60 chip DDDAC1543 Mk2 vs TentLab DIY DAC

[MGH]

Hi all,

I'm relatively new to the DIY scene but want to try to build one of these two kits. Doede's 60 TDA1543 chip version (5 DAC towers) of his DDDAC1543 Mk2, although economical in its 12 chip version, really adds up the cost as you add more towers. Guido's Tentlab DAC ends up costing about the same, when you factor in cost of the whole package. It seems like the Tentlab is more high end (eg, more sophisticated circuit, oversampling chip, tubes etc) and DDDAC1543 simpler using NOS chips and battery power supply. The real question is which sounds more analogue (more lively, airy, detailed etc). I would like your opinions so I can make my final purchase decision. Thanks.

MGH

[pburke]

Why don't you first build a small DDDAC (24 chips will do) and see what you think? You can always spend more money afterwards. I don't think you'll get a significant enough improvement between 24 and 60 chips to justify the extra cost, unless you do really want to spend that much.

I'm listening to a 16 chip DAC and don't really feel that there's much more to ask for. It's a price/performance issue once you go beyond 24 chips.

And I doubt you'll find anyone who has heard both DACs you want compared, so you will have to make a choice based on biased comments like mine. All I know is I have yet to find a DAC that sounds better to me than what I have right now. For me, the USB interface alone is why I use the DDDAC.

Peter

[phn]

There's nothing "high-end" about adding tubes to a DAC. That's just a way to your wallet. There are lots of examples of people adding tubes to some lousy CD player in order to hide their shortcomings. It's completely backward.

You don't use a tube headamp for vinyl because you need more tubes in the signal path. You do it because you need more gain.

The 47 Laboratory Progression DAC comes with a single 1543 DAC. The Gemini comes with two. Those must really suck.

You're right, there's little (zero) to gain by going 60 chips.

Stop believing the marketers. That's for the la-la-land of Stereophile.

[dsavitsk]

Originally posted by MGH
The real question is which sounds more analogue (more lively, airy, detailed etc). I would like your opinions so I can make my final purchase decision.

I find that the TDA1543 sounds more lively and detailed yet less airy as you add more chips. A single chip is the must lush version. For my money, if you want both in a NOS design, use a TDA1541A, or use a TDA1543 with a high quality gain stage. (I can't speak to the Tent Lab DAC as I know nothing about it.)

[00940]

Originally posted by phn
There's nothing "high-end" about adding tubes to a DAC. That's just a way to your wallet. There are lots of examples of people adding tubes to some lousy CD player in order to hide their shortcomings. It's completely backward.

There's much more than tubes in the Tentlabs DAC to qualify it as high end. Compared to the DDDAC, it has :

- oversampling and gentle analog filtering and will thus not send high frequency crap in your amp,
- a secondary PLL to really get rid of some jitter, not like asynchronous reclocking which actually adds jitter,
- very good R2R dacs which don't need to be paralleled to achieve good specs,
- a slightly better spdif receiver section.

You can probably save a bit by not using the tube section of the tentlabs dac and replacing it by a solid state section.

Not to say that the DDAC cannot sound good, but they certainly aren't "high end" design.

[phn]

The only thing "high-end" means is high price. It means to pay more for less.

Linn charges €20,000 for a PC and a Linux OS. It's called Knekt Kivor. Maybe Linn uses specially made "audio hard drives." Or could it be that it's just a rip off.

But I'm not here to talk "high-end," which I don't acknowledge anyway, or which is the better buy. That only you can decide.

[MGH]

Thanks guys for your insights. I'm not trying to start a flame war on what's considered "highend" or not. I never meant to imply "highend" means better. As I said, what matters to me is the sound. Doesn't matter if it's cheap, mickey mouse, sophicated, made of gold or plastic, whatever...Of all the DIY DACs I've read about, these two appears most prominsing to me.

I'm not sure if I believe the commnent about 1543 chip sounding less airy as you add more chips. Most people stated just the opposite. Pburke, could you enlighten me on this?

If anyone has heard the Tentlab DAC, please chime in.

Thanks again.

[Ulas]

MGH,
You might want to consider the technology involved: It’s ancient. As I recall, the PCM63 debuted around 1990 and the TDA1543 appeared a year later. If you don’t think digital audio has made any progress in the last 15 years then either of those DAC chips should suit you. Furthermore, if you are a true devotee of first generation, “Perfect Sound Forever”, I can sell you a pair of original Burr-Brown PCM54s so you can relive the glory days of the digital audio revolution.

[phn]

Originally posted by Ulas
MGH,
You might want to consider the technology involved: It’s ancient. As I recall, the PCM63 debuted around 1990 and the TDA1543 appeared a year later. If you don’t think digital audio has made any progress in the last 15 years then either of those DAC chips should suit you. Furthermore, if you are a true devotee of first generation, “Perfect Sound Forever”, I can sell you a pair of original Burr-Brown PCM54s so you can relive the glory days of the digital audio revolution.

The sad truth is, I don't think there has been any progress. The audio press has been saying digital sound reproduction finally has matured every month for a decade now. I believe THEY believe it by now.

I'm not saying things don't get better. But you have to make a distinction between real progress and marketing and gimmicks, like upsampling.

A CD usually has less than 14 bits. Why does a DAC need more? A speaker element can only reproduce one tone at the time, and anything above 20k or so is irrelevant. Why do we need more than 44.1 kHz?

As far as I'm concerned, digital sound reproduction has matured the day we stop thinking about specs of the DAC chip and focus on design. It has worked wonders for tube gear.

[MGH]

Hi Ulas,

I would have to agree with Phn on this. I know these chips were produced back in the early 90's, but tubes were produced many decades ago - prehistoric compared to digital technology. I prefer the sound of well designed tube equipment over its ss or chip counterparts anyday. And what about the good old turntable; no one is going to argue digital playback is better than LP. The TDA1541 double crown is still used in at least one highly regarded DAC by Zanden. Like Phn says, it's the implimentation that's more important than the hype/specification of a DAC chip. I don't believe more (oversampling, >16 bits, etc) is better in digital playback, SACD excepted but we all know SACD production by mainstream record company is at a stand still and DVD-A almost dead. That's why I'm moving away from the current generation "audiophile" DACs and CDP which are overpriced IMHO.

But getting back to sound, I would appreciate more discussion about the sound, rather than the technology behind it. Thanks.