Marantz CD63 & CD67 mods list

Jump to Latest
#5,381
Re: Re: coax

6h5c said:
Ok, some quick answers, cuz my dinner's almost ready...
Click to expand...
Thanks for all those answers, gives me a bit of confidence! Hope you enjoyed your dinner!

Originally posted by 6h5c BG's to C611...614, they beat the Cerafines! And to all of the DAC PSU pins (CD15/16, CD04/07). You don't need the extra PPS.
Click to expand...

Cheers. OK, I have bought 4# 220u/16V and 5# 470u/16V.

* So C611~C614 for the 4# 220u/16V (or use 4# of the 5# the 470u/16V, although I thought conventional wisdom was for SMALL caps after the regs?)
* So CD15/CD16 for 2# of the 5# 470u/16V (Is 16V OK, the "list" says 470u/35v ELNA RJH)?
* Hmm CD04/CD07 will actually get Super-Raygulators ala the attachment to Post5237 (so no BGs on those).
* This leaves 3# 470u/16V. Wife has aleready put:
- 1# ELNA RJH 470u/16V in C871, but that's one option?
- 2# ELNA RJH 220u/25V at CD05/CD06 so that's another option?
* Good news on no PPS for the BG's.

Yes, you could do that. But a nice low-ESR cap like Pana FC or Ruby ZL/ZA is better in that position. Or a BG 🙂.
Click to expand...
Arghh, I feel I'm going down the slippery slope of the BG Route... 🙂

Cheers again Ray,

k.
 
#5,383
Re: Re: Re: coax

Wow Brent,

That was a posting-frenzy 😀


jksmurf said:
Thanks for all those answers, gives me a bit of confidence! Hope you enjoyed your dinner!

Cheers. OK, I have bought 4# 220u/16V and 5# 470u/16V.

* So C611~C614 for the 4# 220u/16V (or use 4# of the 5# the 470u/16V, although I thought conventional wisdom was for SMALL caps after the regs?)
* So CD15/CD16 for 2# of the 5# 470u/16V (Is 16V OK, the "list" says 470u/35v ELNA RJH)?
* Hmm CD04/CD07 will actually get Super-Raygulators ala the attachment to Post5237 (so no BGs on those).
* This leaves 3# 470u/16V. Wife has aleready put:
- 1# ELNA RJH 470u/16V in C871, but that's one option?
- 2# ELNA RJH 220u/25V at CD05/CD06 so that's another option?
* Good news on no PPS for the BG's.

Arghh, I feel I'm going down the slippery slope of the BG Route... 🙂

Cheers again Ray,

k.
Click to expand...

You are starting to get the hang of it...🙂
The fact that you are going to use BG is already a good thing. So I don't think the difference will be big between a 220u or a 470u. But here's another proposal:

4x 470u/16V for C611...614: opamps
1x470u/16V for CD06: this DAC pin draws most current
1x 220u for CD05: the clock supply
2x 220u/16V for CD15/16: the 'analog' supply

Remember CD05/06 and 04/07 feed the same supply pins. Only CD05/06 are closer to the chip (the small ceramics used to be there), so use their position to mount the el-caps now. CD04/07 are no longer used.

Regards,

Ray
 
#5,386
Malefoda said:
Mornin'

As I have no answer, is it too far from CDP upgrade?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1105337#post1105337
If someone is kind enough to answer as I am mounting my DIY cable... 🙂
Thanks
Click to expand...

Hi Matthieu,

Sorry, missed that one...
The wiring of the tranny is ok. 2VA should do fine, i'm using 1,5VA and that works perfectly. For the diodes you can use 1A schottkys (like 11DQ10 or MBR1100) and that 1200u/35V ZL cap is perfect for the job after the rectifier. Then feed it to a 7818 and put a good 22...47u cap on the output and your Flea supply is finished 😀.

Regards,

Ray
 
#5,387
rowemeister said:


I have to disagree . sorry!. Yes isolating all the dac and decoder supplies makes a huge diff. But giving them their own tx and regulation pushes it even further, more dynamics and smoother audio are the first things you notice with better resonance in the bass of natural instruments etc

Brent
Click to expand...

Hi Brent - to clarify, I was saying that pre-regs may not make much of an improvement if you're feeding the reg(s) from it's own transformer (i.e., already clean feed). I wasn't saying the transformer would not give much of a gain.

The 2nd reg sets the supply impedance and will dominate the noise generated by the two regs themselves. I believe the pre-reg is only useful to isolate further from the raw supply if it is noisy. If this is from a separate tx and already clean then there is probably no advantage. That was what I was getting at.

If you still disagree - fine!😀
 
#5,388
For pre-regs configured as a cascade ie two regs in series, I'd agree.

If you really want a boost from using two regs in series, the thing to do is to configure the first reg as a tracking pre-regulator. That is, not set up to maintain a regulated supply which the second reg is fed from, but rather, setup to maintain a constant voltage drop across the second reg.

This gives a quite noticeable (ie audible) improvement; effectively it relieves the second reg of all line regulation duties. Effectively it bootstraps the regulation - the second reg benefits from its own (low) output impedance. Try it!
 
#5,389
martin clark said:
For pre-regs configured as a cascade ie two regs in series, I'd agree.

If you really want a boost from using two regs in series, the thing to do is to configure the first reg as a tracking pre-regulator. That is, not set up to maintain a regulated supply which the second reg is fed from, but rather, setup to maintain a constant voltage drop across the second reg.

This gives a quite noticeable (ie audible) improvement; effectively it relieves the second reg of all line regulation duties. Effectively it bootstraps the regulation - the second reg benefits from its own (low) output impedance. Try it!
Click to expand...

Interesting.... is that what the flea has?

As I have my 1st (8v) LM317 feeding two LM317s (5v) can I still do this?

They are physically not close to each other either.....
 
#5,390
It's easier to rig up a 317 if it is physically close to the second reg, but you can do it simply by lifting the 0v end of the lower voltage set resistor and returning it to the output of the second reg. Replacing both the pre-regs voltage set resistors with 1k items will set the voltage across the second reg at 2.5v, quite enough for most purposes. Add the Cadj cap across the lower voltage-set resistor - it still makes an audible difference (or check it becomes connected between the 1st regs ADJ pin and teh OUTPUT of the second reg). That's all!

BTW the flea uses a capacitance multiplier to knock down ripple and noise (rolls off at 6db/octave above 3Hz) then uses a 7812 as a cheap CCS for a the voltage reference and to supply a regulated supply for the AD797 (as both error amp and output device). Not that the 797 really needs it, it has c.140dB of PSRR at DC... More on why this route was chosen here:
http://www.acoustica.org.uk/t/3pin_reg_notes2.html

HTH.
 
#5,391
rowemeister said:


1) To be honest the best way you can upgrade your voltage rail is to buy a good low noise reg (im not saying this because my company now sells them) they really do make the difference between good audio and top grade audio.

Now if this type of regulator is out of your budget range then RAYs Raygulators are by far better than any off the shelf regulator.

2) I would use 16V 100uf BG for C1 tops (if you have some spare silmic 200uF for free i would use these) for C2 i would use 16V 470uF BG as the norm to dac etc REMEMBER C2 needs to be close to the circuit the voltageis feedingfor optimum performance.

3)16V caps can be used on 12 and 5V rails

4)You only need one cap (usually) but these filter out high freq noises on the power rails

Brent
Click to expand...


For the caps that block out the high frequency, what value would be best. Also, does the quality of the cap make a big difference?

Cheers
 
#5,393
The output voltage is 1.25V + the voltage drops across all the diodes on the adjust pin of the LM317. I think the '12V' one is 1.25+10+0.6

You can use a couple of green LEDs (in SERIES not parallel) and you'll get 1.25+1.94+1.94 which is a bit over 5v.

Martin Clark's site has the gory details here.
 
#5,398
YoungSC said:
Thanks for the reply Glenn.

I probably need someone to hold my hand as I'm not trained in electronics.

I want to follow the schematic to the letter and want to know what resistors to use to get 5V.

Thanks
Click to expand...


Hi, if you look at the datasheet for the 317/337 there will be a formula that you can use to calculate these resistor values (or use an adjustable resistor - something like a Bourns 3296W)).

Regards

Pete
 
#5,399
Thanks Pete,

If I use the formula in the datasheet and apply it to the resistor values in the Super-Raygulators I get 1.25(1+1500/120) = 16.875 Vout

This is where I'm getting confused becuase there should be 12Vout.😕

However, if I use the resistor values in the first Raygulators then I get the following 1.25(1+1050/120) = 12.1875 Vout

This is more like it. 😀 😀

Now does that mean that R1 in the Super-Raygulators is incorrectly labelled 1.5k instead on 1.05k, or does the sum of my knowledge equal very little? 🙂

If the formula above works for the Super-Raygulators, and I want to get 5 Vout, then my calculations show that I want a 3:1 ratio for R1:R2. Am I better off using the lowest resistors I can find, or just go for a pair such as 300 ohm and 100 ohm?

Thanks again.
 
#5,400
help with C513 polarity

Hi guys
Thanks for your help previously with polarity on Ray's dac and decoder mods.
My CD63 Mkll board seems to be about the fourth revision - board id is WG286K101-4 and the manual I have is for WG286K101-0.

I am trying to confirm which way round to connect C513 replacing a small ceramic. C513 connects to pin 16 of the decoder (digital ground1).
So, should the + or - of the cap be connected to the decoder IC?
I've spent ages trying to work it out from the manual and comparing with the actual board but R511 which I think gives + in the manual is not connected directly to C513 on my board and I don't have enough knowledge to trace it through properly.

Hope you can help.

PS. Did the Acoustica clock hack which made a big difference and put OPA2134PA on gold DIL sockets, again a good improvement in smoothness and detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom