| audiodesign |
After some test with No oversampling DAC chip I think that the AD1865 is the best.
If compared to the new technology DAC chips like AD1955 and CS4397 since to be more natural.
The old TDA have a too close sound and with these some particulars are lost.
The preview of my article is here
http://www.audiodesignguide.com/DacNoOverSampling/
But where I can get some AD1865 chips to create a kit ?
Someone have tested the AD1861 or the AD1851 with th esame technology ? |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by audiodesign
After some test with No oversampling DAC chip I think that the AD1865 is the best.
If compared to the new technology DAC chips like AD1955 and CS4397 since to be more natural.
The old TDA have a too close sound and with these some particulars are lost.
The preview of my article is here
http://www.audiodesignguide.com/DacNoOverSampling/
But where I can get some AD1865 chips to create a kit ?
Someone have tested the AD1861 or the AD1851 with th esame technology ? |
Did you try PCM56 ? Same as AD1856 = 16 bit version of AD1861.
Best IMHO.
Every kind of TDA sucks, right.
Do you use an analog filter ?
I tried everything from unfiltered over transformer filter to active & passive brickwall and passive brickwall sounds best.
Your THD numbers seem to be a little bit.high.
Why only show spectrum to -80dB ? |
|
|
| QSerraTico_Tico |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bernhard
...........and passive brickwall sounds best.
........... |
Any schematic?
Do you use a digital filter? |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by QSerraTico_Tico
digital filter? |
:eek: |
|
|
| audiodesign |
No digital filter
I/V converter made with a Caddock MK132
No analog filter, in the final version a LL7903 wil be used to increase the output voltage and tii create a natural filter |
|
|
| Cauhtemoc |
| You should consider the AD1862 as well, it is the bigger brother of the AD1865. |
|
|
| audiodesign |
I cannot find a shop to by the AD1861 or Ad1862
A question:
- also the new product dac like ad1955 could be used without digital filter and no oversampling ? |
|
|
| QSerraTico_Tico |
| quote: | Originally posted by audiodesign
No digital filter
I/V converter made with a Caddock MK132
No analog filter, in the final version a LL7903 wil be used to increase the output voltage and tii create a natural filter |
You will have birdies all over the place... and intermodulation poducts. What is a "natural" filter?
My question was addressed at Bernard though. |
|
|
| QSerraTico_Tico |
| quote: | Originally posted by audiodesign
I cannot find a shop to by the AD1861 or Ad1862
A question:
- also the new product dac like ad1955 could be used without digital filter and no oversampling ? |
Group buy for AD1862 on this forum!
AD1861 I still have at least 4 for sale. |
|
|
| QSerraTico_Tico |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bernhard
:eek: |
Do I take that "eek" for a no? |
|
|
| audiodesign |
price for 2 x ad1861 ?
I cannot find the group buy the ad1862 |
|
|
| QSerraTico_Tico |
| quote: | Originally posted by audiodesign
price for 2 x ad1861 ?
|
Sorry I have to correct myself; I have only for sale the 16-bit AD1851.
(The AD1861 is an 18-bit DAC)
How would you use an 18-bit or 20-bit DAC NON-OS anyway? Not using the MSBs will make it sound very faint. |
|
|
| whatsup |
| quote: | Originally posted by audiodesign
the new product dac like ad1955 could be used without digital filter and no oversampling ? |
Folks, the excitement is building and it is only a matter of time before the worlds first 1-bit NOS DAC is announced right here in this forum! |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by QSerraTico_Tico
Do I take that "eek" for a no? |
Yes, a no. |
|
|
| A'af |
Hi,
I have some AD1865N and AD1865N-K to sale, -K is for military grade, pls mail me further, thanks.
all the best,
a'af |
|
|
| rfbrw |
| quote: | Originally posted by whatsup
.....it is only a matter of time before the worlds first 1-bit NOS DAC is announced right here in this forum! |
It already has. Two years ago. |
|
|
| QSerraTico_Tico |
| quote: | Originally posted by A'af
Hi,
I have some AD1865N and AD1865N-K to sale......................
a'af |
Me too! |
|
|
| rfbrw |
| quote: | Originally posted by QSerraTico_Tico
Me too! |
A crash in the AD1865 market ? A revaluation of the TDA1541A can't possibly be far behind. |
|
|
| QSerraTico_Tico |
| quote: | Originally posted by rfbrw
A crash in the AD1865 market ? A revaluation of the TDA1541A can't possibly be far behind. |
:D
:clown: |
|
|
| minivan |
i found this on the chinese website, i am on the hunt for a dac
is this dac any good? retail for $2980 RMB (yuan) before shipping
● Standard input: Coaxial SPDIF, Optional input: USB-SPDIF，AES/EBU
●Input sample rate: 44.1, 48, kHz/16/18BIT Auto detection
● Signal to Noise ratio:>110db
● Dynamic range：105dB
● Total Harmonic Distortion：1KHZ%0.005
● Rated Power: 2VPP
● Frequency Response: 20-20kHz-0.2db
● Total Power >30W
●Dimensions: 430*270*65mm
●Weight: 5.2kg |
|
|
| robot |
Looks nice for 400$, which is converted price, strong built, with a switching button which looks like famous "lounch missile" button in B action movies. Actor have to cut one of wires to stay alive, red or black, or yulong s gonna blow....:dead:
Number 16 Fs actually worries me, anyway, I think that guys from Romania, made better dac...rockna
But, I agree with audiodesign, ad 1865K is awesome, natural, punchy and had a plenty of detail. Worth every cent. |
|
|
| tubee |
| Anyone tried that AD1865 Rockna dac? And compared to the 24 bit upsampler from Rockna? |
|
|
| fatmarley |
Has anyone heard the WM8741 from Wolfson Electronics?
128dB SNR in mono |
|
|
| fatmarley |
Wow! great review.
I use a budget Cambridge Audio 640v2 (Mono WM8740's) and it's made me think the TDA1541A is getting a bit dated.
I replaced the electolytic coupling capacitors with films, decoupled the DACs with Oscons, replaced the 7805 that feeds the clock with a Pinkfish flea CLICK HERE and
used a LM1086/VBE to feed the 5v analogue supply to the DAC.
I'm really pleased with the results and i havn't touched the 78xx/79xx +/-15v supply to the opamps (NE5532)....Yet!
I'm going to build a basic LM1086/337 supply and when thats fitted, i will experiment with the opamps. |
|
|
| tubee |
| Clock upgrade in the Cambridge? |
|
|
| fatmarley |
| I didnt upgrade the clock because it looks like a good one. I replaced the 7805 fixed regulator with a pink flea and built a seperate PSU for it (Transformer, bridge rectifier and cap) |
|
|
| Spartacus |
Hope to try the WM8741 in the next couple of weeks.
Dan |
|
|
| rfbrw |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spartacus
Hope to try the WM8741 in the next couple of weeks.
Dan |
Where did you get it ? The website cites an eight week lead time. |
|
|
| Spartacus |
| "Engineering samples" from a distributor. They are an older revision, but apparantly have the same perfromance. |
|
|
| fatmarley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spartacus
Hope to try the WM8741 in the next couple of weeks.
Dan |
Hhmmm - Cheltenham.
Would love to hear the WM8741 ;) |
|
|
| Spartacus |
Matt, I'm sure that can be arranged!
Dan |
|
|
| fatmarley |
Cool!
My email address is: mattfarley at msn dot com |
|
|
| rubydac |
I used digital schematic from Audio Note DAC Kit 1.1
AD1865N-K NO OS, 12AU7 output and EZ80 rectifier.
Walt jung super regulator + spectral dmc-20 for +/- 5V analog supply.
Single board completed.
Thanks
Rubydac |
|
|
| QSerraTico_Tico |
| What is Spectral DMC-20? Any schematic? |
|
|
| ak_47_boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bernhard
Every kind of TDA sucks, right.
|
TDA1543 is one of the best. People want 24bit now though because of sacd. |
|
|
| QSerraTico_Tico |
| quote: | Originally posted by ak_47_boy
TDA1543 is one of the best. People want 24bit now though because of sacd. |
It's also about implementation: type of IV-conversion, low-pass filtering, output buffer.... |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| 1543 distorts like hell, no matter how proper is implementation. |
|
|
| QSerraTico_Tico |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bernhard
1543 distorts like hell, no matter how proper is implementation. |
There is no causal relationship between distortion and sound quality. |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| :hypno2: :rofl: :hypno2: :rofl: :hypno2: :rofl: :hypno2: :rofl: :hypno2: |
|
|
| rfbrw |
| quote: | Originally posted by QSerraTico_Tico
There is no causal relationship between distortion and sound quality. |
And there is no correlation between a windscreen covered in mud and a lack of visibility. |
|
|
| QSerraTico_Tico |
| quote: | Originally posted by rfbrw
And there is no correlation between a windscreen covered in mud and a lack of visibility. |
Yeah if you start mud slinging..... |
|
|
| zener_diode |
WOW! That Youlong is pretty old school.
I built a couple of DACs with Analog Devices' converters before...
nice, but I like the Burr Brown chips better. |
|
|
| audiodesign |
| Rubydac sell the pcb ? |
|
|
| robot |
I don t see anything revolutionary in rubydac s design, he simply switched audio note version of sulzer with jung regulators, tube output with tube rectification. Identical approach to a glue logic, as old romans used to say: nihil nove sub sole.
I tried lundahl 1636 passive, fets, but sole tungsol 5687 kick *** to all of them. :dead: |
|
|
| tubee |
nihil nove sub sole: Niets nieuws onder de zon
We use that phraze too still. |
|
|
| audiodesign |
I have tested today a pair of LL7903 to increase the output level but the result was a bad sound.
The AD1865 since to be perfect with a caddock 200-250 ohm resistor and nothing else
I will try soon a ECC82/12AU7 stage after this passive I/V conv |
|
|
| robot |
At first to explain my dac, I used dsavit s boards ad1865/5687 with ccs, but I used power supplies like audio note does it for digital board, and I used 220R audio note tantalum resistor on I/V conversion. Putting LL1636 on the output looked nice with some bass restriction, and lack of punchy - solid state kick. Sound with lundahl is very neutral across the whole audio spectrum but I feel that I miss some "action". Experiments with scope would probably solve problem of matching impedances which is crucial for the best ad output. Putting 5687 on the output of the dac changed sound and made it crispy, punchy with lot of detail, witihout any trace of treble harshness. Whole dac is in the inox case, with big power supply and 10H choke, clrcrcrcr...
(nothing new under the sun..:)))
I presume that would be interesting to see the values of audio note dac 5 interstage transformer (I think around 680R in primary), which replaces I/V resistor. |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by audiodesign
I have tested today a pair of LL7903 to increase the output level but the result was a bad sound.
The AD1865 since to be perfect with a caddock 200-250 ohm resistor and nothing else
I will try soon a ECC82/12AU7 stage after this passive I/V conv |
did you terminate the secondary ?
if not, there will be ringing and it will sound ugly...
play a cd wth a square wave and watch it with a scope.
adjust with a 50kohm pot across sec. until ringing disappears. |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by robot
Sound with lundahl is very neutral across the whole audio spectrum but I feel that I miss some "action". Experiments with scope would probably solve problem of matching impedances which is crucial for the best ad output. Putting 5687 on the output of the dac changed sound and made it crispy, punchy with lot of detail, witihout any trace of treble harshness. |
personally I am afraid tube output stages will always add some kind of coloration to the sound (?) |
|
|
| Bernhard |
What are the best transformers ?
Lundahl, Malotki, Western Electric, UTC, Tango ?, what else ??? |
|
|
| robot |
Any active component adds something to sound, that s obvious, but if I have to choose I prefer chain which consists of a few parts than a bunch of transistors, opamps and other stuff.... I wrote on other place rather poetically, that a dac with solid state output is electronic component, and with tube output is a musical instrument.
:angel:
For example, I m using for sound comparing, and testings my friend s rather old combination of meridian 200/203 which uses very good SAA r2r dac, but it has infamous ne5534 opamps behind famous meridian digital stuff, and I think with a decent tube output would make this oldboy a killer dac.
Anyway I think that combination with a transformer on I/V than tube is very promissing in this case.
Considering best transformer, aren t Lundahls now in Jeff Rowland s gear? |
|
|
| Bernhard |
Recently I found a link to a website where big tubes are used for DAC outputstage but lost it...
Anybody knows the link ? |
|
|
| audiodesign |
My test untin now are test:
1) only a 320ohm Caddock MK132 resistor connected to DACT 10k and to the amplifier
2) a 320ohm Caddock MK132 connected to LL7903 1:4 and to the DACT 50k and after to the amplifer
3) no resistor, connected to LL7903 1:8 and to the DACT 50k and after to the amplifer
case 1 play very good
case 2 play bad
case 3 play better but I not sure better than case 1
case 3 = audionote choice |
|
|
| robot |
There was a discussion a few years ago about this conception of I/V conversion on this forum, witihout any useful conclusion. Its obvious that audio note uses some transformer with silver wire behind dac very expensive indeed, but unknown specifications, so copying this witihout usage of their transformer is not effective, and probbably wasting time and money.
We all know about thorsten s try to copy an dac 4 signature, his adagio . It s obvious that he used I/V resistor, and some filtering before cf e182cc. Not an easy task I belive. I think the main difference between using transformer and tube output is lack of bass in first case, so combining those two approaches probably solves that problem. |
|
|
|
