diff or parallel dac

[TJ]

which one sound better ? why ? thank

[Õàëÿâùèê]

Hi
In both cases the sound is worse, in comparison with sole DAC, because there are no two completely identical DACs, everyone always have some disorder of parameters (in a case with R-2R).

[rwagter]

Dear Õàëÿâùèê,

how about the dac tower in the DDDAC in which there are 8 dac's more or less as in fig2?

DAC parameters might be of but you gain resolution....

[Bricolo]

Originally posted by Õàëÿâùèê
Hi
In both cases the sound is worse, in comparison with sole DAC, because there are no two completely identical DACs, everyone always have some disorder of parameters (in a case with R-2R).

I would have said the opposite.
You're right on the fact that the DACs aren't 100% identical. But since theyr "drift", "distortion" or whatever you call it, is a kind of random error, placing multiple dacs will tend to cancel this, and will give you an output that is the mean value of all the dac's output. And this value will logically be closer to the real value you should get

[Õàëÿâùèê]

Dear ALL.
Subjectively, the parallel or differential connection R-2R give sounds worse for me. The HF are greased, but the sound is much better in single DAC connection.
DDAC uses passive i/u, and the parallel connection dac ICs there is simply necessary for increase of a output current.
BTW, TDA1543 is the rather poor chip, can be therefore degradation of a sound is not audible What have you found such good in these TDAs? Its single advantage is simplicity in use.

But since theyr "drift", "distortion" or whatever you call it, is a kind of random error, placing multiple dacs will tend to cancel this, and will give you an output that is the mean value of all the dac's output. And this value will logically be closer to the real value you should get

Only in a paper. Listen and you`ll see

[Pedja]

Hi Õàëÿâùèê ,

DDAC uses passive i/u, and the parallel connection dac ICs there is simply necessary for increase of a output current.

Increased output current is not needed, whatever is the way the I/V conversion is done.

BTW, TDA1543 is the rather poor chip, can be therefore degradation of a sound is not audible What have you found such good in these TDAs? Its single advantage is simplicity in use.

The only shortcoming with TDA1543 is that you can’t easily explain that, using it, you don’t, even remotely, use poor chip.

Pedja

[rfbrw]

Originally posted by TJ
which one sound better ? why ? thank

As demonstrated by the disagreement over the merits of the TDA1543 and the condemnation of the two configurations,an objective view is not possible. I suggest you build each configuration and decide for yourself.