Marantz CD63.......

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
125
0
0
Visit site
Well, as you all know my NAD c660 broke....

What??.... you didn't know... What's that you say?.....Because you ignore anything you see my name against .... *acute*

No matter I collect it tomorrow - 80quid it cost me.

Anyhoo I've been listening with my Marantz CD63 the past week and I have to say this, actually someone posted a YouTube link a week or so ago that had some bloke who had bought one for 14quid saying it was rubbish and the headphone jack had a better output.

The man was clearly a blithering idiot who had purchased a botched machine but never considered that fact.

It's still an excellent player - some of you who find modern players/music 'bright' or 'clinical' would love this player.

Not as detailed or sharp as the NAD but in a good way.

Playing it via the Yamaha ax-620's digital coax.May try it with the Rotel Ra-1520 via analog. It's only ever used these days when recording CD's with copy controls.

It will be interesting to hear the NAD - the psu was burnt out. Hope it sounds the same.

Wonder how this player would hold If compared with modern budget players and lossless streamers?
 

George Hincapie

New member
Nov 21, 2015
6
0
0
Visit site
I bought my CD63 24 years ago; I am still using it. The Marantz PM44SE I bought at the same time died a few weeks ago, so I've just replaced it with an AudioLab 8000A and two 8000M mono blocks. Tried connecting the CD63 to my M-DAC with both optical and coax. I prefer coax.

The CD63 is decent and continues to serve me well; albeit as a transport now.
 

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
125
0
0
Visit site
The NAD c660 is a dual deck recorder. It's a good one too, it'll do recordings from any source to CD.

Vinyl, tape, radio videotape, MP3 and it does 'identical' copies to the originals.

It is abit picky about what it records on though.

80pounds for another 10+year's ain't too bad
 

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
125
0
0
Visit site
It never ceases to surprise me how big subtle differences make to listening.

You do spend time listening for certain markers and expect things 'in their place'.

This player does take the edge off some recordings, works well with poorer recordings but against well produced material.

It is a player of its time when cd's were mixed 'over bright' compared with modern cd's which sound 'richer' takes the top end of vocals too.

Its a very 'warm' player.
 

drummerman

New member
Jan 18, 2008
540
5
0
Visit site
I had the KI for a long time.

Nice/comfortable to listen to and inoffensive but diffuse and lacking transparency, incisiveness and soft at the fequency extremes ... if that hifi talk makes any sense. It was Marantzes/Ishiwata's answer to the often horrid sounding budget players at the time ... and mostly achieved what it set out to do. High Jitter probably being one of the culprits (yes I know, the naysayers ... erm ... say that you can't hear jitter. I disagree plus there are several forms of jitter so its hardly a clear cut open and shut subject). Nowadays jitter is not the problem it used to be with modern processors having made progress. Power supply induced distortion being more of a problem.

Naturally, there were compromises otherwise there would have been little point in Marantz making more upmarket players.

Having said all that, I have two cyrus players, apart by about 4 years and prefer the older one because it just matches perfectly with the amp.
 

record_spot

Well-known member
Briefly had a 63-KI a few years ago, but moved it on before too long. It was all there, but a little too big and bold. Perhaps not raucous, but lacked a degree of finesse that paled against the other players I had at the time. The thread's on here somehwere.
 

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
125
0
0
Visit site
drummerman said:
I had the KI for a long time.

Nice/comfortable to listen to and inoffensive but diffuse and lacking transparency, incisiveness and soft at the fequency extremes ... if that hifi talk makes any sense. It was Marantzes/Ishiwata's answer to the often horrid sounding budget players at the time ... and mostly achieved what it set out to do. High Jitter probably being one of the culprits (yes I know, the naysayers ... erm ... say that you can't hear jitter. I disagree plus there are several forms of jitter so its hardly a clear cut open and shut subject). Nowadays jitter is not the problem it used to be with modern processors having made progress. Power supply induced distortion being more of a problem.

Naturally, there were compromises otherwise there would have been little point in Marantz making more upmarket players.

Having said all that, I have two cyrus players, apart by about 4 years and prefer the older one because it just matches perfectly with the amp.

 

I agree with your assessment drummerman, although mine is the standard machine.

The lack of 'bite' makes it a 'nice' listen - but that said all the detail is there without the edges.

Some I believe would appreciate that trait I'm sure.

Oh......that mains jitter you speak of I heard somewhere Naim produced a mains lead that addressed that......
 

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
125
0
0
Visit site
record_spot said:
Briefly had a 63-KI a few years ago, but moved it on before too long.  It was all there, but a little too big and bold.  Perhaps not raucous, but lacked a degree of finesse that paled against the other players I had at the time.  The thread's on here somehwere.

Never heard the KI version of this player but 'big and bold'?, Marantz must have change the 'house' sound for the upgrades.

Well the NAD's back - tested in the shop directly on some active speakers - think they were relatively cheap ones never looked for the brand, as they sounded rubbish to my ears, flat and loud.

I had Gregory Porter's Liquid Spirit in tray1 and Dwele Greater Than One in 2..... Not particularly aggressive music.

But I can see why active could be a viable option.

Will set it up proper tomorrow after the F1.
 

record_spot

Well-known member
Thompsonuxb said:
Never heard the KI version of this player but 'big and bold'?, Marantz must have change the 'house' sound for the upgrades.

Quite possibly; I could see why it was popular, but compared to better players, it lagged in refinement - bass was ragged at times, treble coming in a bit too keen. Perfectly listenable and a great deal for the £100 or so it goes for now, but Cambridge Audio's 752BD or AVI's Lab Series better it. At the time, I think Harman's HD990 did very well too.
 

MeanandGreen

Well-known member
Dec 26, 2012
149
69
18,670
Visit site
Thompsonuxb said:
Playing it via the Yamaha ax-620's digital coax.

I'm not trying to be funny here, but that means you aren't actually listening to the Marantz. You are listening to the Yamaha DAC. If you play your NAD in the same way there will be no difference.

You need to compare the analogue outputs from both the NAD and Marantz to make a comparison.
 

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
125
0
0
Visit site
MeanandGreen said:
Thompsonuxb said:
Playing it via the Yamaha ax-620's digital coax.

I'm not trying to be funny here, but that means you aren't actually listening to the Marantz. You are listening to the Yamaha DAC. If you play your NAD in the same way there will be no difference.?

You need to compare the analogue outputs from both the NAD and Marantz to make a comparison. 

Honestly I'm not being funny or trying to be controversial or argumentative - but you'd have to sit here blindfolded then judge for yourself.

The 'transports' have a different 'presentation' has described.

I mean why should dacs sound different anyway?

A stand alone unit compared to an amps or a cdplayer or whatever device?
 

TRENDING THREADS