Konnichiwa,
Because it sounds better?
That is a good question. Many experienced listeners I know tend to prefer Non-Oversampling DAC's sound, others prefer oversampling. It is a little like solid steta vs. valves, a matter of taste. If your taste is towards a realistic reproduction of music (as opposed to a atificial one) Non-Os tends to be inherently sperior.
Better sound?
Well, it depends on your view. You may accept that your speakers and your ear together form a rather efficient lowpass filter and that only minimal filtering of the digital signal is required to produce GOOD SOUND. If you do you accept that the measurements of the DAC will be poor in the traditional sense and you accept that the traditional measurements have no bearing whatsoever as measure of sound quality.
Sayonara
visualwang said:
Because it sounds better?
visualwang said:
That is a good question. Many experienced listeners I know tend to prefer Non-Oversampling DAC's sound, others prefer oversampling. It is a little like solid steta vs. valves, a matter of taste. If your taste is towards a realistic reproduction of music (as opposed to a atificial one) Non-Os tends to be inherently sperior.
visualwang said:
Better sound?
visualwang said:
Well, it depends on your view. You may accept that your speakers and your ear together form a rather efficient lowpass filter and that only minimal filtering of the digital signal is required to produce GOOD SOUND. If you do you accept that the measurements of the DAC will be poor in the traditional sense and you accept that the traditional measurements have no bearing whatsoever as measure of sound quality.
Sayonara
Re: Re: Re: Why NON-OS?
Konnichiwa,
Please Bernhard, you need to learn not to mix up issues.
Non-Os is one topic, TDA1543 is another. The two are NOT the same, hence your comments are entierly off topic.
If you want to go TDA1543 bashing suit yourself, HOWEVER please refrain from mixing the performance of this very chip up with the Non-Os principle.
In fact, if you understand just HOW BAD the TDA1543 is you wonder how it can be acceptable at all and in traditional applications it is not, it is positively evil. In Non-Os the subjective performance is surprisingly acceptable though.
However you may be well aware that I do not champion the TDA1543 for DIY DAC's at all, I have been suggesting TDA1541 and PCM63 as best choices with TDA1545 and PCM1702/1704 as other good options. The PCM56 is a reasonable outside bet. I have tried most of them BTW at some time, OS and Non-Os.
Sayonara
PS, I suspect, from your previous posts that you do not understand the relation between what is measured and how humans hear particulary well, but that is purely my personal opinion....
Konnichiwa,
Bernhard said:
Please Bernhard, you need to learn not to mix up issues.
Non-Os is one topic, TDA1543 is another. The two are NOT the same, hence your comments are entierly off topic.
If you want to go TDA1543 bashing suit yourself, HOWEVER please refrain from mixing the performance of this very chip up with the Non-Os principle.
In fact, if you understand just HOW BAD the TDA1543 is you wonder how it can be acceptable at all and in traditional applications it is not, it is positively evil. In Non-Os the subjective performance is surprisingly acceptable though.
However you may be well aware that I do not champion the TDA1543 for DIY DAC's at all, I have been suggesting TDA1541 and PCM63 as best choices with TDA1545 and PCM1702/1704 as other good options. The PCM56 is a reasonable outside bet. I have tried most of them BTW at some time, OS and Non-Os.
Sayonara
PS, I suspect, from your previous posts that you do not understand the relation between what is measured and how humans hear particulary well, but that is purely my personal opinion....
stefanobilliani said:My experience with non-os dac 1543 and 1541A is quite involving.
Musically good.Also surprising.
Depending on the I/V stage and Balanced or SE mode.
If one is considering specific dacs as opposed to nos in general then the tda pair are particularly dire. A commercial nos dac, AD based, (nos for reasons of cost and indifference to audio quality) from around 1992 did have decent bass and the BB stuff showed potential. But throw in a decent digital filter and things start to get interesting.
rfbrw said:
Believe me, I tried. When I got rid of them things finally started to get interesting as sound became relaxed and involving ( the question is of course what digital filter is a decent one ? ).
But you have a point in non os DACs being interesting for DIYers because of their simplicity. Also one of the reasons I like them. Probably the same reason why gainclone amps are interesting as well.
Anyway, that's 2 good reasons to like them.
Konnichiwa,
You know, I have been on and off playing with all this digital CD melake for the last 20 Years. I have fixed, modified and otherwise encountered more digital gear than I care to remember. Now that does not give me any authority, only a lot of widely spaced and heterodox experience.
Based on that experience and my personal gestalt of what I feel is REALISTIC SOUND the TDA1541 is truely outstanding. In my whole experience with digital audio I have not encountered anything that is quite like it sonically. Now a good selection grade TDA1541 is in absolute technical terms beyond criticism, in effect approaching the 16-Bit limit as closely as can be expected.
So if the TDA1541 performance is DIRE, allow me to assure you on good authority and experience that it is so because the implementation you tested left much to be desired. The TDA1541 just like any of my other "favourite" DAC's (which includes actually certain types of Delta/Sigma heavily oversampled types as well) is rather sensitive to implementation. Much of what makes or breaks the sound is/was left to the circuit designer, unlike most modern DAC's.
Actually, i found that throwing out the Digital Filter, decent or not, made things interesting. Yet as noted in other contexts, the performance is as much in the implementation as it is in the principle.
Sayonara
rfbrw said:
You know, I have been on and off playing with all this digital CD melake for the last 20 Years. I have fixed, modified and otherwise encountered more digital gear than I care to remember. Now that does not give me any authority, only a lot of widely spaced and heterodox experience.
Based on that experience and my personal gestalt of what I feel is REALISTIC SOUND the TDA1541 is truely outstanding. In my whole experience with digital audio I have not encountered anything that is quite like it sonically. Now a good selection grade TDA1541 is in absolute technical terms beyond criticism, in effect approaching the 16-Bit limit as closely as can be expected.
So if the TDA1541 performance is DIRE, allow me to assure you on good authority and experience that it is so because the implementation you tested left much to be desired. The TDA1541 just like any of my other "favourite" DAC's (which includes actually certain types of Delta/Sigma heavily oversampled types as well) is rather sensitive to implementation. Much of what makes or breaks the sound is/was left to the circuit designer, unlike most modern DAC's.
rfbrw said:
Actually, i found that throwing out the Digital Filter, decent or not, made things interesting. Yet as noted in other contexts, the performance is as much in the implementation as it is in the principle.
Sayonara
If that isn't the statement of a guru, I don't what is. To be able state so categorically that my implementation is duff without having a clue to what it is must surely point to an exalted being. As a mere mortal it occurs to me that it is possible for both of us hear the same thing and disagree as to its merits.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
This forum is hilarious. I love it when Thorsten brags about his experience. This is the guy who claimed his cross-connected coax speaker cable was "an all out Assault on the state of the Art." Of course, to make such a claim one must be Practiced in the Art. At the time he made that claim, his reference speaker cable was Radio Shack zip cord. I wouldn’t put stock in anything Thorsten says.
Konnichiwa,
The performance of the TDA1543 leaves indeed a lot to be desired and might be considered to sound "dire" by some, no beef with that.
And you lump both the TDA1543 and TDA1543 together (and you forgte to lump in the TDA1545 BTW) as sounding "dire". As it so happens, I am failiar with a number of rather justly famous of pieces of gear using the THD1541 and which are pretty much UNIVERSALLY aknowleged to sound great (Marantz CD-7, Marantz CD/DA-12, Marantz CD/DA94, several earlier model Naim CD-Players). Other items exist that are equally universally acclaimed and use the TDA1541 including the Sugden CS-Player and the Zanden DAC.
So, if the TDA1541 can produce such expeptional and exemplary performance and if good implementations sound good to pretty much everyone, shall we conclude that the TDA1541 is inherently very good and that if you fail to observe that and instead observe a performance that is "DIRE", it is the implementation (which is pretty critical) is to blame? Which was my contention to start with and I see no reason to modify my statement based on your comments so far.
So no Guru behaviour or anything of the like, merely observations and statements of fact.
Sayonara
rfbrw said:
The performance of the TDA1543 leaves indeed a lot to be desired and might be considered to sound "dire" by some, no beef with that.
And you lump both the TDA1543 and TDA1543 together (and you forgte to lump in the TDA1545 BTW) as sounding "dire". As it so happens, I am failiar with a number of rather justly famous of pieces of gear using the THD1541 and which are pretty much UNIVERSALLY aknowleged to sound great (Marantz CD-7, Marantz CD/DA-12, Marantz CD/DA94, several earlier model Naim CD-Players). Other items exist that are equally universally acclaimed and use the TDA1541 including the Sugden CS-Player and the Zanden DAC.
So, if the TDA1541 can produce such expeptional and exemplary performance and if good implementations sound good to pretty much everyone, shall we conclude that the TDA1541 is inherently very good and that if you fail to observe that and instead observe a performance that is "DIRE", it is the implementation (which is pretty critical) is to blame? Which was my contention to start with and I see no reason to modify my statement based on your comments so far.
So no Guru behaviour or anything of the like, merely observations and statements of fact.
Sayonara
I have heard all the same nonsense said about stuff like.............uh, I dunno...........Wadia.
Universally ackowledged and acclaimed by some to be state of the art, etc.
State of the art in throwing away money to make crap.
Throw in Ultra Analog too..........and some others
And your point is Signoro KYW?
BTW.........yes, it is hilarious. Some of us are only here for the comedy.
Jocko
Universally ackowledged and acclaimed by some to be state of the art, etc.
State of the art in throwing away money to make crap.
Throw in Ultra Analog too..........and some others
And your point is Signoro KYW?
BTW.........yes, it is hilarious. Some of us are only here for the comedy.
Jocko
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.