Opamp as IV-converter
Hi IpsilonSound,
My approach to audio is very empirical.
The westhostsite by Elliot is one of those sites I cannot stand....
I have tried dozens of opamps as IV in my NON-OS TDA1543 KWAK-DAC like in random order: LM6171, OP249, AD844, AD811, OPA604, AD711, AD744, AD8620, OPA603, LT1026, AD815Y, AD 826, AD817, AD827, AD847, AD823, OPA 627, OP27, OPA134, OP275.
To my ears the OP275 was the best. I did not perform any distortion measurement.
What else can I say..........
I will try the THS4082 which has the same simplified schematic as the AD817 by the way.
Hi IpsilonSound,
My approach to audio is very empirical.
The westhostsite by Elliot is one of those sites I cannot stand....
I have tried dozens of opamps as IV in my NON-OS TDA1543 KWAK-DAC like in random order: LM6171, OP249, AD844, AD811, OPA604, AD711, AD744, AD8620, OPA603, LT1026, AD815Y, AD 826, AD817, AD827, AD847, AD823, OPA 627, OP27, OPA134, OP275.
To my ears the OP275 was the best. I did not perform any distortion measurement.
What else can I say..........
I will try the THS4082 which has the same simplified schematic as the AD817 by the way.
IpsilonSound, it is interesting that you came to the same conclusions with Alex Nikitin, former chief engineer of Creek Audio (known in this forum as x-pro), concerning THS op amps, though he used THS4062 instead of THS4082, but they are quite similar.
IMO the good sounding of those op amps are in their output stage in A class (or almost A class), as with some loadings they run quite hot, plus in their superiority of even harmonics structure vs odd ones, which makes the sounding softer or warmer.
Concerning OPA2604, I don't really like it. OP275 has very low level of distortions, but majority of them are odd ones. I never tried those op amps in TDA1543 DAC, only with PCM1704 though, but that PCM1704 works in x8 oversampling mode with DF1706 ...
For me OPA627 is superior in comparison with OPA2604, and even OPA2134 is superior to it. OP275 is OK, but I liked OPA627 and AD843 better.
The difference between non-os TDA1543 stage and OS DF1706/PCM1704 is that in the first case we have to deal with some glitches ... and in the second case any HF above the DF frequency ranges are filtered. I did the distortions measurements for 49TXi, used as AV processor (signal path is SPDIF output Lynx L22->SPDIF input 49TXi->DF1706->PCM1704->OPA627->OPA2134->OPA2134->OPA2134->input Lynx L22), in Direct mode with RMAA software and through Lynx L22 soundcard:
http://www.angelfire.com/clone/gordon0/49TXi.htm
"Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB: +0.00, -0.01 Excellent
Noise level, dB (A): -110.8 Excellent
Dynamic range, dB (A): 109.5 Excellent
THD, %: 0.0042 Very good (it is equal to -87dB for the whole AV processor!)
IMD, %: 0.0073 Excellent (equal to -83dB for the whole AV processor)
Stereo crosstalk, dB: -105.3 Excellent"
Those results are superior even in comparison with the good professional soundcard, for example ESI Waveterminal 192X:
http://audio.rightmark.org/test/esi-wt192x/esi-waveterminal192x-2496.html
Or AudioTrack ProDigy 192 (semi-professional):
http://audio.rightmark.org/test/audiotrak-prodigy192-2496.html
I am not even talking about such devices as Audigy 2 ...
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1151975,00.asp
Noise level, dB (A): -96.5 Excellent
Dynamic range, dB (A): 94.1 Very Good
THD, %: 0.0037 Very Good
IMD, %: 0.0096 Very Good
Stereo crosstalk, dB: -88.4 Excellent
Test conditions:
Output level of volume control in 49TXi was +12dB.
Connection: SPDIF output of Lynx L22-> SPDIF in 49TXi (used DVD/LD digital input 1), stable clock of Lynx L22 is almost equal to i-link (though anyway worse, because of PLL clock restoring in the receiver, it means the results through i-link should be even better). Analog outputs of 49TXi (pre-out, FR and FL) -> analog inputs of Lynx L22; this is the required loop. Level of the input signal -3.1dB below FS.
http://diyparadise.com/TDA1543.pdf -70dB THD+N in TDA1543 plus their limitation to support SACD and DVD-A were always problems for me ...
IMO the good sounding of those op amps are in their output stage in A class (or almost A class), as with some loadings they run quite hot, plus in their superiority of even harmonics structure vs odd ones, which makes the sounding softer or warmer.
Concerning OPA2604, I don't really like it. OP275 has very low level of distortions, but majority of them are odd ones. I never tried those op amps in TDA1543 DAC, only with PCM1704 though, but that PCM1704 works in x8 oversampling mode with DF1706 ...
For me OPA627 is superior in comparison with OPA2604, and even OPA2134 is superior to it. OP275 is OK, but I liked OPA627 and AD843 better.
The difference between non-os TDA1543 stage and OS DF1706/PCM1704 is that in the first case we have to deal with some glitches ... and in the second case any HF above the DF frequency ranges are filtered. I did the distortions measurements for 49TXi, used as AV processor (signal path is SPDIF output Lynx L22->SPDIF input 49TXi->DF1706->PCM1704->OPA627->OPA2134->OPA2134->OPA2134->input Lynx L22), in Direct mode with RMAA software and through Lynx L22 soundcard:
http://www.angelfire.com/clone/gordon0/49TXi.htm
"Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB: +0.00, -0.01 Excellent
Noise level, dB (A): -110.8 Excellent
Dynamic range, dB (A): 109.5 Excellent
THD, %: 0.0042 Very good (it is equal to -87dB for the whole AV processor!)
IMD, %: 0.0073 Excellent (equal to -83dB for the whole AV processor)
Stereo crosstalk, dB: -105.3 Excellent"
Those results are superior even in comparison with the good professional soundcard, for example ESI Waveterminal 192X:
http://audio.rightmark.org/test/esi-wt192x/esi-waveterminal192x-2496.html
Or AudioTrack ProDigy 192 (semi-professional):
http://audio.rightmark.org/test/audiotrak-prodigy192-2496.html
I am not even talking about such devices as Audigy 2 ...
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1151975,00.asp
Noise level, dB (A): -96.5 Excellent
Dynamic range, dB (A): 94.1 Very Good
THD, %: 0.0037 Very Good
IMD, %: 0.0096 Very Good
Stereo crosstalk, dB: -88.4 Excellent
Test conditions:
Output level of volume control in 49TXi was +12dB.
Connection: SPDIF output of Lynx L22-> SPDIF in 49TXi (used DVD/LD digital input 1), stable clock of Lynx L22 is almost equal to i-link (though anyway worse, because of PLL clock restoring in the receiver, it means the results through i-link should be even better). Analog outputs of 49TXi (pre-out, FR and FL) -> analog inputs of Lynx L22; this is the required loop. Level of the input signal -3.1dB below FS.
http://diyparadise.com/TDA1543.pdf -70dB THD+N in TDA1543 plus their limitation to support SACD and DVD-A were always problems for me ...
I have an offer to you - let's record through my audio signal path and trhough yours the same VERY high quality musical track (from NAIM or TELARC samplers, for example) and using ABX or ABX plugin to foobar, compare them ... which one will sound better ... Unfortunately you can't do that with Telarc SACD multichannel sampler 2004 or using very revealing DVD-A Advanced resolution Metallica 2001, which I usually use for system's quality testings, but OK, I agree to make a comparison at the CD quality level ...
Seriously, I don't claim that at 44100Hz*8=352.8 kHz DF1706+PCM1704+OPA627+OPA2134 will win vs TDA1543+Sowther 9545 at the CD level (44100Hz non-oversampled), but still such comparison will be interesting for a lot of people and at least with DBT will be more or less objective ... Plus, don't forget that I will use i-link with PQLS on and you will use SPDIF ... (i.e difference in the level of jitter)
Seriously, I don't claim that at 44100Hz*8=352.8 kHz DF1706+PCM1704+OPA627+OPA2134 will win vs TDA1543+Sowther 9545 at the CD level (44100Hz non-oversampled), but still such comparison will be interesting for a lot of people and at least with DBT will be more or less objective ... Plus, don't forget that I will use i-link with PQLS on and you will use SPDIF ... (i.e difference in the level of jitter)
Gordon McGregor said:
Gordon I guess your question was adressed to me?
Just to make something clear. I'm not using a TDA 1543 but using the following:
CS 8420 24 bit 96 kHz; DF1704E 8 times OS; PCM 1704; resistor and Sowter.
I started with a standard Sony XA 50 ES player wich was not satisfying to me.
I first implemented the ZAPP filter from LC audio to the existing Sony DAC. This was already a big improvement. The ZAPP filter is a Class A discrete I/V, filter and amplifier, look at LCaudio.com.
Then I build the DAC with the upsampler and it outperformed the Sony DAC by far. Also the upsampler, 24 bit 96 kHz, brought some extra air.
Just to be curious I connected the new DAC with the standard I/V, filter and amplifier of the SONY player. This was a big dissapointment, the OPA 2604 for I/V and filtering and the OPA 2132 for amplifying where not as near as good as the ZAPP filter. Unmusical, flat, sharp edges en very fatigueing. Changing back to the standard SONY DAC made it even worse, I never thought that this player sounded that unpleasant in the standard situation. How a person can adjust to a certain soundquality, you must have heared an improvement to believe what is possible.
After reading a story about NOS and the effect of filtering I thought that one could use an transformer to use this natural high roll-off as a filter, done a bit of searching I got to Sowter and got in to discussion with Brain Sowter. He suggested to try the 9545 transformers with a 100 ohm resistor. I must say it worked very well. The music flows in to the room, it sounds all natural. I must say that I listen to blues jazz vocals and classical most of the time. With hard rock you miss a little bite, I agree. But when I want to listen to that I can switch back to the ZAPP filter which will give me this extra kick.
When using a transformer just try to increase the input impedance from the preamp. I increased it from 47K to 150 K to correct the otherwise to early rolloff. All these above adjustments where made with no measuring devices other than an DMM and my ears.
To come back to your proposal, I have no means to record music except on an old cassettedeck. So I'm sorry, but I find your idea very interesting so perhaps I can find someone in my neighbourhood with either a cd recorder or a DAT recorder, but for the moment I can not help you.
Regards
Rob
Gordon McGregor said:I have an offer to you - let's record through my audio signal path and trhough yours the same VERY high quality musical track (from NAIM or TELARC samplers, for example)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Telarc sampler may be ok, but the Naim sampler is nothing to shout about--the music for a start. Many of the give away samplers with magazines are not musical, I think simply because they are cheaply produced.
Konnichiwa,
Funny, I feel the opposite to be true. Much of the Telarc stuff is musically bland and boring (if techncially competent) and recording techniques seem to emphasis effects and gizmos at the expense of realsitic sound.
On Naim's Recordings I will again severely criticise the recording quality, however many pieces are musically very good, intreagung and make me want to listen more, which is not what Telarc recordings do to me.
Also, a lot of the free samplers on MUSIC MAGAZINES are quite good, but one must take care what one buy's. I have some excellent CD's from these covermounts, among them a Linn Records (BBC Music Mag) with the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment playing Vivaldi, Scarletti, Haendel, Corelli and others. Exceptional musicmanship, high production values and faiely realistic sound.
Also, for Rock/Pop several of the Q Magazine covermounts are excellent, as are many of the Classic FM Magazine Samplers for classical (especially for tasters). Last but not least, the "attached" magazines often make excellent reading.
BTW, does anyone posess the Linn Series "Songs of Robert Burns"? Drop me a line please....
Sayonara
fmak said:
Funny, I feel the opposite to be true. Much of the Telarc stuff is musically bland and boring (if techncially competent) and recording techniques seem to emphasis effects and gizmos at the expense of realsitic sound.
On Naim's Recordings I will again severely criticise the recording quality, however many pieces are musically very good, intreagung and make me want to listen more, which is not what Telarc recordings do to me.
Also, a lot of the free samplers on MUSIC MAGAZINES are quite good, but one must take care what one buy's. I have some excellent CD's from these covermounts, among them a Linn Records (BBC Music Mag) with the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment playing Vivaldi, Scarletti, Haendel, Corelli and others. Exceptional musicmanship, high production values and faiely realistic sound.
Also, for Rock/Pop several of the Q Magazine covermounts are excellent, as are many of the Classic FM Magazine Samplers for classical (especially for tasters). Last but not least, the "attached" magazines often make excellent reading.
BTW, does anyone posess the Linn Series "Songs of Robert Burns"? Drop me a line please....
Sayonara
Originally posted by robbie b
Gordon I guess your question was adressed to me?Yes, Sir.
Wow that is even better, almost the same config as mine, but I use OPA627 instead of Sowther and Icy-Lynx Micro (i-link with A&M http://www.xilinx.com/esp/consumer/home_networking/pdf_files/1394_firewire/complete.pdf) instead of CS8420 SPDIF, but it is OK. That comparison may be very interesting.
It is understandable
Understandable again
The same as I do, and I got the same feelings with OPA627 ... but I use M&K 150THX speakers+M&K 350 MkII sub. What speakers do you use?
I used measures to be sure that everything is OK. I can't trust to my ears after Double Blind testings ABX and op amps replacements ... some of them were so close that I could not hear the difference ... and I could see it in measurements. It is not concerning OPA627 though.
Thanks for your wish, Rob. The best stuff to use for recording, as anyway we need to analyze the signals in PC, is to use good soundcard such as Lynx L22, Two B or E-mu 1212M/1820M. I hope that sometimes we will be able to record and compare oversampled and non-oversampled DACs to finish the discussion ...
Here is the link to Linn's "Songs of Robert Burns" http://www.linnrecords.com/cd_information/cd_information.asp?jsavailable=true&RecordingID=232
I don't want to argue about the quality of Telarc's samplers or Naim's or Chesky Record's ... we can choose the one which will satisfy everyone. As we will record just a small most revealing part of the song for testing, we will have no problems with copyrights here. We can freely distribute such small samples to let everyone compare them in ABX software or through ABX plugin to Foobar.
Carlos, I prefer SACD multi-channel or DVD-A Advanced resolution to any CD, even to any HDCD, sorry about that ...
Gordon McGregor said:Carlos, I prefer SACD multi-channel or DVD-A Advanced resolution to any CD, even to any HDCD, sorry about that ...
If you can find decent recordings and a decent player (not common), that's fine.
I've heard some "high-end" SACD players and I was shocked.
And playing CDs, forget it.
It was not a Krell Standard, but a Sony SCD-1.
DVD-A is only good at outrageous prices, and most discs are too badly recorded.
I'll wait some time (years?
) more.Anyway, what I really really like is vinyl.
SCAD
To me it seems that the new medium is even more clock sensitive than redbook CD. Tried several clocks in the Sony SCD-1 of a friend of mine.......(Lcaudio, Tent, KC-7, KC-8).
In original state the Sony did not impress me either.
Hi Carlos,carlosfm said:
If you can find decent recordings and a decent player (not common), that's fine.
I've heard some "high-end" SACD players and I was shocked.
And playing CDs, forget it.
It was not a Krell Standard, but a Sony SCD-1.
Anyway, what I really really like is vinyl.
To me it seems that the new medium is even more clock sensitive than redbook CD. Tried several clocks in the Sony SCD-1 of a friend of mine.......(Lcaudio, Tent, KC-7, KC-8).
In original state the Sony did not impress me either.
The same as I do, and I got the same feelings with OPA627 ... but I use M&K 150THX speakers+M&K 350 MkII sub. What speakers do you use?
Gordon, I listen to a Dynaudio Confidence 5. Powered by a modified 200 Watts 4 ohms, DUSON amplifier, this is a high biased classAB amplifier which has been modified by me.
Thanks for your wish, Rob. The best stuff to use for recording, as anyway we need to analyze the signals in PC, is to use good soundcard such as Lynx L22, Two B or E-mu 1212M/1820M. I hope that sometimes we will be able to record and compare oversampled and non-oversampled DACs to finish the discussion ... or at least to have more or less objective listening evaluations.
Sorry but I check my soundcard and its a pityful Soundblaster 64 with a noise level of about -70 dB with spikes around -55 dB.
So I think my equipment is not good enough.
Nevertheless I 'm looking to find something better.
Good luck
Rob
Gordon, I listen to a Dynaudio Confidence 5. Powered by a modified 200 Watts 4 ohms, DUSON amplifier, this is a high biased classAB amplifier which has been modified by me.
Thanks for your wish, Rob. The best stuff to use for recording, as anyway we need to analyze the signals in PC, is to use good soundcard such as Lynx L22, Two B or E-mu 1212M/1820M. I hope that sometimes we will be able to record and compare oversampled and non-oversampled DACs to finish the discussion ...
or at least to have more or less objective listening evaluations.Sorry but I check my soundcard and its a pityful Soundblaster 64 with a noise level of about -70 dB with spikes around -55 dB.
So I think my equipment is not good enough.
Nevertheless I 'm looking to find something better.
Good luck
Rob
Re: Re: Re: SCAD
Yes!
But with a good clock will that thing match a good CDP on CDs?
Will the clock make anything better for that "bland", sooo soft, sleep inducing sound, even on SACD?
It will make things better, of course, mainly that flappy bass that spoils everything else...
I guess good "universal" players will never exist.
Hey, some people like this kind of sound, but not me.
I only heard a "universal" player that told me something, actually on every format I heard good sounds indeed.
The Linn Unidisk.
But it's sssssssso expensive.
BTW the CD12 is superior (on CDs, of course), but not by a large margin.
Who wouldn't like to have a good "universal" player?
I would.
I'll wait sometime more, can't find much of the music I like on these "high-resolution" formats, anyway.
Elso Kwak said:
Carlos,
It is the CLOCK!
Yes!
But with a good clock will that thing match a good CDP on CDs?
Will the clock make anything better for that "bland", sooo soft, sleep inducing sound, even on SACD?
It will make things better, of course, mainly that flappy bass that spoils everything else...
I guess good "universal" players will never exist.
Hey, some people like this kind of sound, but not me.
I only heard a "universal" player that told me something, actually on every format I heard good sounds indeed.
The Linn Unidisk.
But it's sssssssso expensive.
BTW the CD12 is superior (on CDs, of course), but not by a large margin.
Who wouldn't like to have a good "universal" player?
I would.
I'll wait sometime more, can't find much of the music I like on these "high-resolution" formats, anyway.
There are many myths around the new formats. For example, Yamaha 2300 and 2300MkII uses AD1955 DACs and OPA2134 ONLY for SACD (DSD), and for PCM signals it uses 8-channel codec PCM1608 with NJM4558 ... interesting?
I liked vinyl as well, till the new formats became to be good enough. Look, we had A LOT of SACD stereo, upsampled/upconverted from CDs and edited in PC Tools with double convertion to PCM and back to DSD ... we had a LOT of DVD-A 24 bit 48kHz and even some 20 bit 48 kHz ... But now, when we have professinal re-mastering (as for example, in DSotM multi-channel tracks) and even correct recordings and editing for DSD using SADiE (based on E-chip approach), and Advanced resolution DVD-A (24/96kHz multi-channel tracks) the situation is different. We also have UNIVERSAL DVD/SACD/CD players, as for example DV-47Ai (DV-757Ai in Europe) or DV-59AVi (DV-858AVi in Europe), which are used just like transports - equal to DVD-ROM or CD-ROM in computers. i-link is working in jitterless mode (AV/C Command Set for Rate Control of Isochronous Data Flow 1.0 protocol) here is a good link with important information how it works ... http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=2874627#post2874627
In few words the data buffer in a receiver is filled with the different speed to avoid the buffer overflow. DACs in the receiver use the same clock, as used for getting information from the buffer.
The DSD stream is processed by the correct way as well. They use DSD->PCM converters SM5816 or in newer models of receivers SM5819A with -130dB Digital filtration (2FS), therefore we almost have no intermodulated noises in the audible range due to high level of digital noises in DSD signal. Then we have DF1704 in the receiver, working at x8 oversampling (x4 for 192 kHz signals) with PCM1704 DACs ... the path is similar for all PCM and DSD signals (except of the DSD->PCM converter).
The result is here http://members.cox.net/alex_lat/Tests/Taylor.JPG - the same James Taylor "Hourglass" SACD "Line 'Em Up" song ... one through analog filters in PCM1738 (so called "correct" SACD decoding with the shortest path) and another one - through DSD->PCM convertion and multi-bit DACs ...
What is interesting, Sony in their new STR-DA9000ES receiver (through i-link) uses the same SM5819A DSD-PCM converters and futher PCM processing ONLY!
With replacement of op amps in I/V and LPF stages in the receiver we got very good path without significant expenses or a lot of DIY work ... and we can process ALL formats by almost the same way with lowest level of jitter (dependent of the jitter in the receiver's clock, but it is not that bad - they use quite good quarts oscillators http://members.cox.net/alexhardware/images/quartz.JPG ) and in 59TXi service manual, for example, even provide the clock flow paths, therefore it is easy to be sure that the clock is good enough. With a bad clock we couldn't get -120dB noise background as well (as we can see on the picture), actually.
Even for CDs the above mentioned path works quite good, taking in consideration the jitterless i-link transmission with AV/C flow control on (it called PQLS in Pioneer, HATS in Sony).
We can have a long thread about the phase distortions above and below the resonanse point in Helmholtz resonators (i.e majority of the ported speakers) but it is an other story.
http://www.fixup.net/products/benchmarks/1212m2448.htm
I liked vinyl as well, till the new formats became to be good enough. Look, we had A LOT of SACD stereo, upsampled/upconverted from CDs and edited in PC Tools with double convertion to PCM and back to DSD ... we had a LOT of DVD-A 24 bit 48kHz and even some 20 bit 48 kHz ... But now, when we have professinal re-mastering (as for example, in DSotM multi-channel tracks) and even correct recordings and editing for DSD using SADiE (based on E-chip approach), and Advanced resolution DVD-A (24/96kHz multi-channel tracks) the situation is different. We also have UNIVERSAL DVD/SACD/CD players, as for example DV-47Ai (DV-757Ai in Europe) or DV-59AVi (DV-858AVi in Europe), which are used just like transports - equal to DVD-ROM or CD-ROM in computers. i-link is working in jitterless mode (AV/C Command Set for Rate Control of Isochronous Data Flow 1.0 protocol) here is a good link with important information how it works ... http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=2874627#post2874627
In few words the data buffer in a receiver is filled with the different speed to avoid the buffer overflow. DACs in the receiver use the same clock, as used for getting information from the buffer.
The DSD stream is processed by the correct way as well. They use DSD->PCM converters SM5816 or in newer models of receivers SM5819A with -130dB Digital filtration (2FS), therefore we almost have no intermodulated noises in the audible range due to high level of digital noises in DSD signal. Then we have DF1704 in the receiver, working at x8 oversampling (x4 for 192 kHz signals) with PCM1704 DACs ... the path is similar for all PCM and DSD signals (except of the DSD->PCM converter).
The result is here http://members.cox.net/alex_lat/Tests/Taylor.JPG - the same James Taylor "Hourglass" SACD "Line 'Em Up" song ... one through analog filters in PCM1738 (so called "correct" SACD decoding with the shortest path) and another one - through DSD->PCM convertion and multi-bit DACs ...
What is interesting, Sony in their new STR-DA9000ES receiver (through i-link) uses the same SM5819A DSD-PCM converters and futher PCM processing ONLY!
With replacement of op amps in I/V and LPF stages in the receiver we got very good path without significant expenses or a lot of DIY work ... and we can process ALL formats by almost the same way with lowest level of jitter (dependent of the jitter in the receiver's clock, but it is not that bad - they use quite good quarts oscillators http://members.cox.net/alexhardware/images/quartz.JPG ) and in 59TXi service manual, for example, even provide the clock flow paths, therefore it is easy to be sure that the clock is good enough. With a bad clock we couldn't get -120dB noise background as well (as we can see on the picture), actually.
Even for CDs the above mentioned path works quite good, taking in consideration the jitterless i-link transmission with AV/C flow control on (it called PQLS in Pioneer, HATS in Sony).
Rob, are you OK with 47Hz in them? For me it is not enough, especially for SACD and DVD-A ... M&K MX-350MkII is able to produce 23 Hz at -3dB and:
It is the same in comparison with floor-standing speakers which use ported cabinets ... IMO this is one of the reasons of non-successful start for the new formats.
We can have a long thread about the phase distortions above and below the resonanse point in Helmholtz resonators (i.e majority of the ported speakers) but it is an other story.
Well, I have to admit that you are right here
I got my Lynx L22 on ebay for 50% of the retail price, but even with this price it is too expensive to be used as a regular soundcard. As a good alternative solution I can recommend E-mu 1212M for $199 (you can find it even for $170 sometimes) ... it is a good soundcard using CS4398 modern DACs; you can replace JRC2068 op amps in it to good ones, that will make it unbeatable at this price level. Here are the results of it's measurements:
http://www.fixup.net/products/benchmarks/1212m2448.htm
Re: SCAD
Elso Kwak said:
Hi Carlos,
To me it seems that the new medium is even more clock sensitive than redbook CD. Tried several clocks in the Sony SCD-1 of a friend of mine.......(Lcaudio, Tent, KC-7, KC-8).
In original state the Sony did not impress me either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not the SCD1 but your system!!!!
The Tent clock doen't actually do much for the SCD! and this has been confirmed by Allen Wright.
Gordon McGregor said:
What a stupid thing to do.
These days many dacs accept both formats and that's what most players use.
If they want to make things separated, at least use decent components.
Anyway, I'll wait some time more.
I don't have the money right now for a Linn Unidisk.
Pioneers and Denons and Sonys just don't convince me.
Maby I diy something.
Not reasonable, IMO. You can use any of them (they have good DSPs, power supplies, etc.) , except of Sony as it doesn't support DVD-A - you can DIY something using those devices, it will save A LOT of time for you.carlosfm said:Anyway, I'll wait some time more.
I don't have the money right now for a Linn Unidisk.
Pioneers and Denons and Sonys just don't convince me.
Maby I diy something.
High end equipment as Linn UniDisk use the same components
no reason to pay THAT much if we have some cheaper "Lego sets", manufactured by Pioneer, Denon or Yamaha ... etc.