I/V's compared: Rudolf/Jocko-type vs. Pass/D1/Promethius

[hollowman]

I've built Rudolf/Jocko-type I/V for a Philips TD1545A-based NOS DAC. I've also built a D1 Pass type (e.g. Promitheus) for TDA1541-based (non-SPDIF) use -- i.e., CDPs like CD650, CD60, etc.
Both types work well.
I have not tried Rudolf's "Less simple I/V for TDA1541".
All else being equal, I'm not sure how much improvement (or loss) one can attain for TDA1541 DACs used with the "Less simple" I/V compared to Promitheus I/V.
Has anyone built both and, hence, conducted a head-to-head comparison?

Thx!

[hollowman]

Originally Posted by hollowman

Has anyone built both and, hence, conducted a head-to-head comparison?

Okay, as a cheap promotion to get you to reply you needn't have compared the two. Just speculate, theorize, take a stab, make an educated guess.

[ccschua]

I have built simple IV, simple Transimpedance, less Simple IV by Rudolf, Modified Less simple/Jocko, Pass D1 without feedback. I was considering doing the Pass D1 with feedback and DC couple. But I am running out of energy.

[hollowman]

Originally Posted by ccschua

I have built simple IV, simple Transimpedance, less Simple IV by Rudolf, Modified Less simple/Jocko, Pass D1 without feedback.

With which DAC(s) have you used these with? And how do they compare/contrast, sonic-wise?

[ccschua]

it is on TDA1541a in NOS mode with dynamic jitter att circuit. all of them perform almost the same. the less simple IV by Rudolf suffers from DC drift and extremely diff to control, even though DC servo was put in.

I prefer Pass D1 circuit but with 2sk170BL and it sounds best. all component needs to be top grade. I used naked IV resistor (TX2052) for that and the power supply is series shunt reg. However I believe it is possible to try a fold cascode with dynamics compensation circuit that would possibly give better result. that circuit is too complicated to be shown here.