Huh !
Today I received my CD880 with S1 chip.
It is the one from ebay of which the link was posted in another thread
I have listened with Sennheiser HD430* to a couple of CDs so far and I slightly prefer the CD650 and CD304mkII.
Both have the plain 1541 inside. No A, no S1, no R1, just 1541.
The CD880 is very fast on skipping titles or replay from beginning, there is no doubt the machine is in excellent condition.
How it sounds to me.
CD880:
Warm, colorated, a little too bright in the upper mids ?
A little distant, a little like a conserve.
CD650:
Neutral, very direct. Envolving. Perhaps , if there was anything to complain, a little too cool.
This hits me
The same with CD830, 1541A, as with CD880.
Maybe I will change my opinion after some time, but now when I listen to CD650 I get the "this is it" feeling and I miss it on the CD880.
So I will put a socket in one of the CDPs and listen to different chips.
Anybody compared 1541 to 1541A / S1 ?
Bernhard
*Just sold my DT990 on eBay, way too much bass for my taste.
My speakers need room equalisation per digital eq for the ground tones...
Today I received my CD880 with S1 chip.
It is the one from ebay of which the link was posted in another thread
I have listened with Sennheiser HD430* to a couple of CDs so far and I slightly prefer the CD650 and CD304mkII.
Both have the plain 1541 inside. No A, no S1, no R1, just 1541.
The CD880 is very fast on skipping titles or replay from beginning, there is no doubt the machine is in excellent condition.
How it sounds to me.
CD880:
Warm, colorated, a little too bright in the upper mids ?
A little distant, a little like a conserve.
CD650:
Neutral, very direct. Envolving. Perhaps , if there was anything to complain, a little too cool.
This hits me
The same with CD830, 1541A, as with CD880.
Maybe I will change my opinion after some time, but now when I listen to CD650 I get the "this is it" feeling and I miss it on the CD880.
So I will put a socket in one of the CDPs and listen to different chips.
Anybody compared 1541 to 1541A / S1 ?
Bernhard
*Just sold my DT990 on eBay, way too much bass for my taste.
My speakers need room equalisation per digital eq for the ground tones...
I guess all are not modified ?
Anyway, there are more differences than the DAC: the 650 has 7220A dig filter (vs 7220B) and probalbly a different decoder (7210 vs 7310). The B filter should be better, but maybe better filtering causes more rubbish on the supply lines (?)
CDM transport differs too, CDM2 vs CDM4. Saw a post somewhere that the CDM2 has a bruchless motor and CDM4 does not. An advantage for the 650..
Don't know about other differences, PS and output. I do know the 650 build quality is crap. Tutto plastico as we say.
Cant compare anymore myself, my 650 is not standard anymore.
Greetings
Anyway, there are more differences than the DAC: the 650 has 7220A dig filter (vs 7220B) and probalbly a different decoder (7210 vs 7310). The B filter should be better, but maybe better filtering causes more rubbish on the supply lines (?)
CDM transport differs too, CDM2 vs CDM4. Saw a post somewhere that the CDM2 has a bruchless motor and CDM4 does not. An advantage for the 650..
Don't know about other differences, PS and output. I do know the 650 build quality is crap. Tutto plastico as we say.
Cant compare anymore myself, my 650 is not standard anymore.
Greetings
Attachments
I also owned the CD880.
I do think that the different of the sound quality on different machine is mainly due to the earphone circuit itself. For your reference, 880 is using two 5532s.
It is hard to compare two DACs chip without fixing other variable.
So, the comment here should be on the whole machines rather the DACs.
Cheers,
Leo
By the way, I do love the audio output of 880 (using OP2604)....You may try..
I do think that the different of the sound quality on different machine is mainly due to the earphone circuit itself. For your reference, 880 is using two 5532s.
It is hard to compare two DACs chip without fixing other variable.
So, the comment here should be on the whole machines rather the DACs.
Cheers,
Leo
By the way, I do love the audio output of 880 (using OP2604)....You may try..
This is wicked
I couldn't stand it anymore...
Removed the S1 from my CD880, put single full gold plated socket pins inside and installed banana chip from CD650 ( plain 1541, no A, no S1 ).
First & immediate impression:
It sounds right, very open, transparent, smooth and silky highs.
The S1 chip was 100% original, the board untouched.
Somebody had put in a socket for the 7220, I can see it because there are remains of the flux on the board.
I will compare to 1541A and S1 from my bulk order and have a look at all of them with spectrum analyzer.
I couldn't stand it anymore...
Removed the S1 from my CD880, put single full gold plated socket pins inside and installed banana chip from CD650 ( plain 1541, no A, no S1 ).
First & immediate impression:
It sounds right, very open, transparent, smooth and silky highs.
The S1 chip was 100% original, the board untouched.
Somebody had put in a socket for the 7220, I can see it because there are remains of the flux on the board.
I will compare to 1541A and S1 from my bulk order and have a look at all of them with spectrum analyzer.
i suspect humans need a little more distortion for a pure, open, transparent and so on sound. Thats the reason why Tube amps are high end , and all the solid state listeners need to tweak and solder around in hifigear until something is messed up, they reach more THD, and are confident with the new high end sound.
This may also be the reason why the ultimate highest end hifi gear ist TDA1543 with resistor i/v and a gainclone with fancy caps.
This may also be the reason why the ultimate highest end hifi gear ist TDA1543 with resistor i/v and a gainclone with fancy caps.
It could just be an S1 which is not OK. Why would the SAA7220P/B be replaced otherwise ( in the faultfinding process )? Cdplayers with flaws are sold easily on Ebay. 1541's can fail, certainly the older ones. Often you can hear a soft scratching noise when you just powered up the cdplayer if they're defective. Please note that TDA1541A and TDA1541A-S1 are the same from the same production line with the S1 being selected for better specs. So comparing a new A to the A-S1 in question can provide the right conclusion.
Sorry Till, but your post seems a bit sour. One of the big reasons that non os TDA1543 sounds very good is that simply has less jitter than os DAC's. It could be that our ears prefer less jitter over 24 bit 96 kHz that should be better according to specs. Precision in the time domain seems more of influence than precision in the DA conversion. Removing a SAA7220 will "prove" some of this phenomenon.
I almost never see anyone commenting on TDA1543 in standard 4 x Fs configuration. Believe me, it sounds less than good. Other oversampling DAC's win with a large margin in that case.
You know my opinion about gainclones with fancy caps. BTW other amps can benefit from fancy or good industrial caps instead cheap types as well. Try it. I don't buy more THD being the reason of the success of LM3875 based amps.
Maybe true in some cases but nonsense in general.
Sorry Till, but your post seems a bit sour. One of the big reasons that non os TDA1543 sounds very good is that simply has less jitter than os DAC's. It could be that our ears prefer less jitter over 24 bit 96 kHz that should be better according to specs. Precision in the time domain seems more of influence than precision in the DA conversion. Removing a SAA7220 will "prove" some of this phenomenon.
I almost never see anyone commenting on TDA1543 in standard 4 x Fs configuration. Believe me, it sounds less than good. Other oversampling DAC's win with a large margin in that case.
You know my opinion about gainclones with fancy caps. BTW other amps can benefit from fancy or good industrial caps instead cheap types as well. Try it. I don't buy more THD being the reason of the success of LM3875 based amps.
Maybe true in some cases but nonsense in general.
absolutely not sour, please don´t take every word i post to serios. I beliver THD is an absolutely overrated spec and something like transient response, or the ability not to compress, is much more important for music reproduction. And i belive every cheap film cap is much better than 15$ Elkos. Please note, i don´t say the TDA1543 sounds bad. I only experienced its very easy with a few ohms more or less to change between 0,05 or 3% THD with this chip and passive i/v. And i´m not so sure if the 3% at full load sine wave made the sound worse in any way when music was played with that setup.
Trying a BG N series in the smaller values can give other insights. Believing is something people do in religions.
Don't know what voltage you put on the TDA but some people try to make it produce 2 V at its output or running it out of spec in one way or another. It is an economy chip with plain bad specs and it needs tweaking for less THD. Not so strange when you consider the passive I/V which is impossible with most chips. The load has influence as well when doing passive I/V. Don't focus too much on TDA1543 for being the ultimate DAC chip. It isn't.
A TDA1541A and TDA1545A are better DAC chips in specs but the first is very sensitive when not implemented right ( pcb design is really difficult if you want to do it right ). The multiple supply voltages don't make things easier either. The second can not do passive I/V.
TDA1543 is dead cheap, needs only one supply voltage and can do passive I/V with reasonable high output voltage which is quite rare nowadays. If there would be any other chip that had better specs and the positive features I just mentioned I am sure people would use that one non os instead. There are some chinese equivalents ( of TDA1545A ) that are more modern and maybe one of these days we see a post declaring those being better than the beloved TDA1543. Whatever reasons one can come up with, TDA1543 costs 1 Euro and nothing can beat that in combination with the sound it produces.
my belive is the only base to judge. For example too make the descision what to buy and what to try. There can not be anything better than my belive, as i´m not able to know whats real. I can only belive what i experience is the reality.... Erkenntnistheorie
I´m able (or i belive i´m able) to hear a differenve between music played with my speakers and the rooms door into free air is open or closed. I´m able to hear in a larger room it sound better. I´m not able to hear the brand or type of a resistor or cap.
back on topic.
I used 5V for the TDA1543 and the good reason to use it for experiments instead of the 1541 is i get about 10 of them for one 1541. I tried all the resistor values i found in circuits on this boars, and most measured terrible. I was not able to get a good result with those high values for the Vref resitor found in the diagramms. I ended up soldering trimmers instead of resistors in the board and tuning with sine wave applied, watching the THD. At the best point i stoped and unsoldered the trimmers and measured the values. All posted in another thread.
I found R/ Vref 100R and Ri/v 1100R was best.
I don´t really know why the DAC with 74HC04 measured better than the noniverted.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=343878#post343878
regretable that thread has died, and more input from some DAC gurus would bring us some steps forward.
For the PCB: i can´t make PCBs and do everything with prototyping board or point to point. In case the PCB is that critical it may be impossibl for me to build a 1541 DAC. But i´ve seen a picture of an IBM AT made in wire wrap...
What about all those AN Dacs like 1865, 1861 ... DIP and cheapest ???
I´m able (or i belive i´m able) to hear a differenve between music played with my speakers and the rooms door into free air is open or closed. I´m able to hear in a larger room it sound better. I´m not able to hear the brand or type of a resistor or cap.
back on topic.
I used 5V for the TDA1543 and the good reason to use it for experiments instead of the 1541 is i get about 10 of them for one 1541. I tried all the resistor values i found in circuits on this boars, and most measured terrible. I was not able to get a good result with those high values for the Vref resitor found in the diagramms. I ended up soldering trimmers instead of resistors in the board and tuning with sine wave applied, watching the THD. At the best point i stoped and unsoldered the trimmers and measured the values. All posted in another thread.
I found R/ Vref 100R and Ri/v 1100R was best.
I don´t really know why the DAC with 74HC04 measured better than the noniverted.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=343878#post343878
regretable that thread has died, and more input from some DAC gurus would bring us some steps forward.
For the PCB: i can´t make PCBs and do everything with prototyping board or point to point. In case the PCB is that critical it may be impossibl for me to build a 1541 DAC. But i´ve seen a picture of an IBM AT made in wire wrap...
What about all those AN Dacs like 1865, 1861 ... DIP and cheapest
???
That sure is a defective TDA1543. Kaputt. Buy some others and test again.
Unbelievable. One of the first things I noticed when I started this hobby at young age was that MKP film caps sounded different than MKT and in that time they sounded always better than electrolytic caps too. The error was to change components too much, it is just a means for better sound when the circuit and implementation are OK in the first place.
When you apply 2 different caps per channel with a selector switch one simply must hear the ( sometimes small ) difference.
I tested 3, and all got higher THD with higher or no resistor at Vref pin. There was a step in THD from 400 Ohm up it rised to extreme values.
to me this looks perfect and not kaputt: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=343902#post343902
also it made a very fine square wave at 20kHz.
to me this looks perfect and not kaputt: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=343902#post343902
also it made a very fine square wave at 20kHz.
till said:
Too late for reading all that now but your resistors don't correlate with the values extracted from the formulas for TDA1543. They sure differ from my setup or any other one I've heard or seen. It seems to me that there is something quite wrong over there. Please calculate with the given formulas. There is an excellent explanation on how to understand the datasheet of TDA1543 of Rbroer. First use 5V before putting kilovolts on the poor TDA. Or look up the Kusonoki schematics for proven results/values. I am a declared non paralleling person so don't start on that.
Bernhard, did you listen to it non os ( yet ) ? It may sound better than 4 paralleled TDA1541's
Try looking up posts of Rbroer maybe ?!?!
Why would you implement D1's output stage when the DAC is not in good working order ? I also think Rbroers active I/V for TDA1543 is a shorter path to success than changing a design that was designed for other DAC chips that like to see 0V at the output....
Please keep it simple and build it so that it functions OK. When it is OK you can add THD/distortion for beter sound
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17226&highlight=
Why would you implement D1's output stage when the DAC is not in good working order ? I also think Rbroers active I/V for TDA1543 is a shorter path to success than changing a design that was designed for other DAC chips that like to see 0V at the output....
Please keep it simple and build it so that it functions OK. When it is OK you can add THD/distortion for beter sound
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17226&highlight=
äh- is it that bad? music comes out and the inverted and noniverted sinewave on the scope looks good. Only thing not in order is i got this result with non audiophile voltage regulators (7805) and resistor values other than usual. The THD measurements absolute value i don´t trust, how much of the 0,07% may come from soundcard or noise from long inetconnects/computer) and als i consider 0,07 a very good value - maybe not for a DAC but for a system. Show me a speaker reproducing at these levels?
So i would be happy if i get some advice what exactly is faulty with the DAC.
As i stated in that thread, with this passiv IV i get really not much voltage. If i use resistors to have more voltage THD increases to ridicolous values. As i have a low voltage gain system i want a) balanced (doubles my voltage gain) and b) more voltage output what could easy be done with 2 FETs of D1 stage.
And Pass/Mosfet diskussion: Fets are more easy to handle than tubes because no really dangerously high voltage (with one big disadvantage: they don´t glow, at least under normal operating conditions i cant always guarantee) And the discret way solves problems using lot voltage and bias. A very easy way not to sensitive to layout, decoupling caps etc like ICs.
thanks for the link!
to me a D1 stage looks simpler than an opamp. Also you need only half of the circuit shown in the manual if you don´t use low impedance amp behind. Not more than few caps, handfull resistors and 2 Fets
So i would be happy if i get some advice what exactly is faulty with the DAC.
As i stated in that thread, with this passiv IV i get really not much voltage. If i use resistors to have more voltage THD increases to ridicolous values. As i have a low voltage gain system i want a) balanced (doubles my voltage gain) and b) more voltage output what could easy be done with 2 FETs of D1 stage.
And Pass/Mosfet diskussion: Fets are more easy to handle than tubes because no really dangerously high voltage (with one big disadvantage: they don´t glow, at least under normal operating conditions i cant always guarantee) And the discret way solves problems using lot voltage and bias. A very easy way not to sensitive to layout, decoupling caps etc like ICs.
thanks for the link!
to me a D1 stage looks simpler than an opamp. Also you need only half of the circuit shown in the manual if you don´t use low impedance amp behind. Not more than few caps, handfull resistors and 2 Fets
Be assured, I use 7805 all the time. Again, D1's output stage is designed for DAC chips that like to see 0V at their outputs.
Without having read the thread you mentioned ( I have other things to do ) I dare to state that those values indicate that something is definitely non standard in your setup/measurements. 900 mV output is possible with 5 V supply voltage.
Why not build a standard TDA1543 non os schematic and measure/evaluate that one ?!?!? Carefully read the older threads about TDA1543, you'll find lots of valuable information. Rbroer is very active on designing good I/V stages for TDA's.
Good night !
Without having read the thread you mentioned ( I have other things to do ) I dare to state that those values indicate that something is definitely non standard in your setup/measurements. 900 mV output is possible with 5 V supply voltage.
Why not build a standard TDA1543 non os schematic and measure/evaluate that one ?!?!? Carefully read the older threads about TDA1543, you'll find lots of valuable information. Rbroer is very active on designing good I/V stages for TDA's.
Good night !
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.