| supra |
I've just spent the best part of 3 weeks playing around with TDA1543 and TDA1541 Non-oversampling Dacs and would like to make some observations and welcome any dissention or agreement. This thread may be useful for those contemplating getting into a DIY DAC.
I've been happy with a heavily modified Rotel 965 for a long time- to my ears it is more organic and less brittle than most contempory machines, but acquiring a Metaxas MASDAC with the UltraAnalog 23400 chip showed me that the Rotel really is very compromised.
Unfortunately the Masdac is beset with a noise problem and will only play when it is in the mood, and getting it repaired is impossible as Metaxas wont release circuits or provide any back-up.
There is something about the UltraAnalog chip that is just "right" and I can hear why it was so highly regarded for so long. I have heard that there were some reliability problems with it, and maybe that was the reason for it's demise, or maybe Wadia just wanted the design crew as they bought UltraAnalog out and then let the brand die.
If anyone has a circuit for a simple UltraAnalog Dac I would love to see it.
The TDA chips attracted me as the basis of a DIY DAC, mainly because of the good reputations for sound and the availability of information about them.
To get a feel for the different chips i bought one of Scott Nixon's DACKIT with a single TDA1543 , I purchased an assembled board from Scott and just had to enclose the board and provide sockets and a wall PSU.
The LITE DAC-AH from www.diyclub.biz is incredibly inexpensive for a completed ready to go dac - it uses 4 paralled TDA1543 with an OPA602 op-amp output stage.
Getting a TDA1541 DAC was a bit more difficult- there are published PCB's available , but I couldn't find any actually for sale. I settled on the www.diyaudiocraft.com Double TDA1541 kit.
I received the Lite DAC-AH first and was quite frankly dissapointed with it at first- for the price it is very good, but in very critical terms it sounded congested and dead- it displayed all the hallmarks of a conventional opamp output stage so I quickly bypassed the output stage and ran it unbuffered direct and cap coupled . Much more alive and less vieled but still a bit rough around the edges- so to be fair to it I connected it up to a spare transport and left it running for 3 days.
When I came back to it I received a very pleasant surprise for it was much better- almost smooth and quite listenable.
The BG coupling caps I used may even take longer to settle in, so I've still an open mind on this one.
Then i received the DACKIT from Scott Nixon in the US (Can I just take a short break to observe that on day 3 of the Olympics Australia with 20 million people has the same medal tally as the US with how many million? Perhaps that can be put down to the McDonalds culture and media propaganda that keeps TV screens on "reality" TV)
The assembled DACKIT PCB is a bit expensive for what you get, but a bargain in terms of sound quality. And bear in mind that you can get it going in under an hour with a minimum of skills.
It is a bare CS8414-TDA1543 with simple cap coupling to the output. It doesn't have a real low output Z so is best used with tube amps- which suits me just fine.
It's very transperant, lively and very revealing. A touch too revealing maybe- mine had Rubycon ZA caps, BG's might be better, but that will be taste, system dependent- most people would be very happy with The DACKIT.
The Double TDA1541A kit from www.diyaudiocraft.com arrived and looks very impressive - a very professional double sided board with gold plated through-plating mounting holes (a good DC soldering station and an equally good de-soldering gun is an absolute necessity)and good quality audiophile parts.
The manual is not the best , but it's not beyond most- the surface mount CX8414 freaked me out so I went for a DIL CS8412.
The output is quite low though and you cant use this direct, and I have some very high gain tube preamps here, which soon proved this point.
I tried 3 different types of output gain/buffers. First up was a parafeed step up trans- I was after simplicity, with the ability to tailor the frequency response both up top (for filtering) and in the bass. This was possible as the trans I used had very wide bandwidth, and parafeeding enables quite a range of variables.
I then tried a tube buffer, and finally Pedja Rogics 844/j-fet buffer stage.
This really got the Dac cooking! I'm an unashamed tube/transformer freak but this little SS gain stage was simply cleaner and more dynamic. It seems the output of the DAC is very load dependent- I've been told a high impedance load is not ideal for the TDA1541 and in my opinion, the tube gain stage, which was a very high quality unit, just didn't sound as competent as the AD844/2SK369.
Unfortunately, as good as it sounds, there is still a bit of high frequency noise present- I dont know if this is typical of the non-oversampling TDA1541and although I've been building tube gear for a long time I'm not much of an expert on digital.
At the moment the only filtering is a 1000p cap on the Dac output- Pedja's design has an optional further filtering cap on the output which I have yet to try.
Anyone with any suggestions on removing the HF noise very welcome!
So what's the verdict?
The TDA1541 has a cult following and I can hear why- it has a very natural sound and has also a sense of dynamics that is also best described as natural, rather than forced or electronic.
The TDA1543 is a detail machine, very transperant , very revealing, yet quite listenable and enjoyable.
Pedja seems to hear the same as per his quote from his web site:
".....it was interesting to note that though the TDA1541A is smoother (some claim it is the most analog sounding digital part ever made) and the TDA1543 is obviously a rougher performer that additionally could get into the saturation by the sonic content where TDA1541A stays soft, the TDA1543 has more liveliness and transparency. Then, with TDA1541A necessity for sin(x)/x compensation becomes more obvious. Hence I can, without any problem, understand both those claiming the TDA1541A is a higher class chip and those who opt for the TDA1543; I also understand those who describe the situation as a matter of taste."
I have to say though that I think the UltraAnalog 23400 kills both of them- and it probably should as it was just about impossible to buy it in a machine that didn't cost many thousands of dollars in it's heyday, plus the fact that I believe it was really a hybrid and virtually handmade- it certainly sounds remarkable to my ears.
But at the end of the day there is still that damn digital lack of true realism- it sounds very good, but there just isn't that freedom from constraint you get with a great vinyl system. The ease and flow just isn't there.
I think the problem isn't so much the DAC, but the whole gain/filtering process that follows. My experience with 30 years of building tube preamps and power amps is that any filter is bad news, whatever it's origins or components.
The CD system really is flawed . Like politics, it is really quite depressing. Thankfully I still have all my vinyl for when I want to listen to a more MUSICALLY dynamic , more organic and natural reproduction of music. |
|
|
| supra |
| BTW I solved the HF Noise problem- it was a human error in assembling the PCB. Hard to find but easy to fix. |
|
|
| cmt42001 |
For the double TDA1541a kit from diyaudiocraft, you can increase the output simply by changing the I/V resistors (R28, R39, R47 and R48) to higher value, say 47ohm. Higher value has better punch and dynamic, but at the expense of higher distortion and has a coarser texture.
I am also a builder for the kit, but I found exactly the opposite to your observation. I like the tube gainstage much better than AD844. The AD844 sounds a bit electronic and lifeless, whereas the 6C45Pi sounds faster, detailed and with more emotion to the music. The 6DJ8 SRPP tube option is very smooth, a bit too smooth for my taste. So I settled in the 6C45 and tweaked the power supply by converting the cap (C5) after the 6X4 to 47uf Balckgate, the 2 cap (C3 and C43) to 10uf Solen MKP bypassed with ERO 0.1uf MKP1841. This has improved the sound a lot. I also use ERO 0.47uf MKP1845 as the output cap after the 6C45.
Please give this baby a couple hundred hours for it to break in, then you might have a different verdict.
I like vinyl but I am too lazy in cleaning up the vinyl, especially in the humid weather of Hong Kong summer. :cool: |
|
|
| tube-lover |
hi michael,
does your friend collect the kits already.
I post to him over three days by EMS.
If U feel that the tube PCB is not better than the AD844.
Pls try to remove the L3 & L4 ( filter) of the TUBE PCB. The HF will increase more but will still less electronic sound as AD844.
Pls try and tell me that which different. &......... U said the
HF Noise problem- it was a human error in assembling the PCB. Hard to find but easy to fix.
Pls email to me or share to others in this forum where it was. I need to improved when I re-print the PCB's Film.
thanks
thomas |
|
|
| tube-lover |
hi,
I said remove the L3 & L4 of the Tube PCB means every L3 & L4 use a copper wire as a jumper to connect them.
thanks
thomas |
|
|
| tim pattinson |
I must agree with cmt42001- after messing around with a few values, the 6c45pi buffer is markedly better than the 844 stage, which I found full of punch, particularly in the bass, but very electronic- sounding.
I also tried some very nice English 6DJ8 Mullards in the alternate buffer config, but missed the holographic effect of the 6c45's.
The initial config using the i/v resistors at 22R is too low in my opinion, with a somewhat flat soundstage and rather lacking dynamics. Things improve greatly with even a small tweak of these values. I settled on [for the moment] 27R, and the soundstage moves forward, out of the speakers. I went to 33R, but the sound got too grainy for my liking.
I did find the bass a touch light using the 0.47uF ERO's and now have 10uF MKT's there, which improved it greatly.
Overall, I'm pretty happy with the way the 1541 sounds- it is like what everyone has said: a very analogue- sounding chip. Now, whether a dual chip config is better than a single one is another argument again! java script:smilie(';)') |
|
|
| Pedja |
Guys, get serious and if you use AD844 as common base stage, use it the way it must be used or do not use it. At least, be aware of the way you use it.
It does not sound electronically at all, nothing even close to that.
Pedja |
|
|
| t. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Pedja
Guys, get serious and if you use AD844 as common base stage, use it the way it must be used or do not use it. At least, be aware of the way you use it.
It does not sound electronically at all, nothing even close to that.
Pedja |
I'll second that, after trying different output stages tube and op-amps Pedja's idea of using the AD844 as a common base was easily the best in my system.
I use three different amps buffered/regulated GC,kit88 tube amp and Avondale power amp with modded Nac pre. |
|
|
| cmt42001 |
| quote: | | Guys, get serious and if you use AD844 as common base stage, use it the way it must be used or do not use it. At least, be aware of the way you use it. |
Pedja,
I agree with your comments that AD844 need a careful implementation for I have built three before using different parts, and I thought that AD844 was great until I heard the 6c45 tube stage. You are RIGHT that I do not use AD844 anymore and I would not look back.
l have also tried the OPA660 common based stage and I think the AD844 is a bit electronic-sounding, while the OPA660 is better in the sense that it is warmer and natural sounding. Afterall it is a matter of taste and it might reflect the sonic signatures that different manufacturers have.
Who am I to judge who is serious...??:o
Tim,
I also found that 0.47uf is bit bass thin, so I use two in parallel (0.47uf x 2) and the bass and mid improves.
Please try the Riken RMG resistors in the I/V position, and it will smooth out the sound a lot (dale is a bit rough). At present I used the 12ohm Vishay S102 and it sound wonderful, with more texture and bass than RMG (12 ohm is fine with me as I have the 99db fullrange speakers).
Recently I got hold of the new EH 6C45Pi Gold pin version and it sounds better than the standard grade. The bass has the same punchy but clean notes, but the mid and high is smoother. That wonderful holographic effect is about the same for both version. The gold pin version is more natural. :) |
|
|
| SS1 |
Hello Supra,
I have the lite dac-ah. How did you bypassed the output stage? Where did you installed the bg coupling cap? Which bg did you used (bg n,std, etc)? If you can share some info,it would be helpful. :)
thanks |
|
|
| Pedja |
| quote: | Originally posted by cmt42001
I agree with your comments that AD844 need a careful implementation for I have built three (…)
Who am I to judge who is serious...??:o |
And what have you found to be important? |
|
|
| supra |
It's quite easy- I just cut the link to pin 3 of the opamp. There's some spare holes to connect a pair of 220uF Bi Polar Blackgates in Super E style from the output of the DAc (after the 270 ohm I/V resistor) direct to the output socket. Disconnect the wires from the opamp to the output socket, put a 100K resistor across output socket.
That's it. Email me if you need further help.
A tube buffer after the TDA1541 double dac is probably fine , but if your using a tube pre/power amp after that again ,I think you'll find the 844 buffer is much more neutral and ultimately natural.
Tubes are great! but too many is as bad as too much SS. |
|
|
| cmt42001 |
Pedja,
| quote: | | And what have you found to be important? |
What is important is what sound come out of it.
:cool: |
|
|
| Pedja |
Brilliant!
OK, what do you mean when you say "AD844 need a careful implementation"? |
|
|
| cmt42001 |
May be this can help:
| quote: | | use it the way it must be used or do not use it. At least, be aware of the way you use it. |
|
|
|
| cmt42001 |
What is what??
Afterall, it is a matter of taste.
:cool: |
|
|
| Pedja |
OK cmt42001,
We will do it easy when it comes to the taste.
The question for you is: after 3 common base stages you made with it, what matters in "AD844 need a careful implementation"? Do you have a slightest idea about it? |
|
|
| cmt42001 |
Pedja,
Glad that you have cool off. Personal taste is half the fun in DIY..
"use it the way it must be used...... At least, be aware of the way you use it." fits my idea of careful implementation.
BTW, can you design some sort of auto compensation circuit to cater for the frequent adjusment of the 2SK170/trimpot combo?:cool: |
|
|
| Bernhard |
Little calculation:
TDA1541A nonos ( strong even order harmonics )
+ tube output stage ( strong even order harmonics )
+ tube preamp ( strong even order harmonics )
_________________________________________
very musical, transparent & holographic sound |
|
|
| jean-paul |
| Quite a scientific approach Bernhard. I wonder if it works the other way around when gear sounds metallic, flat and uninvolving. |
|
|
| supra |
That's rather an over-simplification or is that non- simplification.
If both preamps are CR outputs, and most of the tube buffers for 1541's I've seen are, AND the next preamp is also CR output that's two sets of phase shifts you've got and that is not the way to get musical, transperant or holographic sound, but that is just my opinion and experience, all you experts might disagree.
Me, I dont use CR's anywhere .
Ok i had my two cents worth -I'm getting out of here. |
|
|
| Bernhard |
| quote: | Originally posted by jean-paul
I wonder if it works the other way around when gear sounds metallic, flat and uninvolving. |
1541A nonos is very clearly sound enhancing by adding harmonics and has a very recognizable sonic signature.
So I wonder about the big difference between opa x and opa y ... |
|
|
| jean-paul |
I am glad it has a very recognizable pleasant sonic signature compared with the sometimes unmusical newer DAC chips. However I am open for suggestions for better types ( regardless of whether they add even harmonics or not ).
Please explain the opa x and opa y thing as I thought tubes were involved here :confused: |
|
|
| rfbrw |
| There are many ways to describe the TDA1541, A or otherwise, and neutral is definitely not one of them. |
|
|
| jean-paul |
Ahem, you're right about it being not the most neutral ( edited my post ) rfbrw. Slip of the tongue, sorry. It sure has its own character, one of the reasons why it is so popular. But then again, most chips I know have more or less their own character. It's a matter of taste which one likes most, regardless of measurements that may not come out too positive on that one. It is time for something else though, time goes on and so does technology.
May I ask which DAC chip you're working with now, rfbrw ? |
|
|
| rfbrw |
| quote: | Originally posted by jean-paul
May I ask which DAC chip you're working with now, rfbrw ? |
A tricky question that. I tend to float between projects as my level of interest varies with weather. I have some PCM1738's still in the bag, a AN DAC3 with PCM63's in bits and as I write, balanced CS4390's . Oh and I once considered,worse still breadboarded, but in my defence never fired up, a staggered dac with 8 TDA1543's but I am much better now. |
|
|
| jean-paul |
Like you I have some PCM1728/1738s in a bag but my aversion against SMD parts is the reason I never made a board for them. When I can avoid SMD I will avoid SMD. Although some time ago, UDA1351TS/UDA1350AH were the last "newer" SMD chips I tried ( which sound OK but not more than that ). It probably will surprise you but most of the time I listen to first generation Philips 1 bit systems now instead of multibit TDA machines. Nevertheless I am experimenting with more recent multibit chips but till now I haven't found what I am looking for. A serious lack of time adds up to it.
PCM63 and CS4390 are a bit old cake as well like TDA15xx, PCM63 being still one of the best IMHO. BTW what do you think of PCM69 ? I have some K types but I can't recall I ever heard them in a cdplayer.
Would not have thought you'd even consider using TDA1543, let alone 8 staggered ;) |
|
|
| rfbrw |
About 10 years ago I worked on a 4ch DAC that used the DF1700/PCM69 combination. I had wanted to go with the CS4329 or a SM5842/PCM63 combination but was overruled. I had the last laugh when it turned out that whenever the dac was in competition with one from Axon, it lost every time. I wasn't too pleased when I walked in to a machine room in London to see racks stuffed with Axon DACs.
Re the TDA1543s. I plead temporary insanity. |
|
|
| tube-lover |
Dear all,
I was planning for the next PCB for the PCM63K.
It will common use the CS8414 for the digital receiver.
BTW, the tube buffer output stage will common use with the TDA1541A NON-oversampling DAC to less some money for the diyer. It means can upgrade in my DAC kit from remove the TDA1541a chips & added one more PCB with PCM63K's.
Any advise for choose PCM63K or PCM1407~~???
Any suggestions will be welcome because I had some CS8420 on hand.I can test more circuits.
Second is the DEM clock & the re-clock of TDA1541a DAC was funish right now.
The PCB will follow with two parts
1. Real 44.1K clock which use crystal to be the oscillator.
LT317/337 for the regulator. ( USER can exchange the lower PPM grade chips) will run with 9 pins DIP switch for tunning the accurancy of the clock to tunning the sound stage.
2.Re-clock will use japan made 11.2896M --TCXO--( Temperature
compensate Oscillator) with TL431 chips. Motrolola 8 pins TL431 will follow with the PCB. This chips will be the best that I test, more stable & low noise.
3.I got one match pair TDA1541A S1 grade chips from Philips repair parts dept already. The Netherland electronic parts company told that they had over 30pcs S1 on hand which was remove from old philips machines. I order two chips already.
Does anyone can help me that how to test this S1 chips was real one or fake one!!!!!!
thanks
thomas |
|
|
| Guido Tent |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bernhard
Little calculation:
TDA1541A nonos ( strong even order harmonics )
+ tube output stage ( strong even order harmonics )
+ tube preamp ( strong even order harmonics )
_________________________________________
very musical, transparent & holographic sound |
Hi
Please carefully consider what may happen when cascading non linear stages creating even order harmonics............
(you may end up with odd harmonisc at the end)
cheers |
|
|
| Fin |
| quote: | Originally posted by jean-paul
It probably will surprise you but most of the time I listen to first generation Philips 1 bit systems now instead of multibit TDA machines. |
I assume you are talking about SAA7321/3 equiped machines - like the CD624, CD634, CD850........
How do they compare to the multibit machines sound-wise?
What type of modifications or upgrades do you make?
I've had a CD624 since 1991. It sounded quite good compared to it's competition at the time but I haven't compared it to anything else recently. Currently in the process of trying to take it's performance to the max. by doing the following:
List of modifications
Tent XO2 Clock module and XO supply PSU
Separate transformer, power supply and regs for the output stage
Separate transformer winding, power supply and regs for the DAC
Separate transformer winding, power supply and regs for the decoder
Separate transformer, power supply and regs for the servos
Upgrade powersuplies to everything else.
Improve decoupling on most IC's
Improve grounding for most IC's
Change opamp to OPA2134 or OPA2064
Replace all existing electrolytics with Nichicon Muse and some Os-Cons and a few Black Gate PK.
A rare oportunity to purchase a TDA1541A machine (Marantz CD60) presented itself recently and it's on it's way to me as we speak. At last I will be able to compare these two dacs (in similar machines - CDM4/19, SAA7310......) for myself, and in my own system. The above mods will eventually be applied to the CD60 (and maybe non-oversampling).
| quote: | Originally posted by jean-paul
PCM63 and CS4390 are a bit old cake as well like TDA15xx, PCM63 being still one of the best IMHO. BTW what do you think of PCM69 ? I have some K types but I can't recall I ever heard them in a cdplayer.
|
PCM63 is something else I would like to try at some stage in the future - have a SM5842 waiting for a home. |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by jean-paul
It probably will surprise you but most of the time I listen to first generation Philips 1 bit systems now instead of multibit TDA machines. |
:yikes:
Do you like them?:eek:
I don't.:bawling: |
|
|
| Fin |
| quote: | Originally posted by carlosfm
:yikes:
Do you like them?:eek:
I don't.:bawling: |
Have you tried the SAA7321 or just the SAA7350 in your CD52? |
|
|
| kenev |
Dear all,
I read this thread and I would like to add a little of my experience with NonOS TDA 1541. I have built a double chip DAC, which is fed directly from the I2S bus of a CDPRO2. As an output stage I use Lesha's tubed buffer with a 6C45P.
Initially, the output stage was built using a resistor as an anole load. Later I replaced it with a CCS. I could never imagine the huge improvement this CCS broought to the DAC. A whole class up. There was a huge improvement in soundstage, which became extremely wide and deep. Also major improvement was noticed in seperation between instruments and resolution, minor details were more distinctive. In all, a very-very analog sound, now I have no hesitation listening to my CDs.
For the passive I/V I use a 22R resistor. I tried also 18R (to lower gain a little, since the 6C45P provides lots of gain), but the sound seemed kind of anaemic, lacking dynamics. The CCS is set at 18 mA, with Vg at -1.2 V.
I suggest anyone with a 6C45P output stage on his TDA1541 DAC should try a CCS.
Regards,
Evangelos |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fin
Have you tried the SAA7321 or just the SAA7350 in your CD52? |
Yes, the SAA7350 is flat and undynamic.
But in my experience that's a characteristic of most bitstream (and delta-sigma) dacs.
Curiously, the YAC514 dac on my Yamaha cdp sounds good, better than those from Philips.
But nothing compares to a good multi-bit.:bawling: |
|
|
| tube-lover |
Dear all,
the first order of 12 pcs of TDA1541a S1 which I order from Holland is arrived. They all remove from old machine but unused.
The company told me was remove from Philips high grade parts wihch were repair stock.
I hadn't any instrument to test them but I made a simple hearing test compare with the standard TDA1541a. I only hear the background is more silience, little bit of punch dynamic was increase & little smooth sound stage. I can only hear will 6~8% inprovment.
But it actually quite good.
pls see the photos.
thanks
thomas |
|
|
| cmt42001 |
Thomas,
I recalled someone talking about using rechargable battery as cathode bias to improve the sound of the 6C45 tube stage. Can you please explain how this can be done?
Also can the 6c45 runs on AC filament and do you recommend this change? |
|
|
| mevangel |
Hi Kenev,
can you post the schematic of the CCS you used?
Regards.
Marco |
|
|
| kenev |
Hi Marco,
Initially, I built Gary Pimm's BBMCCCS:
Battery Biased CCS
The one I built was an older version with lithium button cells, it's now revised.
Later, I tried Bas Horneman's battery biased CCS:
http://home.zonnet.nl/horneman/mosfet.htm
This CCS uses the DN2540 depletion mode MOSFETs and could also be self biased, but with a battery bias it presents a higher impedance, which is better for a CCS.
Didn't notice any difference between these two, at least sounwise, but I would opt for the latter, as it uses less batteries.
Regards,
Evangelos |
|
|
| Coulomb |
Hello Thomas, what happened to your thread?? |
|
|
| tube-lover |
dear anthony,
I don't know why the market place was missing the kits detail. Will the diyaudio.com erase the thread after some period????
can anyone help me to find out the questions???
About the kit I need to amend some modification, I sold out approx 80 sets of kits in local market & overseas. Very thanks for all diyer's support.
I will use telfon base PCB for later coming products. special in Digital items.
For the detail of modification. I will post tonight because I was not at home now. I will back tonight & post the detail.
also some parts was arrived.
For the diyer's who buy my kits already. pls email to me. I will only collect the base parts price & postage.
I will not earn any money. Most parts was the Elna non-polar caps.
the Elna non-polar will only approx 1.5~2.3 USD per one only.
special for DAC use.
thanks
thomas |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tube-lover
I don't know why the market place was missing the kits detail. Will the diyaudio.com erase the thread after some period???? |
Because we haven't gotten our duck's all in a row yet, we left ourselves in limbo. Until we get the official fee anouncement out, posts to the AVB will be grandfathered by the free period.
I've moved all the commercial threads i can find to the AVB... if i've missed any do let us know.
dave |
|
|
| tube-lover |
hi planet10,
Will U open back my thread?
or can I re-post the detail in the market place for more diyer to check the detail of my kit?
which method will be better, pls advise.
Dear anthony,
for the first kit,pls help me to settle.
I would like to amend the parts of the kit.
The R43 & 52 of tube buffer board can change from 470k increase to 680K but within 1M.
The sound will large difference.
Pls try to use the battery bias for the 6C45 or 6Dj8.
Use one 1.2V battery for them will had large difference.
especially in the bass. very clear & detail. The background will much silcent than standard method. The battery run in 1.2V DC, approx 10ma.
Pls use a Nicd battery because NIMh not good. NiCd can drae more current than NiMh & the hearing performance NiCd will much better. This is My opinion Pls try.
For more detail, pls em,ail to cmt42001.
He test many method & different working condition.
The picture of the non -polar caps I will post tonight.
thnaks
thomas |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tube-lover
Will U open back my thread?
or can I re-post the detail in the market place for more diyer to check the detail of my kit?
which method will be better, pls advise. |
Did we not get them all back into the AVB (and open)?
The exact detail of how things is going to work haven't been completely trashed out, but it will probably be that you will get a thread to post your product adverts into, and then there will be a separate thread(s) in another associated forum for discussion to take place. This way your ads won't get biried in the discussion.
dave |
|
|
|
