• Please note that Audiokarma will be offline briefly for updates early on Monday morning, September 28th.

Best 80's Nakamichi CD Player?

The addiction / struggle is real! In just the past week I've picked up a Sharp DX-670, a Magnavox CDB490, a Philco CD2460, a Parasound C/DP 1000 and a Nakamichi OMS-2A all for under $40! Can't..help..myself. But at these prices, who cares!
 
I have listened to them all now except the Parasound and so far the Philco mops the floor with all of them, which is actually just a re-branded TDA1541 based Magnavox CDB460. It sounds amazing and gives the Nak CDC-4A a run for it's money at less than 1/20th the cost.
 
I acquired and compared the Nakamichi OMS-2A, CDP-2A, and CD Player 4 side-by-side on a very high-resolution system at rumbling volume levels. The CDP-2A with that Philips 1541A dual stereo converter chip is the clear winner, the OMS-2A was 2nd place (decent sound, but not great), and the CD Player 4 was last (digital harshness for sure). I assume the similarly-equipped CDC-4A changer will also sound similar to the CDP-2A, but no direct comparison done here. Not surprising given the single Burr-Brown PCM-54 chip inside the OMS-2A, and the single Analog Devices AD1864 chip inside the CD Player 4. Internal examination the CDP-2A employs many Mylar film capacitors, both directly surrounding the Philips 1541A chip and elsewhere in the circuitry, which may be partially responsible for the somewhat "warm" sound of the unit, and replacing some or all of them with polypropylene film caps may brighten the highest frequency sounds a bit to remove a bit of that warmth (which to my ears is a tiny bit too warm), but i obtained 3 of these CDP-2A units for further experimentation on this topic that i will report on later. However overall dynamics and musicality of the CDP-2A are awesome, likely the best i've ever heard from a stock player. Keep them plugged-in and on 24/7, even if not playing them. The only good thing about the CD Player 4 is a digital coaxial output so the unit can be used as a CD-transport to pipe thru my external DAC equipped w Cirrus Logic CS4398 chips, then it sounds great, and has a bit more solid feel when the drawer opens/closes than the others, but the analog L/R output sound is not so good, and even the OMS-2A sounds noticeably better.
 
You may not be interested in a Dragon, but it delivered some of the best performance available. I still have my 581Z and 682 and I wouldn't trade them for any other manufacturers models. I liked Revox and Tandberg units, but they both fell short compared to Nakamichi . Pioneer made some good decks for the money at the time. But they weren't in the same class as Nakamichi. What you are saying is basically I want a machine that performed very well. 'For instance a Revox PR 99, when you really wanted a Studer or Professional ATR series Ampex. studio machines..
 
Hi again, now that I showed you my observed differences between the sound of the Nakamichi OMS-2A, CDP-2A and CD Player 4, I want to show my proposed experiment on the winning CDP-2A for future experimentation with capacitor replacement. By the way i refurbish used MRI machine components in a General Electric factory in Aurora, Ohio, so circuit-board-surgery for GE is my daily job, there’s almost nothing I can’t modify or repair. Anyway, I stated that the Philips 1541A stereo DAC chip inside the Nak CDP-2A is unlikely to contribute any tone coloration to either the warm or cool side of overall L/R analog sound output of this CD player, and the capacitor types used (mostly the film-caps directly in the analog audio stream AFTER the Philips DAC chip) are primarily responsible for any sound coloration to the warm or cool sides. From what I have read Nakamichi generally did a good job designing very quiet analog circuitry on the analog side of any DAC chips employed in any given device. I already pointed out in my last post that the Mylar (polyester) film caps used by Nak in this design typically have a somewhat warm sound and to further the topic were the typical high-end film-caps used back in the day from the 1960’s thru the 1980’s, and the brighter/cooler high-frequency sound of polypropylene film caps and Teflon (fluoropolymer) film caps was relatively new until the 1990’s onward. I just got a fourth CDP-2A to do this experiment at some point when I obtain all needed materials. That said, the film cap layout inside the CDP-2A consists of Mylar/polyester film caps in a circle directly surrounding the Philips 1541A stereo DAC chip, then other Mylar/polyester film caps elsewhere in the circuitry. Unit #1 will remain completely un-modified as my CONTROL with all Mylar film caps intact as Nakamichi constructed it. Unit #2 i will just replace all the Mylar film caps directly surrounding the Philips 1541A DAC chip with polypropylene film caps, but leave the other Mylar film caps elsewhere in the circuitry alone. Unit #3 I will do the opposite, and replace all Mylar film caps elsewhere in the circuitry with polypropylene film caps, but leave the Mylar film caps directly surrounding the Philips 1541A DAC chip alone. Unit #4 I will replace ALL Mylar film caps everywhere in the circuit with polypropylene film caps. This will give a nice 4-way listening-test comparison of how film-capacitor selection in the overall circuit affect overall sound warmness to coolness. However, I will also first replace and burn-in ALL other electrolytic caps in all the entire circuits of all 4 units in this test with ONE uniform type of electrolytic capacitor…since Rubicon Black Gates are no longer available, I am strongly leaning toward the Elna Silmic II electrolytic caps for all electrolytic cap replacements to provide a uniform playing-field for all 4 units in this test, with no test skew introduced by the electrolytic caps in any of the test units. I will pre-test the capacitance of ALL film and electrolytic caps prior to installation for burn-in. Please be patient cause it takes time to gather all required materials and time to do this, but from what I see so far it’s a lot more than anyone else has done than offer pure speculation and unguided opinion as opposed to real scientific experiments on this Nakamichi CD player topic.
 
Also, any other feedback from any of you about specific brands/types of polypropylene film caps to use here. As much as folks complain about the general industrial nature of Panasonic electrolytic caps compared to high-end electrolytics from Rubycon, Nichicon, Elna, etc, too much focus in audio circles revolves around electrolytics in general, as designers know where to use film-caps and stay away from electrolytics in the audio-streams of their circuits. That said, i've had good results w Panasonic polypropylene film caps in audio circuits like speaker crossovers, but never really done any real comparison of all the polypropylene film caps on the market, and all still depends on finding ALL the values you need for that complete circuit. I'm open to polypropylene film cap suggestions while this thread lingers.
 
Littlepapa said:
Also, any other feedback from any of you about specific brands/types of polypropylene film caps to use here. As much as folks complain about the general industrial nature of Panasonic electrolytic caps compared to high-end electrolytics from Rubycon, Nichicon, Elna, etc, too much focus in audio circles revolves around electrolytics in general, as designers know where to use film-caps and stay away from electrolytics in the audio-streams of their circuits. That said, i've had good results w Panasonic polypropylene film caps in audio circuits like speaker crossovers, but never really done any real comparison of all the polypropylene film caps on the market, and all still depends on finding ALL the values you need for that complete circuit. I'm open to polypropylene film cap suggestions while this thread lingers.
Click to expand...

This topic is near and dear to my heart and sounds like a very exciting and worthy experiment to conduct. There is definite potential to hear audible differences between all 4 versions. I've recapped or upgraded 40+ receivers/cd players/crossovers/turntables and here are my observations. Unfortunately, I have no scientific data to back any of it up. It's all just listening passion for me, so you'll have to take what I say with a grain of salt. However, after listening very closely to their "before" and "after" versions, there are some outcomes that keep occurring.

Polypropylene: Can make it sound brighter, a tad colder with more articulation with the added potential to create more of a perceived "digititis" or more of a metalized sound (similar to, but not as bad as single layer ceramics) depending on the cap (metalized vs. non-metalized and quality and materials inside the poly). Usually the effect is that it has better definition and makes a "hi-fi" sound with more focus and detail on the treble afterwards.

Electrolytics and high-end $ polypropylenes are typically what people talk about when it come to caps. As you probably know, there's a whole market of these boutique caps, some of which can be very good and cost a lot of money. I'd say this is what people are most familiar with on these threads when it comes to cap discussion. There are other cap considerations too however, that are equally important in attaining 'the sound' besides just these two capacitor types/applications.

My experience is that spending more money on audio-grade electrolytic caps is always worth it and offers a better outcome than going in and making a parts list based on superior specs alone when shopping. For a very long time I spent A LOT of time gathering an impressive stock of electro's with the best specs, thinking it would improve or clean-up the sound. Rubbish.

What I found is that the "audio-grade" caps with their measly 1,000 hour lifetime rating always sounded better in almost all locations. They're a little more natural than the bright sterility of caps with the lowest impedance and ESR, highest lifetime and ripple currents. I don't mess with Blackgates or Teflons. Too expensive and/or hard to find, but you may consider it here if you have the resources for experimentation. But, they are just not practical when there are so many other cheaper, more available options to consider.

Mylar: Better than a SLCC for "rounding out" the sound and can be had for cheap. Sounds veiled but you won't know that until you compare it to a polycarbonate, polystyrene or polypropylene and hear how much more "open" the sound becomes.

Single Layer Ceramic SLCC: Bright, gritty, grainy BUT has some hi-fi glitz to it on the upper frequencies. I replace ALL SLCC's with the more stable multi-layer ceramic COG/NP0 MLCC's whenever I come across them. In every instance, the sound is better, more even-tempered and MUCH easier on the ears. MLCC's are a lot more expensive but still relatively cheap and always worth it in my opinion. Diclaimer: I have never recapped a tuner. I wouldn't mess with replacing SLCC's in them unless they were found to be out of spec and would just replace with another SLCC.

Polyester: Ok, definitely not bright and a good choice for more natural non-fatiguing easy going sound. Can sound just sort of middle-of-the road. I found there is a lot of variation on the sound of all the assorted film types and materials and this is where you can spend some time experimenting with different flavors and materials as they are relatively cheap. PET, PPS, Polyester (metalized, stacked, etc)

Tantalums & Teflons: Haven't tried them but Teflons are said to be the best sounding capacitor available.

Silver Mica: Very stable, transparent, open sounding caps and only available in the very small pF-nF range (along with most everything else listed here) besides the electros. Consider COG/NP0 MLCC's to replace SLCC's

Polystyrene: Very similar to polycarbonate. A Huge improvement in sound over well..most everything, especially SLCCs, Mylar, Electrolytic, Polyester film types. The veil is lifted, clear and open, natural, non-digital sounding.

Polycarbonate: Similar to Polystyrene but a little more "rounded" sounding. Very very good capacitor and I recommend using them in matched pairs along with matched pairs of styrene's in other key coupling locations when possible.

Couple other things. Whenever you're working on an obviously mirrored, symmetrical L/R circuit layout it gives you the opportunity of leaving one channel stock, and replacing the cap in question on just one side. Then, do listening comparisons in real-time and then only replace both channels using the better sounding part(s). Do this practice as much as you can instead of just blindly soldering everything in place and just listening to it once after it has been re-assembled completely.

This will prevent you from installing any new parts that actually sound worse than the original which will eventually happen if you're not careful and listen throughout the entire process.

Obviously, this is not always possible given circuit design variation, but is the best way to upgrade (if possible) as it guarantees the resulting sound you're after. I just finished an EAR834P phono pre-amp clone and Proton D540 Integrated Amp upgrade. There were cap locations where I went through 4 different types/ cap materials before I settled on what was clearly the superior choice for fidelity. In this way, every cap, every change made was the best option I had available.

Of course, it helps to have a large supply or library of different caps on hand with the same ratings. And then on top of that, some electros (for instance) do need to be on for several hours before sounding their best. The upgrade process I describe works best with films because their final, resulting sound doesn't change much over time. Even though electros are typically rated at a 20% tolerance, most new, quality caps will measure out at <5% of each other and can, and therefore should, be matched up in pairs of within, say, <3% tolerance or less.

Here is what I recommend for electrolytics after several hundred hours of careful listening. Keep in mind circuits are different and the same cap can sound different in another circuit. I recommend keeping capacitance the same but experiment with higher voltage replacements for more perceived headroom and 'ease' with less audible distortion at increased, higher volumes.

This is how I choose the right audio cap. First choose the one with the right sound signature, then increase its performance characteristic by raising its voltage which also has the added benefit of lowering its ESR and raising the ripple INSTEAD of buying initially buying another series of electrolytic with better specs at the oem voltage rating.

1,000 hour lifetime rating scares some away from using these "audio-grade application" electros, but, just use them anyway. Most original caps are typically 85 degree rated 1,000 hour caps that can still sound pretty good, many of which are now decades old.

There are others I haven't tried Including Nichicon: KT, KA, UKA, UKT. Report back with any findings on these. I will say I do not like UKW, UFW, UFG, FG, or those pretty green Muse ES bi-polars when compared to better options.

Elna Silmic II (RFS): Very good smoothing and warmish all-around "natural" cap with its silk fibers that should be used as much as possible for sizes large and small. They're bigger than almost all originals, so measure for fitment prior to ordering. Plus, as an added benefit, (in my experience) bigger caps generally sound better compared to a physically smaller cap of the same rating.

Elna Tonerex (ROB): I think I possibly like these even more than Silmic but they're only available in a few, limited sizes. Highly recommended to find a place to add a symmetrical L/R channel matching pair or two of these. These caps can sound dull or muddy at first but once burned-in, sound just as good as Silmic in my opinion. It is not possible to do a complete recap with these because they're only available in limited values.

Nichicon LKS, LKG (Gold Tune, Super Through) caps for power supply. I use to use high-end Chemi-Cons for power supplies with their superior ratings in lifetime, ESR and ripple, but they do NOT sound as good even though they're technically "better".

For polyester films, I like the vintage Mullard tropical fish and ERO line which has now merged with Vishay. Their MKT1822, MKT1813, MKT1817 et al. line can be pretty good, but MKP may sound better depending on location. Old Siemens or other vintage German film caps always sound pretty good.

Evox Rifa CMK for cheap, available polycarbonates and usually Mial or TRW polystyrenes seem to be what's available. Larger value, high quality vintage Russian military capacitors can also be found online for cheap.

Good luck with this grand experiment, I look forward to your findings. Jess
 
Last edited:
I have the CDC-4A and OMS-7 (which I picked up for cheap with a bum channel) I'd love to hear the CDP-2A go toe toe with these others in stock form. I'm pretty sure it would come out on top- let alone any lampizator mods.
 
Thanks and many great cap observations. I’m trying to simplify the experiment by keeping the scope strictly to film-cap swapping within these CDP-2A units, so theoretically, if u think about it, I could leave all the stock TK electrolytic caps Nakamichi used intact for this experiment since they’re all the same values and types already and beyond the scope of the experiment. A visual inspection of all the native TK electrolytic caps would then be the extent of their evaluation prior to film-cap changes.

I have heard some of the things u mention within the film-cap realm. I also have never played around w Teflon caps concerning sound quality, and only know it has to do w uniformity of electron percolation thru the Teflon dielectric and their original conception was related to the defense/aerospace market for a cap w superior electrical and extreme-temperature performance in battlefield and outer-space electronics, but it wasn’t until later somebody realized they also “sound better” in audio applications…without actually hearing and comparing them I don’t know either way, but to wonder why all “high-end” audio components do not use Teflon for all their film-caps if they are so great??…that sub-topic is all rocket-science to me…ha ha. However, I have also heard that polystyrene is the second-best uniformity of electron percolation, but cannot be sourced in all the values needed because of a fall in popularity/demand, and that polypropylene is basically next in line and all commonly required values are available…not sure where polycarbonate falls into that mix.

What I’m saying is that overall sound is what counts (and my experiment here is not cost-sensitive), but at the same time I am not trying to re-engineer or rebuild the entire CDP-2A units that would make such film-cap tinkering too costly or complex for the average enthusiast, but simply to point a general direction to which section of the CDP-2A film-cap circuitry is most worthwhile to focus on for film-cap tinkering/swapping. I guess in that sense recommending or selecting the “best sounding” film-caps to use in the CDP-2A is off the scope of this experiment and would be up to each person to decide, or the subject of yet further experiments after this one is done. The idea of Teflon is enticing, but so is polypropylene and want to select the very best polypropylene caps available in the values I need if I proceed that route of film-cap selection, and why I posted for some guidance here. What do u think are the very best polypropylene caps made?
 
Also thanks for your understanding that the goal here is to pinpoint which area of the overall film-cap system in the CDP-2A gives the most bang-for-the-buck and time an enthusiast has to spend without changing-out ALL the film caps. It’s also very likely changing all them may produce too much tonal change that would be undesirable. That’s why I split the swaps into the 2 groups (those directly surrounding the Philips 1541A DAC chip and those elsewhere in the circuitry). There is no hard rule that all film-caps need to be the same composition to produce a desired sound, and likely a mixture by just swapping-out some of them may produce an easy means for the average person to obtain just a nice change in tone, but not too much tone change, by just swapping-out select ones that give the most tonal-change with the least amount of work and leaving the rest of the native film-cap system alone.
 
My overall goal still remains as finding the easiest means for anyone to remove just a bit of the “warm” edge of the CDP-2A without making the sound too cold and sterile, and swapping the entire film-cap system between cap composition A, B or C is likely NOT the most efficient means of doing this when possibly only portions of the film-cap system need to be tinkered with.
 
For those chiclet mylars in your very small values, I'd look into using silver micas, polycarbonates, COG/NP0 mlcc's, polystyrene and not just polypropylene. If you want to cool it down, I'd experiment with COG. It would be interesting to hear a COG vs. Dayton comparison in terms of possible 'cooling down' here in the absence of mylars. Then again, silver micas could prove amazing. There's no way of knowing (for sure) unless you try.

Finding a way of using different types of capacitor materials within your experiment would probably be more satisfying and revealing overall, but that's just my opinion. The reason I say this is that not all polyprops sound amazing like other types I mention always seem to. Polycarbonate is as good or better than polypropylene from what my ears tell me. But then again, I've never dabbled in the boutique propylene stuff aside from reviews I've read.

A good baseline polypropylene cap to conduct such an experiment would be a dayton (bennic) metalized polypropylene in 1% or 5% tolerance (most 5% are usually 3% or so from what I measure). It seems a little cooler than another good option at the entry-level price, the Audyn Q4.

These would be two of most inexpensive, readily available polyprops for the average enthusiast to obtain to re-create your experiment at home. From there, things get exponentially pricier with potential peformance increases with lots of other higher-end polypropylene options out there that I'm really not that familiar with.
 
Last edited:
Another way of looking at it. Cool down a circuit by adding silver somewhere. It seems to bring out detail and clarity which has the effect of cooling the sound. Silver mica? Also, many great polypropylene silver/ oil options here where they're all rated and compared.

http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/Cap.html
 
Last edited:
Thanks again, and I will consider those interesting thoughts. Easy availability of all needed values is a bit more important to me than cost (if within reason).

I have always heard to avoid placing ceramic caps directly within analog audio streams where high-quality sound is important (because of poor sound and their “microphone” effect of picking up unwanted external sounds), but I realize COG/NP0 are a different breed of animal that I have never played with before.

Also, have heard a few negative things about silver-micas in audio streams, but don’t remember exactly why. I will look back on some archived notes, but it may be because of too cold/sterile sound of silver-mica, but that may not be bad since I’m only changing the entire film-cap system on unit #4 and only a portion are being swapped on units #2 and #3, and it’s my overall hope of minimizing the number of caps that need swapped to get the desired results.

Your argument in favor of cap materials like polystyrene and polycarbonate is well taken as a possible best alternative, as I’ve heard some of these are the next-best thing to Teflon, and may be the safest bet here.

I will do some more research on prices and general availability as time permits asap.

Regardless I must select ONE material to start with for this experiment, otherwise too many variables are introduced.
 
Neat thread. One day when i get a cap checker and a solder sucker... Not to completely derail the cap discussion, but i happened across a cheap oms-1a that someone else had said was one of the worst players they had heard. I didn't think it was too bad. Strange thing when i flipped it over i saw the 3 reddish transport screws still intact. Anyone know how this thing even played a disk? Im wondering if any suspension this may have had is flattened at this point. I bet they have been in there since new. Again sorry to digress.
Thanks
 
Excuse what is probably a stupid kind of question, but why would someone want such an old player? I understand the appeal of vintage stuff for all kinds of things (I own some myself!) but as far as digital technology it seems that there have likely been a lot of advances over the years that would improve the sound, no?
 
Aaron Hayman said:
why would someone want such an old player?.... it seems that there have likely been a lot of advances over the years that would improve the sound, no?
Click to expand...

Some of the early CD players were built extremely well and on top of that the DAC's inside of them are considered highly even to this day.

Search "Burr Brown DAC" and or "Philips TDA1541" and you'll find a lot of info, here's a thread you might find interesting

https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/best-dac-chip.871373/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom