jewilson said:Carlos Filipe.
So your a semiconductor expert as well as an audio equipment Afianodo.
I didn't understand your previous post, and I doubt that it was clear to anyone.
Otherwise, please someone explain me what jewilson was trying to say.
You don't write a sentence without plenty of errors (strange for an American... are you?).
Instead of answering, you post this.
Your post didn't contribute in anything for this thread, it seams that you're saying that this dac is Delta-Sigma???!!!.
Very confusing...
I don't like grown up children, and that's what you are.
PS: what's Afianodo?
Aficionado a Devo-Tee, Fan,
It sad that your comparing an old 16 bit discontinued Philips DAC to the latest generation of DAC’s by BB and AD. Maybe you should compare apples to apples and compare this to an old BB PCM63, however it really no comparison, check the PCM63 spec's it wipes out the Philips. Even the specifications provided by Philips are half baked.
It sad that your comparing an old 16 bit discontinued Philips DAC to the latest generation of DAC’s by BB and AD. Maybe you should compare apples to apples and compare this to an old BB PCM63, however it really no comparison, check the PCM63 spec's it wipes out the Philips. Even the specifications provided by Philips are half baked.
Specs don't tell me much.
Listen to the PCM63 and the TDA1541 then decide.
Most modern dacs (including BB and AD) are Delta-Sigma, that's why I didn't understand your post.
You say you like these, and then you say you don't like these.
Anyway, if you intention in posting in this thread was to say that this dac is crap, although the dac and the thread are not mine, thanks alot.
I just can't figure out how do you know the sound of this dac?
Listen to the PCM63 and the TDA1541 then decide.
Most modern dacs (including BB and AD) are Delta-Sigma, that's why I didn't understand your post.
You say you like these, and then you say you don't like these.
Anyway, if you intention in posting in this thread was to say that this dac is crap, although the dac and the thread are not mine, thanks alot.
I just can't figure out how do you know the sound of this dac?
Konnichiwa,
Why? Do you subscribe to the notion that just because something is newer it is inherently better? Is a modern Kia or Yugo better than a well kept 1950's Vintage Rolls Royce?
Hmmm. And since we have we got proof positive that "better spec" translates into "better sound"? I would have thought by now that the variety of illustrations about just how much good conventional specifications fail to correlate with percieved "good sound"?
Let's have another example, compared to a $ 500 Sony Rack system the specifications on a Vintage system. The Vintage system being (say) Klipschorns or Altec VOT driven by a Marantz 7 Preamp and a Triode switched Marantz 8 Poweramp, plus LP via a Garrard 301/401 in a good plinth, with an Ortofon RS-309 Tonarm and Ortofon SPU GTE, for CD we shall use the Marantz CD/DA-12. We assume all equipment is up to "as new" spec, meaning the Amplifiers and the CD system re-build and either a new or rebuild cartridge and the table in a sensible plinth and serviced.
Well, it is is not just no comparison, the modern $ 500 rack system WIPES OUT the Vintage High End system comprehensively, ON SPECIFICATIONS. But guess which one I'd (and I guess you if given a choice and most other if given a choice) would rather use to listen to music?
Do not fall into the trap to assume just because something is old and discontinued and has paper specifications that do not match a newer item it is inherently and reliably inferior in it's intended purpose and application. It may be the case or not, usually you will have to bite the bullet and see....
Sayonara
jewilson said:
Why? Do you subscribe to the notion that just because something is newer it is inherently better? Is a modern Kia or Yugo better than a well kept 1950's Vintage Rolls Royce?
jewilson said:
Hmmm. And since we have we got proof positive that "better spec" translates into "better sound"? I would have thought by now that the variety of illustrations about just how much good conventional specifications fail to correlate with percieved "good sound"?
Let's have another example, compared to a $ 500 Sony Rack system the specifications on a Vintage system. The Vintage system being (say) Klipschorns or Altec VOT driven by a Marantz 7 Preamp and a Triode switched Marantz 8 Poweramp, plus LP via a Garrard 301/401 in a good plinth, with an Ortofon RS-309 Tonarm and Ortofon SPU GTE, for CD we shall use the Marantz CD/DA-12. We assume all equipment is up to "as new" spec, meaning the Amplifiers and the CD system re-build and either a new or rebuild cartridge and the table in a sensible plinth and serviced.
Well, it is is not just no comparison, the modern $ 500 rack system WIPES OUT the Vintage High End system comprehensively, ON SPECIFICATIONS. But guess which one I'd (and I guess you if given a choice and most other if given a choice) would rather use to listen to music?
Do not fall into the trap to assume just because something is old and discontinued and has paper specifications that do not match a newer item it is inherently and reliably inferior in it's intended purpose and application. It may be the case or not, usually you will have to bite the bullet and see....
Sayonara
Carlos Filipe.
Maybe his DAC sound just fine, there more to a converter that just the DAC, BUD. However, it limited in performance by the DAC, 16 bit really, oh what year is it, it's not 1997. Pushing assemblies and inferior products that and parts that are obsolete seem to be your bag. Or maybe you’ve just been listening to wrong folks need I say Who.
Thorsen,
I though you new more than to make this kind of comparisons. We're not talking about NOS and new tube or 1964 Marantz or Mac equipment. We're talking about spec's that relate to performance of components that can be measured. That how engineers decide what component to select for a design.
The fact are that these companies sell products on there performance and performance spec's that can be measured. I have some of these chips in an old Philips player there ok but that it.
jean-paul
I have read your stuff, raving about the PCM63
Maybe his DAC sound just fine, there more to a converter that just the DAC, BUD. However, it limited in performance by the DAC, 16 bit really, oh what year is it, it's not 1997. Pushing assemblies and inferior products that and parts that are obsolete seem to be your bag. Or maybe you’ve just been listening to wrong folks need I say Who.
Thorsen,
I though you new more than to make this kind of comparisons. We're not talking about NOS and new tube or 1964 Marantz or Mac equipment. We're talking about spec's that relate to performance of components that can be measured. That how engineers decide what component to select for a design.
The fact are that these companies sell products on there performance and performance spec's that can be measured. I have some of these chips in an old Philips player there ok but that it.
jean-paul
I have read your stuff, raving about the PCM63
Hi Jim, AFAIK cds are still 16 bit media. You are right about my love for PCM63. I like both PCM63 and TDA1541A, just as some of the cheaper ( economy as Philips calls it ) offspring of TDA1541A.
The comparison between the two makes clear that better specs don't say all. I would have a hard time to choose between well designed DACs using either of them. It is 1 bit and delta sigma systems that are not so musical ( *in general*, exceptions like some Crystal or NPC types confirm the rule ) in my ears, hence my raving on old multibit chips. Also the fact that they are obsolete adds to their popularity !! Ridiculous in some way to me but people prefer things they can't have anymore for some reason. I will not deny that there is a kind of mystique around the S1 and S2 chips that resembles the searching for rare tubes by our tube collegues.
I think that if price wouldn't be the utmost important factor nowadays maybe very high quality ( i.e. excellent sounding AND measuring ) DAC chips could be produced and/or excellent players could be designed around them Unfortunately this is a bit rare as regular listening to new cd or dvdplayers reveils. Chances of having success with a new project around this old generation of DAC chips are higher than designing with most of their modern one bit counterparts. This is my motivation to go on with older quality technique instead of using low price worse sounding modern DAC chips. Please mind that producing one TDA chip costed about one third of the price a dvdplayer costs today !
I'll be the first to switch to new DAC components if results will be optimal or at least more optimal than the old multibit stuff.
The comparison between the two makes clear that better specs don't say all. I would have a hard time to choose between well designed DACs using either of them. It is 1 bit and delta sigma systems that are not so musical ( *in general*, exceptions like some Crystal or NPC types confirm the rule ) in my ears, hence my raving on old multibit chips. Also the fact that they are obsolete adds to their popularity !! Ridiculous in some way to me but people prefer things they can't have anymore for some reason. I will not deny that there is a kind of mystique around the S1 and S2 chips that resembles the searching for rare tubes by our tube collegues.
I think that if price wouldn't be the utmost important factor nowadays maybe very high quality ( i.e. excellent sounding AND measuring ) DAC chips could be produced and/or excellent players could be designed around them Unfortunately this is a bit rare as regular listening to new cd or dvdplayers reveils. Chances of having success with a new project around this old generation of DAC chips are higher than designing with most of their modern one bit counterparts. This is my motivation to go on with older quality technique instead of using low price worse sounding modern DAC chips. Please mind that producing one TDA chip costed about one third of the price a dvdplayer costs today !
I'll be the first to switch to new DAC components if results will be optimal or at least more optimal than the old multibit stuff.
jean-paul
That a very good answer and I agree what you've said. However, let cut to the chase, one of the most important issues in getting the promise of high resolution out of one of the newer DAC's is the requirement of a ultra low noise power supply and it take a bunch of them. That requires a lot of work and a great ground system, super decoupling component, a dam good interface design and a transport with low jitter clock. It is synergistic. So with a poor implementation the lower resolution part may sound better than the higher resolution DAC, but that a design problem.
The fact is you will find that many CD players dump their noise on the SPDIF shield. See Carlos we can agree on the grounding problem. Of course the DAC is happy to source this noise current increasing the ground noise of the DAC. Of course when this happen the S/N, dynamic range, distortion take a hike and you have lost the benefit of the high performance DAC.
So it now beer and pretzel time.
Cheers
That a very good answer and I agree what you've said. However, let cut to the chase, one of the most important issues in getting the promise of high resolution out of one of the newer DAC's is the requirement of a ultra low noise power supply and it take a bunch of them. That requires a lot of work and a great ground system, super decoupling component, a dam good interface design and a transport with low jitter clock. It is synergistic. So with a poor implementation the lower resolution part may sound better than the higher resolution DAC, but that a design problem.
The fact is you will find that many CD players dump their noise on the SPDIF shield. See Carlos we can agree on the grounding problem. Of course the DAC is happy to source this noise current increasing the ground noise of the DAC. Of course when this happen the S/N, dynamic range, distortion take a hike and you have lost the benefit of the high performance DAC.
So it now beer and pretzel time.
Cheers
Manufacturers came with CD and alleged that it was much better than vinyl.
It's not.
Digital photo cameras?
Better than good old 35mm film (negatives or, specially, slides)?
Nah.
"Home Cinema", expensive projectors, progressive scan, line multipliers, better than real film cinema?
They must be joking.
Evolution?
Gimme my Leica!
It's not.
Digital photo cameras?
Better than good old 35mm film (negatives or, specially, slides)?
Nah.
"Home Cinema", expensive projectors, progressive scan, line multipliers, better than real film cinema?
They must be joking.
Evolution?
Gimme my Leica!
Konnichiwa,
Hmmm. You seem to have missed then the point of this whole discussion, of Thomas (and others, myself included) making this DAC kit, of Marantz and Sudgen issuing around the Y2k a CD Player based around this same obsolete TDA1541 DAC, of Yamada San (Zanden) building his DAC using the TDA1541.
Non of us accept as an article of faith the cuurent extremely limited set of stead state signal derived "objective" specifications have ANY RELIABLE MATERIAL BEARING on percieved sonics (sound), once a certain minimum level is exceeded. And the TDA1541 does exceed the base level for 16-Bit digital just fine. It's low level performance is in line with the fundamental technical limit for 16 Bit digital audio (the TDA1543 especially and 1545 BTW are borderline or on the "bad" side of this) and it's high level performance more than acceptable.
So from there on we (implying the kind of people who don't give a monkeys what the specs are like if a given piece of audio gear does not deliver sonically - we don't accept "but it measures beautifully as excuse) consider the musical merit of the device.
And on that AND STRICTLY WITH CD AS SOURCE the TDA1541 stands alone and exactly THAT is it's merit and reason for still being used. If you could make the latest Ananlog Devices, Texas Instruments or Cirrus Logic DAC's sound REMOTELY LIKE the TDA1541 with a CD source I'd love to have some.
Sayonara
jewilson said:
Hmmm. You seem to have missed then the point of this whole discussion, of Thomas (and others, myself included) making this DAC kit, of Marantz and Sudgen issuing around the Y2k a CD Player based around this same obsolete TDA1541 DAC, of Yamada San (Zanden) building his DAC using the TDA1541.
Non of us accept as an article of faith the cuurent extremely limited set of stead state signal derived "objective" specifications have ANY RELIABLE MATERIAL BEARING on percieved sonics (sound), once a certain minimum level is exceeded. And the TDA1541 does exceed the base level for 16-Bit digital just fine. It's low level performance is in line with the fundamental technical limit for 16 Bit digital audio (the TDA1543 especially and 1545 BTW are borderline or on the "bad" side of this) and it's high level performance more than acceptable.
So from there on we (implying the kind of people who don't give a monkeys what the specs are like if a given piece of audio gear does not deliver sonically - we don't accept "but it measures beautifully as excuse) consider the musical merit of the device.
And on that AND STRICTLY WITH CD AS SOURCE the TDA1541 stands alone and exactly THAT is it's merit and reason for still being used. If you could make the latest Ananlog Devices, Texas Instruments or Cirrus Logic DAC's sound REMOTELY LIKE the TDA1541 with a CD source I'd love to have some.
Sayonara
carlosfm
I agree it hard to beat a good truntable setup. but the hassle makes CD's worth the trouble.
Leca now that a fine camera, I'll take a Hasselblad or a Linhof Master Technica 4x5.
Yep, nothing beat Technicolor, Fuji Chrome maybe Velvia and Tri-X except maybe Tmax 100.
But HDTV is good thing and if they just increase the transmission rate or BW it would be better.
I agree it hard to beat a good truntable setup. but the hassle makes CD's worth the trouble.
Leca now that a fine camera, I'll take a Hasselblad or a Linhof Master Technica 4x5.
Yep, nothing beat Technicolor, Fuji Chrome maybe Velvia and Tri-X except maybe Tmax 100.
But HDTV is good thing and if they just increase the transmission rate or BW it would be better.
Konnichiwa,
From where I stand the most important thing is the sonic result, when playing music. It is obvious that such an approach limiots my understanding, as I blissfully will ignore specifications (which I do understand very well) and technologies (which I understand well and appreciate) if the sonic result ios not up to scratch.
When playing back CD the old SAA7220/TDA1541 platform is subjectively much preferable to the PDM200/paralleled PCM1704 platform. The latter on paper is better, in terms of realised sound it is reliably worse.
I repeat then challenge, if any of the modern Converters provides the (sound) quality of the TDA1541, please name them. Hint, PCM1704/1702/63/1738 and related, as well as AD1862/65/1852/53/55 and AD1955 need not apply, I had the chance to compare them already. They may appear superior according to their specification but fail rather miserably to deliver.
I wish you the same....
Sayonara
jewilson said:
From where I stand the most important thing is the sonic result, when playing music. It is obvious that such an approach limiots my understanding, as I blissfully will ignore specifications (which I do understand very well) and technologies (which I understand well and appreciate) if the sonic result ios not up to scratch.
When playing back CD the old SAA7220/TDA1541 platform is subjectively much preferable to the PDM200/paralleled PCM1704 platform. The latter on paper is better, in terms of realised sound it is reliably worse.
I repeat then challenge, if any of the modern Converters provides the (sound) quality of the TDA1541, please name them. Hint, PCM1704/1702/63/1738 and related, as well as AD1862/65/1852/53/55 and AD1955 need not apply, I had the chance to compare them already. They may appear superior according to their specification but fail rather miserably to deliver.
jewilson said:Sayonara yourself
I wish you the same....
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Yeap, that's why I'm selling this DAC http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17353
My TDA15453 based DAC is simply more musical.
Any takers?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.