Any good TDA1541A DAC kit?

[s3tup]

These things are of less importance.
You need a 1541 and its supplies plus some output stage. Then you'd like to feed it with i2s taken out of anamero board as it has xtals in place. Use of isolator board is rather doubtful as long as you don't have any ground loop problems with pc. It will emit more noise than it will isolate plus add jitter.
The drive nos board is not required in 1541 case if tdas format matches anameros. Less stuff in between means less noise and jitter. Use a single ff on bclk fed with mclk of anamero board.

Then you've got T's guidelines to go.
Don't use spdif without back syncronization -it is flawed by design.
Buy a ton of ferrite wire clamps.
Make all digital connections propertly with transmission lines in mind.

[erin]

Originally Posted by Aronier

Looks like so erin, thank`s.

I thought so i take the Amanero USB to I2S USB to I2S 384Khz - DSD Converter

And the "Amanero Isolator/Reclocker" Amanero Isolator/Reclocker GB

Should i take the board too? Drive NOS AD1865/62,PCM1704/02/63,TDA1541 from FIFO: Universal I2S-PCM driver board

Hmm, Im really not sure the first two boards are going to be suited to TDA1541A.
The Amanero USB board, outputs 32 bit data, and from what I can tell ( I admit I didn't check it out very thoroughly) has no option to switch to 16 bit. Or am I wrong? Perhaps the option is controlled by the PC music software?

I only mention this because IMO the TDA1541A looses some of its "je ne sais quoi" when running with 24 bit data.

The isolator board will add some jitter to your signal, and Im not really sure why anyone would want to isolate their i2s, if their board is designed properly

The Universal I2S-PCM driver board will enable you to make a fully balanced TDA1541A DAC board. which is what I thought you were inquiring about?

Though no matter which way you build it will have a compromise of one sort or another. Most of the people getting excited about the first two mentioned boards, are using modern DAC chips.
But each to their own.

[erin]

Originally Posted by s3tup

Don't use spdif without back syncronization -it is flawed by design.

Getting the data from the transport to the DAC chip has always been the issue.
Do you think that recovering the clock in the SPDIF signal is more or less troublesome than recovering the clock from the USB signal (and I'm talking about clock recovery in terms of the sound, not talking about operating a printer, because clearly USB works, but SPDIF also works)?

You must take into account that the cheaper USB spdif/ i2s converters use a single frequency crystal to generate the clock, and 48khz is usually the "native" frequency, which does not suit when playing 44.1khz material, and the more expensive ones tend to use two clocks for generating the various frequencies.

On the two units I have compared i2s vs SPDIF I was not really sold that i2s was any better at all, because wires have to be soldered from the board supplying the i2s to the DAC board, and getting the wire length, and spacing correct is almost impossible with "flying"" wires.

But I also admit that SPDIF is also very fussy to get sounding its best.

In theory the best audio transport would send the data straight off the HDD/ SSD / memory, using i2s directly to the DAC, without an intermediate conversion device? And this brings us back to a CD player. LOL. But we don't want to use those anymore, so we must use a "computer", because the "media players" unfortunately do not sound as good as a "computer". Perhaps in 5 years time things will change

Your thoughts?

[regal]

Originally Posted by erin

And this brings us back to a CD player. LOL. But we don't want to use those anymore, so we must use a "computer", because the "media players" unfortunately do not sound as good as a "computer". Perhaps in 5 years time things will change

Your thoughts?

Exactly, and this is why the FiFO + daughter PCB is so exciting, no way I am going back to an CDP disguised as an SD "transport". With the fifo and the daughter board finally true 16 bit original I2S, one can do a sinx/x compensation via computer, or oversample if desired, or listen to an album on one of thier 3TB drives.

But the question still remains, is there a good TDA1541 PCB?

There was one version of the ecdesigns that would have been perfect, but he quit selling it. So at the moment there really isn't anything with even basic proper decoupling. The Thorsten bug board with ground plane looks to be the way to go. Until someone more talented than I makes a good multi-layer PCB (all we need is the deem, and decoupling, just leave the output stage off of it as no one has a perfect output stage anyhow.)

[Tazzz]

Originally Posted by erin

Hmm, Im really not sure the first two boards are going to be suited to TDA1541A.
The Amanero USB board, outputs 32 bit data, and from what I can tell ( I admit I didn't check it out very thoroughly) has no option to switch to 16 bit. Or am I wrong? Perhaps the option is controlled by the PC music software?

I only mention this because IMO the TDA1541A looses some of its "je ne sais quoi" when running with 24 bit data.

The isolator board will add some jitter to your signal, and Im not really sure why anyone would want to isolate their i2s, if their board is designed properly

The Universal I2S-PCM driver board will enable you to make a fully balanced TDA1541A DAC board. which is what I thought you were inquiring about?

Though no matter which way you build it will have a compromise of one sort or another. Most of the people getting excited about the first two mentioned boards, are using modern DAC chips.
But each to their own.

I2s as specified by Philips use 64bit frames containing two 32bit words corresponding to left and right.

The 1541 will just ignore any bits past the sixteen most significant. Of course if you feed it with 24bit data anyway and don't dither it properly you will experience truncation.

[qusp]

Originally Posted by s3tup

These things are of less importance.
You need a 1541 and its supplies plus some output stage. Then you'd like to feed it with i2s taken out of anamero board as it has xtals in place. Use of isolator board is rather doubtful as long as you don't have any ground loop problems with pc. It will emit more noise than it will isolate plus add jitter.
The drive nos board is not required in 1541 case if tdas format matches anameros. Less stuff in between means less noise and jitter. Use a single ff on bclk fed with mclk of anamero board.

Then you've got T's guidelines to go.
Don't use spdif without back syncronization -it is flawed by design.
Buy a ton of ferrite wire clamps.
Make all digital connections propertly with transmission lines in mind.

there is more than ground loop problems to worry about, I dont know which isolator board you are talking about, one has integrated reclocking (which can be sourced from whatever clock source you wish) the other doesnt. the only added jitter is that of the flip flop if you are prudent where you pull the clock from.

[s3tup]

Originally Posted by erin

Getting the data from the transport to the DAC chip has always been the issue.
Do you think that recovering the clock in the SPDIF signal is more or less troublesome than recovering the clock from the USB signal (and I'm talking about clock recovery in terms of the sound, not talking about operating a printer, because clearly USB works, but SPDIF also works)?

You must take into account that the cheaper USB spdif/ i2s converters use a single frequency crystal to generate the clock, and 48khz is usually the "native" frequency, which does not suit when playing 44.1khz material, and the more expensive ones tend to use two clocks for generating the various frequencies.

On the two units I have compared i2s vs SPDIF I was not really sold that i2s was any better at all, because wires have to be soldered from the board supplying the i2s to the DAC board, and getting the wire length, and spacing correct is almost impossible with "flying"" wires.

But I also admit that SPDIF is also very fussy to get sounding its best.

In theory the best audio transport would send the data straight off the HDD/ SSD / memory, using i2s directly to the DAC, without an intermediate conversion device? And this brings us back to a CD player. LOL. But we don't want to use those anymore, so we must use a "computer", because the "media players" unfortunately do not sound as good as a "computer". Perhaps in 5 years time things will change

Your thoughts?

As long as there are two dedicated audio frequency xtals on the USB board - it means there is no clock recovery of any sort.
These USB boards aint that pricey anymore...

PCM240X, Tenors - did the clock recovery thus they were as bad as SPDIF if not worse.

If you have reclocker, oscillator and DAC directly connected, then you get the same performance as CD - it works in the same way no matter where it takes that data.

As been mentioned before by Tazzz, TDA worked flawlessly with 64Fs BCLK (32 bit I2S or whatever you may call it), up to 96kHz. For decades.

Originally Posted by qusp

there is more than ground loop problems to worry about, I dont know which isolator board you are talking about, one has integrated reclocking (which can be sourced from whatever clock source you wish) the other doesnt. the only added jitter is that of the flip flop if you are prudent where you pull the clock from.

Well, AFAIK there is no plans of shaving-off the oscillators from anamero's board and feeding the USB board with two external clocks thru extra isolators. Anamero doesn't support slaved operation from it's I2S port (again, AFAIK).
So, the only clock source you can use to reclock FFs is that of anamero's board. You may feed it thru the isolator and get jitter, or you can feed it without isolator thus rendering the isolator thing useless.

We're not talking bout that silly quirk of reclocking the signal with free running oscilator, ain't we?


* Yes, there are more than ground loop problems to worry...
1 - Isolators produce noise /they really do so, common mode for each side = differential between isolated sides. it's hard to get rid of it/
2 - Proper implementation of isolator's layout from the app note connects both sides of isolated circuits thru capacitance rendering the isolation useless on HF = just a ground isolation. Without following the app note you get a nice noise source as per 1.

[erin]

Originally Posted by Tazzz

I2s as specified by Philips use 64bit frames containing two 32bit words corresponding to left and right.

The 1541 will just ignore any bits past the sixteen most significant. Of course if you feed it with 24bit data anyway and don't dither it properly you will experience truncation.

Due to ground bounce, I suspect feeding TDA1541 with extra data bits will create additional current pulses which wont be optimal for this 16 bit chip. I am aware that the additional bits will be "ignored" Anyone want to comment?

Originally Posted by qusp

there is more than ground loop problems to worry about, I dont know which isolator board you are talking about, one has integrated reclocking (which can be sourced from whatever clock source you wish) the other doesnt. the only added jitter is that of the flip flop if you are prudent where you pull the clock from.

But what about all those "flying" wires required to hook it up, Picking up noise? If it is built all-in-one on the DAC PCB, its probably good, but, if the i2s isolation is on the DAC PCB then you wouldn't need isolation anyway, would you? what exactly are we trying to isolate that can't be done by other methods?

Originally Posted by s3tup

As long as there are two dedicated audio frequency xtals on the USB board - it means there is no clock recovery of any sort.

Ok, but then you have the issue of xtal quality. Many people have reported that when you improve the oscillator design, or improve the power supply to the xtal then you get better sound. So, clock generation is still an issue.

It seems to come down to the clock yet again.

And what if you are using a Wolfson WM8805 with its crystal clock recovery?

[erin]

What I am suggesting is that most people who are using these boards are tacking them on to an existing design. The more boards, the more issues with power supplies, and flying wire connections.
It just seems to me like swapping one lot of issues for another lot.
Most DIY'ers are hobbyists, not professionals. Getting everything connected optimally for them is going to be challenging at best.

[qusp]

you havent even looked at the design i'm talking about have you? or at least you havent understood it. it uses u.fl connectors, like fifo, like the board presented in this thread, like anyone listening to the community and testing should be and it plugs directly onto amanero. no flying wires required. there is room for a couple control signals on the board too, amanero has functionality you arent aware of.... isolated control signals to tell clocks to change are completely doable, no need to use the amanero clocks at all

oh I wasnt aware you were catering only for the lowest common denominator that doesnt know how to use the things they buy.....