Super Raygulators
Hi Ray
I am starting to build my first external PSU for the analog section of the CD53 and would like to build two SuperRaygulators.
My first attempt to do this was a failure and the output was below 8 volts in 317 and 337 forms.
I believe this problem relates with the type of diodes I´m using because I am using normal Raygulators and these are fine.
As I do not know wath are the indicated diodes, could you please point me in the right direction ?
Maybe you could indicate the correspondent farnell parts because I have experienced some good transactions with them ?
Best Regards
Ricardo
Hi Ray
I am starting to build my first external PSU for the analog section of the CD53 and would like to build two SuperRaygulators.
My first attempt to do this was a failure and the output was below 8 volts in 317 and 337 forms.
I believe this problem relates with the type of diodes I´m using because I am using normal Raygulators and these are fine.
As I do not know wath are the indicated diodes, could you please point me in the right direction ?
Maybe you could indicate the correspondent farnell parts because I have experienced some good transactions with them ?
Best Regards
Ricardo
Hi Ricardo,
For D1 and D6 you can use any common diode, like 1N4148 or 1N4001...4007. The other ones, D2...D5 are 10V zener diodes. Mostly they come in 400 or 500mW or 1.3W versions. All of those will do fine. Be sure to watch the polarity in all cases, the kathode-side is marked with a ring.
Regards,
Ray
For D1 and D6 you can use any common diode, like 1N4148 or 1N4001...4007. The other ones, D2...D5 are 10V zener diodes. Mostly they come in 400 or 500mW or 1.3W versions. All of those will do fine. Be sure to watch the polarity in all cases, the kathode-side is marked with a ring.
Regards,
Ray
martin clark said:Most regs are murdered, they don't die
Thomo - If you don't already have them, definitely add the two protection diodes shown on the data sheet to stop the caps on the 337s ADJ and output pins discharging backwards into the reg if the raw supply dips. It's an instant killer if thes ecaps are 10uF or more, and I think the 337s seem more susceptible than the 317s for some reason.
Ahh. Then there's been another murder!
Thx for the info Martin.
It's the first time I haven't bothered with those diodes you know. I'll try to put them in. The adj cap is 100uF and the output caps are on the discrete and are 470uF. funny thing is, I left the player switched on, I don't have much choice though as the power switch went to make way for another tx
Delphi, the best thing I've found different about the cd67 is that when you re-clock it, the servo also gets a re-clock. This boosts the detail level massively over the cd63. To get a similar level of performance from a '63 you need two clocks.
Lee.
Thomo said:
I left the player switched on, I don't have much choice though as the power switch went to make way for another tx
Delphi, the best thing I've found different about the cd67 is that when you re-clock it, the servo also gets a re-clock. This boosts the detail level massively over the cd63. To get a similar level of performance from a '63 you need two clocks.
Lee.
LOL I managed to leave the cd switch in place
besides it's best to leave it switched on 24-7. Mine takes approx 2-3 days to settle in after being turned off.With regards to the 63 67 clock scenario well yes clocking the dac brings bigger gains on the 67 thanks to the servo/decoder chip being fed by the dac. After lots of testing I can confirm that clocking the servo chip on a 63 with a divide by 2 pcb is equivalent to the 67 (the servo chip on the 67 has a built in divide by 2 circuit) but if you run a dedicated clock on the servo of the 63 then the gains are bigger but of course this is probably going to cost you +£50 as Simon said.
Clocking the servo on the 63 is a must do mod and I believe one of the most important.
Brent
marantz mod
Hi Brent, the transformer is 14043 as you pointed out,
so if you wire it parallel- will get 0.1A?-and is it only enough for decoder reg only?, would it be enough to run a Kwak clock?-single supply version.
another newbie question-how do you wire the transformer in parallel?any schematics/picture would be great. Thanks Quan.
Hi Brent, the transformer is 14043 as you pointed out,
so if you wire it parallel- will get 0.1A?-and is it only enough for decoder reg only?, would it be enough to run a Kwak clock?-single supply version.
another newbie question-how do you wire the transformer in parallel?any schematics/picture would be great. Thanks Quan.
Thanks for the help!
Yes, it was the clock trace that I was on about, sorry for not being clear. I ended up hacking a large part of the PCB track, but feel that it had a purpose, as it seems to form a loop where part of the chassis ground tabs mount on (Although there is no direct electrical connection). I think the PCB track layout suggest some form of RF suppression, which the CD 63 does not seem to have.
The suggestion of using an external clock sounds very interesting if it provides the improvements suggested. This is a mod I will definitely try out.
I've ended up transferring the electronics and bottom plate from the CD67 to the CD63 casing. The casing of the CD63 seems to be of better quality. Unfortunately, the brace is too wide to transfer over, so I have used 2 solid tubular steel struts, on either side of the Transformer, to strengthen the chassis.
Yes, it was the clock trace that I was on about, sorry for not being clear. I ended up hacking a large part of the PCB track, but feel that it had a purpose, as it seems to form a loop where part of the chassis ground tabs mount on (Although there is no direct electrical connection). I think the PCB track layout suggest some form of RF suppression, which the CD 63 does not seem to have.
The suggestion of using an external clock sounds very interesting if it provides the improvements suggested. This is a mod I will definitely try out.
I've ended up transferring the electronics and bottom plate from the CD67 to the CD63 casing. The casing of the CD63 seems to be of better quality. Unfortunately, the brace is too wide to transfer over, so I have used 2 solid tubular steel struts, on either side of the Transformer, to strengthen the chassis.
I'll try and get a pic uploaded, once I've worked out how to.
I wouldn't say my mods are as wild as some within this forum. But I would recommend the use of the solid steel tubular struts, as they are less prone to introduce self resonance, unless you have already fully damped the original brace. Also, the damping of the upper CD clamp wheel is well worth it. I'm not sure if it is just damping vibrations caused by the spinning disc, or just producing inertia to provide a smoother rotation? But in my previous CD63 there was some kind of oscillation effect taking place, which was more noticeable due to a pending fault, but damping the CD clamp rectified the fault, the main improvement being a very much improved bass performance.
One mod I'm a bit unsure of, is the bypass of the 'HDAM' circuit. I understand that less components in the signal path can give huge gains in sound quality, but in this respect I thought Marantz marketed their products on 'HDAM' and this is what separates these units from the mainstream CD players, in terms of sound quality. I would assume that the 'HDAM' circuit produces a sound quality which is more 'European' friendly. It is much the same as CD players that have an analogue valve output stage, users prefer the sound of the valve, but you can bypass the valve output stage and end up with, what should be, a more natural sound. It seems to me that the sound of a CD player is mainly determined by the Analogue output stage. So by bypassing the 'HDAM' may give more direct path, but the sound quality that Marantz were trying to aim for has been removed from the equation. What are your views on this?
Hence, the only modification I've made to the analogue stage, is to remove the 4 electrolytic capacitors, as they can produce 'phase errors' in the low frequencies, and, as with loudspeakers crossover components, aren't very natural at higher frequencies, unless you bypass them with smaller polypropylene caps.
I wouldn't say my mods are as wild as some within this forum. But I would recommend the use of the solid steel tubular struts, as they are less prone to introduce self resonance, unless you have already fully damped the original brace. Also, the damping of the upper CD clamp wheel is well worth it. I'm not sure if it is just damping vibrations caused by the spinning disc, or just producing inertia to provide a smoother rotation? But in my previous CD63 there was some kind of oscillation effect taking place, which was more noticeable due to a pending fault, but damping the CD clamp rectified the fault, the main improvement being a very much improved bass performance.
One mod I'm a bit unsure of, is the bypass of the 'HDAM' circuit. I understand that less components in the signal path can give huge gains in sound quality, but in this respect I thought Marantz marketed their products on 'HDAM' and this is what separates these units from the mainstream CD players, in terms of sound quality. I would assume that the 'HDAM' circuit produces a sound quality which is more 'European' friendly. It is much the same as CD players that have an analogue valve output stage, users prefer the sound of the valve, but you can bypass the valve output stage and end up with, what should be, a more natural sound. It seems to me that the sound of a CD player is mainly determined by the Analogue output stage. So by bypassing the 'HDAM' may give more direct path, but the sound quality that Marantz were trying to aim for has been removed from the equation. What are your views on this?
Hence, the only modification I've made to the analogue stage, is to remove the 4 electrolytic capacitors, as they can produce 'phase errors' in the low frequencies, and, as with loudspeakers crossover components, aren't very natural at higher frequencies, unless you bypass them with smaller polypropylene caps.
delphiplasma said:
My position is as follows. The HDAM (or DAM-H hehe) is all well and good on an unmodded machine. What it appears to do is allow the player to produce a hefty, bassy sound. This effect is very desirable for winning over purchasers on a quick listen, but is not ideal when the rest of the player and system is performing to a high standard.
I bypassed the HDAM after already bypassing the output caps and a few other bits in that area (muting transistors + passive components). I found the sound opened up and become much more detailed. It also became lighter, with a more subtle bass. In some systems, this simply won't be desirable, and indeed some prefer to leave the HDAM in place, as Audiocom do in their modifications.
Ultimately though, even with great op-amps installed, the player will still not be very "high end" until it has a discrete output stage installed (this bypasses op-amps & HDAM). This brings the bass heft back up to the standard set by the HDAM, but without the bloat and imprecision suffered in the stock setup. This stage also removes any slight harshness caused by using op-amp ICs. The presentation is utterly natural and neutral. Other than cost there's no downside to this output stage.
This filter/buffer was designed by Ray who started this thread, is single ended and class A in operation, and uses FETs.
Simon
ps - on the system I had at the time, I found the stock CD63KI to be very poor-sounding. It was all about thrills and exceptionally fatiguing. So it's probably no surprise that the two people on here who've heard my setup when tuned to my tastes found it sounds more "sweet", perhaps, than "accurate".
I have 3 layers of bitumen underneath my strut bar and one layer on top. It's quite dead now
HDAM:- If you are bypassing this you need good opamps. The discrete circuit (hdam) marantz use is ok and improves on the boggo opamps. Discrete aside I prefer LM4562 opamps with 4x 16V 220uF BG on the power rails with regs direct into the holes of R613 614 615 616. Remove the links U216 217 and solder a wire straight to the output socket. Also remove R651 652 653 654 (supply to hdam).
This setup will out perform the bass of the original setup as it will be realistic and more natural.
Yes a dedicated discrete output after dac bypassing the lot is better as Simon describes.
Brent
HDAM:- If you are bypassing this you need good opamps. The discrete circuit (hdam) marantz use is ok and improves on the boggo opamps. Discrete aside I prefer LM4562 opamps with 4x 16V 220uF BG on the power rails with regs direct into the holes of R613 614 615 616. Remove the links U216 217 and solder a wire straight to the output socket. Also remove R651 652 653 654 (supply to hdam).
This setup will out perform the bass of the original setup as it will be realistic and more natural.
Yes a dedicated discrete output after dac bypassing the lot is better as Simon describes.
Brent
Hmmm... been thinking about your views, especially the part about replacing the op-amp and HDAM with a fully discrete output stage. I'm not a great fan of the sound quality produced by op-amps. My idea is to remove the op-amp and modify the HDAM circuit to accept the DAC output. From a quick glance at the circuit schematic, it appears the DAC has a balanced audio output (correct me if I am wrong), so I'll need to work around a balanced input on the HDAM stage. This will, also, enable me to keep the copper can shields in place.
Has anyone else tried this?
I'll be studying the circuit schematic to see what I can do to implement the above, and feedback the results, if I'm successful!
Thanks for your help.
Has anyone else tried this?
I'll be studying the circuit schematic to see what I can do to implement the above, and feedback the results, if I'm successful!
Thanks for your help.
Oh guys you already sold me a Brent's Sreg, now I've to buy a second clock?
About the LM4562/220µFBG setup I'm ok with now, I finally find it's more focused and sharp or fast compared to the RJH wich now appeared to blur the sound and by the way made it soft and dull.
This is what I feel about, and as said AVR it's all in my head! (anyway I've been awau from home for 4 days and let my stuff play music day & night!).
About servo clock, any way to go for the "divide by 2", what it is, how it is and how to do it for cheap with my Flea?
Thx!
Matthieu
About the LM4562/220µFBG setup I'm ok with now, I finally find it's more focused and sharp or fast compared to the RJH wich now appeared to blur the sound and by the way made it soft and dull.
This is what I feel about, and as said AVR it's all in my head! (anyway I've been awau from home for 4 days and let my stuff play music day & night!).
About servo clock, any way to go for the "divide by 2", what it is, how it is and how to do it for cheap with my Flea?
Thx!
Matthieu
Hidelphiplasma said:
This may be a best practice that i would like to implement and surelly one of my main concerns...
The problem is that in my CD53, the upper CD clamp is never centered and so I believe the less mass it has the better or I would probably gain on wow anf flutter..
.. (ups... analog talk)In reallity I never saw any CDM12 where the center clamp fits perfectly centered with the CD.
Can you please advise as I would really like to have better bass definition ?
Regards
Ricardo
12V PSU
Hi
I am now building my first home made PCB for the 12V analog external PSU.
I know little about PCB building and am experimenting with a glass fibre VR PCB. (The only one available in my Town !!)
The copper does not look very uniform and the seller told me to draw the parts that i whant to keep with a Lumocolor permanent ink pen and then put the PCB in a Iron Clorure bath.
I would like some information on the best way to do this and also if the final PCB has sufficient quality for my modded player.
Regards
ricardo
Hi
I am now building my first home made PCB for the 12V analog external PSU.
I know little about PCB building and am experimenting with a glass fibre VR PCB. (The only one available in my Town !!)
The copper does not look very uniform and the seller told me to draw the parts that i whant to keep with a Lumocolor permanent ink pen and then put the PCB in a Iron Clorure bath.
I would like some information on the best way to do this and also if the final PCB has sufficient quality for my modded player.
Regards
ricardo
Malefoda said:
The divide by 2 circuit takes a tap from the 16.9Mhz of the dac clock and divides it by 2 so that its output is 8.46Mhz. The better the dac clock is the better the servo clock becomes.
To install the divide by 2 pcb you simply remove the blue 8.46mhz crystal and the 1M res across it. Solder in the new pcb (pin 19 of servo chip) and run a supply to it. Then run a wire from the clock output of the flea to the divide by 2 pcb. The flea may require a small ohm resistor between the two pcbs.
Brent
Thanks for the replies.
Simon, with regards the single op-amp, I'm looking to design a fully discrete front end analogue circuit. I think the Marantz engineers may have considered this before, but I think the technical specs, such as Signal to noise ratio...etc, may not have compared too well to an op-amp. But, in terms of sound quality, the discrete circuit will be far superior. Also, I still feel that a considerable amount of engineering has gone into designing the 'HDAM', for sound quality. With op-amps, being mainly mass produced, I feel they are manufactured mainly for technical specs rather than for sound quality.
Ricardo, I have not noticed the clamp being 'off centre' on my player, I will double check this. But generally the disc is well centred from the underside. I think the increase in mass, to the clamp, either dampens vibrations induced into the disc, maybe via the motor. Or, maybe, the motor needs mass to help momentum and help smooth the rotation. These are the only 2 reasons I can see why there is an improvement. Basically, to go about damping the clamp, you will need to fill the indent with blu-tak, level to the surrounding black plastic. This is sufficient to have a very noticeable effect. The only effect that I've noticed with this mod, is the bass is considerably tightened up, where before it was rather 'ill defined'.
Simon, with regards the single op-amp, I'm looking to design a fully discrete front end analogue circuit. I think the Marantz engineers may have considered this before, but I think the technical specs, such as Signal to noise ratio...etc, may not have compared too well to an op-amp. But, in terms of sound quality, the discrete circuit will be far superior. Also, I still feel that a considerable amount of engineering has gone into designing the 'HDAM', for sound quality. With op-amps, being mainly mass produced, I feel they are manufactured mainly for technical specs rather than for sound quality.
Ricardo, I have not noticed the clamp being 'off centre' on my player, I will double check this. But generally the disc is well centred from the underside. I think the increase in mass, to the clamp, either dampens vibrations induced into the disc, maybe via the motor. Or, maybe, the motor needs mass to help momentum and help smooth the rotation. These are the only 2 reasons I can see why there is an improvement. Basically, to go about damping the clamp, you will need to fill the indent with blu-tak, level to the surrounding black plastic. This is sufficient to have a very noticeable effect. The only effect that I've noticed with this mod, is the bass is considerably tightened up, where before it was rather 'ill defined'.