Thanks, Peter... I ordered some stuff already from Partsconnexion this noon, unfortunately overlooked the Rikens resistors there...
Will try to assemble the DAC with VD ones for prototype and once it's all finalised, the Rikens will be on my order list.
About the phase invert - I cannot simply change polarity on speakers. My DAC is intended for portable headphone use mated with PPA. It's impossible to flip the wires on every headset that I plan to use with this setup
There are 3 channels in PPA, if there were 4, I would find the way to invert polarity of signal feeding the opamps, otherwise, some DAC inversion on I/V is needed, I think.
How does it sound with inverted phase anyway? It's shouldn't be any different, I think, since it's the constantly changing sound pattern, maybe I'm wrong.
Will try to assemble the DAC with VD ones for prototype and once it's all finalised, the Rikens will be on my order list.
About the phase invert - I cannot simply change polarity on speakers. My DAC is intended for portable headphone use mated with PPA. It's impossible to flip the wires on every headset that I plan to use with this setup
There are 3 channels in PPA, if there were 4, I would find the way to invert polarity of signal feeding the opamps, otherwise, some DAC inversion on I/V is needed, I think.How does it sound with inverted phase anyway? It's shouldn't be any different, I think, since it's the constantly changing sound pattern, maybe I'm wrong.
In a properly set up system the difference in phase is quite obvious. In phase you have basically vocal coming from a central point and everything seems to be properly focus. When out of phase, it's harder to located vocal, you got imression of more spacious soundstage, but you loose focus. It's also more annoying soundwise
Some recordings are done with proper phase, some are recorded out of phase. Changing polarity will improve them.
Some recordings are done with proper phase, some are recorded out of phase. Changing polarity will improve them.
Ok, I get it now about the phase issue. probably would need to search deeper about Chibi mod. Scott who sells DACKits hasn't replied to my emails for 2 days, so i went ahead and ordered parts myself. He doesn't post the schematics and phase mod on his website either, I'm on my own...
Just looked at the partsconnexion site, they have .5 RIKENs there, darn expensive little sob's, 10x more than VD????? The good thing is that I only need 3 per DAC to put them in the audio signal path, other places would mean expensive overkill IMO. I'll order a few and compare them with VD, if they are that better, my PPA will be upgraded with them too.
Also, there are Tantalum resistors which are used in AudioNote DACs. Are they sonically better than RIKENs? Perfection knows no boundaries
Just looked at the partsconnexion site, they have .5 RIKENs there, darn expensive little sob's, 10x more than VD????? The good thing is that I only need 3 per DAC to put them in the audio signal path, other places would mean expensive overkill IMO. I'll order a few and compare them with VD, if they are that better, my PPA will be upgraded with them too.
Also, there are Tantalum resistors which are used in AudioNote DACs. Are they sonically better than RIKENs? Perfection knows no boundaries
I tried tantalums and didn't like them.
Of course each circuit location has specific demands and some resistors sound in that particular location better than others, but in different circuit location a different resistor may be better.
I tried tantalums in few locations, and to tell the truth never really liked them. They provide very good midrange, but are lacking in high frequence extention. There is simply not enough air, when you listen to tantalums.
For I/V circuit with TDA1543 I tried: Caddocks, Vishay S102, Dales, Tantalums, and few prallel combinations of those. Rikens were clearly the best. Although for instance, I don't like Rikens in a feedback loop of a GC, Caddocks are better there.
The only place i'm using those tantalums is in parallel combinaion with Vishay S102 for a series resistor in my poassive attenuator. I thought that this combination provides a proper tonal balance.
Of course each circuit location has specific demands and some resistors sound in that particular location better than others, but in different circuit location a different resistor may be better.
I tried tantalums in few locations, and to tell the truth never really liked them. They provide very good midrange, but are lacking in high frequence extention. There is simply not enough air, when you listen to tantalums.
For I/V circuit with TDA1543 I tried: Caddocks, Vishay S102, Dales, Tantalums, and few prallel combinations of those. Rikens were clearly the best. Although for instance, I don't like Rikens in a feedback loop of a GC, Caddocks are better there.
The only place i'm using those tantalums is in parallel combinaion with Vishay S102 for a series resistor in my poassive attenuator. I thought that this combination provides a proper tonal balance.
I don't know, I didn't compare it really. But I would imagine that with optical, the difference is probably less. I don't even know how much difference it makes with coaxial, but since I tried it and it sounded good, I didn't have desire to change anything, really. This DAC is good sounding indeed, I enjoy it a lot.
SS1 said:
"DIY kit" = oxymoron
"DIY" = Do It *Yourself*
Peter has made the schematic available of a similar (if not the same) DAC. Why not DIY? There is nothing stopping you. This is what I intend to do.
I'm happy to take advantage of group buys, PCBs and kits offered here, myself. I'm grateful for the work put in by people like Peter who offer these things. You might be disappointed, but it's bad manners to grumble in public about it.
Well, my position onn parallel chps is that it's something to be avoided, (if not done properly). I tried once paralleling 4 chips and results were not as good as with a single chip. Maybe others can do it better than me, so for now I'm only using one chip.
As I said in other thread, I'm using a single TDA1543, I2S directly connected, inside Marantz CD-94. There is Tent clock there too, AN800x regulators and 12 V battery supply, passive I/V stage using Rikens and Siemens MKV coupling caps.
I compared this player against Shanling T200, Parts Connection modified player, and not only to me, but few other guys, Marantz player actually sounded better, more natural and without any digital artifacts (which were still present with Shanling).
As I said in other thread, I'm using a single TDA1543, I2S directly connected, inside Marantz CD-94. There is Tent clock there too, AN800x regulators and 12 V battery supply, passive I/V stage using Rikens and Siemens MKV coupling caps.
I compared this player against Shanling T200, Parts Connection modified player, and not only to me, but few other guys, Marantz player actually sounded better, more natural and without any digital artifacts (which were still present with Shanling).
Peter Daniel said:
Hi Peter,
A couple of questions about power supplies... Are you using more than one ground in your DAC? On the schematics, there are 2 different battery inputs for separate analog and dig. CS8412 parts. When using a single battery, one can easily create separate power rails using regulator, but the ground is still shared, unless using a TLE2426 rail splitter, right?
Separate grounds for CS8412 and an extra isolation for TDA1543 would be great for noise and jitter reduction, no doubt about that.
For experiment purposes, last night I tried feeding an analog part for CS8414 from the 3 AAA battery pack(~4V) with the ground disconnected from the common ground on the board and attached to battery "-". The result is better soundstage and clarity, but it's very small and can be felt when switching quick, I think. There was no 'wow' or 'holy s***' effect
A definite go for a stationary setup but not for portable or a single battery unit, unless there's a solution how to separate grounds that I'm not still aware of...Thanks
Initially I was using a single 12V batery to power everything. All grounds were connected together. Later, I introduced a second 6V battery to power receiver chip. It seemed to me like an improvement, but when I didn more precise comparisons (in a company of some friends) it was rather appearent that a single 12V battery worked better (soundstage and top extention).
Later I tried a well filtered, AC PS and it's still seems better than 12V battery.
I also found that a cap (1000u or so) on battery brings improvement and best results were obtained with N and NX BG caps. NX is a bit softer sounding than N, but for the price it seems like a good alternative.
As usually experimentation is recommended, and there is no predefined way to do those things. Do whatever seems best for you
I always had DAC and receiver grounds connected together.
Later I tried a well filtered, AC PS and it's still seems better than 12V battery.
I also found that a cap (1000u or so) on battery brings improvement and best results were obtained with N and NX BG caps. NX is a bit softer sounding than N, but for the price it seems like a good alternative.
As usually experimentation is recommended, and there is no predefined way to do those things. Do whatever seems best for you
I always had DAC and receiver grounds connected together.
Re: Separate digital and analog GNDs.
Wasn't there an issue with latchup or possible damage to the IC when Vd and Va come up at differing times?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=29604&perpage=10&highlight=&pagenumber=4
Separate grounds makes installing protection diodes difficult.
Wasn't there an issue with latchup or possible damage to the IC when Vd and Va come up at differing times?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=29604&perpage=10&highlight=&pagenumber=4
Separate grounds makes installing protection diodes difficult.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.