Yamaha cdx?
- Thread starter ojom
- Start date
EricC
Super Member
I think I have one around here. Does the Kenwood have a metal transport? Any inside picturs of that unit?
lorne
Sonic Lizard
Yes, the frame bed is die cast metal. The entire chassis is painstakingly designed to reduce vibration to the transport by utilizing antishock devices and dampening. I initially though it was all just gimmickery, but now I've changed my opinion.
Let's compare. I'll pull the hood later today and put up some pics of the Kenny. If you dig up your 1030 and do some pics, it will be a first here on this thread — or ANYWHERE as far as I can see. I think that these two machines were in a comparable market, so it would be interesting to compare them. It would especially interest me as I have just made an inquiry about a 1020 sale. (I want to know if the laser pickup will read CDR. The Kenwood did after a thorough cleaning of the lens).
Does the 1030 have two transformers? Metal frame, dual DAC? Do you know the speed and sampling rate? — not that I think it defines the ultimate effect? ... Lorne
lorne
Sonic Lizard
For comparison: Kenwood DP-990SG
Well, maybe not so like the 1120 ... whadaya think?
DP-990SG Specs - introduced 1987
4X over sampling SM5894
DAC: 16 BIT DAC, two times PCM56-K
TRANSPORT: Kenwood Metallic J91-0341
SAMPLING FREQ: 176.4 Hz
WEIGHT: 10.8 Kg.
The pic on the right is actually an 1100, but the tranport is the same part number. The other two pics are my 990. The 1100SG had two cover Xformers and a richer class of capacitors amoung other things.
I went over to yer thread. I have to say, some comments there got me heated up for the 1030.
Well, maybe not so like the 1120 ... whadaya think?
DP-990SG Specs - introduced 1987
4X over sampling SM5894
DAC: 16 BIT DAC, two times PCM56-K
TRANSPORT: Kenwood Metallic J91-0341
SAMPLING FREQ: 176.4 Hz
WEIGHT: 10.8 Kg.
The pic on the right is actually an 1100, but the tranport is the same part number. The other two pics are my 990. The 1100SG had two cover Xformers and a richer class of capacitors amoung other things.
I went over to yer thread. I have to say, some comments there got me heated up for the 1030.
Attachments
the-real-mandak
Super Member
The xx20 of the Yamaha number indicates the player was put on the market in 1989, so it seems it might be instead of the CDX-920 or 1120. The easiest way to determine this is to look at the weight.
The DAC of the CDX-1020 will most likely be the Burr-Brown PCM-58 (18bit); the PCM-56 was used in the high-end 1987 generation (xx00) as also the Kenwood. And if I remember correct Yamaha started to use there own DAC's from 1990 starting with the CDX-1030 (S-Bit), but if you start to look more around then also have an eye out for the 1060.
The DAC of the CDX-1020 will most likely be the Burr-Brown PCM-58 (18bit); the PCM-56 was used in the high-end 1987 generation (xx00) as also the Kenwood. And if I remember correct Yamaha started to use there own DAC's from 1990 starting with the CDX-1030 (S-Bit), but if you start to look more around then also have an eye out for the 1060.
lorne
Sonic Lizard
Must Be a 920!
With the help of you CDX fans, I believe I have confirmed the model equivalency of the CDX-1020. It conforms to what T-R-Mandak says. I dug this up from a German site:
* 22 BIT 8X over-sampling
* 2x PCM58 (18 Bit)
* Twin DAC
* 8.5 Kg
* 1989 model
Perhaps this player is not as rich as I thought it might be. I still have no idea what it looks like under the top plate. It sure won't be any 1120, but look at the back view in the pic below. How can a guy resist build qulity like that for $100. As I said, there appears to be a top plate fastened by Allen screws rather than a sheet metal 'hood'. And the reseller will stand behind it. It's not an ePrey item. They are just checking to confirm that it will read CDR. If it does, I'll jump.
Has anybody been recapping these units to see what if any difference it makes? After twenty years or so, I can't see how replacing degraded caps could fail to improve a digital circuit. If my hunch is right, I'll be able to switch back and forth between the Kenwood - Monica combo and the 1020 and be able to live with Red Book digi. There's just too much software around to write it off.
Just to boot yer blood pressures, I've included two pics of the
1120 to the right. Ya gotta luv it! :sigh: BTW, the back view of the 1020 is scruffier than the one I am interested in.
With the help of you CDX fans, I believe I have confirmed the model equivalency of the CDX-1020. It conforms to what T-R-Mandak says. I dug this up from a German site:
* 22 BIT 8X over-sampling
* 2x PCM58 (18 Bit)
* Twin DAC
* 8.5 Kg
* 1989 model
Perhaps this player is not as rich as I thought it might be. I still have no idea what it looks like under the top plate. It sure won't be any 1120, but look at the back view in the pic below. How can a guy resist build qulity like that for $100. As I said, there appears to be a top plate fastened by Allen screws rather than a sheet metal 'hood'. And the reseller will stand behind it. It's not an ePrey item. They are just checking to confirm that it will read CDR. If it does, I'll jump.
Has anybody been recapping these units to see what if any difference it makes? After twenty years or so, I can't see how replacing degraded caps could fail to improve a digital circuit. If my hunch is right, I'll be able to switch back and forth between the Kenwood - Monica combo and the 1020 and be able to live with Red Book digi. There's just too much software around to write it off.
Just to boot yer blood pressures, I've included two pics of the
1120 to the right. Ya gotta luv it! :sigh: BTW, the back view of the 1020 is scruffier than the one I am interested in.
Attachments
Anders, doesn't a 1xxx series model number indicate that the player is a 10 kilo model? If so, the CDX-1020 is probably the predecessor to the CDX-1030.
Yamaha used very high quality caps in their better gear. I haven't had any caps replaced in my CD players, and likely won't unless there's a problem.
it seems like my Yamaha CDX-993 is having problems. i heard distortions in one channel. it is sometimes hard to noticed, but while playing certain frequencies such is trumpet, loud passages of any kind, or any similiar high frequency, distortion is audible.
what went wrong? laser or something else?
what went wrong? laser or something else?
lorne
Sonic Lizard
I'm sticking my neck out here, but in Japan we have just had a long weekend, and I have done little else except read about digi and CDP. It is VERY likely NOT the laser diode. If the effect actually IS actually in the CDP, it is more likely degraded capacitors,
dirty contacts or a number of other little stuffs — but not the laser pickup from the way you describe things. No one seems to write or talks about it in regards to CDP's, but as parts age in these machines, I see no reason why the effects should not be greatly felt by the components that sort out all the BITS and pulses. The best CDP I have has a large bank of trim pots. These must be set at the factory to optimise the circuits and output. Over a decade or more, I cannot imagine a circuit being exactly the way it was when it left the factory. Perhaps just drift .... So much to learn ... once one gets started on the digi road. (I can't imagine getting very far very quickly, but one step at a time. To read some of the stuff ... boggling...) :saywhat:
the-real-mandak
Super Member
I agree with lorne, not the laser.
Mark: The Japan only stuff is difficult to judge since they use there home market to test the gear and also release limited series. Just think of the GT models. But yes, the 1xxx are normaly 10kg+.
More on the CDX-1020; It seems to be much like a 920 but with a better build quality, maybe something between a the 920 and 1120. We really have to see the inside to know or if any have the SM on the CDX-920 that one might also cover the CDX-1020, I do know for sure that it is not like the 1120/2020 or CD-5050 witch are all covered by the same manual.
Here 2 pics to compare the 2 units.
Mark: The Japan only stuff is difficult to judge since they use there home market to test the gear and also release limited series. Just think of the GT models. But yes, the 1xxx are normaly 10kg+.
More on the CDX-1020; It seems to be much like a 920 but with a better build quality, maybe something between a the 920 and 1120. We really have to see the inside to know or if any have the SM on the CDX-920 that one might also cover the CDX-1020, I do know for sure that it is not like the 1120/2020 or CD-5050 witch are all covered by the same manual.
Here 2 pics to compare the 2 units.
Attachments
lorne
Sonic Lizard
CDX as archaeology and antiquarianism 
Well, it is fascinating to consider that our questions may be a sort of industrial archaeology. Probably the only people who remember all of the production variations of these distinctive Yamaha players are seniors who are at least a decade into their retirement. We should love to pick their brains over a long lunch. Perhaps the details will be important only to enthusiasts. Perhaps they/we are interested in recapturing the recorded music in the same way as the Yamaha engineers imagined and hoped for — given the limitations of the imposed standards and the technology of the time.
The fetishism that surrounds the issues of the hardware should neither have to be explained or justified in this company of Karma buffs. Is it what it is — no excuses or apologies. Such stuff has kept the eggs moving in the techno-cultural pan for millennia. It is often male thing, but women do get into it as naturally as any male if their interest and passion is stimulated. So, onto the guts of my comment:
In that regard, not all may be what it seems on the surface. For example, if an engineering committee came to a consensus that chassis integrity was not the critical factor as once thought, and if at the same time a budget was imposed (as it always is), perhaps there could be a move towards spending money and directing resources elsewhere and effecting (for instance) the I/C chips, the capacitors, transformers, more or less dampening material, different board material, or simply how to create another profit margin as directed by corporate comptrollers.
The fact that the 1020 and the 920 may have different chassis (as the pics suggest) is not conclusive of anything final as to how they compare. But it is fun to speculate, and perhaps some of you can be sure-footed in well-primed predictions. Nevertheless, we wait on more conclusive stuff, and if all goes well, I’ll post some pics of the 1020. Hence, one more little slice of the CDX history will be recovered and preserved here for enthusiasts who want to rescue these machines from rot and destruction.
Thanks to all the contributors for this really great thread that has got me interested in digital audio once once again.
Well, it is fascinating to consider that our questions may be a sort of industrial archaeology.
Probably the only people who remember all of the production variations of these distinctive Yamaha players are seniors who are at least a decade into their retirement. We should love to pick their brains over a long lunch. Perhaps the details will be important only to enthusiasts. Perhaps they/we are interested in recapturing the recorded music in the same way as the Yamaha engineers imagined and hoped for — given the limitations of the imposed standards and the technology of the time. The fetishism that surrounds the issues of the hardware should neither have to be explained or justified in this company of Karma buffs. Is it what it is — no excuses or apologies. Such stuff has kept the eggs moving in the techno-cultural pan for millennia. It is often male thing, but women do get into it as naturally as any male if their interest and passion is stimulated. So, onto the guts of my comment:
When you see that both sets of control buttons line up EXACTLY from one to the other, don't you just bet that there are a LOT of similarities — at LEAST in the control and logic department. The power supply could be very different. Electronic components could be a different grade of quality — either up, or down the scale. What we can say for sure from these pics is that the chassis-build is different. And if this is the case, chances are there are some differences inside the respective units. Maybe I am a freak, but once I get interested in a machine, no matter what it is (could be a push mower), comparisons become interesting because of the forces that inspired their creation.
In that regard, not all may be what it seems on the surface. For example, if an engineering committee came to a consensus that chassis integrity was not the critical factor as once thought, and if at the same time a budget was imposed (as it always is), perhaps there could be a move towards spending money and directing resources elsewhere and effecting (for instance) the I/C chips, the capacitors, transformers, more or less dampening material, different board material, or simply how to create another profit margin as directed by corporate comptrollers.
The fact that the 1020 and the 920 may have different chassis (as the pics suggest) is not conclusive of anything final as to how they compare. But it is fun to speculate, and perhaps some of you can be sure-footed in well-primed predictions. Nevertheless, we wait on more conclusive stuff, and if all goes well, I’ll post some pics of the 1020. Hence, one more little slice of the CDX history will be recovered and preserved here for enthusiasts who want to rescue these machines from rot and destruction.
Thanks to all the contributors for this really great thread that has got me interested in digital audio once once again.
the-real-mandak
Super Member
Cdx-993
I just had my CDX-993 apart and the more I find out about it, the more I like it. Even that it is hard to imagine, it seems to be built better than the CD-5050/CDX-1120. The housing is dead when knocked on and the unit just feels solid. Really amazing when thought of that it was build in the end of the 90’s.
The transport witch I first thought was plastic turned out to be aluminum and again a solid unit killing vibrations.
The housing is made of 1mm steal and the bottom is closed with an extra 1,5mm steal plate
And the PCB, just nice.
I just had my CDX-993 apart and the more I find out about it, the more I like it. Even that it is hard to imagine, it seems to be built better than the CD-5050/CDX-1120. The housing is dead when knocked on and the unit just feels solid. Really amazing when thought of that it was build in the end of the 90’s.
The transport witch I first thought was plastic turned out to be aluminum and again a solid unit killing vibrations.
The housing is made of 1mm steal and the bottom is closed with an extra 1,5mm steal plate
And the PCB, just nice.
Attachments
lorne
Sonic Lizard
Hi 't-r-m': Your 993 looks excellent. I can see — am I right? — a collection of Elna Duorex caps on the big board. The big Duorex would be the brown ones, and the smaller Duorex' are red — looking deceptively like Cerafines? Then there seem to be some green sleeves. What are these? Your filter bank looks to be Marcons that were prevalent throughout the early 90's in Asian products. The sub-chassis is sheilding the individual sections (cool). What does it weigh — about 11 Kg?
I received my 1020 two days ago. Tonight I am too wacked-out by work to put up pics. And last night I was too entranced by the sound to do anything but listen. So far I keep raising the rhetorical, mental question, "Whaddya mean CDP's have come a long way since the 80's!?" HUH? ... Really?? ... Why? ... Where? ... Which one? Should I have been spending $1K plus for mid 90's players?"
What products would I have to buy TODAY to get this sound? Now THAT is a pertinent question? And I hope to get some responses. It is not a challenge. I really wanna know!
Well, the 1020 does not look like yours 't-r-m'. The 1020's filter caps are on the main board. And overall, I cannot see too much of a family resemblance except in the transport section and the character of the chassis. Considering a generation or two separation, this is hardly surprising in a digital component.
The 1020's single Xformer is encased in a casting like the twins in the 1120. The top is a thick steel plate fastened by Allen screws. The chassis is a real treat and it isolates sections like your 993. The big board is a white material (epoxy?) as opposed to the green one (fibreglass?) in yours.
As for sound: My Kenwood 990SG/Monca II DAC combo virbates the floor under your feet, even at very modest volume. Using the analogue taps, the Yamaha is more subdued, but overall detail, texture, clarity, control and lyrical excitment is clearly on the side of of the Yamaha's analog ports. I have become a devoted fan. My Micro RB-300 TT rig is gonna get a run for its money. Very exciting ... and it is good to feel secure once more in regards to digital. It has been only too easy to dispair of digi. I just cannot afford the Wadias and the like.
I received my 1020 two days ago. Tonight I am too wacked-out by work to put up pics. And last night I was too entranced by the sound to do anything but listen. So far I keep raising the rhetorical, mental question, "Whaddya mean CDP's have come a long way since the 80's!?" HUH? ... Really?? ... Why? ... Where? ... Which one? Should I have been spending $1K plus for mid 90's players?"
What products would I have to buy TODAY to get this sound? Now THAT is a pertinent question? And I hope to get some responses. It is not a challenge. I really wanna know!
Well, the 1020 does not look like yours 't-r-m'. The 1020's filter caps are on the main board. And overall, I cannot see too much of a family resemblance except in the transport section and the character of the chassis. Considering a generation or two separation, this is hardly surprising in a digital component.
The 1020's single Xformer is encased in a casting like the twins in the 1120. The top is a thick steel plate fastened by Allen screws. The chassis is a real treat and it isolates sections like your 993. The big board is a white material (epoxy?) as opposed to the green one (fibreglass?) in yours.
As for sound: My Kenwood 990SG/Monca II DAC combo virbates the floor under your feet, even at very modest volume. Using the analogue taps, the Yamaha is more subdued, but overall detail, texture, clarity, control and lyrical excitment is clearly on the side of of the Yamaha's analog ports. I have become a devoted fan. My Micro RB-300 TT rig is gonna get a run for its money. Very exciting ... and it is good to feel secure once more in regards to digital. It has been only too easy to dispair of digi. I just cannot afford the Wadias and the like.
the-real-mandak
Super Member
The CDX-993 is 9,6kg. I did not note al the series names of the caps, but as usual in Yamahas high-end the brands are Rubycon, Nichicon and Elna.
The DAC has 2-3 generations to the PCM-58, but the overall design is 10 years newer then that of the CDX-1020. The layout of the 993's main board makes even the CDX-1120/2020 look like a mess and in over all the total design looks to be better than the old kings. It also happened that the CDX-2020 was pulled off the market when Yamaha started to ship new players with the YAC514 DAC.
I have seen the white boards in some of the other Yamaha gear from late 80's like the T-85 and TX-900.
The DAC has 2-3 generations to the PCM-58, but the overall design is 10 years newer then that of the CDX-1020. The layout of the 993's main board makes even the CDX-1120/2020 look like a mess and in over all the total design looks to be better than the old kings. It also happened that the CDX-2020 was pulled off the market when Yamaha started to ship new players with the YAC514 DAC.
I have seen the white boards in some of the other Yamaha gear from late 80's like the T-85 and TX-900.
The top Yammie CD players from the late 80's are lovely sounding machines. They compare very well to anything made today.
Couldn't agree more. The problem is that they are now like the great Sony CDPs of old in that the laser block and other repair parts are no longer available. And, they do not play SACDs, which in about 50% of the cases, do raise the bar.
