Marantz CD-52

[paul w]

Was looking to add a CD player to my system, and a friend suggested Marantz.
So, been offered a Marantz CD-52.
I've checked it out on the 'net, but there doesn't seem much info. Al I found was info on the CD-52 SE (Special Edition). This isn't one of those, it's a bog-standard CD-52, and although it sounds great, the price seems high (there is a post in Dollars and Sense).
Any ideas about the unit?

 

[poppachubby]

I am a fan of vintage Philips. This unit is not highly regarded, not even by the DIY crowd. I didn't see your post for the value, but I wouldn't spend too much on it. Overall, you could do alot worse.

Here is the DAC info for you, it also uses a Philips CDM 12.1 swingarm transport. The transport would be the nicest feature.

SAA7350GP
20-Bit Digital-to-Analog Converter - Stereo DAC for CD, I2C IF
Various
Volt or Cur. Mode=Voltage
Input Arithmetic Code=G
V(IL) Max.(V)Lo Level In.Volt.=0.8
V(IH) Min.(V)Hi Level In.Volt.=2.0
Logic Level Family=TTL
Vsup(+) Nom.(V) Pos.Sup.Volt.=5.0
Status=Discontinued
Package=QFP
Pins=44
Technology=CMOS

Much more coveted in the vintage Marantz line, would be the CD-48. Moving further ahead, the CD-80, CD-85 and CD-94 all contain the TDA 1541A S1 (single crown). These all use the Philips CDM-1 transport. VERY sought after and make excellent units for modification. Any of these would be worth $50 - $100 depending on condition.

Good luck!!

 

[renaudagnes]

The Marantz CD52 use a CDM4/19 low cost compact swing arm.

The DAC is the bitstream solution SAA7350GP+SM5840FP.

If you love Marantz you can try to find the units indicated in the previous post. The CD94 is a nice CDM-1 + TDA1541 implementation, the CD80, 85 use the CDM1MkII. The CD85 is a bit deceptive because of a lot of plastic parts.

If you want a CDM1MkII at low cost, try to find the very cheap CD75MkII : a lot of plastic, yes, but the CDM1MkII inside !

 

[renaudagnes]

CD94

Metal, metal, metal
CDM1

CD80

CDM1MkII

TDA1541-S1

 

[Pstraums]

The 52 was my best friends CD-player, back then when I got the "audio-bug" (from him) .. It got very nice reviews in the british hifi mags, and to my ears it sounded very nice! .. After all these years, it should not cost many $'s.... There ARE nicer Marantz players (63, 63ki etc?) to be had for not too many "moneys"

 

[paul w]

Once again, thanks for the replies.Much appreciated.

 

[rocksteady65]

The 52 was my best friends CD-player, back then when I got the "audio-bug" (from him) .. It got very nice reviews in the british hifi mags, and to my ears it sounded very nice! .. After all these years, it should not cost many $'s.... There ARE nicer Marantz players (63, 63ki etc?) to be had for not too many "moneys"

Strongly disagree. The CD-63 series sounds substantially worse than the CD-52 family. They're superficially more detailed, but the overall balance is cold and sterile, with no meat in the bones. Part of the problem is I'm certain the rather mediocre Japanese 1-Bit DAC chip it employed. I'm actually referring to the KI version, with which I was quite familiar. A detail monster, but ultimately musically uninvolving, quite the opposite of the CD-52, especially so the MKII/SE...