Old Marantz CD Players - cd63mkii vs cd52mkii

[admin_exported]

Is there a major difference between these two machines?

I bought the cd63 the other day from a 2nd hand shop, when I got home I realized there is a glitch every 20-30 seconds with cd playback. I took it back and they have swapped it with a cd52 that is working seemingly fine - the only thing is that it is older than the 63, not to mention bulkier...

Is the sound quality between the two machines the same?

Thanks for the help!

 

[Gazzip]

Many moons ago I had the CD52 mkII then the 63 and then a 63 KI Signature. I thought the 52 and the 63 were much the same. Both great players, but not a lot to choose between them. The KI Signature on the other hand was in a different league.....

 

[matthewpiano]

I've had a CD52MkIISE, a CD63SE, and a CD63 KI Signature and I would say they machines got progressively better. I've just retired a CD63SE and replaced it with a new CD6003 and it has proved that Marantz have carried on getting better as well. It easily surpasses the '63 in my opinion.

 

[Anonymous]

I bought the cd63 the other day from a 2nd hand shop,

What is your reason for staying in the 1980s when a laptop and a DAC would give far better sound?

Just curious really and thinking maybe ditching the CD player would raise your sound quality.

 

[Anonymous]

I bought the cd63 the other day from a 2nd hand shop,

What is your reason for staying in the 1980s when a laptop and a DAC would give far better sound?

Just curious really and thinking maybe ditching the CD player would raise your sound quality.

Please excuse my ignorance in this regard - but what is a DAC?

While I surely would like to improve sound quality, one reason for "staying in the 80's" would be that I don't always want a laptop on and running just to listen to music - besides my present laptop is nothing too special...

I'm a musician and generally find myself spending on instruments and recording gear before I get to thinking of hi-fi equipmment. I have a nice Technics SU-V300 amp and was looking for a nice cd player to accompany it...

 

[emptage]

I've had a CD52MkIISE, a CD63SE, and a CD63 KI Signature and I would say they machines got progressively better. I've just retired a CD63SE and replaced it with a new CD6003 and it has proved that Marantz have carried on getting better as well. It easily surpasses the '63 in my opinion.

Where would a Marantz CD 65II fit into this. I ahve one and am thinking of upgrading it to a Marantz CD6003. Would I notice much of an improvement

 

[MajorFubar]

Not all of us relish the thought of using a computer to play a CD when popping the thing into a CD player does the job.

Of those (older) players, the 63KI is definitely the best sonically. I am not familiar with the sound of their more recent players.

Oh and a DAC is a device that converts the digital 0s and 1s into music. Most computers have one already built in otherwise they would be silent, but aftermarket outboard DACs are sonically superior

 

[matthewpiano]

Sorry emptage, I'm not familiar with the CD65II so couldn't comment.

MajorFubar - I'm wtih you on this one. I keep trying to get into streaming music but each time I end up going back to CD. Despite those who go OTT about it's imperfections, I love the format. I'm a big vinyl fan too. If that makes me a luddite then a happy luddite I will be!

 

[MajorFubar]

MajorFubar - I'm wtih you on this one. I keep trying to get into streaming music but each time I end up going back to CD. Despite those who go OTT about it's imperfections, I love the format.

Indeed, I cannot think of any benefit I personally would get from using my computer as a playback device for my CDs. Even without a computer, I can still, should I want to, feed my old player into a new outboard DAC and enjoy the improved SQ of more recent and refined electronics. Neither can I see any benefit I would get from spending hours upon hours upon hours ripping and tagging my collection of nearly 500 CDs to a computer. In fact probably by the time I'd completed such a hateful laborious process (enjoyed surely only by masochists) I'd never want to play the infernal things ever again.

 

[Mr Morph]

I keep trying to get into streaming music but each time I end up going back to CD. Despite those who go OTT about it's imperfections, I love the format. I'm a big vinyl fan too. If that makes me a luddite then a happy luddite I will be!

Didn't Luddites break machinery? Whereas you're helping to preserve something? They'll probably catagorise you in the 'Dinosaur' section, but deffinately not a Luddite.

And to answer Emptage's question... Yes the 65 MKII uses a Philips TDA1541 DAC, so I think you'll find modern players sound a lot smoother in comparison.

 

[Anonymous]

The CD63 is a great-sounding player which commonly suffers from the fault you describe due to sticky lubrication along the rail the laser moves along. By cleaning the old, dried lube and re-lubricating you can generally improve things.

The CD52 should also sound quite good (but probably less good) and also suffers from a common fault - in this one the drawer gears shear due to ageing of the plastic used. This is a harder fix, but is certainly dooable.

The CD 65II is a reliably-engineered player which is a few years older than the 52. It sounds inoffensive but much less good than the later 63. There is a deadness to the sound of the early 16 bit players like the 65II.

 

[emptage]

The CD63 is a great-sounding player which commonly suffers from the fault you describe due to sticky lubrication along the rail the laser moves along. By cleaning the old, dried lube and re-lubricating you can generally improve things.

The CD52 should also sound quite good (but probably less good) and also suffers from a common fault - in this one the drawer gears shear due to ageing of the plastic used. This is a harder fix, but is certainly dooable.

The CD 65II is a reliably-engineered player which is a few years older than the 52. It sounds inoffensive but much less good than the later 63. There is a deadness to the sound of the early 16 bit players like the 65II.

Thanks. So would the Marantz be a worthwhile upgrade from the Marantz CD65II ?

 

[Anonymous]

The CD 63/67 and variants are certainly a big improvement sound quality-wise over the 65 II. Some of the more recent Marantz players are considered even better, but I haven't used them. As for the 52, I haven't heard one recently enough to be sure, but I doubt that they are as good as the 63/67.

 

[MajorFubar]

I'm familiar with the CD65 and both CD52s (though not the SEs) and I can vouch that my current 63KIS comfortably trounces them. The CD63 mkII KIS can be found easily for under £200.

One thing which may be important to you though is that the CD52 transport will play many brands of CDRW as well as normal CDRs, whereas the CD65 and CD63 will only play CDRs. It wasn't mentioned in their manuals, in fact I'm not even sure if CDRWs had been invented when they were launched, so it's probably more by coincidence than by design. But if that's important to you, there's no harm in sticking with a CD52 and upgrading to an outboard DAC at a later stage using the CD52's coaxial output.

 

[emptage]

I'm familiar with the CD65 and both CD52s (though not the SEs) and I can vouch that my current 63KIS comfortably trounces them. The CD63 mkII KIS can be found easily for under £200. One thing which may be important to you though is that the CD52 transport will play many brands of CDRW as well as normal CDRs, whereas the CD65 and CD63 will only play CDRs. It wasn't mentioned in their manuals, in fact I'm not even sure if CDRWs had been invented when they were launched, so it's probably more by coincidence than by design. But if that's important to you, there's no harm in sticking with a CD52 and upgrading to an outboard DAC at a later stage using the CD52's coaxial output.

I have a 65II. Would a better player such as Marantz CD6003 give significantly better performance ?

 

[MajorFubar]

I haven't heard the 6003, but I have heard (and owned) the '65. Imo the 6003 will probably knock spots off it.