Hi John,
Thank you for your explanation. You explained it before and I understand the working of this. But my point is with the Charge-Transfer supply you wanted to block the path of the high frequency noise of the powernet. The new solution doesn't do that (or I do not understand it). I understand that the former solution itself generates noise by the switching of the pass-transistor. This solution is quiter (and simpler). That's better.
But what about the idea of blocking the pollution from the net? This particular point I don't see. Is this solved just by heavily filtering with inductors?
Sorry, I just try to understand it.
Found them at RS.
Saw also this one: Wurth Elektronik | Passives | EMC, RFI and Surge Protection | Inductor Through Hole | Radial PCB Mount Inductors WE-TI |744742103
Is smaller, cheaper and can handle double amount of current.
Any reasons not to go for this one?
If you want to do it right listen to the results of different parts. Ferrites can be tricky. Usually they improve the sound at first, but leave them in for a week or more and they can start degrading the sound, killing the natural harmonics/timbres, and it just sounds better without. I don't know why this happens, I guess the ferrite gets magnetized after a while and thereby restricting the electro-magnetic field? Anyway always check the results again after a while, not all parts improve in time.
Hi Overm,
Yes, when you use 2 diodes for full wave rectifier (double secondary winding) you will need a 2 or 3 stage rectifier in the minus too. With bridge rectifiers (4 diodes) it's sufficient to use only 2 stepped rectifiers in the plus like I did with the bridge power amp supply.
The Wurth electronic chokes seem to be fine.
Yes, when you use 2 diodes for full wave rectifier (double secondary winding) you will need a 2 or 3 stage rectifier in the minus too. With bridge rectifiers (4 diodes) it's sufficient to use only 2 stepped rectifiers in the plus like I did with the bridge power amp supply.
The Wurth electronic chokes seem to be fine.
Hi qusp,
The SD-transport is already available as built and tested unit, it is available in both, epoxy and HF PCB versions. It should work fine with the Sabre DAC. The SD-transport only requires +5V power supply (separate connections for processor and display power supply), current consumption is low enough for battery operation, so you can run both, DAC and SD-transport on a battery power supply.
I plan to test different DAC chips with this SD-transport, and put detailed information on my new website of how to connect and configure these DAC chips for use with the SD-transport.
The SD-transport is already available as built and tested unit, it is available in both, epoxy and HF PCB versions. It should work fine with the Sabre DAC. The SD-transport only requires +5V power supply (separate connections for processor and display power supply), current consumption is low enough for battery operation, so you can run both, DAC and SD-transport on a battery power supply.
I plan to test different DAC chips with this SD-transport, and put detailed information on my new website of how to connect and configure these DAC chips for use with the SD-transport.
Hi qusp,
No PCBs, just assembled and tested modules. New website is due to go online tomorrow.
Other new developments, TDA1541A DAC module prototype was tested today. I used new type of DEM clock injection and a different decoupling strategy. I use 1.4112 MHz DEM / bit clock and 33nF decoupling caps that have separate GND return path straight to pin 5 (GND) eliminating possible (power supply interference being dumped on the bit currrents.
It has passive I/V conversion, using a Darlington stage that eliminates TDA1541A output compliance by creating a new (external) reference. The 500R wirewound mobius honeycomb passive I/V resistors provide 2Vpp without any active amplification, very similar to the TDA1543 DAC. This provides very clean transparent sound.
Both DACs were tested side-by-side after a 1 hour warm-up period.
Differences are rather small but audible, the TDA1541A provides slightly more detail and better bass, rest is very similar to TDA1543 DAC.
I also plan to provide battery power supply option (3 x 12V) enabling TDA1541A, SD-transport, and master clock to run on battery power supply.
No PCBs, just assembled and tested modules. New website is due to go online tomorrow.
Other new developments, TDA1541A DAC module prototype was tested today. I used new type of DEM clock injection and a different decoupling strategy. I use 1.4112 MHz DEM / bit clock and 33nF decoupling caps that have separate GND return path straight to pin 5 (GND) eliminating possible (power supply interference being dumped on the bit currrents.
It has passive I/V conversion, using a Darlington stage that eliminates TDA1541A output compliance by creating a new (external) reference. The 500R wirewound mobius honeycomb passive I/V resistors provide 2Vpp without any active amplification, very similar to the TDA1543 DAC. This provides very clean transparent sound.
Both DACs were tested side-by-side after a 1 hour warm-up period.
Differences are rather small but audible, the TDA1541A provides slightly more detail and better bass, rest is very similar to TDA1543 DAC.
I also plan to provide battery power supply option (3 x 12V) enabling TDA1541A, SD-transport, and master clock to run on battery power supply.
Ha, ha, ha! 
-EC- you should hire me as publicist! I would translate your impressions to the known audiophile hyperbole that your potential clients are expecting (and deserve)...I guess you are not so good talking to women also, are you? 
Love and kisses,
M.
(PS: I will try your LED based Vref on the transimpedance amp, then on passive I/V and compare).
-EC- you should hire me as publicist!
I would translate your impressions to the known audiophile hyperbole that your potential clients are expecting (and deserve)...I guess you are not so good talking to women also, are you? Love and kisses,
M.
(PS: I will try your LED based Vref on the transimpedance amp, then on passive I/V and compare).
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.