Anybody using or recommends analog devices' evaluation boards for audio d/a ?
They feature;
CS8414 frontend
AD1852/AD1954/AD1853 dac
OP275 output
http://www.analog.com/en/DCcList/0,3090,761%5F%5F1165,00.html
are they worth to try over a standard cd player ?
They feature;
CS8414 frontend
AD1852/AD1954/AD1853 dac
OP275 output
http://www.analog.com/en/DCcList/0,3090,761%5F%5F1165,00.html
are they worth to try over a standard cd player ?
From a local authorized Analog Devices distributor here. I am a "company" and have regular orders at AD.
I do have the AD1853 eval board.
It doesn't sound too good off the shelf, but it can be made a lot better. I like the switchable I²S input, I am working on a LVDS link to my TVIX player right now.
Drop the OP275 output stage and go for something real, I suggest the Pass D1 circuit. No too much of a problem as the current output of the DAC are quite easily accessible.
It doesn't sound too good off the shelf, but it can be made a lot better. I like the switchable I²S input, I am working on a LVDS link to my TVIX player right now.
Drop the OP275 output stage and go for something real, I suggest the Pass D1 circuit. No too much of a problem as the current output of the DAC are quite easily accessible.
what device do you compare it when u say that it is not good off the shelf ? I am asking because I am not looking for a magical thing at the moment, e.g. is it better than an entry level sony (xe370) or marantz (cd5001) player ? I think it must be better, because entry level players costs something like $300, this board only costs sth like $200. It seems to me it is impossible to use such components in a player lets say $500 and below..
Let's say it is on the level of an umodified Marantz CD67, which I don't consider as really good. Okay, but not more.
The problem is not the AD1853 itself but the fact that those eval boards are designed to give good measurements, but not good sound. I don't think those AD guys don't care too much of all the stuff that makes a circuit sound good.
The problem is not the AD1853 itself but the fact that those eval boards are designed to give good measurements, but not good sound. I don't think those AD guys don't care too much of all the stuff that makes a circuit sound good.
OK I got the point. Since the receiver and dac connections cannot be done in many ways, the difference comes from -as you have said- output section and power right ?
It seems that only obvious difference between 1852 and 1853 is that 1853 is current mode. Do you have any comment on performance of them ? It seems eval board for 1853 is hard to get at the moment.
It seems that only obvious difference between 1852 and 1853 is that 1853 is current mode. Do you have any comment on performance of them ? It seems eval board for 1853 is hard to get at the moment.
Personnally, I like the DACs with current output a lot more, as the voltage output types have a built-in OP-I/U converter. Usually, you can do this a lot better with a discrete external solution.
So my vote clearly goes for the AD1853 over the AD1852.
So my vote clearly goes for the AD1853 over the AD1852.
HBarske said:
This would be a question of a personal taste to a high degree. For me, the Pass amplifiers are sonically unacceptable.
I would recommend to anyone to make his own assessment.
My personal (just personal) experience - a guy here made a DAC according to AD evalboard datasheet schematics. It is one of the best DACs I have ever heard. Just my personal opinion.
Don't forget it depends on transport as well.
PMA, since you have mentioned about transport, I am looking for one (probably using a commercial cdp as transport), I couldnt find a complete and consistent information on the web. For example, a decent sony entry level cdp is enough ? or should I look for specific models -probably 2nd hand?- ? Can you comment a little bit on that ?
Actually I have a few ideas like some threads on the forum as using cdrom and buffering the data which has transferred by dae. I have some vhdl experience and fpga stuff, so I may try that, but it is a long project, I should get something quick at the moment.
Actually I have a few ideas like some threads on the forum as using cdrom and buffering the data which has transferred by dae. I have some vhdl experience and fpga stuff, so I may try that, but it is a long project, I should get something quick at the moment.
metebalci,
unfortunately I am not any expert in the field of CD transports. I believe there are others that can give you better recommendation on this item.
All I know is that CD transport matters and that it makes sonical difference. It is probably the jitter and SPDIF signal risetime that makes the difference. Again, I would appreciate someone to correct me and add his experience and knowledge.
unfortunately I am not any expert in the field of CD transports. I believe there are others that can give you better recommendation on this item.
All I know is that CD transport matters and that it makes sonical difference. It is probably the jitter and SPDIF signal risetime that makes the difference. Again, I would appreciate someone to correct me and add his experience and knowledge.
Hello metebalci,
I use EV AD1952 and for me it is better than
Audio Alchemy DDE 1.0 i have.
Years ago Audio Alchemy DDE 1.0 was 400 pounds ....
I compared it to Bencmark Dac 1, which use AD1953 and Dac 1 has more bass,
but EV AD1852 has more deep sound stage.
CD transport is as important as DAC.
I'm tweaking CD Philips with CDM 4 and compared to Yamaha,
Philips is better.
Angel
I use EV AD1952 and for me it is better than
Audio Alchemy DDE 1.0 i have.
Years ago Audio Alchemy DDE 1.0 was 400 pounds ....
I compared it to Bencmark Dac 1, which use AD1953 and Dac 1 has more bass,
but EV AD1852 has more deep sound stage.
CD transport is as important as DAC.
I'm tweaking CD Philips with CDM 4 and compared to Yamaha,
Philips is better.
Angel
- Status
- Not open for further replies.