| Van Hai |
Hi Forum,
I build a DAC with dual PCM56P after i read the PCM56 data sheet, still i do not understand how to make it one for left and one for right. From CS8412 i need to use mode 5. Should i paralell them or do i need something to make them into left and right?. I prefer to run on battery.
please give some direction that would help. thanks.
Cheer,
Van Hai |
|
|
| rfbrw |
| The digital filter splits the data into two channels. |
|
|
| Van Hai |
Thank rfbrw,
can i use SM5807EP? I have that chip but i need to search the data for it to know the pin in and out. Does any one have the data sheet?
regards,
Van Hai |
|
|
| rfbrw |
| If it is a digital filter then probably. I can't give a definite reply as I don't have the datasheet. |
|
|
| jean-paul |
| I think I have it on paper. I'll try to scan it the next days. |
|
|
| Van Hai |
Jean-Paul, thanks hope u can help, i've been search the net but no where to be found.
cdm9, the link seem do not work but thank you anyway.
Van Hai |
|
|
| rfbrw |
Be aware that if you connect the PCM56 in this manner you will have a delay between the dacs. It will be like the early CD players that only had one dac. |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by rfbrw
Be aware that if you connect the PCM56 in this manner you will have a delay between the dacs. It will be like the early CD players that only had one dac. |
And be also aware that the delay will be 22.7uS. In that time sound travels approximatly 7.8mm. So if you wish to avoid the delay simply position your head such that the speaker which receives the non-delayed signal is 7.8mm further away from your head than the other speaker.
This of course assumes that you reliably position your speakers and your head for listening to within a reasonably small fraction of 1mm, if you don't and you fail to hold sufficiently still when listening I suspect the whole argument is moderatly academic.
Sayonara |
|
|
| rfbrw |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Konnichiwa,
And be also aware that the delay will be 22.7uS. In that time sound travels approximatly 7.8mm. So if you wish to avoid the delay simply position your head such that the speaker which receives the non-delayed signal is 7.8mm further away from your head than the other speaker.
This of course assumes that you reliably position your speakers and your head for listening to within a reasonably small fraction of 1mm, if you don't and you fail to hold sufficiently still when listening I suspect the whole argument is moderatly academic.
Sayonara |
One either thinks this kind of thing matters or it does not, bit like mono and stereo subwoofers. Me,I'd rather not have the delay. |
|
|
| Van Hai |
Can i try this to get rid of delay like one chanel to 74HC86D, the other 74HC00P that for WS from SM5807EP, the other two will be paralell throught a resister will that work?
Cheer. |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by rfbrw
One either thinks this kind of thing matters or it does not, bit like mono and stereo subwoofers. Me,I'd rather not have the delay. |
I also rather NOT have the delay, on principle.
BUT, from experience, it does not MATTER. What matters is that teh much more complex circuitry to eliminate the delay causes much more audible degradation, from my experience than the 7.8mm virtual displacement, which in fact I have yet to be able to identify at all with any reliability.
Sayonara |
|
|
| rfbrw |
| You may feel the circuitry is complex and audible but I feel it is neither. |
|
|
| banana |
Haven't try out by myself, but it might be possible to do it this way:
On the driver side, use two BB DIT4096 in dual mono mode;
so u get two SPDIF output, 1L, 1R;
On the receiver side, use two CS8414, one for each channel;
then feed FSYNK to LE and SCK to CLK directly.
No glue logic, no stop clock is need. And u still got no inter-channel delay.
Any commend? |
|
|
| rfbrw |
| quote: | Originally posted by banana
Haven't try out by myself, but it might be possible to do it this way:
On the driver side, use two BB DIT4096 in dual mono mode;
so u get two SPDIF output, 1L, 1R;
On the receiver side, use two CS8414, one for each channel;
then feed FSYNK to LE and SCK to CLK directly.
No glue logic, no stop clock is need. And u still got no inter-channel delay.
Any commend? |
No glue logic !!!! Logic is logic glue or otherwise. And with two SPDIF transmitters and three SPDIF receivers you have quite a bit of it.
To quote a tennis player of the last century "You cannot be serious". |
|
|
| Jocko Homo |
I tend to get reminders from the moderators when I point out the obvious................
Mr. Personality |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by rfbrw
You may feel the circuitry is complex and audible but I feel it is neither. |
I tried the basic circuit from that DAC (inverted LE) first on my PCM63 DAC. I later tried other approaches and non sounded as direct and detailed as the original. In the end I liked the TDA1541 even better sonically, but that is another story.
Sayonara |
|
|
| Van Hai |
Can We have a small circuit like sample and hold with time control for one channel, so the two channel will be match at the output. Can this work?.
In audio we want to pursuit excell in simple way that need a lot sophiticated thought.
Cheer |
|
|
| rfbrw |
| You can have anything you want if you can find someone to design or build it but since the data is already in the digital domain why not manipulate it in the digital domain. Dacs like the PCM56 allow you to load data, stop the clock, hang around, start the clock and then convert the data , so why not take advantage of it. |
|
|
| rfbrw |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
And be also aware that the delay will be 22.7uS. In that time sound travels approximatly 7.8mm.
|
That only applies to air at STP. If you happen to be encased in lead or live on Jupiter things are a bit different. |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by rfbrw
That only applies to air at STP. If you happen to be encased in lead or live on Jupiter things are a bit different. |
Well, I'm neither encased in lead nor do I live on Jupiter (but if you do it would explain a few things), so what happens under such conditions is of little concern to me.
From a pragmatic viewpoint I find the inverted LE to work well enough and to be simple enough to not cause other problems. The added circuitry for stopped clock operation (and or some of the other approaches) did not provide me with any audible improvement, in fact all sounded worse in varing degrees.
Sayonara |
|
|
| Van Hai |
thank sinsula, it was great info.
if i go for non os do i still need SM5807?
Cheer |
|
|
| rfbrw |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Konnichiwa,
Well, I'm neither encased in lead nor do I live on Jupiter (but if you do it would explain a few things),
|
Let it slide ........ let it slide.............
| quote: |
From a pragmatic viewpoint I find the inverted LE to work well enough and to be simple enough to not cause other problems. The added circuitry for stopped clock operation (and or some of the other approaches) did not provide me with any audible improvement, in fact all sounded worse in varing degrees.
|
Pretty much how I feel about this nos stuff in general, with the TDA1541 and TDA1543 being particularly grim. Truth be told, I did not like the TDA1540 and it was downhill from there.
Be that as it may, I would suggest to anyone interested in this stuff to try all possible options and then decide. |
|
|
| rfbrw |
| quote: | Originally posted by Van Hai
thank sinsula, it was great info.
if i go for non os do i still need SM5807?
Cheer |
No |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by rfbrw
Be that as it may, I would suggest to anyone interested in this stuff to try all possible options and then decide. |
After a year of fiddling with TDA1543, I finally tried properly implemented TDA1541 and I'm truly impressed. I agree with Kuei, it sounds better than the smaller chip.
I also have ML35 DAC (using PCM100 HDCD filter and Ultra Analog custom, balanced DACs), and the non oversampling TDA1543 with passive output was marginally better and parallel nos TDA1541 S2 blows ML DAC on any given day. I shouldn't be actually saying that, as I'm planning to sell ML DAC. I hope not too many Audiogon surfers read those obscure threads on this forum;)
PS: I also have matching ML31.5 transport and it blows away my implementation of CD-Pro on any given day.;)
I bought those two units mostly for experimentation purposes and as an aid in my search for better digital. |
|
|
| Jocko Homo |
If you knew what was inside that fancy Ultra AnalLog DAC, you would know why it sounds awful.
Jocko |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
I thought non oversampled TDA1541 sounds awful. That's why my first DAC consisted of parallel PCM1704Ks.
I still can't sell it, while TDA1543 DACs sell pretty well. Not that I'm selling them, but all the prototypes I did so far had been gone.
But, I'm still curious what's inside those fancy DAC boxes. And it doesn't really sound that awful.
PS: The unit I have has had HDCD upgrade done. They put the PCM100 chip in the socket using adapter with 1.5" long pins. That's pretty awful ;) |
|
|
| banana |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jocko Homo
If you knew what was inside that fancy Ultra AnalLog DAC, you would know why it sounds awful.
Jocko |
I heard that was PCM63 and NE5534 I/V, is that true? |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by Cobra2
Peter, I thaught you knew that the main job of the PCM100 chip is to make non HDCD coded CD's sound worse...:devilr:
|
Funny thing. Many moons ago our Audio Club extensively tested a plug in Digital Filter upgrades for the Audio Synthesis DAX (UA based DAC, rather good actually). The unanimous conclusion was the HDCD Digital Filter sounded A LOT better than the NPC original used (SM5813 IIRC) on ordinary CD's. That was even WITH the 6db attenuation on non HDCD CD's. Have you ever compared the HDCD Filter to others under "all else being equal" conditions?
Sayonara |
|
|
| Cobra2 |
- is the problem...(with the -6dB).
I have not yet heard a good HDCD player or DAC.
Maybe with the right I/V or analog-stage, it would be better? But as it is implimented by most... :xeye:
But it is never too late...
Arne K |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by Cobra2
I have not yet heard a good HDCD player or DAC. |
!!?? I know quite a few that are rather good (not the least the AS DAX). I use a modified Shanling CD T-100, which is HDCD and even stock it's pretty good.
| quote: | Originally posted by Cobra2
Maybe with the right I/V or analog-stage, it would be better? But as it is implimented by most... |
In my mod I use a simple resistor I/V with the addition of a gentle bessel 2nd order LPF around a Valve amplification stage (a pretty good valve stage both objectively and subjectively). I am not sure if this is " the right I/V or analog-stage", it sounds bloody marvelous though.
Sayonara |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cobra2
Peter, I thaught you knew that the main job of the PCM100 chip is to make non HDCD coded CD's sound worse...:devilr:
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
The unanimous conclusion was the HDCD Digital Filter sounded A LOT better than the NPC original used (SM5813 IIRC) on ordinary CD's. |
Indeed, HDCD upgraded DF should sound a lot better, with all CDs, then previously installed NPC filter. This had been mentioned in some reviews I've read.
| quote: | | The No.30.5 revision was supposed to incorporate HDCD decoding, but the delayed release of the Pacific Microsonics PMD-100 chip mandated using a conventional digital filter chip from NPC. But when the PMD-100 became available, Madrigal's design team introduced an HDCD upgrade kit for the No.30.5, consisting of the HDCD chip mounted on a small header board to replace the NPC chip, and a firmware change. This version was reviewed in the April 1995 Stereophile (Vol.18 No.5), with Robert Harley commenting on the "startling increase in soundstage transparency, image specificity, and the ability to keep individual lines separate." |
|
|
|
| Cobra2 |
Sorry do not read / believe ...
Kuei, your "shingeling" must be pretty modified, or we are on different (soundwise) planets...(most probably, as I have never heard anything good coming out of a tube, in my 40 y. experience , exept radar-signals...).
I personally like the the super-detailed, but musical way of sound.
End of discussion...do not want to fight! :apathic:
Arne K |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
Don't wan t to argue either, but "startling increase in soundstage transparency, image specificity, and the ability to keep individual lines separate" sounds like " the super-detailed, but musical way of sound" ;)
I actually read and believe, until proven wrong ;) |
|
|
| rfbrw |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Konnichiwa,
!!?? I know quite a few that are rather good (not the least the AS DAX). I use a modified Shanling CD T-100, which is HDCD and even stock it's pretty good.
Sayonara |
Can this be ?? A player with HDCD,oversampling AND an ASRC?
Many an idol has been strung by his followers for a lot less. |
|
|
| hifi |
You bring the tar, and IŽll get the feathers ;o)
/micke |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by rfbrw
Can this be ?? |
By definition, everything is possible.
| quote: | Originally posted by rfbrw
[B]A player with HDCD,oversampling AND an ASRC? |
Note that the ASRC is switchoffable and hence in my case reliably "bypassed". Non-Os Mod is in the works....
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rfbrw
[B]Many an idol has been strung by his followers for a lot less.
Well, I'm not an Idol and I explicitly refuse followers. I always suggest to people to be theior own leader, that is the only way in wich I wish for followers. Otherwise, if you want a leader to follow, do me a favour, GET THE FUNK LOST!
Sayonara |
|
|
| Van Hai |
Thanks for the replies.
i learn a lot and now i need to finish my DAC then see how it sound,
Music is the love, building DIY DAC is a pleasure, as TDA1541S2 is reference. If PCM56P does not sound good, at least i manage to finish what i had started.
Cheer, |
|
|
| tubee |
| Well Van Hai, how does PCM56 sound? |
|
|
|
