| Bernhard |
Huh !
Today I received my CD880 with S1 chip.
It is the one from ebay of which the link was posted in another thread :rolleyes:
I have listened with Sennheiser HD430* to a couple of CDs so far and I slightly prefer the CD650 and CD304mkII.
Both have the plain 1541 inside. No A, no S1, no R1, just 1541.
The CD880 is very fast on skipping titles or replay from beginning, there is no doubt the machine is in excellent condition.
How it sounds to me.
CD880:
Warm, colorated, a little too bright in the upper mids ?
A little distant, a little like a conserve.
CD650:
Neutral, very direct. Envolving. Perhaps , if there was anything to complain, a little too cool.
This hits me :bawling: :smash:
The same with CD830, 1541A, as with CD880.
Maybe I will change my opinion after some time, but now when I listen to CD650 I get the "this is it" feeling and I miss it on the CD880.
So I will put a socket in one of the CDPs and listen to different chips.
Anybody compared 1541 to 1541A / S1 ?
Bernhard
*Just sold my DT990 on eBay, way too much bass for my taste.
My speakers need room equalisation per digital eq for the ground tones... |
|
|
| guido |
I guess all are not modified ?
Anyway, there are more differences than the DAC: the 650 has 7220A dig filter (vs 7220B) and probalbly a different decoder (7210 vs 7310). The B filter should be better, but maybe better filtering causes more rubbish on the supply lines (?)
CDM transport differs too, CDM2 vs CDM4. Saw a post somewhere that the CDM2 has a bruchless motor and CDM4 does not. An advantage for the 650..
Don't know about other differences, PS and output. I do know the 650 build quality is ****. Tutto plastico as we say.
Cant compare anymore myself, my 650 is not standard anymore.
:xeye:
Greetings |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by guido
I guess all are not modified ?
Anyway, there are more differences than the DAC: the 650 has 7220A dig filter (vs 7220B) and probalbly a different decoder (7210 vs 7310). The B filter should be better, but maybe better filtering causes more rubbish on the supply lines (?)
CDM transport differs too, CDM2 vs CDM4. Saw a post somewhere that the CDM2 has a bruchless motor and CDM4 does not. An advantage for the 650..
Don't know about other differences, PS and output. I do know the 650 build quality is ****. Tutto plastico as we say.
|
Yes, the CD650 is plastic and the CD880 has 3mm steel plate + aluminum chassis made from one piece.
CD880 has CDM1mkII also with brushless spindle. |
|
|
| eganz |
| time for some mods... |
|
|
| Bernhard |
Maybe tweak with older 7220A ?
The sound of the older players just seems to be a little more open. |
|
|
| LeoJar |
I also owned the CD880.
I do think that the different of the sound quality on different machine is mainly due to the earphone circuit itself. For your reference, 880 is using two 5532s.
It is hard to compare two DACs chip without fixing other variable.
So, the comment here should be on the whole machines rather the DACs.
Cheers,
Leo
By the way, I do love the audio output of 880 (using OP2604)....You may try.. |
|
|
| Bernhard |
I couldn't stand it anymore...
Removed the S1 from my CD880, put single full gold plated socket pins inside and installed banana chip from CD650 ( plain 1541, no A, no S1 ).
First & immediate impression:
:xeye: :D :D :D :D :D :xeye:
It sounds right, very open, transparent, smooth and silky highs.
The S1 chip was 100% original, the board untouched.
Somebody had put in a socket for the 7220, I can see it because there are remains of the flux on the board.
I will compare to 1541A and S1 from my bulk order and have a look at all of them with spectrum analyzer. |
|
|
| till |
i suspect humans need a little more distortion for a pure, open, transparent and so on sound. Thats the reason why Tube amps are high end , and all the solid state listeners need to tweak and solder around in hifigear until something is messed up, they reach more THD, and are confident with the new high end sound.
This may also be the reason why the ultimate highest end hifi gear ist TDA1543 with resistor i/v and a gainclone with fancy caps. |
|
|
| jean-paul |
It could just be an S1 which is not OK. Why would the SAA7220P/B be replaced otherwise ( in the faultfinding process )? Cdplayers with flaws are sold easily on Ebay. 1541's can fail, certainly the older ones. Often you can hear a soft scratching noise when you just powered up the cdplayer if they're defective. Please note that TDA1541A and TDA1541A-S1 are the same from the same production line with the S1 being selected for better specs. So comparing a new A to the A-S1 in question can provide the right conclusion.
Sorry Till, but your post seems a bit sour. One of the big reasons that non os TDA1543 sounds very good is that simply has less jitter than os DAC's. It could be that our ears prefer less jitter over 24 bit 96 kHz that should be better according to specs. Precision in the time domain seems more of influence than precision in the DA conversion. Removing a SAA7220 will "prove" some of this phenomenon.
I almost never see anyone commenting on TDA1543 in standard 4 x Fs configuration. Believe me, it sounds less than good. Other oversampling DAC's win with a large margin in that case.
You know my opinion about gainclones with fancy caps. BTW other amps can benefit from fancy or good industrial caps instead cheap types as well. Try it. I don't buy more THD being the reason of the success of LM3875 based amps.
| quote: | | the solid state listeners need to tweak and solder around in hifigear until something is messed up, they reach more THD, and are confident with the new high end sound. |
Maybe true in some cases but nonsense in general. |
|
|
| till |
| absolutely not sour, please don´t take every word i post to serios. I beliver THD is an absolutely overrated spec and something like transient response, or the ability not to compress, is much more important for music reproduction. And i belive every cheap film cap is much better than 15$ Elkos. Please note, i don´t say the TDA1543 sounds bad. I only experienced its very easy with a few ohms more or less to change between 0,05 or 3% THD with this chip and passive i/v. And i´m not so sure if the 3% at full load sine wave made the sound worse in any way when music was played with that setup. |
|
|
| jean-paul |
| quote: | | And I believe every cheap film cap is much better than 15$ Elcos |
Trying a BG N series in the smaller values can give other insights. Believing is something people do in religions.
| quote: | | I only experienced its very easy with a few ohms more or less to change between 0,05 or 3% THD with this chip and passive i/v. And i´m not so sure if the 3% at full load sine wave made the sound worse in any way when music was played with that setup. |
Don't know what voltage you put on the TDA but some people try to make it produce 2 V at its output or running it out of spec in one way or another. It is an economy chip with plain bad specs and it needs tweaking for less THD. Not so strange when you consider the passive I/V which is impossible with most chips. The load has influence as well when doing passive I/V. Don't focus too much on TDA1543 for being the ultimate DAC chip. It isn't.
A TDA1541A and TDA1545A are better DAC chips in specs but the first is very sensitive when not implemented right ( pcb design is really difficult if you want to do it right ). The multiple supply voltages don't make things easier either. The second can not do passive I/V.
TDA1543 is dead cheap, needs only one supply voltage and can do passive I/V with reasonable high output voltage which is quite rare nowadays. If there would be any other chip that had better specs and the positive features I just mentioned I am sure people would use that one non os instead. There are some chinese equivalents ( of TDA1545A ) that are more modern and maybe one of these days we see a post declaring those being better than the beloved TDA1543. Whatever reasons one can come up with, TDA1543 costs 1 Euro and nothing can beat that in combination with the sound it produces. |
|
|
| till |
my belive is the only base to judge. For example too make the descision what to buy and what to try. There can not be anything better than my belive, as i´m not able to know whats real. I can only belive what i experience is the reality.... Erkenntnistheorie
I´m able (or i belive i´m able) to hear a differenve between music played with my speakers and the rooms door into free air is open or closed. I´m able to hear in a larger room it sound better. I´m not able to hear the brand or type of a resistor or cap.
back on topic.
I used 5V for the TDA1543 and the good reason to use it for experiments instead of the 1541 is i get about 10 of them for one 1541. I tried all the resistor values i found in circuits on this boars, and most measured terrible. I was not able to get a good result with those high values for the Vref resitor found in the diagramms. I ended up soldering trimmers instead of resistors in the board and tuning with sine wave applied, watching the THD. At the best point i stoped and unsoldered the trimmers and measured the values. All posted in another thread.
I found R/ Vref 100R and Ri/v 1100R was best.
I don´t really know why the DAC with 74HC04 measured better than the noniverted.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...3878#post343878
regretable that thread has died, and more input from some DAC gurus would bring us some steps forward.
For the PCB: i can´t make PCBs and do everything with prototyping board or point to point. In case the PCB is that critical it may be impossibl for me to build a 1541 DAC. But i´ve seen a picture of an IBM AT made in wire wrap...
What about all those AN Dacs like 1865, 1861 ... DIP and cheapest;) ??? |
|
|
| jean-paul |
| quote: | | I found R/ Vref 100R and Ri/v 1100R was best |
That sure is a defective TDA1543. Kaputt. Buy some others and test again.
| quote: | | I´m not able to hear the brand or type of a resistor or cap. |
Unbelievable. One of the first things I noticed when I started this hobby at young age was that MKP film caps sounded different than MKT and in that time they sounded always better than electrolytic caps too. The error was to change components too much, it is just a means for better sound when the circuit and implementation are OK in the first place.
When you apply 2 different caps per channel with a selector switch one simply must hear the ( sometimes small ) difference. |
|
|
| till |
I tested 3, and all got higher THD with higher or no resistor at Vref pin. There was a step in THD from 400 Ohm up it rised to extreme values.
to me this looks perfect and not kaputt: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...3902#post343902
also it made a very fine square wave at 20kHz. |
|
|
| Bernhard |
I don't think it is defective, I did not like the A version so much either.
Once I had a Philips with 1543 inside and the sound was real ugly ****.
Didi not listen again yet. |
|
|
| jean-paul |
| quote: | Originally posted by till
I tested 3, and all got higher THD with higher or no resistor at Vref pin. There was a step in THD from 400 Ohm up it rised to extreme values.
to me this looks perfect and not kaputt: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...3902#post343902
also it made a very fine square wave at 20kHz. |
Too late for reading all that now but your resistors don't correlate with the values extracted from the formulas for TDA1543. They sure differ from my setup or any other one I've heard or seen. It seems to me that there is something quite wrong over there. Please calculate with the given formulas. There is an excellent explanation on how to understand the datasheet of TDA1543 of Rbroer. First use 5V before putting kilovolts on the poor TDA. Or look up the Kusonoki schematics for proven results/values. I am a declared non paralleling person so don't start on that.
| quote: | | Once I had a Philips with 1543 inside and the sound was real ugly ****. |
Bernhard, did you listen to it non os ( yet ) ? It may sound better than 4 paralleled TDA1541's ;) |
|
|
| till |
i did use 5V, there is no way to get more out of a 7805 with sense connected to GND.
were this expalation is to find? and what should the other resistor value change? I intended to run tests with D1 stage next. |
|
|
| jean-paul |
Try looking up posts of Rbroer maybe ?!?!
Why would you implement D1's output stage when the DAC is not in good working order ? I also think Rbroers active I/V for TDA1543 is a shorter path to success than changing a design that was designed for other DAC chips that like to see 0V at the output....
Please keep it simple and build it so that it functions OK. When it is OK you can add THD/distortion for beter sound ;)
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...7226&highlight= |
|
|
| till |
äh- is it that bad? music comes out and the inverted and noniverted sinewave on the scope looks good. Only thing not in order is i got this result with non audiophile voltage regulators (7805) and resistor values other than usual. The THD measurements absolute value i don´t trust, how much of the 0,07% may come from soundcard or noise from long inetconnects/computer) and als i consider 0,07 a very good value - maybe not for a DAC but for a system. Show me a speaker reproducing at these levels?
So i would be happy if i get some advice what exactly is faulty with the DAC.
As i stated in that thread, with this passiv IV i get really not much voltage. If i use resistors to have more voltage THD increases to ridicolous values. As i have a low voltage gain system i want a) balanced (doubles my voltage gain) and b) more voltage output what could easy be done with 2 FETs of D1 stage.
And Pass/Mosfet diskussion: Fets are more easy to handle than tubes because no really dangerously high voltage (with one big disadvantage: they don´t glow, at least under normal operating conditions i cant always guarantee) And the discret way solves problems using lot voltage and bias. A very easy way not to sensitive to layout, decoupling caps etc like ICs.
thanks for the link!
to me a D1 stage looks simpler than an opamp. Also you need only half of the circuit shown in the manual if you don´t use low impedance amp behind. Not more than few caps, handfull resistors and 2 Fets |
|
|
| jean-paul |
Be assured, I use 7805 all the time. Again, D1's output stage is designed for DAC chips that like to see 0V at their outputs.
Without having read the thread you mentioned ( I have other things to do ) I dare to state that those values indicate that something is definitely non standard in your setup/measurements. 900 mV output is possible with 5 V supply voltage.
Why not build a standard TDA1543 non os schematic and measure/evaluate that one ?!?!? Carefully read the older threads about TDA1543, you'll find lots of valuable information. Rbroer is very active on designing good I/V stages for TDA's.
Good night ! |
|
|
| till |
I started building Feddes schematic, DDDac schematic with only one DAC, on peter daniel posted, and got not much voltage / and or bad THD. So i made the test for resistor value with pots. There is nothing speacial different with my circuit, and i build it more than once: one for test signe device, and a second constiting of two identical only one of them inverted.
The D1 stage is easy to trimm to every voltage at the output you want to see. Also it looks (see test) like it could handle positive and negative current also. (without the buffer Fets) and else, what about cap coupling the DAC to D1?
For the measuements: It would be difficult to make a scope picture like the posted one without the DAC representing exactly that waveform... and for absolte very low values with computers FTT i don´t know. But relative minimum is relative minimum. So the only thing questionable i do see is the resistors value at Vref, right? |
|
|
| Bernhard |
Listened to all of them via headphones.
Best: 1541 from CD650.
2nd best: Chip marked S1 & silvercrown from bulk purchase.
2nd worst: Chip from CD880 marked S1 and sticker "selected Q".
Worst: 1541 A from Grundig CD 903.
About the 1541 from CD650:
The male and female voices sound darkest with this chip, but still have same amount of highest highs and best transparency.
Contrast between dark and high sound is best.
Tomorrow I will pull out the plain 1541 from my CD304mkII and listen to them. |
|
|
| rfbrw |
| quote: | Originally posted by jean-paul
Again, D1's output stage is designed for DAC chips that like to see 0V at their outputs.
|
Just like the TDA1541 and TDA1543.
ray. |
|
|
| jean-paul |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bernhard
Listened to all of them via headphones.
Best: 1541 from CD650.
2nd best: Chip marked S1 & silvercrown from bulk purchase.
2nd worst: Chip from CD880 marked S1 and sticker "selected Q".
Worst: 1541 A from Grundig CD 903.
About the 1541 from CD650:
The male and female voices sound darkest with this chip, but still have same amount of highest highs and best transparency.
Contrast between dark and high sound is best.
Tomorrow I will pull out the plain 1541 from my CD304mkII and listen to them. |
Why should I start a thread about "my" TDA1543 **** ? I prefer TDA1541A over TDA1543 but implementation is a lot more difficult. The thread went into this direction and sometimes life is like that. Besides that all has been said about those chips. It is more a repetition of things said earlier. That also counts for TDA1543 of course. When I want to look up info I just search in the old threads and find what I need instead of starting a new thread. Sometimes I save all info in one document and make a pdf of it for future reference.
BTW you haven't even answered if you listened to TDA1543 non os at all as I asked you some posts ago and also in another thread IIRC. It is likely that you have an opinion from just looking at the datasheets. I certainly don't like the rude headline.
Concerning TDA1541A: Listening to cdplayers via the headphone output can colour your findings. Philips is not very famous for making good headphone outputs. NJM4560 is used often and that one is worse than the ones used for I/V and filtering ( Most of the time LM833 ). It could very well be that the cdplayer you prefer has NE5532 instead of NJM4560 in it which can be the cause for better results. |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by jean-paul
I certainly don't like the rude headline.
|
I said "please". Is this rude ?
No, I did not listen to 1543 in non os mode.
But all the 1541 I ever heard were not in non os either.
So, if the 1543 will be better non os, the 1541 will be better again in non os also.
When I listened to 1543, I did not have data sheet...
I plugged all 4 chips in my CD880 which got 5532 for headphones.
So same conditions. |
|
|
| jean-paul |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bernhard
No, I did not listen to 1543 in non os mode. |
I had that feeling already. So you post in several threads without even having ever listened to it in non os ? How can you possibly comment just looking at datasheets ?
| quote: | | So, if the 1543 will be better non os, the 1541 will be better again in non os also. |
This might be true in theory but it is a lot more difficult to screw up things with 1543 than with 1541. So expect good to very good results from 1543 earlier than from the other one. |
|
|
| Bricolo |
| quote: | Originally posted by jean-paul
I prefer TDA1541A over TDA1543 but implementation is a lot more difficult. |
Jean-Paul, would you agree to share your knowledge? ;) |
|
|
| till |
| ok, what about we ask a moderator to move the non TDA1541 listening stuff to another thread to keep this clean. |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
The TDA1543 discussion started with the following statement. Why don't you give me the post numbers to be moved and the new thread title and I'll clean it up?
| quote: | Originally posted by till
This may also be the reason why the ultimate highest end hifi gear ist TDA1543 with resistor i/v and a gainclone with fancy caps. |
|
|
|
| Bernhard |
1 kHz sine from test CD, Cursor @ 2 kHz, all chips show -39dB or -38.9dB
Is this realistic ? |
|
|
| Bernhard |
Ups, it looks also exactly the same when played on a Technics CDP.
The CD is rather old, could be the sine is recorded from analogue source with distortion included. |
|
|
| Bernhard |
I listened to my CD304mkII again today,and it still was better compared to CD880. (Plain 1541 in both players.)
More relaxed and open sound :( , more air and bigger sound stage. :bawling:
What else could it be if not the DAC chip ?
Pulled out the 7220A from the CD650 and plugged it into the CD880 and:
:D :D :D
Sound is now the same like CD304 and CD650.
No doupt, the 7220B is ****. Old 7220A is better.
I would be happy if somebody could compare them too and confirm it here :rolleyes:
Now new shootout between DAC chips :clown: |
|
|
| jean-paul |
From an old thread:
| quote: | TDA1541A versions will work on either SAA7220A or B
TDA1541 version ( non A ) needs pin 4 to be connected (internal reclocker). It really depends on implementation of a cd player if pin 4 of TDA1541(A) is connected to BCK for example or not.
|
| quote: | | No doubt, the 7220B is ****. Old 7220A is better. |
They're both not too good really. Remove it ( be it P/A or P/B version ) and bypass datalines and enjoy the sound. If there would have been a pincompatible upgrade for SAA7220 I would probably never have tried non os ;)
When you want to continue with the chip please feed it from a separate supply and decouple it with OSCON or a cap with RF qualities. It is responsible for the garbage on the 5V line now. Just replacing the original cap with OSCON 100 uF 20V sometimes nearly halves the garbage.... |
|
|
| Bricolo |
| quote: | Originally posted by jean-paul
From an old thread:
They're both not too good really. Remove it ( be it P/A or P/B version ) and bypass datalines and enjoy the sound. If there would have been a pincompatible upgrade for SAA7220 I would probably never have tried non os ;)
When you want to continue with the chip please feed it from a separate supply and decouple it with OSCON or a cap with RF qualities. It is responsible for the garbage on the 5V line now. Just replacing the original cap with OSCON 100 uF 20V sometimes nearly halves the garbage.... |
Jean-Paul,
Can a RC (or Choke-C) filter work on this chip?
This is something I saw many times in CD players, but only on the opamps.
Can't we do this on a digital chip? |
|
|
| zygibajt |
| quote: | | I would be happy if somebody could compare them too and confirm it here |
I compared them some time ago (I think it was in CD 650) and my guess is that SAA7220P/B is better.More relaxed,but the diffrance isn't that big.
Also compared DAC's and I think TDA1541 is worst,sounds kind of poor.TDA1541A is better ,more relaxed,cleaner ,better imaging.
And TDA1541A/S1 is still much better,much more detail and better imaging.
I think comparing this DAC's it is important to have good PS,and some good analog stage.Also the speakers and amplifier have to be good (reveal a lot) to hear those diffrances clearly.
Jean-Paul
Do you have any idea why when I exchanged SAA7220P/A for P/B version in my Philips CD 304MKII the player doesn't work? DAC chip is changed from TDA1541 to "A" version.
| quote: | | When you want to continue with the chip please feed it from a separate supply and decouple it with OSCON or a cap with RF qualities. It is responsible for the garbage on the 5V line now. Just replacing the original cap with OSCON 100 uF 20V sometimes nearly halves the garbage.... |
Which series fof OS-CON's do you usually use?
Bartek |
|
|
| Bernhard |
The CD880 is sticked with Cerafines :D
3 for the 1541 :D
2 for each 5532 :D
6 around the volume control chip :D
And for each fixed output to which is connected the headphones amp,
2 for each in series, negative pins tied together :mad:
To compare with the CD304mkII, i removed them and put 10µ ERO 1860 MKC axial + 15n orange Siemens KP.
Sounds now as good as the moddded 304. |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by jean-paul
From an old thread:
They're both not too good really. Remove it ( be it P/A or P/B version ) and bypass datalines and enjoy the sound. If there would have been a pincompatible upgrade for SAA7220 I would probably never have tried non os ;)
When you want to continue with the chip please feed it from a separate supply and decouple it with OSCON or a cap with RF qualities. It is responsible for the garbage on the 5V line now. Just replacing the original cap with OSCON 100 uF 20V sometimes nearly halves the garbage.... |
In my CD880 A and B Versions work both with all kinds of 1541 chips, no problem.
Isn't there a cristal near the 7220 ???
Can I bypass all 3 lines ?
Would be easy due to the socket.
I will try some good silver mica. |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by zygibajt
*I compared them some time ago (I think it was in CD 650) and my guess is that SAA7220P/B is better.More relaxed,but the diffrance isn't that big.
**Also compared DAC's and I think TDA1541 is worst,sounds kind of poor.TDA1541A is better ,more relaxed,cleaner ,better imaging.
And TDA1541A/S1 is still much better,much more detail and better imaging.
***I think comparing this DAC's it is important to have good PS,and some good analog stage.Also the speakers and amplifier have to be good (reveal a lot) to hear those diffrances clearly.
Bartek |
*This is funny, for me it is the opposite.
**Again funny, for me best is 1541, second S1 silvercrown, then S1 with Q sticker, worst 1541A.
***Yes. Did you remove the output electrolytics in the CD304/CD650 ? |
|
|
| Bricolo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bernhard
The CD880 is sticked with Cerafines :D
3 for the 1541 :D
2 for each 5532 :D
6 around the volume control chip :D
And for each fixed output to which is connected the headphones amp,
2 for each in series, negative pins tied together :mad:
To compare with the CD304mkII, i removed them and put 10µ ERO 1860 MKC axial + 15n orange Siemens KP.
Sounds now as good as the moddded 304. |
what's this volume control chip? Is it the DVR-03? (a small pcb) |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bricolo
what's this volume control chip? Is it the DVR-03? (a small pcb) |
No, it is DVR-1.
It uses cd4051 cmos switches & 5532 op amp, all smd on a ceramic pcb. |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by jean-paul
If there would have been a pincompatible upgrade for SAA7220 I would probably never have tried non os ;) |
What about SAA7030 ?
It seems to provide 4fs, left right separation and binary offset / twos complement choice.
Could that be good for the L+ L- R+ R- thing ?
Is output format 14 or 16 bit ?
It was designed for the 1540 14bit DAC chip. |
|
|
| Bricolo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bernhard
No, it is DVR-1.
It uses cd4051 cmos switches & 5532 op amp, all smd on a ceramic pcb. |
can you tell me more about this? do you know how it works? |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bricolo
can you tell me more about this? do you know how it works? |
I think it does binary switching of film resistors which are on the pcb.
But due to use of 4051 cmos switches it is garbage :confused: |
|
|
| jean-paul |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bernhard
In my CD880 A and B Versions work both with all kinds of 1541 chips, no problem.
Isn't there a cristal near the 7220 ???
Can I bypass all 3 lines ?
Would be easy due to the socket.
I will try some good silver mica. |
You're right about the crystal. Since I always use low jitter clocks I omit the crystal anyhow. With the original crystal you can bypass the lines as found on the web or here but you need the SAA for oscillator purposes. The influence of a low jitter clock is quite shocking in these cdplayers. Best advise is to use a low jitter clock whether the cdplayer be non os or os. I stand by my opinion that it is 50 % of all mods in cdplayers when done right and fed with a clean ( read separate ) supply.
You can use a choke as found in for instance CD80 and the like. Even better is a separate 7805 ( or better ) just to feed the SAA if you want to continue with it. Please check the 5V line with a scope to see what SAA does with that line.
| quote: | | Do you have any idea why when I exchanged SAA7220P/A for P/B version in my Philips CD 304MKII the player doesn't work? DAC chip is changed from TDA1541 to "A" version. |
Bartek, I did the replacement of this combo too long ago to remember what the exact changes were. Please refer to a schematic of a cdplayer with the TDA1541A/SAA7220P/B combo to see what's different from the original schematic of your cdplayer with the non A version. I don't have any cdplayer with the non A version and I don't collect those either ( that also counts for CDM 1 machines ).
About the OSCON, I use older SA series with the white print on it and ferro wires since I was able to buy them quite cheap. The market prices of OSCON are high and because of that I have not tried any other series. The low price I paid keeps me from complaining about the ferro lead wires ;) |
|
|
| jean-paul |
FWIW I have the opposite experience regarding the TDA1541/SAA7220P/A combo. The newer combo is better in my ears. A/S1 is slightly better than A and A/S2 really is the best. I recently fitted one A/S2 in a heavily modded ( by myself ) CD80 and I was pleasantly surprised. The higher price prevents me from buying more of those but they are the best there is for me in the TDA area.
As I understood Elib still has S2 in stock so take the challenge ... |
|
|
| Bernhard |
I did not compare the chips with the better coupling caps yet.
Have all TDA1541A been through the selection process ?
The plain 1541 has not been selected, so everything is possible if you have one of these chips.
Could be very good or very bad.
Or did they put better ones in the more expensive players ?
The CD304mkII did cost 2000 DM. That's a lot... |
|
|
| zygibajt |
| quote: | | ***Yes. Did you remove the output electrolytics in the CD304/CD650 ? |
I used separate discrete analog stage with no electrolitycs in signal path (happen to have about 2mV DC offset at both channels)
Thanks Jean-Paul for the answer.
What is your current main player that you are using?
Is it CD 80 or CD-3 from Cambridge Audio?
Just courious.
Bartek |
|
|
| chlo |
Just took TDA1541a S1 Q Selection out (which I took from CD80) and put TDA1541 back in well modded Philips CD960. After listening for two days I put TDA1541a S1 Q Selection back.
The TDA1541 sounds very noisy, dark, less detail, bass is fat. In contrast, TDA1541a S1 Q selection sounds cleaner, lively, a bit brighter, more detail and bass is solid and well control, music presentation is almost same as TDA1541.
Bartek, CD80 has 1 TDA1541a S1 Q Selection, and Cambridge Audio CD3 has 3 TDA1541 I believe.
Chuong |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by chlo
The TDA1541 sounds very noisy, dark, less detail, bass is fat. In contrast, TDA1541a S1 Q selection sounds cleaner, lively, a bit brighter, more detail and bass is solid and well control, music presentation is almost same as TDA1541.
|
For my ears the TDA1541a S1 Q selection and 1541A sounds too bright.
S1 silvercrown is closer to 1541.
Still have to compare with the new caps. |
|
|
| Bricolo |
what is a TDA1541 S1 Q?
Isn't it the same as a S1? |
|
|
| guido |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bernhard
I listened to my CD304mkII again today,and it still was better compared to CD880. (Plain 1541 in both players.)
More relaxed and open sound :( , more air and bigger sound stage. :bawling:
What else could it be if not the DAC chip ?
Pulled out the 7220A from the CD650 and plugged it into the CD880 and:
:D :D :D
Sound is now the same like CD304 and CD650.
No doupt, the 7220B is ****. Old 7220A is better.
I would be happy if somebody could compare them too and confirm it here :rolleyes:
Now new shootout between DAC chips :clown: |
|
|
|
| zygibajt |
Guido,
Maybe you have any idea why ma Philips CD 304MKII doesn't work when I exchange SAA7220P/A for P/B version?
Unfortunatly I have no schematics for it.
Bartek |
|
|
| Bernhard |
The 14 decoupling caps were cheap MKT.
Now Siemens MKL 0,47µF.
Are Cerafines good for op amp decoupling ?
Still, what you see on the pic sounds more real than S1 silvercrown.
 |
|
|
| jean-paul |
| quote: | Originally posted by zygibajt
I used separate discrete analog stage with no electrolitycs in signal path (happen to have about 2mV DC offset at both channels)
Thanks Jean-Paul for the answer.
What is your current main player that you are using?
Is it CD 80 or CD-3 from Cambridge Audio?
Just curious.
Bartek |
Never had a CD80 ( I just work on them ) and the Cambridge is no more :bawling:
It took me too long to repair and there were too many faults so I used the parts. Still have the pcb's and unscratched frontcover for anyone that would like to have spare parts for his/hers CD 3.
I am back for a while to my old modded Marantz CD65 Mk II plastic box, sometimes I use a Philips SAA7321GP 1 bit machine. The latter is unmodded ( but will be modded in time ) but even in original state it is OK ( for a 1 bit machine ;) ). The other CDM4 cdplayers I have are just stock and since I have enough spare parts I think I will sell the models that I am not *very* enthousiastic about. I sold my newlike Sony CDP-X3000ES because I did not use it ( although sound was good ) and I am again looking for other cdplayers as usual.
Even though I had some expensive cdplayers I always take the cheap types seriously as sometimes they can be better than their more expensive brothers. Sometimes I listen to an unmodded 100 Euro machine for a month as it can work refreshing. IMO it is good to take a hobby not too seriously just once in a while.
| quote: | | Bartek, CD80 has 1 TDA1541a S1 Q Selection, and Cambridge Audio CD3 has 3 TDA1541 I believe. |
CD3 has SAA7220P/B and 4 pcb's with TDA1541A and uses 16 x Fs. BTW the Q selection = S1. |
|
|
| zygibajt |
| quote: | | I am back for a while to my old modded Marantz CD65 Mk II plastic |
Hey,I know them very well!One time I had three of them.Sold two of them modded a bit.I still have one but recently switched all mods to Philips CD 650 as I found it sounded better less modded (might be just diffrent).Philips uses CDM 2 with brushless motor,which I think are much better than those from CDM 4.
But I had that motor in my CD65MKII,too (you might know this one ,but if not ,send me an e-mail and I will tell you how very easily to have much better transport in CD65MKII).
Have you ever seen CD65DX? Almost the same,but might be a little diffrent.
Do you have schematics for CD 65MKII?
And If yes,would you be so kind to send it to me?
Bartek |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| Compared CD304 to CD880 and whatever DAC chip I put into the 880, the 304 still sounds better. :( |
|
|
| chlo |
Hello Bernhard,
Replace all Elna Cerafine in analog stage of your CD880 with Panas FC, you may like the 880 more! I really hate these Elna caps, most CDP from Philips and Marantz uses them in analog stage. I removed them all and put Panas in, sounds much better!.
Cheer. |
|
|
| zygibajt |
Bernhard and others!
Have you guys tried non-os mode in those Marantz and Philips players?
This is some 4-th or 5-th time I try it (tried it today again),and again I don't like it.
I didn't put low pass filter on my separate analog stage but also,I'm using full range drivers (just looking for the supertweeters) that have very little output above 15Khz.
Everybody seems to like it ,and I just don't know what is the problem with me.
Bartek |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| Isn't non oversampling reverses the phase? Did you switch the speaker wires?;) |
|
|
| rfbrw |
| quote: | Originally posted by zygibajt
Bernhard and others!
Have you guys tried non-os mode in those Marantz and Philips players?
This is some 4-th or 5-th time I try it (tried it today again),and again I don't like it.
(snip)
Everybody seems to like it ,and I just don't know what is the problem with me.
Bartek |
You shouldn't feel too bad about it, you are not alone. It just seems that way.
ray. |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by chlo
Replace all Elna Cerafine in analog stage of your CD880 with Panas FC, you may like the 880 more! I really hate these Elna caps, most CDP from Philips and Marantz uses them in analog stage. I removed them all and put Panas in, sounds much better!.
|
Chlo,
ok, what about good 1µF MKP ?
Also throw out the 3 Cerafines from TDA1541 5V -5V -15V supply pins ?
Still my 304 sounds a very little better, I even put 2 4556 in my CD880 for the headphones and kicked the 5532 out to come closer to the sound of the CD304.
Bernhard |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by zygibajt
Have you guys tried non-os mode in those Marantz and Philips players?
This is some 4-th or 5-th time I try it (tried it today again),and again I don't like it.
Everybody seems to like it ,and I just don't know what is the problem with me. |
:xeye: This is the 100th time I put the S1 in my player and I don't like it.
Everybody seems to like it ,and I just don't know what is the problem with me. :xeye:
No, I did not try non OS , instead of finishing my DAC, I do mods on my CD880...
Bernhard |
|
|
| jean-paul |
| quote: | | Still my 304 sounds a very little better, I even put 2 4556 in my CD880 for the headphones and kicked the 5532 out to come closer to the sound of the CD304. |
???? |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by jean-paul
????
|
My CD304mkII with few mods sounds nearly perfect, I can't say that about the CD880 yet.
Just replaced all Cerafines that were around the opamps with MKPs, maybe now... |
|
|
| Bricolo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Peter Daniel
Isn't non oversampling reverses the phase? Did you switch the speaker wires?;) |
No, I don't think so. But passive I/V reverses the phase ;) |
|
|
| zygibajt |
| quote: | | Isn't non oversampling reverses the phase? Did you switch the speaker wires? |
I don't know about that,but there is very little diffrance on my GC when I switch the speaker ends.
| quote: | | You shouldn't feel too bad about it, you are not alone. It just seems that way. |
Thanks.
The non-os sound always seems to me dirty and cloudy.
Some chaos is getting into the music.It is better in some respects,but can't listen to it,makes me tired.
Maybe I will try with separate DAC.
Bartek |
|
|
| jean-paul |
| quote: | Originally posted by zygibajt
Philips uses CDM 2 with brushless motor,which I think are much better than those from CDM 4.
But I had that motor in my CD65MKII,too (you might know this one ,but if not ,send me an e-mail and I will tell you how very easily to have much better transport in CD65MKII).
Have you ever seen CD65DX? Almost the same,but might be a little diffrent.
Do you have schematics for CD 65MKII?
And If yes,would you be so kind to send it to me?
Bartek |
Hello Bartek, I have CD65DX as well but I never looked into the differences as its only purpose is to be a spare cdplayer.
I think your mod is to fit CDM2 motor in CD65, isn't it ? Heard of that before but I never did that. How do you connect motor control to the mainboard of CDM4 based cdplayers ?
Sorry, I don't have the schematics, I use one of the Philips sister models.
Jean-Paul |
|
|
| chlo |
Hi Bernhard,
ok, what about good 1µF MKP ?
Do you mean 14 de cap around 1541?.
Also throw out the 3 Cerafines from TDA1541 5V -5V -15V supply pins ?
I normally changed all of them wherever they are in!. you can try 20V 100uf here!.
Cheer, |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by chlo
Also throw out the 3 Cerafines from TDA1541 5V -5V -15V supply pins ?
|
Do you throw them out because they are old, or because they don't sound well? |
|
|
| chlo |
they are certainly old and do not sound good as cap I tried (Panas FC). I have not got any new to compare!.
Chlo |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| I got some new ones and tried them directly on TDA1543 DAC and they didn't sound bad. I actually preferred them to Panasonic HQF and Rubycone (Z?). They sound somewhat mellow, but don't present the brightness other electrolytics posses. Also, Nichicon Gold had similar, laid back characteristic. |
|
|
| zygibajt |
| quote: | | Hello Bartek, I have CD65DX as well but I never looked into the differences as its only purpose is to be a spare cdplayer. |
Jean-Paul
Would you please send me a blank e-mail,so I could e-mail you?
I have a question,and I will also write you about CD65MKII
Bartek |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Peter Daniel
They sound somewhat mellow, but don't present the brightness other electrolytics posses. |
Do you think that electrolytics as decoupling caps give more brightness ???
I was thinking because of loss of capacity @ high frequency they should sound darker, compared to foil.
My CD880 still got a very small amount of brightness that I do not like. In any case I believe that. It is very difficult to say, but when I change to the CD304, I got the impression that it is a little darker and highs are little bit smoother, and it is always right.
I just put a socket for the 1541 in the CD304 and will try S1.
The CD304 got 14 smd chip caps for the 1541... |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by chlo
Hi Bernhard,
ok, what about good 1µF MKP ?
Do you mean 14 de cap around 1541?.
Also throw out the 3 Cerafines from TDA1541 5V -5V -15V supply pins ?
I normally changed all of them wherever they are in!. you can try 20V 100uf here!.
Cheer, |
No, I meant 1µF MKP for decoupling of the opamps.
I have already 1µF MKP for the for the -15V supply and the 14 decoupling caps of the 1541.
+/-5V is still Cerafine.
Also there are another 7 Cerafines on board which I believe are also connected to the 15V rails and might be decoupling of the volume control ceramic board. So if Cerafine spoils sound they might still do.
I like to try the 1µF MKP also for the 5V supply pins of the 1541.
It is very hard to solder if parts are connected to the groundplane. :( |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| It may be worthwile to experiment with different caps types, as I found that in even in digital supply capacitors swapping makes a difference. And some electrolytics are more bright and harsh than others. IME, Nichicon Gold and Cerafines were less bright sounding than other types. I found Sprague Extralytics especially bright, quite a disappointment as I always thought about them as a premium grade. |
|
|
| Bernhard |
Just draw a schematic of the CD880 output stage from the pcb and I found a strange transistor 2N4859.
Any idea what it is for ?
There is 1,5kohm in the feedback loop of the I/V converter opamp.
Parallel is / should be 5,6nF.
Now they put the BE junction of the 2N4859 in series with that 5,6nF cap.
C of 2N4859 is connected via 4,7Mohm / 100kohm in series to V+.
From where 4,7Mohm / 100kohm are tied together, it goes another 4,7Mohm to the other channel. |
|
|
| jean-paul |
| It's the standard deemphasis circuit switched with a FET. |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by jean-paul
It's the standard deemphasis circuit switched with a FET. |
Never seen any non os circuit with deemphasis.
Is it necessary ?
Can I throw out all parts, except X1 & R1 ? |
|
|
| till |
| quote: | | Never seen any non os circuit with deemphasis. |
look into the thread were Peter Daniel posted the 3 "famous" non oversampling schematics |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by till
look into the thread were Peter Daniel posted the 3 "famous" non oversampling schematics |
Does the thread have a name ?
Searching the forum is such a mess. :dead:
Can I throw out all parts, except X1 & R1 ? |
|
|
| Bernhard |
Till,
thanks,
was it you who wants to use AD1865 ?
I think the main problem is that it needs 18bit input.
The SAA7345 could provide that, if you find a CDP with that chip...
Put a 220µ/10V Oscon close to the SAA7220 today.
The output stages of the Philips CDPs have 3,4V DC offset :(
So they need a coupling cap :bawling:
What about the modified schematic below ?
There is a voltage divider in the feedback loop with one end connected to 6,8V instead to ground.
So DC offset on output is eliminated.
And some gain is provided. |
|
|
| till |
| yes, i want a 1865 DAC. The DAC wants 18 Bit but if i only have 16 i need to give him two zeros each word. The main problem is, its justified otherway than standart I2S for the TDAs |
|
|
| jean-paul |
| quote: | | Can I throw out all parts, except X1 & R1 ? |
I would throw out all parts and start again with a discrete I/V like the ones Rbroer designed. Better do it right directly instead of doing it only half good and needing to work on it a second time. Now don't ask me which thread please.
I think your attitude towards finding information yourself is not very enthousiastic. How do you think we find things ? You can't seriously expect that every thing you ask is served at once on a silver plate.... |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by jean-paul
You can't seriously expect that every thing you ask is served at once on a silver plate.... |
But that's what I want, because I have only one live and do not like to waste it, searching forums. ;)
Seriously, the question is more complex, the garbage of the oversampling DAC has 4x higher frequency, so letting it pass could be more of a problem compared to non os.
I do not like to turn the CD880 into a rat nest, I was lucky enough all the MKPs and the Oscon fitted...
The one and only solution would be to rebuild the whole board including microprozessor.
So I only change all parts for the best I can get and leave the topologie as is.
Then I can compare sound to the external 4chip DAC later.
Thats the only purpose of the modding.
Also unfiltered oversampling would be only an option for the external DAC.
So far: |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by till
yes, i want a 1865 DAC. The DAC wants 18 Bit but if i only have 16 i need to give him two zeros each word. The main problem is, its justified otherway than standart I2S for the TDAs |
As far as I understand it from the SAA7345 data sheet, beside I2S also 18bit formats may be selected. |
|
|
| jean-paul |
| quote: | I do not like to turn the CD880 into a ratsnest, I was lucky enough all the MKPs and the Oscon fitted...
The one and only solution would be to rebuild the whole board including microprocessor.
So I only change all parts for the best I can get and leave the topologie as is.
Then I can compare sound to the external 4chip DAC later.
Thats the only purpose of the modding.
|
I understand what you mean as I like to work tidy as well. It is not an excuse for leaving a technical less good solution because of tidyness...
Rbroer offers nice PCB's for his discrete I/V stage. No ratsnest whatsoever.
Besides that, why change the parts if you'll build an external DAC anyway ?!?! Better make it analog stage-less and omit the SAA7220 and implement a low jitter clock. Less garbage on the supply lines too. You'll be surprised how much a low jitter clock can do for the soundquality.
| quote: | | Seriously, the question is more complex, the garbage of the oversampling DAC has 4x higher frequency, so letting it pass could be more of a problem compared to non os. |
This is not more complex, on the contrary. The 176 kHz of os DAC's is more easy to filter than the garbage in non os DAC's ( that's a lot closer to the audible band ). After all it was one of the advantages that came along when oversampling became standard. Simple Bessel filtering instead of brickwall filtering was one of the features that helped to sell oversampling to the consumer...
| quote: | | But that's what I want, because I have only one live and do not like to waste it, searching forums. |
This is the last reaction you get from me. I don't want to waste my time on people asking questions that all have been covered before just because they're too lazy to do some effort. Good luck with your 4 x parallel TDA1541A that will probably sound better than that dreadful non os TDA1543 ( that you never heard ) ;) |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by jean-paul
I understand what you mean as I like to work tidy as well. It is not an excuse for leaving a technical less good solution because of tidyness...
Rbroer offers nice PCB's for his discrete I/V stage. No ratsnest whatsoever.
Besides that, why change the parts if you'll build an external DAC anyway ?!?! Better make it analog stage-less and omit the SAA7220 and implement a low jitter clock. Less garbage on the supply lines too. You'll be surprised how much a low jitter clock can do for the soundquality.
This is not more complex, on the contrary. The 176 kHz of os DAC's is more easy to filter than the garbage in non os DAC's ( that's a lot closer to the audible band ). After all it was one of the advantages that came along when oversampling became standard. Simple Bessel filtering instead of brickwall filtering was one of the features that helped to sell oversampling to the consumer...
This is the last reaction you get from me. I don't want to waste my time on people asking questions that all have been covered before just because they're too lazy to do some effort. Good luck with your 4 x parallel TDA1541A that will probably sound better than that dreadful non os TDA1543 ( that you never heard ) ;) |
* I want to compare the sound of the standard topologie with that of the external DAC, so I just put same quality parts inside the CD880.
Non os, discrete, tubes maybe, parrallel chips, low jitter clock, all that is for the external, and I will be able to hear the difference and know if it is worth the trouble.
* It is clear that 176kHz is more easy to filter, but what happens if you do not filter ?
176kHz garbage could be more of a problem than 44 kHz.
* I heard the 1543 in os and did not like it.
To my logic it seems that both chips should benefit from non os if they do. So why use the inferior 1543 ?
Also you should know that people have different opinions.
Some like 1543, others 1541.
Some like non os, some don't.
Some prefer S1, others plain 1541 :xeye:
Some love 5532, others 627.
Some trust in Paper in oil, others believe it's ****.
And I definitely do not like the 1543. |
|
|
| rfbrw |
| quote: | Originally posted by till
yes, i want a 1865 DAC. |
So build one. At this rate, there is more chance of the AD1865's turning back into sand.
ray. |
|
|
| till |
Bernhard will beat me because this appears in his pure 1541 thread.
As i learned i need to set the CD PRO to another than default DAC mode. OK. I don´t know which of the modes, and i need to programm a PIC for sending at least [Set Dac mode ??] and [play] as DSA commands to the CD PRO 2.
Or use that damned spdif and a 8412. |
|
|
| Bernhard |
After putting Oscon close to SAA7220, I compared again to CD304.
Still CD304 sounds faster, smoother, more relaxed, while CD880 sounds a little nervous, bass is hard, highs too bright.
After all the mods...
One last thought before killing myself:
What difference is left between these two players :confused:
Both CDM1(mkII)
CD304 chip decoupling, CD880 HQ MKP ---> better.
CD304 NE5532 plastic, CD880 NE5532A ceramic ---> better.
Both same coupling cap @ output but CD304 additional silver mica bypass :confused:
CD304 cheap electrolytic for SAA7220, CD880 OSCON ---> better.
CD304 cheap electrolytic + KP bypass for opamp decoupling, CD880 MKP :confused:
CD304 4556 for headphone amp, CD880 2x4556 parallel :confused:
Both plain 1541 chip
Guess what it was ?
I cut six legs :devilr:
Now the CD880 sounds like heaven :D
No audible difference between these two so far. |
|
|
| zygibajt |
CD 880 = CDM1/MKII
CD 304 = CDM 1
Those are totaly diffrent mechanics.CDM 1 being superior to CDM 1/MKII
My 304MKII doesn't sound that good,yet.
I will see if the diffrance between tranasports is hearable when I mod the same things in 304 that I did in my current CD 650 (CDM 2).
Bartek |
|
|
| chlo |
I currently have Marantz CD80 (CDM1/Mk2, 1541a S1 Selection), Philips CD960( CDM1 and swapping in Sa7220p/b & 1541 S1), Arcam delta Cd 70.2 (CDM4/11 and TDA1541 S1 silver Crown) and Rotel RCD855 (CDM4/19 TDA1541a). Without modification they were all sound poor but after mods they sound fantastic, and very close to each other. I certainly like the CD960 most, may be CDM1 makes sound better!..
Cheer |
|
|
| Bricolo |
| quote: | Originally posted by chlo
I currently have Marantz CD80 (CDM1/Mk2, 1541a S1 Selection), Philips CD960( CDM1 and swapping in Sa7220p/b & 1541 S1), Arcam delta Cd 70.2 (CDM4/11 and TDA1541 S1 silver Crown) and Rotel RCD855 (CDM4/19 TDA1541a). Without modification they were all sound poor but after mods they sound fantastic, and very close to each other. I certainly like the CD960 most, may be CDM1 makes sound better!..
Cheer |
please tell us more about your mods! |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by zygibajt
CD 880 = CDM1/MKII
CD 304 = CDM 1
Those are totaly diffrent mechanics.CDM 1 being superior to CDM 1/MKII
|
Why is plain better than mkII ?
I did not have a closer look at the mkII transport yet.
All I know is that the CD304mkII is slow and CD880 is fast.
Are both exchangeable ? |
|
|
| zygibajt |
They are just very diffrent.
Both have brushless motors (each one diffrent),but CDM 1 is all aluminium cast,even swing arm and lens holder.
You have both at home.
Just put them apart and compare opticly...you will understand.
Bartek
CDM1/MKII is more like better version of CDM 4
CDM 1 is totaly diffrent thing. |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bernhard
Guess what it was ?
I cut six legs :devilr: |
CD880 uses one NE5532 per channel for the headphones.
Two opamps in each chip are paralleled.
And that does not sound as good as one opamp alone.
Thats why I cut 6 legs, 3 per chip.
Beside beeing happy, having found the error, I find that very interesting... |
|
|
| chlo |
Hi Bricolo,
My basic mods:
Replace all elcecs caps
Diode PSU using 11DQ10 from Inter Rectifier
Opamps
Low jitter clock and PSU
Damping trans
Cut or replace skinny power cord for better one.
all these will improve sound quality alot!.
Cheer. |
|
|
| Bernhard |
First, There is another problem, my analyzer does not show much with the -60dB signal.
And I have no preamp, so I misused my relais volume control by turning a buffer into a 20dB amp.
Now there is some 100Hz noise, but it won't affect the result too much.
The real problem is the result itself, before posting I need to recheck it, but maybe take a seat... |
|
|
| Bernhard |
O = below noise floor (-65dB because of bad preamp)
CDP = CD880
SAA7220A
S1 Silvercrown
K2 -56,4 K3 -44,9 K4 -57,8 K5 -53
S1 CD880
K2 -56,6 K3 -46,3 K4 -58,6 K5 -53
1541 CD304 1
K2 -56 K3 O K4 -57,5 K5 -60,6
1541 CD304 2
K2 -56,2 K3 -46,2 K4 -58 K5 -52
1541 CD650
K2 -57,3 K3 -58,2 K4 -59,3 K5 O
1541A
K2 -56,2 K3 -43,1 K4 -57,6 K5 -50,4
SAA7220B
S1 Silvercrown
K2 O K3 -58,1 K4 -62,4 K5 -53,3
S1 CD880
K2 O K3 -57,5 K4 -62,6 K5 -62,5
1541 CD304 1
K2 O K3 -60,9 K4 -62,6 K5 -58,5
1541 CD304 2
K2 O K3 -57,2 K4 -62,5 K5 -57,7
1541 CD650
K2 O K3 -56 K4 -62 K5 -63,5
1541A
K2 O K3 O K4 -62,7 K5 -55,9
For best sound, shouldn't the spectrum go down continiously with higher orders ?
Then my choice would be 1541 from CD650 with SAA7220A :xeye: |
|
|
|
