|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| Digital Line Level DACs, Digital Crossovers, Equalizers, etc. |
|
|
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Hi,
I am trying to parallel 8 or 9 pieces of TDA1541A S1 dacs in non-os mode. Unfortunately i could not find the formula for calculation of bit error reducing by using parallel dacs (2x,4x,8x, so on) and also about reducing of the distortion. Is there any meaning of using 9 pieces instead of 8? Sorry for my bad English. Thanks a lot! http://stereomecmuasi.com/forum/view...p=15441#p15441 |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Virginia
|
Paralleling of 2 DAC's means doubling of the output current - that is 6dB.
The noise and distortion (TDH+N), because there are not statistically corellated between chips, will increase only with 3dB (some fancy math is involved here). So doubling the output adds 6-3= 3dB to the current TDH+N ratio. 2 DAC -> 3dB 4 DAC -> 6dB 8 DAC -> 9dB Increasing the current TDH+N means nothing if you cannot translate it into voltage with the same TDH+N. The I/V stage has a noise floor (and a distortion level), even if you are using a resistor, at room temperature will generate a noise. So, at some point adding DAC's will improve nothing in the global S/N because you are already below I/V stage noise floor. Last edited by SoNic_real_one; 3rd April 2010 at 12:20 AM. |
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Somewhere nice on planet earth where censorship of Ideas is frowned upon
|
Hi,
Quote:
Secondly, the TDA1541A is typically rated as -102dB(A) THD & N at -60dB signal. Arguably, these measurements come from a 176.4KHz sample rate signal, but one without noise-shaping etc. As the absolute maximum dynamic range (peak-peak) of 16 Bit audio is 93.7dB the TDA1541A is basically so close to or well past the limits for 16-Bit audio signals that no material improvement is possible by using multiple devices. However, this performance is only attained if the DEM Clock is synchronised to the digital data and the power-supply design is of the highest quality. Rather than paralleling ton's of TDA1541A, I would suggest optimally implementing a single one as the better route to get the best possible sound quality from the TDA1541. Of course, paralleling devices still induces changes in sound quality. I personally find the effects of paralleling DAC's in an otherwise fully optimised system not particularly to my liking. Ciao T |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
My take on the issue is a linearity error may be a plus or minus error.... that adding more DACs should average the error rate to lower value...
For example the S chip provide a .5 LSB error rate. plus or minus... so one chip may be -.5 LSB and another may be +.5 lsb at a given value. But additively between the two of them.... no error a the same value. The more you average, the lower the error rate. Even if the spec is only a positive error rate only, the result is the same improvement in linearity averaged over the full range. But in my mind the real value of multi TDA1541s came with implementing EC-Design's linear interpolation design....that made the whole multi-dac results over the top for me. jk |
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Quote:
__________________
"In developing audio devices we can always find creative non standart solutions that will ensure the best sound" (с) www.overture.org.ua |
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Virginia
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Somewhere nice on planet earth where censorship of Ideas is frowned upon
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Somewhere nice on planet earth where censorship of Ideas is frowned upon
|
Hi,
Quote:
Also note that THD & N at -60dB is typical -42dB. All DAC's (even the latest ones) degrade considerably near full scale, this behaviour however is not indicative of the behaviour at low levels, which is where we are generally interested in. Modern day dynamic range measurements are often taken with -60dBfs signals, with these the TDA1541A shows an excellent performance for a 16 Bit chip with good sample-to-sample consistency (we employ it in series production). The bottom line is that even with your set of numbers the TDA1541A is sufficiently high in performance that paralleling does not improve performance with a real signal. Ciao T |
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Virginia
|
OK, I agree with that, that's what I said too - paralleling more than two TDA1541A (or non-A) it is a waste. Especially because of the 16 bit limitation.
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| How is the best method to parallel TDA1541 | VR2ZXP | Digital Line Level | 9 | 29th December 2007 01:40 PM |
| About tda1541 non-os bit doubler DAC | gaetan8888 | Digital Line Level | 0 | 21st October 2007 06:02 AM |
| TDA1541 bipolar zero error ? | Bernhard | Digital Source | 0 | 15th March 2005 09:06 PM |
| schematic with 4 or more TDA1541 parallel | Bernhard | Digital Source | 40 | 3rd February 2004 07:28 PM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |