Marantz CD63 & CD67 mods list

Its good to see this topic again:)

I've been meaning to bypass the HDAMs for ages; it seems a totally unnecessary waste of parts when the opamps will drive headphones!
It may be worth adding an 18 volt supply just for the opamps at the samr time - apparently they like the higher voltage and it would increase their output capability:confused:

I'll also confirm (IMO) the 627s easily better the 2132/2134s.
 
DJNUBZ said:
Would these mods work the same on the cd-53?


float said:



AS far as I know, the cd53 doesn't have HDAMs, so you're off to a flying start:cool:
I'd guess this makes the opamps even more important, so get some good ones in pronto!

i'd say all the usual mods should work just the same.

Yep, I can second that. The CD53 and 63 as well as the CD57 and 67 have the same PCB. All four use the same DAC, analog filter and HDAM, and parts of the circuit are very much alike, exept for little differences. But a CD57/67 is preferred for better PSU, and the layout is definately improved.

I buy cheap broken CD57's for a scratch, and then mod them for about 150-200 euro's. They blow away a lot of expensive players. Always like the looks on peoples faces when I press play on 'an old CD57'....
 
Yes CD53 is easily modded, the only difference between it and the 63 is the HDAM and a few features.

The only problem with the 53/63 is when you dont want to heavily mod the player....what I mean is the 63SE has alot of uprated components so is already 'modded' by marantz and will benefit a few good choice mods like the op amps , some bypassing and a few caps like Blackgates.

If you are going to eventually change most caps and resistors to higher spec items then you may as well start off with the 53/63.

Best to practice on your player and if the time arrives buy a KI off ebay and do a component swap to it. The KI benefits from the SE caps etc + copper chassis and a toroidal transormer.
 
I have the schematics of this player and it seems that the hdam is a discreet shielded buffer using highly desirable jfets!
Ive read diyers on these threads talk about adding discrete buffers to increase performance and now that a manufacturer has gone to the trouble of giving us one it sounds better without:confused:
Could it be that it sounds different and to some tastes its better?

regards arthur
 
float said:
Another thought; has anyone done a reality check; modded cd63 against a modern decent player?

I haven't and it does nag at me that I might be wasting my time..:xeye:


navin said:


Me too! esp since my 63Ki is about 10 years old.

Hi Navin, Float,

The sound of a standard CD63 out-of-the-box is nothing compared to that of a well modded one, it's unbelievable what these players (CD53/63/57/67/OSE/KI) are capable of. If one of these players is well modded, it's definately a high-end player.
But the rest of your audio setup has to be on a VERY decent level to enjoy this. Next thing you know you'll be out for new (expensive) interlinks because they hold the player back. And you will dislike 70% of your CD collection, because now you finally hear how bad the recordings actually are.
A lot of modern players are blown away by such an old modded Marantz. Maybe it's because most modern DACs have part of the analog output stage integrated. Here's a nice article by Thorsten Loesh that covers some thoughts on DACs: http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/xentar/1179/theory/vasfda/vasfda.html

It seems that the SM5872 is not such a bad one....

Regards,

Ray.
 
Luke said:
I have the schematics of this player and it seems that the hdam is a discreet shielded buffer using highly desirable jfets!
Ive read diyers on these threads talk about adding discrete buffers to increase performance and now that a manufacturer has gone to the trouble of giving us one it sounds better without:confused:
Could it be that it sounds different and to some tastes its better?

regards arthur

Hi Arthur,

If you take a crappy opamp, like the 2114, and put a HDAM circuit behind it, it may sound better. But if you find an opamp that performs well in this circuit, why would you need to buffer it? Then you'll find that with the HDAM circuit it will sound worse.

I try to follow the 'less is better' principle. Don't put all this extra electronics in your signal path, it will not add to your music, only more noise and distortion. It makes a nice marketing point though, and I also love the shine of those copper shield cans....

Regards,

Ray.
 
If you take a crappy opamp, like the 2114, and put a HDAM circuit behind it, it may sound better. But if you find an opamp that performs well in this circuit, why would you need to buffer it? Then you'll find that with the HDAM circuit it will sound worse.

Hi Ray,

so what your saying is that if you use a crap opamp, the hdam will improve the sound. If you use a good opamp the hdam will improve the sound?
Seems to me KI would be well aware of this wouldnt he? Surely a decent opamp is not as expensive as the sexy copper cans alone:)
But you got me curious and I would like to try this although its not minor and I blew my last player up:(

cheers Arthur
 
rowemeister said:
Yeah less is more.

I will be keeping the cans ;)

I kept them too, coudn't resist. There's a straight wire running under it :D

Ray.
 

Attachments

  • cd63_cans.jpg
    cd63_cans.jpg
    57.7 KB · Views: 7,401