Vintage CD players

[iamgod]

B-2,
Don't write Yamaha off too fast! This CDX-5000 just sold on eBay for $400. Same seller had this listed a few months ago and didn't get any bids. I've attached pictures.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3272&item=3874632142&rd=1

The Yamaha manual site also lists CDX-1100U as weighing 30 lbs. Might be a contender to go with an all Yamaha vintage system (C2x, M2(or B2), NS-1000, T2 would be very nice!)

i have the cdx-1100u and love it

 

[Michael Scarpit]

What are some of the better (vintage) cd players out there. I am putting together a total vintage audio system. Any advice will be appreciated.

Late 80's Sony 507 ESD, 508 ESD, 608 ESD, etc.

 

[gearhead]

This must be a good one!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=5753644215&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT
(I STILL don't know how to turn a link into "click here" or whatever-can somebody school me? PM please)

 

[Michael Scarpit]

I would still by new over vintage. The DACs are so much better now and so are the laser pick-ups. If laser goes out - you will end up throwing away the unit and getting a new one anyway. THis is one area where 'vintage' is not better or the same as new.

Dave

In the mid-90's, I did take home several newer models from Denon, JVC, and Yamaha, to compare to my Sony 1988 vintage 507 ESD. They lost. I doubt the situation has changed.

 

[john_w]

Back in the mid 90's, you might have had to spend well over $1,000 to get improved DAC's. Maybe around $2,000. And then, you really have to consider the Law of Diminishing Returns. Cheap digital has a great bang-for-buck factor, and that includes cheap vintage. (I just whipped out my old Sony D-5, with a July '85 date on it, and plugged in Stealy Dan's "Pretzel Logic". Yep, still sounds clear and sweet to me! "Ricki don't lose that num-ba...")

Now, you can get Rotel's RCD1072 for around $700 with the latest DAC upgrades and good quality components, and it's supposed to compete well with units at more than twice the cost. And I've heard that Dennon's latest offering is better still. I think the Dennon is around the same price, from what I recall.

But that's still not quite "budget" pricing. Maybe more mid-fi. But it's getting there. Hopefully, this doesn't amount to the Swan Song of the PCM-only source component.

Still listening..."Any major dude will tell ya..."

 

[lorne]

Question for ilimzn

ilimzn: Your post snagged my attention: thanks! Do you have a source for the details concerning the upgrade of the SonyS-7? And could I apply them to my 222ES?

I agree with what you said about the 222's chassis. When the lazer died I was very close to chucking it.

I am interested in the apparent debate or difference of opinion about new and old CDP. I lean towards the idea that the new chips are better (borrowed opinion, not empiricly supported) but WAF/SAF would not support a new machine to take advantage of the newest DAC's etc., hence my interest in the 222.

Any details like components, chips, op amps, values, changes in voltage measurements, PS mods etc would be great. BTW, I have managed to get a photo-copy of the 222 schematic. Cheers — Lorne

 

[ilimzn]

ilimzn: Your post snagged my attention: thanks! Do you have a source for the details concerning the upgrade of the SonyS-7? And could I apply them to my 222ES?

Of course, that would be me
AFAIK the motherboard in the S7 is virtually identical to the one in the 222.

I am interested in the apparent debate or difference of opinion about new and old CDP. I lean towards the idea that the new chips are better (borrowed opinion, not empiricly supported) but WAF/SAF would not support a new machine to take advantage of the newest DAC's etc., hence my interest in the 222.

On the whole I would tend to agree the DACs are better today. however, the one used in the 222/229 (with minor changes and/or selection it was used up to 1994 or so, including in the 777s, 779s and 707s) is no slouch either. Today, the digital filter and DACa re integrated into one chip, and we get faster and more accurate DACs. The big question is, does ths improve red book playback? Since this is 44.1k 16 bit, does it pay to use a 192k capable DAC with 22-23 bits effective resolution, instead of the 21 bit effective you already have? I would say that it would be more prudent to upgrade things around the DAC - clock generator, filters, power supplies.
Of course, that is a totally different ballgame compared to designing a DAC from scratch, even for RB playback. Any designer worth their salt would not use obsolete (or nearly) chips, if nothing else because the supply might run out just as the product is going to market.

Any details like components, chips, op amps, values, changes in voltage measurements, PS mods etc would be great. BTW, I have managed to get a photo-copy of the 222 schematic. Cheers — Lorne

If you can scan the power supply and audio part of the schematic, i can be very exact. As it is, i can tell you what the ideas behind the mods were, and you can find the relevant sections of the circuit yourself.

1) Power supply

The S7 uses a single transformer for both analog and digital, but uses two windings to get 5V for the logic and servos, and +-5 (iirc) for the analog section and outputs. The purpose of a power supply mod would therefore be to isolate the two power supplies as much as possible without going into extravagances (though given a different or even custom wound transformer or transformers, would make this easyer). The power lines use small inductors and resistors and capacitors to form filters. In order for these to work properly, it is essential that the capacitors behave like proper low impedances for the widest spectrum of frequencies. The S7 generates interferences well into the 100MHz range and ordinary electrolytics will not stop that from spreading. Here is what was done:

a) The power supply caps were increased in size, chosen for low ESR and additionally bypassed with foil type caps (the red rectangular WIMAs you can see in the pics). There is an additional smaller capacitor that powers the servo circuits, this was changed to a low ESR switching PSU cap and bypassed by both a WIMA and a chip NPO ceramic cap. The idea was to better separate the digital power and the servo power (servo power is taken before the digital section regulator).

b) The main clock is generated by the DAC chip and it has a separate power supply pin, which is decoupled from the main digital supply via a small feritte bead followed by a ceramic cap. This was changed to a double LC filter replacing one jumper that supplies power from the PSU to the spod before the feritte with a proper inductor, and adding a cap to ground under the board, then changeing the feritte by another inductor and the nearby caps (one electrolytic and one ceramic) were changd to a low ESR electro (normally used on PC motherboards for the switching core voltage regulators), in parallel with a WIMA foil, in parallel with a NPO ceramic chip cap. The PCB is well designed and the caps form the required local power supply and ground for the ocillator. This was done because a dirty power line to the osc will produce dirty (jittery) output and signifficantly degrade the DAC accuracy. The best way to do this (and I've done it on one 229) would be to use a separate low power regulator just for this, but on the S7 it would have been very awkward.

c) The DAC chip is a pulse DAC, which outputs current pulses from it's internal regulator. In order to prevent the internal regulator being fed by dirty power, both the analog and the digital side of the DAC decoupling caps (noninductive foil caps originally) were upgraded with low ESR electrolytics, with wima foils in parallel, and then on the digital side and the analog voltage reference pin, chip NPO ceramic caps. Note the black electrolytics and red WIMAs around the DAC chip outline on the picture.

d) The power supply lines to the output OP-AMPs are quite long and there is very limited decoupling right next to the OP-AMP chips themselves. This was again upgraded to low ESR electros with WIMA foils right on the pins of the chips under the board.

e) In some cases it is necessary to put wire links strategically placed between some ground points on the PCB. Grounding is exceptionally important for DA converters and their outputs, and using a single layer PCB does not always make it possible to optimally route ground lines. However, the S7 is better than most here and did not need this mod (it is also quite difficult to measure ground inductance, bounce or loop problems, you need proper tools and instruments).

2) DAC output and filter mods. The DAC used has differential output which is combined into single ended using one half of the dual output OP-AMP. The DAC output is also filtered at this point using a simple 1st order RC filter. There is a simple 2nd order filter made out of the second half of the OP-AMP. The output is fed to the connectors via electrolytic caps (fortunately bypassed by foil caps) and a series damper resistor.

a) It is exceptionally important for the 1st order filter cap to be of high quality and low loss as well as the resistors being as equal as possible. This part of the circuit sees harmonics in excess of 100MHz and is the point where these are filtered out. It is also helpful if the left and right channel caps are matched. For this I replaced the rather large tolerance ceramics with a selected pair of either HF silver mica caps or styrene caps. In theory, NPO ceramics would be a candidate as well, curiously the originals were not of that kind even though they are widely available and inexpensive. The resistors were changed from regular carbon to metal film.

b) Due to the way the differential to single ended converter operates, it is prudent to eliminate bias current mismatch of the Op amp inputs, as the bias current 'leaks' back into the DAC. The DAC outputs are thus unewually loaded, which decreases DAC linearity for various reasons. The way I chose to solve this, was to replace the OPamp with something that has the least bias current possible - a FET input OP, the BB OPA2604 (there are many other candidates that could fit). The resistors in the diff to single ended converter were also changed to 1% metal film. Since all of these resistors are fairly high values for the original NE5532 OPamp, using a FET OP instead also lowers the noise floor, so you catually have a chance to see those lowest bits out of your DAC chip!

c) Caps and resistors in the output filter were changed to foil WIMAs (non-inductive, nothe blue squares near outputs) and 1% metal film. Caps were matched between channels to reduce interchannel phase shift at HF - this would count into somewhat extreme stuff but it only takes a few minutes to do, so why not.

d) Output caps are necessary for the NE5532 due to fairly large offset, but can be removed when a OPA2604 is used. Still, not knowing what this CDP was going to be connected to (it was for a customer), I elected to keep them in circuit, just upgrade them. Low ESR switcher caps were used again, with the capacitance about 20x higher than the low 47u Sony selected. They were also bypassed with 1u foil caps. The reason for the increase in capacitance is that it's really the only sure way to reduce capacitor distortion at LF if a low impedance component is connected to the output. Quality bipolar caps (bypassed with foils of course) would be even better but it is quite difficult to find some with the required form factor. Also, if normal electrolytics are used, it frequently pays off to use higehr voltages (50-100V) even if the application does not call for this, because these tend to have lower ESR and less distortion.

3) Mechanics
The case of the S7 is a combination of metal panels and fiber filled plastic. It is quite heavy on it's own but has large undamped metal surfaces. The power transformer is rigidly couled to the chasis, fortunately it is impregnated and welded for vibration reduction. Still, it could be heared. The rear panel required cutting of a hole for the digital output (see below).

a) All undamped surfaces larger than about 3x3 inches got damping foil applied to the inside (similar to what is used on the insides of car doors to stop the speakers from rattling them). The top and bottom got double layers.

b) Not for the faint-hearted as it requires partial dissasembly of the mechanism, the meta base also got a specially tailored cutout of the damping foil applied on both sides. Not absolutely necessary and may require some adjustment of the springs used to mount the mechanism to ensure it all fits properly.

c) The sides form cavities with the rest of the case. In order to prevent midrange resonances in these, they were filled with rubber foam (self sticking kind).

d) Power tranbsformer was mounted on rubber grommet dampers (salvaged from old hard disk!).

4) Miscellaneous: The board has provision for optical output, which was not installed originally. Since I had the required optical transmitter, I installed it, and connected it to the proper place on the board (note brown shielded cable and addition of oprical output). This also required cutting a hle on the back panel for it.

I also have some pics of a 229 mod, which will probaly be more similar to the 222, but i need to find that. The ideas behind that one, however, are the same as the mods for the S7 so the description is the same...

 

[lorne]

Thank you

Thank you ilimzn! You went to a lot of trouble in order to answer my question, and I appreciate it. I need time to absorb it all, but I can see that I can probably do some of this. On the other hand, some it would be pushing my luck. Anyway, maybe the best thing is to scan the relevant parts of the schematic and ask for your assistance. Then I would be sure to apply more or most of what you have done. I'll need some time to do this.

Some comments:

For some reason, OPA 2604 is ridiculously expensive here in Japan. So I am hoping that OPA 2134 would be a good replacement for the NE5532.

As for Low ESR caps: just what were you using? I have supply access to Nichicon FX and FG for polar electros, and Elna Stargets (in some values) and Nichicon EP for bipolar. I can get the Wimas for bypassing. I would assume 10% of the electro's for value would be appropriate.

Without being able to analyse the circuit, I would not trust myself to boost the values of the PS filter caps by any more than ... 30%?

Great stuff — thanks again! — Lorne

 

[ilimzn]

Thank you ilimzn! You went to a lot of trouble in order to answer my question, and I appreciate it. I need time to absorb it all, but I can see that I can probably do some of this. On the other hand, some it would be pushing my luck. Anyway, maybe the best thing is to scan the relevant parts of the schematic and ask for your assistance. Then I would be sure to apply more or most of what you have done. I'll need some time to do this.

Not a problem - i cannot promise to be extremely expedient mysef, so no hurry.

Some comments:
For some reason, OPA 2604 is ridiculously expensive here in Japan. So I am hoping that OPA 2134 would be a good replacement for the NE5532.

It will be perfectly fine with an OPA2134. In this application either will work great.

As for Low ESR caps: just what were you using? I have supply access to Nichicon FX and FG for polar electros, and Elna Stargets (in some values) and Nichicon EP for bipolar. I can get the Wimas for bypassing. I would assume 10% of the electro's for value would be appropriate.

Well, it would be a bit difficult to put 10% across a 4700uF cap ;-) but I will get to that later.
I've used many types of caps from different manufacturers. Elna Stargets would be good for power supply filter caps, but for bypassibg the loacl power supply of the DAC and OPs you need something low ESR - something like Nichicon HN or HZ. Surprisingly, these work quite well even for audio but only as overdimensioned coupling caps (as in 1000uF instead of 47 - this may sound extreme but it's actually just fine in the particular application, I can elaborate if you wish). nichicon FG will work good for OP bypassing and outputs. To be honest, I've never tried them in a low ESR application - I have quite a few ultra low ESR caps on hand. I did use Elna Silmic, though, and they work very good even though they are not originally intended for ULESR apps. As for Nichicon EP types, these are standard non-polars. They will work better than a polar cap in an application with only mVs of DC on the cap but since the only place one would use this would be at the very output, if possible I'd avoid a cap altogether. If not, a really high capacitance is a good idea, and since it's so overspecced, EP or FG would probably make no difference, as even the AC voltage component on the cap will be very very low. For low ESR I have also successfully used Nichicon PW, though I tend to keep these in power supply filters. Other possibilities: Chemicon LXZ, Sanyo OSCON, and I have also had quite good experience with 'lesser' manufacturers. I used G-Luxon LW and LZ types, Teapo SM as well.

Without being able to analyse the circuit, I would not trust myself to boost the values of the PS filter caps by any more than ... 30%?

It depends, you can't make blanket statements. But in cases where most of the impedance on the rectifier side is in the transformer, after a certain capacitance is reached, increases do not produce any rises in ripple current, but they do reduce ripple voltage. The point is that the cap acts as an AC short, and the AC in this case is the PSU ripple. The lower the ESR of that cap, the less ripple gets into the rest of the circuit, and the less ESD made by the circuit is radiated out over the connecting wires. The major contributor to lowering ESR is increasing the capacitance. The problem here is that larger size electros tend to have lower self resonant frequency, but you cannot really make a blanket statement. The best way is to measure this. I can onl perform this up to some 20MHz but it is usualy more than enough. This is also how you chose the bypass foil caps. First of all you have to make sure they are non-inductive (or you end up with self resosnances at only some 50-100kHz, and you want this at least in the MHz region). Again, this tends to be more a case of cap construction than the capacitance itself. This is because the inductance of the tracks at these frequencies already presents a filter of sorts, so lowest possible ESR is not as important as a low Q factor (absence of a sudden peak in ESR). The rest is taken care by that NPO cap, these are good to at least several hundred MHz and often more, but they come in fairly low capacitances, a few nF at most. I have found that for most normal applications, 0.047-0.47u foil bypassed by 1nF NPO will work great in bypassing 1000uF signifficantly more if the elecrolytc is good. this is why i concentrate on finding an electrolytic that will fit the foil+NPO combo rather than the other (far more impractical) way around. Also, there is no god use using NPO bypasses on PSu filter caps, usually the tracks or wires connecting to them have enough resistance and inductance to prevent them doing their best work. however, as local decouplers (for instance closest to, or even ON the DA converter pins), they are absolutely indispensable. If you use fast OPamps, it's a good idea to use NPOs as extra bypasses there as well.

 

[bully]

An ES model, even if the intro model, is by definition NOT a cheapie unit. That it sounds better to your ears than the Denon cdplayers clearly makes that as plain as the nose on your face because Denon made some very nice cdplayers.
Orion doesn't list a CDP-111 ES model, but a CDP-111 from 1984-86 was a $600 second-gen unit. Should be built like the proverbial brick sh!thouse.

 

[Sbarber]

My nod goes to the California Audio Labs Tercet. Mine is a 1st generation Tercet that came out around 1989. A wonderful sounding machine that you can pickup now for less than $200.00, if you can find one. These sold for around $1600.00 when new. The sound is very detailed, and I have heard very few newer units that really better it.

 

[axel]

bully,

The CDP-111 is the japanese original of the CDP-400, the latter being the USA version of the european CDP-501 and CDP-501ES - all 1984 2nd generation. 5th gen' according to Sony but they must've counted the last prototypes in I'm sure

The CDP-X111ES is a 1991 unit, the USA version of the euro CDP-791 - why oh why make simple?

 

[gener8tr]

I purchased a 1988 NOS Yamaha CDX-910U a few months ago and it's FANTASTIC.

Old-school looks and a warm analogue sound that fits my vintage Sansui rig like a glove.

In addition, it plays every CD I throw at it, including CD-R, CD-WR and some seriously scratched-up regular issues. No tracking problems at all.

I couldn't be happier with it. Here is a photo.

 

[wrunow]

I have a sony cdp-x777es that I picked up a couple of years ago at a local pawn, it has just about the quietest and smoothest transport I have ever been around, it's really funny after opening a dvd or another cd player with a clunky transport. I don't know if this is considered vintage or not as it was built in 90/91, but originally I believe it was around $1900USD.

 

[bully]

Heck, once it's out the door of the shop it's good enough to post here. Yeah, we concentrate on the "vintage' era (primarily the late-60s to the early-80s) but I don't really limit discussion. Most of my separates are from the very end of the 70s when production began, and most likely are from the early 80s. Except the mid-80s Yamaha gear. Though this is the VSS forum, I think ALL solid state gear is fair game for discussion. Heck, my super preamp the Luxman C-383 is mid-90s.
Avoid making posts personal and I'm open for everything.
Vintage is about never having to say you're sorry!

 

[Yamaha B-2]

Well......there really aren't any 'vintage' CDPs, as the format is too new. But there are many good ones and this is as good as any place for them. Here is a link to my 'vintage' Yamaha CDPs in the Digital Forum. http://audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?p=569763#post569763 Also a link to a very high-end Yamaha CDX-5000 now on eBay. Very tasty!!

Some day I'll have to get a Sony X779ES to see which is better. Sony or Yamaha.

 

[Fast_Eddie]

I just did a bit of a "shoot out" if you will. My Conrad Johnson SD1 vs. my black plastic Sony DVD player.

Sorry to report it's no contest. Even my tin ear gives the nod decidedly to the Sony. Bass is tighter, image is much much better and the midrange has that open sound that is so nice.

I love the old SD1, but it can't stand up to a $100 Sony DVD player.

Ed

(edit) sorry, should have mentioned the Conrad Johnson is a modded Magnavox

 

[bully]

I have used an Apex AD-1500 as a cdplayer, and it probably better the absolute sound of my cdplayers.
Yeah, technology has created cheap good players. Imagine today's TOTL dvd players output.

 

[Fast_Eddie]

Ok, I tried again. The CJ just isn't up to the task. Too bad, it's really cool with wood sides and all.

So I trotted out the Proton AC-300II, another modded Magnavox. This is a lot better. It looks several years newer too. I was using this one as my daily driver before I went to the Sony DVD player. I had convienced myself that the Sony sounded better, but a/bing them tonight, I can't hear a difference.

Wish I had a really good modern player to compare to the Proton.

Take care,

Ed

 

[Mike Gibson]

Bully & Axel, I think you were referring to my post about the Sony VS the Denons that I deleted by mistake I looked again and it is called a X111 ES and CDP is not in the model name & number. I wonder if this makes a difference in finding out its age? The major sound difference between it and the denon 755/1910 and the other two DCD 800 & DCM 360 is the highs sounds pretty brittle and harsh while the Sony has the highs they sound more lifelike. I'm not very conversant with the proper audio adjectives