I have a Denom DCD590 that came with a ceramic resonator for its clock oscillator. According to the specs in its service manual (also covers their DCD 690, which uses a quartz crystal) s/n is 103dB, but the one with the quartz crystal it's 105dB, separation 100dB vs 103dB,dynamic range 1dB better, 97 vs 98dB. The only difference between the two players is the use of a ceramic resonator or quartz crystal, an extra button on the front panel, and a digital out jack on the back. Only the crystal would make a difference in the above specs. Looked at specs for ceramic resonators and quartz crystals, and quartz is about 100 times more accurate in frequency. Probably less jitter, though neither sets of specs mention it.
In any event, I replaced the ceramic resonator and two small associated caps in my Denon machine. I used a quartz crystal salvaged from a computer sound card. Even though this particular one is a tiny long skinny cylindar, spec sheets for such are as good as the more normal looking crystals. Also used silver mica caps to replace the ceramics associated with the oscillator circuit. The orignal caps were 5pF, Denon uses 10pF with the quartz crystal in the 690, so that's what I put in.
How does it sound? Well, the machine still works 😀 and should achieve the better specs of its big brother mentioned above. The system I have here I wouldnt think I'd hear the extra few dBs of performance, but it did sound ever so slightly better.
If your player has a ceramic resonator for the system clock reference, changing it to a quartz crystal should improve it. At way less than one of those fancy clock modules.
In any event, I replaced the ceramic resonator and two small associated caps in my Denon machine. I used a quartz crystal salvaged from a computer sound card. Even though this particular one is a tiny long skinny cylindar, spec sheets for such are as good as the more normal looking crystals. Also used silver mica caps to replace the ceramics associated with the oscillator circuit. The orignal caps were 5pF, Denon uses 10pF with the quartz crystal in the 690, so that's what I put in.
How does it sound? Well, the machine still works 😀 and should achieve the better specs of its big brother mentioned above. The system I have here I wouldnt think I'd hear the extra few dBs of performance, but it did sound ever so slightly better.
If your player has a ceramic resonator for the system clock reference, changing it to a quartz crystal should improve it. At way less than one of those fancy clock modules.
Hi wa2ise,
Can you tell me more about this ceramic resonator? I know one component that I think is a ceramic resonator, but it has 3 legs (mostly blue, some are orange). Is this the resonator you're talking about? Because the crystal doesn't have 3 legs, does it? Well some have, to ground the metal case, or just connected legs.
Then how about the frequency? Did you use the same frequency for both oscillators?
Can you tell me more about this ceramic resonator? I know one component that I think is a ceramic resonator, but it has 3 legs (mostly blue, some are orange). Is this the resonator you're talking about? Because the crystal doesn't have 3 legs, does it? Well some have, to ground the metal case, or just connected legs.
Then how about the frequency? Did you use the same frequency for both oscillators?
I am not convinced that you can hear a few hundred ppm frequency error, but the much lower Q of ceramic resonators will make jitter worse which will be audible on oversampling dacs.
Frequency accuracy becomes important when you have a separate transport and dac when it might cause locking problems.
You should be able to just drop in a crystal and add a couple of 22pF capacitors to ground. Usually ceramic resonators are harder to get working than crystals.
As for the package, the tube type is mostly used for 32768 Hz watch crystals, brcause they use a tuning fork crystal cut
Frequency accuracy becomes important when you have a separate transport and dac when it might cause locking problems.
You should be able to just drop in a crystal and add a couple of 22pF capacitors to ground. Usually ceramic resonators are harder to get working than crystals.
As for the package, the tube type is mostly used for 32768 Hz watch crystals, brcause they use a tuning fork crystal cut
I changed my 50ppm crystal in my Marantz CD-63KI to a custom made 5ppm and cal of 5ppm crystal.
There was more clarity to the sound with a tighter bass 🙄
There was more clarity to the sound with a tighter bass 🙄
wa2ise said:
Hi are you going for specs or are you going for sound?
You should really build a clock, you don't need fancy clock module.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=199928#post199928
But is that just the crystal or a complete clock?
If it's just the crystal, the actual value will depend on the capacitance of the chip, tracks etc.
If it's a clock module then we are back to clock modding
If it's just the crystal, the actual value will depend on the capacitance of the chip, tracks etc.
If it's a clock module then we are back to clock modding
davidsrsb said:
That's a clock AND a crystal. Don't go for less. (stray capacitance has nothing to do with it) 😎
That's my thinking as well. That the ceramic resonator's lower Q would make for more jitter, even if it's in a free running oscillator and not a PLL trying to lock onto another source.
In a tuner, some 3 legged creatures are filters for the intermediate frequency amplifiers and are not oscillators. But in a CD player there would be no such IF amps, so they would have to be oscillator circuit components.
Yes, I used the same frequency. Otherwise I'd get a stable but wrong clock frequency. 16.9344MHz Other machines use 12.2somethingMHz.
Ever hear of the trick of playing vinyl records a little too fast by radio stations? Supposidly to make the songs sound a little "brighter"? If you wanted to do such a thing with CDs
you could use a slightly higher frequency crystal for the clock (assuming it will be the reference system clock and not a PLL locking onto some other source).
wa2ise said:
That's my thinking as well. That the ceramic resonator's lower Q would make for more jitter, even if it's in a free running oscillator and not a PLL trying to lock onto another source.
In a tuner, some 3 legged creatures are filters for the intermediate frequency amplifiers and are not oscillators. But in a CD player there would be no such IF amps, so they would have to be oscillator circuit components.
Yes, I used the same frequency. Otherwise I'd get a stable but wrong clock frequency. 16.9344MHz Other machines use 12.2somethingMHz.
Ever hear of the trick of playing vinyl records a little too fast by radio stations? Supposidly to make the songs sound a little "brighter"? If you wanted to do such a thing with CDs
Pls DO NOT DO this to me! Don't confuse a ceramic resonator integrated with 2 small caps with a ceramic IF frequency filter in FM tuners AAAARGH. You workspace looks like? OK I know have seen too many already........
<evil laugh> Anyway, most ceramic IF filters come in only a few frequencies, usually 450, 455, 460Khz, and 4.5MHz and 10.7MHz. And maybe 70Mhz filters for satellite set top boxes. Other frequencies are probably ceramic resonators. Even worse than that....😀
😱 
The record deck trick was to change speed by several percent, to the point that a musician would notice. I still don't believe that you can hear 50ppm error.
wa2ise said:
Ever hear of the trick of playing vinyl records a little too fast by radio stations? Supposidly to make the songs sound a little "brighter"? If you wanted to do such a thing with CDs
I know about the "fast" song trick from cassette players when CDs were not yet exist 🙂
Nice that you mentioned about radio tuner. That is exactly why it is hard for me to believe that such device is a crystal. But I've seen many of such devices in CDROM players. And Rowemeister explanation confirmed my thought about built-in caps as some of these creatures (usually brown) have those "balls" like tantalum caps in it.
BTW, please don't talk about workspace outside that poobah's thread. It makes me sad. I let no-one enter my house. Not my brothers, not sisters, not my girlfriend. I don't even let anybody know how deep I'm into this hobby. I feel my life is so pathetic 🙁 🙁 🙁
You won't. To do that speed up trick you'd need to change the crystal from 16.9344Mhz to 17.5something MHz. Not that anyone in this forum would want to... 😉
The trick is to keep the mess in a more private area of the house, and to keep the living room/kitchen/listening room where the hifi system resides (the "public areas" that visitors would see) more neat. 🙂 Assuming you're not is a tiny apartment.
wa2ise said:
The problem is, I need to hear my system under tweaking everytime, especially before and after sleeping. And I do my DIY job everyday untill I go tired and sleep, sometimes with legs on top of an amplifier. I have small tables all around the bed, with each table containes specific project. The more the uncompleted projects, the more the tables
The problem is also with uncomplete tweak or repair. You cannot stack amps with covers removed, can you? So You know where and how I put them...
The beads on the leads are to space the device from the pcb so that any excess epoxy coating on the lead is kept out of the through hole. It will also give a little protection against overheating during soldering.Jay said:
Soldering crystals with the new ROHS lead free solder is going to be a problem. I have seen ceramic resonators in use in CD players for the microcontroller. They are cheaper and the clock frequency is not critical.
davidsrsb said:
If you're referring to the "balls", those ones are different from the beads on the leads. Anyhow, I have been questioning the function of these beads as well. From your explanation, their function is not critical IMO, not enough justification to use fancy beads like that.
davidsrsb said:
How come? How the lead can help here?
davidsrsb said:
How "not" critical? I'm planning to replace such resonator last night (too late at night that I decided to sleep). The frequency is 20MHz. I think I have plenty of crystals with this frequency. What would be the effect of the upgrade? Can it affect sound quality? What if I use 16.9MHz? or 25MHz? Or 40MHz?
Elso Kwak said:
What??? This (I think) is not the master clock we're talking about...
😕
Master clock is 16.9334, I don't think 8MHz will work at all. But I have 16.25MHz crystal, don't know how slow it would be 😀
Jay said:
(16.9344-16.25)/16.9344 x 100%= 4% slower
16.9344MHz is the master clock for Sony based players.
What are we talking about????😕
Get your numbers right hahahahahaha
- Status
- Not open for further replies.