Ad1955 tda1541 report

[gabdx]

Can anyone report / review their experience with the Lavry10 or accuphase and other AD1955 based Dacs and also how it sounds compaired to the tda1541 best dacs ?

there is this seller raindrop hui selling both dacs, a hard decision !!
So far I only heard the tda based dacs. My sellers in my city dont have the AD1955 dacs ...



DAC AD1955+AD1896 24BIT/96KHz Balance Output HDAM - eBay (item 220554797912 end time Feb-20-10 16:35:35 PST)

[Nazar_lv]

all depends on the implementation of these DAC chips

[Bernhard]

Originally Posted by gabdx

Can anyone report / review their experience with the Lavry10 or accuphase and other AD1955 based Dacs and also how it sounds compaired to the tda1541 best dacs ?

there is this seller raindrop hui selling both dacs, a hard decision !!
So far I only heard the tda based dacs. My sellers in my city dont have the AD1955 dacs ...



DAC AD1955+AD1896 24BIT/96KHz Balance Output HDAM - eBay (item 220554797912 end time Feb-20-10 16:35:35 PST)

how do you expect to sound Accuphase which uses JRC or NJM5532 ?

[Nazar_lv]

which uses JRC or NJM5532 ?

if carefully cooked - very good

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by Nazar_lv

all depends on the implementation of these DAC chips

Yep, I agree. That design of raindrop_hui's appears to use LF351 opamps in the I/V stage. Hard to think of any technical reason for the choice - they're really an old design, very low GBW of 4MHz and the PSRR on the negative rail is a disaster (40dB @ 20kHz). Perhaps they're chosen for their sound though? Good news is they're socketed so something a bit more appropriate can be substituted.

[analog_sa]

Originally Posted by abraxalito

Perhaps they're chosen for their sound though?

Not likely at all. I find it a wise choice giving the customer the option to use their favourite opamps at a minimum additional cost. Something like the interconnect cables which come bundled with cd players

Regarding the 1955/1541 question i think people have a serious bias one way or the other and asking for an objective comparison is a waste of time.

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by analog_sa

Not likely at all. I find it a wise choice giving the customer the option to use their favourite opamps at a minimum additional cost. Something like the interconnect cables which come bundled with cd players

Regarding the 1955/1541 question i think people have a serious bias one way or the other and asking for an objective comparison is a waste of time.

Aha, got ya. So they're just cheap place holders.

On the 1955/1541 question, technically the 1955 is way better on all counts, whether such technical superiority translates into audio nirvana I'm not qualified to say. But I very much doubt that people actually hear the DAC, what they hear is the DAC + implementation + the rest of the system + environment. So yeah, being totally subjective, objective comparisons don't exist in audio. Agreed that most people's minds are made up well before the kit is listened to...

[Nazar_lv]

Not likely at all. I find it a wise choice giving the customer the option to use their favourite opamps at a minimum additional cost

what opamp is not what is most important, important are in what scheme (and PCB implementation) they are working, and it is VERY important for DS DACs with here out of band noise and glitch (if it is current output continious time DS). In standart designs current output parralel dacs (such as 1541) will sounding better than current output DS dacs

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by Nazar_lv

what opamp is not what is most important, important are in what scheme (and PCB implementation) they are working, and it is VERY important for DS DACs with here out of band noise and glitch (if it is current output continious time DS). In standart designs current output parralel dacs (such as 1541) will sounding better than current output DS dacs

Opamp choice is most definitely part of the implementation. Just as an example, I'm currently playing with a cheap Chinese-designed AD1955 DAC just as a learning exercise. It came with OP275s. There was another aspect of the implementation which was sub-optimal, this meant that when I substituted faster opamps (HA-5222) for the supplied OP275s, the sound got considerably worse. Only when the sub-optimal filtering was fixed did the Harris opamps shine. Now, I can use both OP275 and HA-5222, but if I dare substitute an NE5532 or NJM2114 there's a low-level (but distinctly audible) tone in the output. Haven't figured out why yet...

[UV101]

Originally Posted by analog_sa

Regarding the 1955/1541 question i think people have a serious bias one way or the other and asking for an objective comparison is a waste of time.

I'd agree but here's my 2 pence! The newer dac chips alway look good on paper.However, personally I love the sounds of the TDA. If worked correctly with decent PSU's and a simple output stage, I'd take a TDA over anything I've heard thus far. My CDP has an S2 and nothing at all left std from the CDM1 to the output. The TDA will be the most analogue sounding chip IMHO. The 1955 will sound sterile and uninvolving by comparison.

Guess which way I'm biased!!!