Because that would prove that OpAmps cannot work in a TDA1541A????
I do own a CD made by the same company that made TDA1541. And they used... gasp... OpAmps as I/V converter. LM833 with a typical SR of 7V/us, 4.5nV/sqrt Hz, THD 0.002%. Higher end models used OpAmps like NJM2114 - SR 15v/uS, 3.3nV/sqrt Hz, THD 0.0005%
I do own a CD made by the same company that made TDA1541. And they used... gasp... OpAmps as I/V converter. LM833 with a typical SR of 7V/us, 4.5nV/sqrt Hz, THD 0.002%. Higher end models used OpAmps like NJM2114 - SR 15v/uS, 3.3nV/sqrt Hz, THD 0.0005%
Last edited:
Of course, because they didn't have a clue what they are doing. That DAC fell off the sky in their lap.
I don't say it was perfect, they added a capacitor in feedback to limit the slew, exactly because they knew what could be done.
What I say is that TODAY, OpAmps are so much better than 20 years ago. And they are the only good option for a proper I/V stage that keeps in check the distortion AND the noise.
I don't say it was perfect, they added a capacitor in feedback to limit the slew, exactly because they knew what could be done.
What I say is that TODAY, OpAmps are so much better than 20 years ago. And they are the only good option for a proper I/V stage that keeps in check the distortion AND the noise.
What's the big attraction about R-2R? The INL perchance?
Ah, no wonder your 1541 sounds poor
That might be because you're only measuring THD, and full level THD at that. IMD is also distortion - that's what the 'D' stands for. Got any clue about the IMD when an opamp is used?
And have you got any clue how to do I to V with the resistor handling 2mA of DAC output current swing, filtering duties, with 2 V output requirements at RCA? Enlighten us on how to avoid IMD… and pls state the THD of you approach – so that we can compare OP solution with your solution.
Boky
Boky
A nice delta-sigma
Or in the multibit world, BB DAC's. True R-2R. I have two PCM61 (each with 2 extra bits added in analog mode) in a Denon DCM380 than sounds better than Philips CD473 with TDA1541. Both with LM4562 in the I/V stage.
I am sure my old Sony CDP 337 ESD would put that player in its place of course it has dual TDA1541A DAC's and discrete output
BB DAC's measure well but lack dynamics and do not have the magic compared to TDA1541A DAC's you should take the time to listen to a well sorted TDA1541A DAC and then pass judgment and not just go off measurements you will get farther instead of relying on assumptions
Isn't a Denon DCM380 a carousel player ?
Last edited:
Dude, TDA1541 is boring. I have a TDA1541 and I know it sounds (OS or NOS), compared with PCM61+Alpha DF (delivers 20 bit) or PCM1791 (with or without Alpha 24 Processing Plus).
Adding an "A" in the tail does not make it a different device, even if some people think is somehow "magic". It just lifts it a little bit (don't want to go into details). Two of them has it contending probably for the 17 bit realm. But not with the NE5532 as I/V that it has now.
Discrete stages where tried by many companies and didn't deliver the nirvana. If you manufactured something better than 5532 - good job. Allow me
to be skeptic that is better than a modern OpAmp.
Because that is the discution about (not the comparations with others)- is a modern OpAmp capable of delivering as I/V for TDA1541?
PS: Yes DCM-360 it's a carusel player with a very interesing DF and DAC stage. But that is another story.
Adding an "A" in the tail does not make it a different device, even if some people think is somehow "magic". It just lifts it a little bit (don't want to go into details). Two of them has it contending probably for the 17 bit realm. But not with the NE5532 as I/V that it has now.
Discrete stages where tried by many companies and didn't deliver the nirvana. If you manufactured something better than 5532 - good job. Allow me
to be skeptic that is better than a modern OpAmp.
Because that is the discution about (not the comparations with others)- is a modern OpAmp capable of delivering as I/V for TDA1541?
PS: Yes DCM-360 it's a carusel player with a very interesing DF and DAC stage. But that is another story.
Last edited:
The best i/v for TDA1541 is a common base input with input impedance less than 15 ohms.
And no feedback.
To achiev this, use enough current and fold the current back with a current mirror or a folded cascode. There you go, with an 2k resistor to ground, which converts the 2mA into 2Volts. A cap in parallel will give you a 1. Order low pas. Put a buffer after this, eg. this Pass diy buffer. Its even cheaper than those fancy AD797 or OPA637.
And no feedback.
To achiev this, use enough current and fold the current back with a current mirror or a folded cascode. There you go, with an 2k resistor to ground, which converts the 2mA into 2Volts. A cap in parallel will give you a 1. Order low pas. Put a buffer after this, eg. this Pass diy buffer. Its even cheaper than those fancy AD797 or OPA637.
Last edited:
"Then what are you doing on this thread" go heckle (also known as an agitant) some other people that like cheapy boring carousel players .
Comparing a cheapy boring carousel player with a cheapy budget TDA1541A about sums up your experience again just let people be if you do not like something then go start a thread about it but do not heckle people that legitimately want to be informed by what Thorsten and others have to say .
P.S. Perhaps you can start a thread about "any good boring cheapy consumer carousel players" so we can all critique it as you have done so kindly here .
The TDA1541 is such a beast it can be downright frustrating researching for a build with it. Ever heard of the Killer DAC? Has a cult-like following with the Aussies, but looking at the price and what it contains But hey at least it isn't an ESS switcher.
Anyway, We know that the TDA1541 needs 0.00V to a max 25mV between its output and its ground pin, per the datasheet (max voltage compliance). That means a low input impedance into the mhz is required to meet spec. This is the only significant detail we have from the primordial soup of DAC's on how to build an analog stage, it is the fundamental constraint. Yes I believe this compliance spec was taken out of subsequent i-out DAC's publications because their own datasheet's opamp I/V's didn't meet the spec, so it was discarded for marketing reasons (sell a few opamps with each dac chip.) Big companies suck like that, just like they do today with the fudged up datasheets for the S-D switchers being adored by those who have never heard anything else.
Now if an opamp I/V has an input impedance that rises with frequency (I am afraid they all do), and that impedance is over 12.5 ohms at the fast frequency of the LSB steps that make up our "0-20khz" output (note the quotation marks.) we we have the TDA1541A running out of spec with regard to voltage compliance. That coupled with higher order distortion present with opamps has always had me looking for something drastically different than a opa275 or 627 I/V.
Current output DAC's can get nasty sounding the further out-off spec we run with regard to voltage compliance, I think worse when this impedance is constantly changing with each bit shift out as happens with opamps. It is very telling that rf design doesn't use opamps, yet any dac step is obviously rf?
Many of us have gotten by with passive I/V + tube gain, and Ove's website has good info on this, personally I found it to be one of the better options for the PCM63K. But I do think the tube "dither" helps hide some of the voltage compliance nasties. A pcm1704 with a passive I/V and a high quality jfet phono type gain stage can give one some good insite into the voltage compliance induced distortion issue, it is not pleasant and I consider it one of the worst forms of IMD that subtely attacks the micro details in music. Original thought was outof spec voltage compliance just led to protection diodes clipping with only 2H and this has been shown to be drastically off-base with most i-out dac's (the AD1865 and TDA1543 seem to be the only two that exhibit this behavior and they are much easier to work with.) With DAC's, true distortion (not just snr) gets worse with smaller signals, its the opposite of analog, and the signal at-60db level behavior is important to SQ and intuitively closely tied to the voltage compliance fundamental design constraint. Interstingly the TDA1543 and the AD1865 both don't look too good -60dB down.
I think as far as SS for the TDA1541, it would be tough to do better than a mofset Pass D1 I/V somehow incorporating Thorsten's filter? Maybe Thorsten can answer if a mofset d1 stage could be made a match for NOS ?
Some like the Jocko/Rorehberg stage. They keep the voltage compliance in spec by working like a transformer (reflecting a lower impedance to their inputs) , but I haven't had much luck with the Jocko style BJT I/V. They tend to have way too much IMD/THD. The only luck I've had with a BJT I/V is by cheating with 30dB local NFB preceded with filtering the current out, then following the I/V followed with a diamond buffer, can't explain why but it sounds good and measures very good. And is my goto for oversampling i-out r2r. But it won't work with NOS.
I want to try NOS TDA1541A, Lazlo has a TDA1541 into transformer + tube push-pull I/V with ~1ohm input impedance posted on this forum that is probably the most innovative tube analog stage for an i-out dac I have ever seen, yet unfortunatley it requires two TDA1541's in differential mode which obviously has a host of problems in setting up on the digital front end. And I think it would be difficult to implement a proper nos filter, so really a good digital oversampler filter with an inv data output would be ideal for this.
I have a TDA1541 tucked away and do plan on building it up with Thorsten's veroboard idea. Right now I am leaning toward Ove's passive I/V (with a current source cancelling out the DC offset) but using a D3A triode (high gain low noise, low distortion.) If you look at Oleg's published 1khz FFT's on his website they are better than any other analog stage for the TDA1541 made public. For my time that says a lot.
But I want to incorporate Thorsten's NOS compensation filter, never liked NOS probably because I never set up his filter to keep the treble from rolling off! (somehow I missed this innovation.) Probably will use Jocko/Rankin's asynch usb SPDIF (3ps rms jitter)->wm8804 (50ps min up to not specified jitter), no masterclock in the DAC, despite what many claim the technology just isn't available publicly to effectively slave a computer to a TDA1541 and Brown (ECDesigns) will be the first one to tell you this.
A lot of folks follow Thorsten and ECDesigns ideas/philosophies, and they are very good. One thing that bothers me is ECDesigns doesn't use the compensation filter, that a huge difference in design philosphy?
But a reality check I think for practical home builder (who isn't selected for Thorstens project) probably Ove has a lot to offer the hobbiest looking to have a good sounding TDA1541A. I do recommend anyone coming to this thread with interest in the 1541A to check out Ove's website. He has well documented measurements which show low IMD (abrax email the man for the %'s if you don't believe me
Most of all I am glad to see some enthusiasm in this chip as opposed to yet another S-D, hope the constructive arguments/disagreements fuel the innovation and keep things going.
peace
But hey at least it isn't an ESS switcher.Anyway, We know that the TDA1541 needs 0.00V to a max 25mV between its output and its ground pin, per the datasheet (max voltage compliance). That means a low input impedance into the mhz is required to meet spec. This is the only significant detail we have from the primordial soup of DAC's on how to build an analog stage, it is the fundamental constraint. Yes I believe this compliance spec was taken out of subsequent i-out DAC's publications because their own datasheet's opamp I/V's didn't meet the spec, so it was discarded for marketing reasons (sell a few opamps with each dac chip
.) Big companies suck like that, just like they do today with the fudged up datasheets for the S-D switchers being adored by those who have never heard anything else.Now if an opamp I/V has an input impedance that rises with frequency (I am afraid they all do), and that impedance is over 12.5 ohms at the fast frequency of the LSB steps that make up our "0-20khz" output (note the quotation marks.) we we have the TDA1541A running out of spec with regard to voltage compliance. That coupled with higher order distortion present with opamps has always had me looking for something drastically different than a opa275 or 627 I/V.
Current output DAC's can get nasty sounding the further out-off spec we run with regard to voltage compliance, I think worse when this impedance is constantly changing with each bit shift out as happens with opamps. It is very telling that rf design doesn't use opamps, yet any dac step is obviously rf?
Many of us have gotten by with passive I/V + tube gain, and Ove's website has good info on this, personally I found it to be one of the better options for the PCM63K. But I do think the tube "dither" helps hide some of the voltage compliance nasties. A pcm1704 with a passive I/V and a high quality jfet phono type gain stage can give one some good insite into the voltage compliance induced distortion issue, it is not pleasant and I consider it one of the worst forms of IMD that subtely attacks the micro details in music. Original thought was outof spec voltage compliance just led to protection diodes clipping with only 2H and this has been shown to be drastically off-base with most i-out dac's (the AD1865 and TDA1543 seem to be the only two that exhibit this behavior and they are much easier to work with.) With DAC's, true distortion (not just snr) gets worse with smaller signals, its the opposite of analog, and the signal at-60db level behavior is important to SQ and intuitively closely tied to the voltage compliance fundamental design constraint. Interstingly the TDA1543 and the AD1865 both don't look too good -60dB down.
I think as far as SS for the TDA1541, it would be tough to do better than a mofset Pass D1 I/V somehow incorporating Thorsten's filter? Maybe Thorsten can answer if a mofset d1 stage could be made a match for NOS ?
Some like the Jocko/Rorehberg stage. They keep the voltage compliance in spec by working like a transformer (reflecting a lower impedance to their inputs) , but I haven't had much luck with the Jocko style BJT I/V. They tend to have way too much IMD/THD. The only luck I've had with a BJT I/V is by cheating with 30dB local NFB preceded with filtering the current out, then following the I/V followed with a diamond buffer, can't explain why but it sounds good and measures very good. And is my goto for oversampling i-out r2r. But it won't work with NOS.
I want to try NOS TDA1541A, Lazlo has a TDA1541 into transformer + tube push-pull I/V with ~1ohm input impedance posted on this forum that is probably the most innovative tube analog stage for an i-out dac I have ever seen, yet unfortunatley it requires two TDA1541's in differential mode which obviously has a host of problems in setting up on the digital front end. And I think it would be difficult to implement a proper nos filter, so really a good digital oversampler filter with an inv data output would be ideal for this.
I have a TDA1541 tucked away and do plan on building it up with Thorsten's veroboard idea. Right now I am leaning toward Ove's passive I/V (with a current source cancelling out the DC offset) but using a D3A triode (high gain low noise, low distortion.) If you look at Oleg's published 1khz FFT's on his website they are better than any other analog stage for the TDA1541 made public. For my time that says a lot.
But I want to incorporate Thorsten's NOS compensation filter, never liked NOS probably because I never set up his filter to keep the treble from rolling off!
(somehow I missed this innovation.) Probably will use Jocko/Rankin's asynch usb SPDIF (3ps rms jitter)->wm8804 (50ps min up to not specified jitter), no masterclock in the DAC, despite what many claim the technology just isn't available publicly to effectively slave a computer to a TDA1541 and Brown (ECDesigns) will be the first one to tell you this. A lot of folks follow Thorsten and ECDesigns ideas/philosophies, and they are very good. One thing that bothers me is ECDesigns doesn't use the compensation filter, that a huge difference in design philosphy?
But a reality check I think for practical home builder (who isn't selected for Thorstens project) probably Ove has a lot to offer the hobbiest looking to have a good sounding TDA1541A. I do recommend anyone coming to this thread with interest in the 1541A to check out Ove's website. He has well documented measurements which show low IMD (abrax email the man for the %'s if you don't believe me
Most of all I am glad to see some enthusiasm in this chip as opposed to yet another S-D, hope the constructive arguments/disagreements fuel the innovation and keep things going.
peace
If by filter are referring to sinc correction it can simply be accomplished by a 8.2mh inductor in series with the 1k5 iv resistor (assuming 4ma pp) and a 3.3nf capacitor across them. However in case of an iv such as the d1 where you have a bias current running through the iv resistor you need an inductor that is rated for that and there are some debate about the long term affects on sound quality from running dc biased ferrite indicators like that
yes sinc correction. I have had bad luck in general with inductors in DAC filters, air core inductors sound best yet they pick up hum. Always tried to avoid them.
I completely missed the original sinc correction discussions as I was turned off to NOS due to all the poor designed TDA1543 based NOS DAC's and I was a PM/SM oversampling only person at the time. Guess I have a lot of homework to do.
thanks
The TDA1541 is such a beast it can be downright frustrating researching for a build with it. Ever heard of the Killer DAC? Has a cult-like following with the Aussies, but looking at the price and what it contains
Anyway, We know that the TDA1541 needs 0.00V to a max 25mV between its output and its ground pin, per the datasheet (max voltage compliance). That means a low input impedance into the mhz is required to meet spec. This is the only significant detail we have from the primordial soup of DAC's on how to build an analog stage, it is the fundamental constraint. Yes I believe this compliance spec was taken out of subsequent i-out DAC's publications because their own datasheet's opamp I/V's didn't meet the spec, so it was discarded for marketing reasons (sell a few opamps with each dac chip
Now if an opamp I/V has an input impedance that rises with frequency (I am afraid they all do), and that impedance is over 12.5 ohms at the fast frequency of the LSB steps that make up our "0-20khz" output (note the quotation marks.) we we have the TDA1541A running out of spec with regard to voltage compliance. That coupled with higher order distortion present with opamps has always had me looking for something drastically different than a opa275 or 627 I/V.
Current output DAC's can get nasty sounding the further out-off spec we run with regard to voltage compliance, I think worse when this impedance is constantly changing with each bit shift out as happens with opamps. It is very telling that rf design doesn't use opamps, yet any dac step is obviously rf?
Many of us have gotten by with passive I/V + tube gain, and Ove's website has good info on this, personally I found it to be one of the better options for the PCM63K. But I do think the tube "dither" helps hide some of the voltage compliance nasties. A pcm1704 with a passive I/V and a high quality jfet phono type gain stage can give one some good insite into the voltage compliance induced distortion issue, it is not pleasant and I consider it one of the worst forms of IMD that subtely attacks the micro details in music. Original thought was outof spec voltage compliance just led to protection diodes clipping with only 2H and this has been shown to be drastically off-base with most i-out dac's (the AD1865 and TDA1543 seem to be the only two that exhibit this behavior and they are much easier to work with.) With DAC's, true distortion (not just snr) gets worse with smaller signals, its the opposite of analog, and the signal at-60db level behavior is important to SQ and intuitively closely tied to the voltage compliance fundamental design constraint. Interstingly the TDA1543 and the AD1865 both don't look too good -60dB down.
I think as far as SS for the TDA1541, it would be tough to do better than a mofset Pass D1 I/V somehow incorporating Thorsten's filter? Maybe Thorsten can answer if a mofset d1 stage could be made a match for NOS ?
Some like the Jocko/Rorehberg stage. They keep the voltage compliance in spec by working like a transformer (reflecting a lower impedance to their inputs) , but I haven't had much luck with the Jocko style BJT I/V. They tend to have way too much IMD/THD. The only luck I've had with a BJT I/V is by cheating with 30dB local NFB preceded with filtering the current out, then following the I/V followed with a diamond buffer, can't explain why but it sounds good and measures very good. And is my goto for oversampling i-out r2r. But it won't work with NOS.
I want to try NOS TDA1541A, Lazlo has a TDA1541 into transformer + tube push-pull I/V with ~1ohm input impedance posted on this forum that is probably the most innovative tube analog stage for an i-out dac I have ever seen, yet unfortunatley it requires two TDA1541's in differential mode which obviously has a host of problems in setting up on the digital front end. And I think it would be difficult to implement a proper nos filter, so really a good digital oversampler filter with an inv data output would be ideal for this.
I have a TDA1541 tucked away and do plan on building it up with Thorsten's veroboard idea. Right now I am leaning toward Ove's passive I/V (with a current source cancelling out the DC offset) but using a D3A triode (high gain low noise, low distortion.) If you look at Oleg's published 1khz FFT's on his website they are better than any other analog stage for the TDA1541 made public. For my time that says a lot.
But I want to incorporate Thorsten's NOS compensation filter, never liked NOS probably because I never set up his filter to keep the treble from rolling off!
A lot of folks follow Thorsten and ECDesigns ideas/philosophies, and they are very good. One thing that bothers me is ECDesigns doesn't use the compensation filter, that a huge difference in design philosphy?
But a reality check I think for practical home builder (who isn't selected for Thorstens project) probably Ove has a lot to offer the hobbiest looking to have a good sounding TDA1541A. I do recommend anyone coming to this thread with interest in the 1541A to check out Ove's website. He has well documented measurements which show low IMD (abrax email the man for the %'s if you don't believe me
Most of all I am glad to see some enthusiasm in this chip as opposed to yet another S-D, hope the constructive arguments/disagreements fuel the innovation and keep things going.
peace
Completely agree about fundamental constraint remark!
Not long ago I started the thread asking for 1704 compliance voltage specifications.....from your statements above, it seems you may know the answer?
Boky
Hi,
I am not sure what argument you are attempting to made.
I answered a post in which you had stated:
I was merely giving you an example where trusting measurements that proclaimed an absence of distortion was the unwise choice and trusting ones senses that told one that there was distortion was the wise choice.
I would also add something that was an adage of our professor in "Messtechnik" - a module in my EE course that thought the 4-T's (Tips, Tricks, Traps and Techniques) of measurements and testing, not audio, but in general.
Whenever one of us was too convinced that what we measured was real, he used intone in a thunderous voice "Wer misst misst mist.", which is only really cute in german but translates to "Who measures measures manure".
He instilled in me a robust and healthy scepticism regarding whatever measurements I make and an equally robust and healthy tendency to take others measurements "cum grano salis". And don't get me started on circuit simulators, who's output is nowadays so frequently substituted for real evaluations of real circuits on the clear and dramatic misunderstanding that real circuits behave in reality the way they simulate...
In the subject on hand I suggested using Op-Amp's with sufficient slew rate. I also pointed out that using resistor I/V conversion may be used. For the TDA1541 combined with a tube giving around 30dB Amplification we need around 47...51 Ohm I/V Resistance.
Such a resistor has a Johnson noise of around -138dBV over a 20KHz bandwidth, the signal developed would be -24dBV.
So the available SNR after the I/V resistor is around 114dB (unweighted), which is lower than noise of the DAC (and indeed of many other DAC's with a greater claimed number of Bits)...
BTB, for the Shanling Players I used to modify I had parallel PCM1704 with resistor I/V had a theoretical noise limit of -118dB for the passive I/V and still exceeded the SNR (unweighted) of two of this "24-Bit" DAC paralleled.
So, for now I do not see any trading of SNR at all.
Do you have proof your claim?
Ciao T
I am not sure what argument you are attempting to made.
I answered a post in which you had stated:
I was merely giving you an example where trusting measurements that proclaimed an absence of distortion was the unwise choice and trusting ones senses that told one that there was distortion was the wise choice.
I would also add something that was an adage of our professor in "Messtechnik" - a module in my EE course that thought the 4-T's (Tips, Tricks, Traps and Techniques) of measurements and testing, not audio, but in general.
Whenever one of us was too convinced that what we measured was real, he used intone in a thunderous voice "Wer misst misst mist.", which is only really cute in german but translates to "Who measures measures manure".
He instilled in me a robust and healthy scepticism regarding whatever measurements I make and an equally robust and healthy tendency to take others measurements "cum grano salis". And don't get me started on circuit simulators, who's output is nowadays so frequently substituted for real evaluations of real circuits on the clear and dramatic misunderstanding that real circuits behave in reality the way they simulate...
In the subject on hand I suggested using Op-Amp's with sufficient slew rate. I also pointed out that using resistor I/V conversion may be used. For the TDA1541 combined with a tube giving around 30dB Amplification we need around 47...51 Ohm I/V Resistance.
Such a resistor has a Johnson noise of around -138dBV over a 20KHz bandwidth, the signal developed would be -24dBV.
So the available SNR after the I/V resistor is around 114dB (unweighted), which is lower than noise of the DAC (and indeed of many other DAC's with a greater claimed number of Bits)...
BTB, for the Shanling Players I used to modify I had parallel PCM1704 with resistor I/V had a theoretical noise limit of -118dB for the passive I/V and still exceeded the SNR (unweighted) of two of this "24-Bit" DAC paralleled.
So, for now I do not see any trading of SNR at all.
Do you have proof your claim?
Ciao T
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.