It seems the favorite DAC chip around here is the TDA1543 and everybody who has heard it raves about it, especially when multiple chips are stacked or paralleled. You know what they say: "If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is."
I recently purchased a Lite DAC-AH (eight parallel TDA1543) and gave it a listen. In a word: it’s BAD, e.g., not good. OK, it’s only $175, but it is still doesn’t sound good. The sound is coarse, crude, and congested. No detail, air, or finesse. Compared to an Audio Note DAC 1.2, it just doesn’t measure up. Of course, the AN costs hundreds more. Even compared to a stock ART DI/O, which costs less than the DAC-AH, the DAC-AH falls flat. Ordinarily I don’t care for the sound of digital filters but in this match-up I prefer the DI/O. An additional annoyance is the DAC-AH emits a constant squeal all by itself without being plugged into an amplifier.
The DAC-AH measures poorly, too. Here is the DAC-AH (upper trace) side by side with the DI/O (lower trace).
689.0625 Hz sine wave @ 0 dB
The problem is not in the output stage because I see the same thing looking at the top of the I/V resistor.
689.0625 Hz triangle wave @ 0 dB
With the TDA1543, a triangle wave looks more like a sine.
689.0625 Hz sine wave @ -7 dB
At -7dB the distortion is diminished.
689.0625 Hz triangle wave @ -7 dB
It appears the TDA1543's linearity falls off rapidly beyond 15 bits.
I know a lot of you believe jitter is the most important aspect of a DAC’s performance. Here are 0-25K Hz FFT plots of Julian Dunn’s jitter-test signal.
DAC-AH
DI/O
Finally, here are traces and plots of a 5512.5 Hz sine wave @ 0dB.
5512.5 Hz sine wave @ 0 dB
DAC-AH
DI/O
With all the added harmonic and enharmonic noise, it’s easy to see why the DAC-AH sounds as bad as it does.
I can’t say I’m disappointed with the DAC-AH because I really wasn’t expecting very much. It’s just one more in my growing collection of reference DACs. Now I know what the TDA1543 sounds like and have a reference to better judge other’s opinions about it and similar DACs.
I recently purchased a Lite DAC-AH (eight parallel TDA1543) and gave it a listen. In a word: it’s BAD, e.g., not good. OK, it’s only $175, but it is still doesn’t sound good. The sound is coarse, crude, and congested. No detail, air, or finesse. Compared to an Audio Note DAC 1.2, it just doesn’t measure up. Of course, the AN costs hundreds more. Even compared to a stock ART DI/O, which costs less than the DAC-AH, the DAC-AH falls flat. Ordinarily I don’t care for the sound of digital filters but in this match-up I prefer the DI/O. An additional annoyance is the DAC-AH emits a constant squeal all by itself without being plugged into an amplifier.
The DAC-AH measures poorly, too. Here is the DAC-AH (upper trace) side by side with the DI/O (lower trace).
689.0625 Hz sine wave @ 0 dB
The problem is not in the output stage because I see the same thing looking at the top of the I/V resistor.
689.0625 Hz triangle wave @ 0 dB
With the TDA1543, a triangle wave looks more like a sine.
689.0625 Hz sine wave @ -7 dB
At -7dB the distortion is diminished.
689.0625 Hz triangle wave @ -7 dB
It appears the TDA1543's linearity falls off rapidly beyond 15 bits.
I know a lot of you believe jitter is the most important aspect of a DAC’s performance. Here are 0-25K Hz FFT plots of Julian Dunn’s jitter-test signal.
DAC-AH
DI/O
Finally, here are traces and plots of a 5512.5 Hz sine wave @ 0dB.
5512.5 Hz sine wave @ 0 dB
DAC-AH
DI/O
With all the added harmonic and enharmonic noise, it’s easy to see why the DAC-AH sounds as bad as it does.
I can’t say I’m disappointed with the DAC-AH because I really wasn’t expecting very much. It’s just one more in my growing collection of reference DACs. Now I know what the TDA1543 sounds like and have a reference to better judge other’s opinions about it and similar DACs.
I did listen to one once but i didn't think it was that bad.
and no, i didn't buy one.
I was looking for a unit i could play(practise) with mods on.
is this a copy of doede's 1543 dac?
ps, not pcb layout.
If so, are you saying the concept doesn't work or the pcb/parts. etc layout?
have you done a comparison with other 1543 dac's
allan
and no, i didn't buy one.
I was looking for a unit i could play(practise) with mods on.
is this a copy of doede's 1543 dac?
ps, not pcb layout.
If so, are you saying the concept doesn't work or the pcb/parts. etc layout?
have you done a comparison with other 1543 dac's
allan
If your daft enough to put a sub £100 dac up against a £1000 one what else are you going to hear ?
You need to compare dac's of equal merit ...regardless of chip type.
What transport was used, was it the same for both dac's ?
I'm not here to defend the AH, but just to point out the daft nature of the comparison.
Would you compare a mini and a jaguar and complain the mini doesn't go as fast ?
You need to compare dac's of equal merit ...regardless of chip type.
What transport was used, was it the same for both dac's ?
I'm not here to defend the AH, but just to point out the daft nature of the comparison.
Would you compare a mini and a jaguar and complain the mini doesn't go as fast ?
zanash said:
i had a mini
don't knock them, they were so much fun.
allan
ps dac thingy
is this a dac-ah bad design or implementation?
if so, why does it sound better(more detail) than a standard cdplayer?
rfbrw
this person is wrong then?
http://www.dddac.de/
I'm just saying its an unfair comparison.....of course the AH will sound bad......90% of all dacs will be put to shame by the audio note.
I'm currently listing to a MF - dac3 against the DAC-AH the AH is streets ahead in clarity imaging and dynamics. My task is to get the MF dac to out perform the AH ,as it should being about 4x the cost.
I'm not knocking Mini !! just saying you would not quotes its spec against an E types and complain the minis too slow !
I'm currently listing to a MF - dac3 against the DAC-AH the AH is streets ahead in clarity imaging and dynamics. My task is to get the MF dac to out perform the AH ,as it should being about 4x the cost.
I'm not knocking Mini !! just saying you would not quotes its spec against an E types and complain the minis too slow !
That's absolutly correct ........1543 is not a good dac chip ....did I ever say it was ?
But its like trying to compare apples and pears....
superficially they can look the same but inside they are utterly different.
I'm just pointing out that IMO you need to compare like with like otherwise its a completely daft comparison. Its not meant to be a personal attack on your integrity or your judgement.
Of course the AN is better dac by miles than the lite AH..... though its has more to do with components used and there implimentation than to do with the chips, though this will of course play a small but significant part.
Which AH varient did you listen to ?
If you had compared say the MF X-dac and the AH you would have made a much fairer comparison. The X-dac when new was only 3x the price of the AH. I'm absolutly certain if you had compared the X-dac to the AN 1.2 you would have reached the same conclusion, you could then say the X-dac was rubish .......
In fact as the AN dac is pehaps one of the very best dac available at any price you could say every other dac is rubish.
Which comes neatly back to my contention that it was a daft comparison........IMO
I am allowed to express my own opinion arn't I ?
I do hope this isn't one of those boards, were you get crucified if you don't follow the herd mentality.
But its like trying to compare apples and pears....
superficially they can look the same but inside they are utterly different.
I'm just pointing out that IMO you need to compare like with like otherwise its a completely daft comparison. Its not meant to be a personal attack on your integrity or your judgement.
Of course the AN is better dac by miles than the lite AH..... though its has more to do with components used and there implimentation than to do with the chips, though this will of course play a small but significant part.
Which AH varient did you listen to ?
If you had compared say the MF X-dac and the AH you would have made a much fairer comparison. The X-dac when new was only 3x the price of the AH. I'm absolutly certain if you had compared the X-dac to the AN 1.2 you would have reached the same conclusion, you could then say the X-dac was rubish .......
In fact as the AN dac is pehaps one of the very best dac available at any price you could say every other dac is rubish.
Which comes neatly back to my contention that it was a daft comparison........IMO
I am allowed to express my own opinion arn't I ?
I do hope this isn't one of those boards, were you get crucified if you don't follow the herd mentality.
rfbrw said:
does this mean that doede's(http://www.dddac.de/) dac's are a waste of time?
also
how do you know if it's the device(dac in this instance) or the
implementation?
allan
It is the fact, the 1543 is :bs:
The low cost version of the 1541.
Possible that some lucky people get a good one.
I recently tested old PCM53 and got huge variations.
The span was -35 dB harmonics from the worst chip to -60 dB from the best chip tested with -60 dB signal...
That means if one just plugs a chip into a board without knowing how good it is, the result is absolutely random.
8 in parallel does mean from statistics that there will be good ones and bad ones, and the bad ones will spoil the sound.
And 1543 is a stereo DAC which makes it even more difficult.
/
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.