be incorporated with their flagship products. You will not find a HDAM in anything less than $3,000."
Hmmm.... $3000, that's just over a grand in Blighty is it not.
I don't recall a big 'CENSORED' sign over the HDAM in the Marantz service manuals either.😀
Glenn2 said:
Oh that is just superb! I love those messy and full players. It looks like an engine bay...
Re: Marantz KI DP internal shot
Interesting. The former owner "biscuit" was clearly devestated when he realised the upgrade amounted to some Black Gates and a load of copper, and a filter component swap. And it sounded like that much too.
That photo shows a couple of BG in the output, and a couple at the DAC. I actually feel a bit sick on their behalf. And the reviewer's credibility? Surely taken a hit LOL
Simon
Mags said:
Interesting. The former owner "biscuit" was clearly devestated when he realised the upgrade amounted to some Black Gates and a load of copper, and a filter component swap. And it sounded like that much too.
That photo shows a couple of BG in the output, and a couple at the DAC. I actually feel a bit sick on their behalf. And the reviewer's credibility? Surely taken a hit LOL
Simon
Re: Re: Marantz KI DP internal shot
That's tops! I don't know whether to laugh or cry!
😀
😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀
SimontY said:
That's tops! I don't know whether to laugh or cry!
😀
😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 
Hi.
Anybody some ideas on what was meant by deliberately introducing noise ??
Unbalancing the first opamp filter ?
Andy
PS.. Really early on in the thread we said the DP was a complete waste of money !! I cannot see any evidence of PSU rewiring in the internal photo. Only 2 Black Gates.!
Anybody some ideas on what was meant by deliberately introducing noise ??
Unbalancing the first opamp filter ?
Andy
PS.. Really early on in the thread we said the DP was a complete waste of money !! I cannot see any evidence of PSU rewiring in the internal photo. Only 2 Black Gates.!
SimontY said:
Maybe he also removed some fuse resistors?
Apparently, according to the links etc., he adjusted their value and that of the main fuses as well !!!! Not bad for £1000 !!!
Andy
PS.. I think that means to 0 ohm with a bit of copper wire !
Hello jksmurf !
The service manual of Marantz CD-67SE is common with CD-57 and CD-67. You can find it on Ray`s web page. The CD-67mkllSE (OSE actually) has a separate sheet with the modifications (i know only one - C803/804 are two Elna for Audio snap-in type 1000u/35V instead Silmics of 470u/35V, as you can see on the board 2 larger circles).
As above, CD-67MKll is a CD-67 with two Elna for Audio 1000/35V instead Silmics of 470u/35V.
The service manual of Marantz CD-67SE is common with CD-57 and CD-67. You can find it on Ray`s web page. The CD-67mkllSE (OSE actually) has a separate sheet with the modifications (i know only one - C803/804 are two Elna for Audio snap-in type 1000u/35V instead Silmics of 470u/35V, as you can see on the board 2 larger circles).
As above, CD-67MKll is a CD-67 with two Elna for Audio 1000/35V instead Silmics of 470u/35V.
poynton said:
I actually miss the noise from my old OP-249 op amps. Now with the LM4562 I have more detail, but it appears out of a silent background. I'm used to the analog/phono world where one can hear details below the noise floor. Studies show we can hear something like 10db below the noise.
Psychologically, I feel robbed of detail because there is no perceptible noise to hear the details in. So, I want for more detail!
What's my next mod to do? I've beefed up the clock and other capacitor supplies, but not added a clock module or upgraded/additional regulators. My player already sounds damn good, btw.
What is going to give me the most detail for more time/money invested? Clock?
markk02474 said:
The reason the background is silent is because the noise is gone, you should be glad! If you would like to hear record and tape noise you should listen to those media. The details are there, just not swamped in noise. It takes some time to get used to. Or buy the David Price thing, with 'added noise' 😀. I wonder how many of those mods were inspired by threads like this...
Regards,
Ray
markk02474 said:
Ever tried listening to the BBC on shortwave in a bad reception area ?
It's amazing what you can hear through the noise !!!!!
Andy
markk02474
I should go for the clock it gives the player a leap forward!
A more musical sound with better detail and the bass gets deeper and is better controlled.
Is removing the resistors at the opamps a thing to do? i use now 220uH(33R) inductors at the opamps.
The LM4562 is still a stayer in my setup, but i never noticed a reducing of "noise" after i removed my OPA2134 from the player.
Peter
I should go for the clock it gives the player a leap forward!
A more musical sound with better detail and the bass gets deeper and is better controlled.
Is removing the resistors at the opamps a thing to do? i use now 220uH(33R) inductors at the opamps.
The LM4562 is still a stayer in my setup, but i never noticed a reducing of "noise" after i removed my OPA2134 from the player.
Peter
Hmm, thats a hard one since I just bought the player a few weeks ago and havn't really used it for myself. A week or two ago, me and a friend were testing some different dacs and preamps along with some transports and I remember that our conclution was that the marantz was quite dull and well... Boring.
That plain and boring feeling is mostly gone but I can't begin to describe in what ways. Since you told me expect a beeper bass and dynamics I am tempted to say that it's just that which has improved but it's hard to be objective...
But better it is. The removal of these few components made so that I'll be able to give it away without feeling the need to make excuses over the CD.
Thanks 🙂
Evening fellas.
I've got a separate clock in my CD-67se, with its own power supply (Tent XO2 + XO supply).
I also have a separate 5V reg feeding the DAC gate, exactly as ALW did it here..
At the moment, the gate reg is fed from the same point that the other 5v regs are.
I'm wondering if it would be better to power it from the XO supply. So the XO supply is feeding both the XO2 (basically a reg. circuit plus XO module) and this 5v reg to feed the dac gate.
Anyone tried anything similar?
Would the gate noise be synchronous to the clock signal anyway so not a problem? I don't want the benefits of quieter gate supply being thwarted by injecting noise into the clock signal.
I'm also worried about grounds. Would I just connect the XO supply + to my 5v reg and rely on the grounding of the clock input, or run a separate ground... then there will be two between player and XO supply.
I hope you see what I'm getting at!
I've got a separate clock in my CD-67se, with its own power supply (Tent XO2 + XO supply).
I also have a separate 5V reg feeding the DAC gate, exactly as ALW did it here..
At the moment, the gate reg is fed from the same point that the other 5v regs are.
I'm wondering if it would be better to power it from the XO supply. So the XO supply is feeding both the XO2 (basically a reg. circuit plus XO module) and this 5v reg to feed the dac gate.
Anyone tried anything similar?
Would the gate noise be synchronous to the clock signal anyway so not a problem? I don't want the benefits of quieter gate supply being thwarted by injecting noise into the clock signal.
I'm also worried about grounds. Would I just connect the XO supply + to my 5v reg and rely on the grounding of the clock input, or run a separate ground... then there will be two between player and XO supply.
I hope you see what I'm getting at!
Grounding, hahahaha, it could drive you mad. lol 
I too found the background quieter with LM4562. I decided instantly this was a good thing.
There is huge noise on older recordings. When that original noise has been "removed" (gated etc.) it's not so good!
When you upgrade far enough you will discover amazing levels of detail such as funny little noises even on very well produced discs. Upgrade more and you can even begin to realise what some of these noises are. This won't happen until you reclock. It doesn't take a deep understanding of the circuits to realise the huge jitter in the player destroys the timing, detail, treble and bass. It can still sound "nice" of course, and "nice" is obviously what the man KI focuses on.
Simon
I too found the background quieter with LM4562. I decided instantly this was a good thing.
There is huge noise on older recordings. When that original noise has been "removed" (gated etc.) it's not so good!
When you upgrade far enough you will discover amazing levels of detail such as funny little noises even on very well produced discs. Upgrade more and you can even begin to realise what some of these noises are. This won't happen until you reclock. It doesn't take a deep understanding of the circuits to realise the huge jitter in the player destroys the timing, detail, treble and bass. It can still sound "nice" of course, and "nice" is obviously what the man KI focuses on.
Simon
Glenn - do not use the XO PSU for anything except the clock; it would reduce the clock's performance.
The reason is not obvious, but your thinking is spot-on: how would the current from your new +5v reg return to its source? (Kirchoffs 1st Law) The only way can be via the 0v connection between XO and board. That will put the gates current flowing on the clock ground return - which has some non-zero impedance - result, degraded clock performance. Add a second ground wire and you get an known/unpredictable loop formed with differential impedances, and no control over which branch carries the clock signal and which the noise return from the regulator, and a loop aerial to pick up RFI too. Same result! HTH.
The reason is not obvious, but your thinking is spot-on: how would the current from your new +5v reg return to its source? (Kirchoffs 1st Law) The only way can be via the 0v connection between XO and board. That will put the gates current flowing on the clock ground return - which has some non-zero impedance - result, degraded clock performance. Add a second ground wire and you get an known/unpredictable loop formed with differential impedances, and no control over which branch carries the clock signal and which the noise return from the regulator, and a loop aerial to pick up RFI too. Same result! HTH.