Is there a way to calculate the "eaten" DC through caps? I mean knwoing the DC at DOS then calculate the cap size. Or just "try"? 3.3 enough? 4.7 perfect?
Thanks, Matthieu
Thanks, Matthieu
It depends on the load by the cables and amplifier. At home my cdp was fine with 2.2uF but on other systems it suffered bass roll off. 4.7uF works in pretty much eveything i've tried.
Brent
Brent
If we go upstream far enough we get to my head😱
I fear it's too late for any refitting there. What will give up first; my mind? my Marantz? my bank account? my patience? This thread (already a legend)?
You all realize this thread has become an exquisite form of self-abuse
It would be interesting at some point if someone pitted a fully abused 63' or 67' against those 5000£ dreadnaughts, just for the fun of it...
Last edited:
separate supply
Hi all.
Please, i would like tweak a 67 with separate supply of Dac, uCon and Decoder.
So i need, please, some little example, and, as i would use some tranny for it, i need some suggestion about transformer type and abount logistics inside player (with some pictures too??).
Is it possible?
🙂
Thanks
R
Hi all.
Please, i would like tweak a 67 with separate supply of Dac, uCon and Decoder.
So i need, please, some little example, and, as i would use some tranny for it, i need some suggestion about transformer type and abount logistics inside player (with some pictures too??).
Is it possible?
🙂
Thanks
R
Last edited:
Hi R
To save space and € I would use one Ultra PSU with built in Spower. PSU for clocks and regulators
If you want to use extra locally placed regs, you can tap these before the spower in the psu pcb.
Ricardo
Ok for psu, thanks.
But i'm curious about separate regs position in pcb...e for some pictures about this job, 'cause this 3d is enormous and i have not much time for...
But i'm curious about separate regs position in pcb...e for some pictures about this job, 'cause this 3d is enormous and i have not much time for...
this is what I did for the most important mod on the DAC:
DAC analog +5v - U199 replaced by PCB (Spower (SERCAL +5v) + 470uF BG on output) power from 15VA 2x9V (Dac analog) (7,5VA 9v + 100nF + 4x 10DQ11 schottky + 10,000uF BHC Aerovox) - Ground to star earth. (Gives improvements in overall fluidity of the sound, better bas integration and inteligibility , less harshness/stridency in the high frequencies)
Try to find U199 in the pcb and we will go from there.
Ricardo
DAC analog +5v - U199 replaced by PCB (Spower (SERCAL +5v) + 470uF BG on output) power from 15VA 2x9V (Dac analog) (7,5VA 9v + 100nF + 4x 10DQ11 schottky + 10,000uF BHC Aerovox) - Ground to star earth. (Gives improvements in overall fluidity of the sound, better bas integration and inteligibility , less harshness/stridency in the high frequencies)
Try to find U199 in the pcb and we will go from there.
Ricardo
Hi there,
as usual I have another annoying question, selling my last CD-53 ( Servo Reclock, Drivers Regulated, DOS, DAC reg, decoder analog Reg in short ); I need to "tell how the sound is like".
And as I have not much players to compare I just "feel" it's very "right" at making female voices hot and seducing, having a lot of slight changes in notes easy to find, a very intimate sound. But not "rock'n roll" bite at all, maybe it's the "overdoing" of op amps wich do that usually?
How you describe yours guys?
Matthieu
as usual I have another annoying question, selling my last CD-53 ( Servo Reclock, Drivers Regulated, DOS, DAC reg, decoder analog Reg in short ); I need to "tell how the sound is like".
And as I have not much players to compare I just "feel" it's very "right" at making female voices hot and seducing, having a lot of slight changes in notes easy to find, a very intimate sound. But not "rock'n roll" bite at all, maybe it's the "overdoing" of op amps wich do that usually?
How you describe yours guys?
Matthieu
I just don't want death threats from the next owner because "it sounds a bit too much blue but he excpecet it to be greener"! Man it's so sensless to sell sound stuff with... a picture and no sound!
(ps my better CD-43 stays home!)
A little help like "I like my CD-53 because it's a bass thing" Ricardo?
Matthieu
(ps my better CD-43 stays home!)
A little help like "I like my CD-53 because it's a bass thing" Ricardo?
Matthieu
If we go upstream far enough we get to my head😱
I fear it's too late for any refitting there. What will give up first; my mind? my Marantz? my bank account? my patience? This thread (already a legend)?
You all realize this thread has become an exquisite form of self-abuse
It would be interesting at some point if someone pitted a fully abused 63' or 67' against those 5000£ dreadnaughts, just for the fun of it...
The Marantz SA-7S1 I had in for upgrade was a very nice player, well balanced sound too. I took it home to test on my own system for the weekend before the upgrade. The 7S1 had slightly shut in treble, mids were less open and bass was no where near as deep. The attack of drums etc were slightly ploddy when comparing to my CD63. After upgrade i'll be honest and say there was not much in it at all, the ultimate low end bass and overall flow of the music was still better on the 63 but eveything else was pretty spot on. Vocals were nearly identical!
I liked the SA-7S1 in standard form as it didn't shout problems at me, very well balanced and easy listening. It made my 63 look a bit cheap 🙁 but it also showed me where I am with the 63 and to be honest I thought the SA7 would have outperfomed my 63.
Brent
Last edited:
Hi Matthieu
I like my CD53 because it has everything in place. It reached a very good equilibrium between detail, timing, dynamics, scale and soundstage size.
Of course I know it could be even better.... there is always room for improvement.
I guess you must promote a listening session to a potential buyer and you should have a stock player to compare it with.
Ricardo
I like my CD53 because it has everything in place. It reached a very good equilibrium between detail, timing, dynamics, scale and soundstage size.
Of course I know it could be even better.... there is always room for improvement.
I guess you must promote a listening session to a potential buyer and you should have a stock player to compare it with.
Ricardo
Thanks Brent. It was a kind of naive question come to think of it. A modern, well-constructed player should rightly be more ameanable to modification and pull ahead. It's true that our old machines look kind of cheap. I wish there were a way to disguise this but there's not much to be done with the facades and the case-work. I'm thinking down the line to put some nice wood cheeks on the sides and plexi on the top. Thick plexi is expensive. Is glass ok or does it do something awful to the sound?
Glass has bad properties for audio, just like stone and other heavy things. The big players tend to have a heavier and more plodding bass, because they have a heavy chassis. Not facts, just my opinions. That big fat slow bass makes things sound expensive in a hi-fi shop - again it's just my opinion. The best thing is no chassis but second best is a rigid one, and perhaps incorporating some wood as wood, especially tone wood, has a good damped broadband resonance. Glass accentuates the top end and slows the bass, at least when used as a rack.