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
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
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
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
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.
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.
MGH said:
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.)
There's much more than tubes in the Tentlabs DAC to qualify it as high end. Compared to the DDDAC, it has :phn said:
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ulas said:
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.
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.
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.
I've been using NOS TDA1543 based DAC over the last three years. Last year I wanted it to compare it to the current technology and bought Benchmark DAC1, but disappointed, I sold it after a week. Last July, I also bought ML360S, a nice DAC and technologically quite advanced. Since then, I didn't have it running for more than 10 hours total: I simply cannot listen to it, being spoiled by TDA1543 
Last week I finally decided to sell the Levinson as well.
BTW, a modified ML37 makes a quite a decent transport, I wouldn't get rid of it.
Last week I finally decided to sell the Levinson as well.BTW, a modified ML37 makes a quite a decent transport, I wouldn't get rid of it.
phn said:
Nice to see a well thought out, common sense view.
I think that CD reproduction is finally maturing into the product that it could have been 10 years ago. I firmly believe that the majority of issues with CD sound are due not to the DAC chips, but to the quality of the power supplys and output stage components. The root cause of this lack of quality components was the cost of the DAC chips. The development of cheaper DACs like the 'Bitstream' and 'Delta-Sigma' had more to do with reducing costs than improving sound. These new chips did much to improve/smooth the sound of cheap CD players, but the quality players from this era are, on the whole, soul-less and boring but beautiful sounding. The current upsampling craze is the Bitstream of the 21st century.
Not only would I like to see less importance placed on the chips, but also on the measured performance. The simple NOS DAC has a sound quality far in advance of most quality 90's players but would give HiFiChoice etc and their graphs heart failure: 'Perfect Sound Forever' indeed.
MGH said:
I posted DAC credits here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=599639#post599639
and some pics here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=599611#post599611
Schematic attached below.
/exits from lurking mode
I can't help but notice everyone singing the TDA1543's praise, but really, it is just a mediocre performer. If you compare it directly to a properly implemented (yes, that means over/upsampling) PCM1704, CS4396, CS42122, PCM1792/94, AD1955, WM8740 you'll quickly realize what you've been missing. That is if your equipment is able to reproduce the added resolution, detail and stereo depth. I've built an 8-pcs TDA1543 DAC according to Doede's schematics and have compared it to the above mentioned DACs numerous times and the TDA1543 always comes up finishing last.
Best regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
I can't help but notice everyone singing the TDA1543's praise, but really, it is just a mediocre performer. If you compare it directly to a properly implemented (yes, that means over/upsampling) PCM1704, CS4396, CS42122, PCM1792/94, AD1955, WM8740 you'll quickly realize what you've been missing. That is if your equipment is able to reproduce the added resolution, detail and stereo depth. I've built an 8-pcs TDA1543 DAC according to Doede's schematics and have compared it to the above mentioned DACs numerous times and the TDA1543 always comes up finishing last.
Best regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
TDA1543 is really mediocre. Lots of distortion that adds "involvement???" Usually distortion goes up as oversampling factor goes down. I tried only TDA1541 from Philips DACs in non os and couldn't stand it. Distortion goes up. Too warm sounding. Bad multibit DACs have poor low level performance which adds crossover distortion and sounds like poor classB amplifier. TDAs have no provision for MSB adjust implemented. TDAs are stereo DACs and can not be selected to have equal distortions on both channels. Disturbs soundstage.
16 bit should be enough. No DAC whatsoever performs better than 16 bit. More bits just reduce noise floor. Nothing more.
Try to find a >16bit industrial instrumentation DAC. 18 bit is the end...
Hi bit high os DACs settle fast and may make problems for I/V stage.
High os DACs are sensitive to jitter.
Very good bitstream sound smooth because of near perfect linearity but are a little soft in bass.
Non os has better bass, can confirm that...
16 bit should be enough. No DAC whatsoever performs better than 16 bit. More bits just reduce noise floor. Nothing more.
Try to find a >16bit industrial instrumentation DAC. 18 bit is the end...
Hi bit high os DACs settle fast and may make problems for I/V stage.
High os DACs are sensitive to jitter.
Very good bitstream sound smooth because of near perfect linearity but are a little soft in bass.
Non os has better bass, can confirm that...
SSassen said:
Compared to the Sony PlayStation gaming console, Linn, Krell, Naim, B&O, Mark Levinson, whathaveyou, all sound like the overpriced bling they are. All it proves is that everybody can make a lousy CDP.
I'm not saying the TDA1543 chip is the be all in audio. Far from. With 12-13 real-world bits, it is indeed mediocre. But tell Junji Kimura his Progression DAC is mediocre and every journalist that says it's not that they are all wrong. Or do they all just have mediocre sound systems that can't reproduce "the added resolution, detail and stereo depth" of your system?
Upsampling has nothing to do with proper implementation. Upsampling is the product of production needs rather than consumer needs. Such a relatively simple thing as the digital volume control could not exist without upsampling. You all know this, but a digital volume controls throws away data when you lower the volume. With 16 bits there's no bit left to spare. One thing that strikes everybody about the 16-bit PlayStation is the low-level information. THAT is proper implementation.
The TDA1543 chip is mediocre. So are those low-bandwidth transformers found on some of the highest praised SETs. Every SET owner knows his amp is a trade-off. A TDA1541 with the high output voltage of the TDA1543 would probably have been a killer, just as a SET with the bass and dynamics of a PP amp would.
The last two replies are a tell tale sign of individuals that have yet to make the distinction between the different types of harmonic distortion and the effect distortion has on the width and depth of a stereo image or even the tonal character of an amp/cd-player/etc.
The Playstation is by far the worst of the lot, you can't compare that to a Krell or any other properly engineered piece of kit. Just the fact that it is defunct of any filtering makes it a device spouting all sorts of high and mid-band distortion, let alone the digital articfacts of the D/A concersion process that are passed without attenuation. If you think that's a prime example of a good cd-player I'll quickly go back into lurking mode, no need to waste more time discussing this further.
/enters lurking mode
Best regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
The Playstation is by far the worst of the lot, you can't compare that to a Krell or any other properly engineered piece of kit. Just the fact that it is defunct of any filtering makes it a device spouting all sorts of high and mid-band distortion, let alone the digital articfacts of the D/A concersion process that are passed without attenuation. If you think that's a prime example of a good cd-player I'll quickly go back into lurking mode, no need to waste more time discussing this further.
/enters lurking mode
Best regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.