I just bought yesterday DAC960, from Philips, for $30. It's using TDA1541 chip and as far as parts quality goes (almost all caps are Cerafines) and construction it's pretty well built unit. I have 2 POOGE-5 articles from AA, but in the light of recent "developments" with non-oversampling I don't think this route is worth pursuing.
Has anybody tried that mods (POOGE) and has any experience to share? My other option, and this is what I'm tempted to do, is just use DAC board, add CS8412 receiver without oversampling and modify the output stage, maybe use some existing PS parts.
Has anybody tried that mods (POOGE) and has any experience to share? My other option, and this is what I'm tempted to do, is just use DAC board, add CS8412 receiver without oversampling and modify the output stage, maybe use some existing PS parts.
Attachments
If you insist on using it non os you can remove SAA7220PB and connect 3 jumper wires and it will be a non os DAC. No need for CS8412 although it is better jitterwise. Don't forget to recalculate filter stages !!!!!
I don't think non os is the de facto means to good sound. Maybe it is wise to compare it to your non os TDA1543 DAC and do some POOGE mods. You can always change it to non os afterwards.
Very nice piece of equipment !
I don't think non os is the de facto means to good sound. Maybe it is wise to compare it to your non os TDA1543 DAC and do some POOGE mods. You can always change it to non os afterwards.
Very nice piece of equipment !
A Silver Crown chip will do wonders in your DAC960 ( if you can find one ).From what I know the DAC960 is equipped with the standard version. Never had a DAC960 because they were too expensive 😉
hi,
i have 4 of the s1 crown dacs lying arround....and yes, compared to the "standard" 1541a - the sound gets more "refined" so i guess its worth it....!
troels
i have 4 of the s1 crown dacs lying arround....and yes, compared to the "standard" 1541a - the sound gets more "refined" so i guess its worth it....!
troels
I have hard copies (2 issues from '92 AA). If you really interested I might scan them for you, it's about 20 pages.
tbla said:hi,
i have 4 of the s1 crown dacs lying arround....and yes, compared to the "standard" 1541a - the sound gets more "refined" so i guess its worth it....!
troels
Would you be interested in geting rid of them?😉
Peter Daniel said:
Hi Peter,
I have not gone that route but have studied the Pooge articles thoroughly.
The hint to use the AD811 as a IV-converter I followed. Tried all kinds of current-feedback opamps like OPA603, LT 1206 and AD844.
I liked AD811 better for a DAC with digital filter and the OPA603 more for NON-OS DAC. This was with (CXD1244)/AD1865.
I tried the AD811/OPA603 also a very short time with TDA1541AS1 NON-OS.
Eventually I totally quit using opamps for IV-conversion as I went "discrete".
Some of the Pooge ideas came back in the high speed diode thread. And the Jung regulators have been discussed extensively on this forum.😉
Koinichiwa,
First congratualtions are on order.
You got an incredible bargain. In most things the 960 is identical to the LHH-1000 (the LHH-1000 has a heavier chassis, copperplating and acres of copper shielding, plus better Mainstransformers and components (including S1 grade DAC's) and the LHH-1000 is in turn really just a badgejob of Marantz DA-12.
This unit has a seperate secondary discrete PLL, reclocking of the signals going into the DAC, opto-coupling of critical signals, a simple, all of which should give outstanding jitter performance (and taht was designed before "Jitter" became aknowlegded as an issue in the High End. The digital filter is quite primitive and hence quite good sounding. The DAC has many other interesting features, such as discrete regulators for the analogue stage and a set of transformer coupled balanced outputs which sound MUCH better than the SE ones, to my ears at least.
Given the age of the unit the first order of business is to replace ALL electrolytic capacitors. I used Elna Silmic instead of the Cerafines, loads of Sanyo Os-Con in the digital section (including that heavily shielded board on the lefthand side) and Panasonic FC series units for the actual power supplies. Total capacitor bill exceeded $ 200 IIRC.
The next stop is to replace the Op-Amp's. I used OPA627/637 throughout the Unit (8pcs in total and included J-Fet CCS "class A biasing. As the output buffer of the SE Output Stage I used the BUF634.
The resulting DAC sounds stunningly good, if not QUITE as good as my Non Oversampling TDA1541 (also S1) based DAC with Tube outputs.
The 960 (like the LHH-1000) is such a nice piece of engineering and illustrates what sonic potential CD had even in the mid 1980's that I felt it pretty much sacreligeous butcher the unit and make it non oversampling and tube output (it has enough space, simply remove the Balanced Output Amp card). So I did not do so and I'm very happy with my "only restored" LHH-1000.
Your choice may differ from mine of course.
Sayonara
Peter Daniel said:
First congratualtions are on order.
You got an incredible bargain. In most things the 960 is identical to the LHH-1000 (the LHH-1000 has a heavier chassis, copperplating and acres of copper shielding, plus better Mainstransformers and components (including S1 grade DAC's) and the LHH-1000 is in turn really just a badgejob of Marantz DA-12.
This unit has a seperate secondary discrete PLL, reclocking of the signals going into the DAC, opto-coupling of critical signals, a simple, all of which should give outstanding jitter performance (and taht was designed before "Jitter" became aknowlegded as an issue in the High End. The digital filter is quite primitive and hence quite good sounding. The DAC has many other interesting features, such as discrete regulators for the analogue stage and a set of transformer coupled balanced outputs which sound MUCH better than the SE ones, to my ears at least.
Given the age of the unit the first order of business is to replace ALL electrolytic capacitors. I used Elna Silmic instead of the Cerafines, loads of Sanyo Os-Con in the digital section (including that heavily shielded board on the lefthand side) and Panasonic FC series units for the actual power supplies. Total capacitor bill exceeded $ 200 IIRC.
The next stop is to replace the Op-Amp's. I used OPA627/637 throughout the Unit (8pcs in total and included J-Fet CCS "class A biasing. As the output buffer of the SE Output Stage I used the BUF634.
The resulting DAC sounds stunningly good, if not QUITE as good as my Non Oversampling TDA1541 (also S1) based DAC with Tube outputs.
The 960 (like the LHH-1000) is such a nice piece of engineering and illustrates what sonic potential CD had even in the mid 1980's that I felt it pretty much sacreligeous butcher the unit and make it non oversampling and tube output (it has enough space, simply remove the Balanced Output Amp card). So I did not do so and I'm very happy with my "only restored" LHH-1000.
Your choice may differ from mine of course.
Sayonara
Thanks,
That's a good info.
I'd like to buy a large number of Os-Cons, what's the best overall value (values) for bypassing purposes in digital applications?
That's a good info.
I'd like to buy a large number of Os-Cons, what's the best overall value (values) for bypassing purposes in digital applications?
[
Has anybody tried that mods (POOGE) and has any experience to share?
----------------------------------------
I tried POOGE as per Audio Amateur and was not that impressed as the unit never lost its 'authoritative, dry, upfront sound'. The pcb was also crap and the tracks lifted easily - eventually lost interest and gave it away.
Interesting to see what modern opamps and receivers can do.
Has anybody tried that mods (POOGE) and has any experience to share?
----------------------------------------
I tried POOGE as per Audio Amateur and was not that impressed as the unit never lost its 'authoritative, dry, upfront sound'. The pcb was also crap and the tracks lifted easily - eventually lost interest and gave it away.
Interesting to see what modern opamps and receivers can do.
Thanks,
That's a good info too😉
That was sort of my impression as well, by looking inside. I believe nothing bits tight lay out and p2p.
That's a good info too😉
That was sort of my impression as well, by looking inside. I believe nothing bits tight lay out and p2p.
Koinichiwa Peter,
I actually did a complete capacitor count in my unit and made up a shopping list from that. I seem to remebermost of the Digital Cap's are 10uF, but would have to check.
Sayonara
Peter Daniel said:
I actually did a complete capacitor count in my unit and made up a shopping list from that. I seem to remebermost of the Digital Cap's are 10uF, but would have to check.
Sayonara
Re: Re: Any info on DAC960 from Philips, or your experience with POOGE-5?
Koinichiwa,
Funny. I would certainly not describe the sound of the LHH-1000 (even before re-build) as "dry" or "upfront". And that was with NE5534's. I have noticed that the DAC is however quite sensitive to the transport and digital link (despite the dual PLL and reclocking).
When I used a Teak P-500 Transport I found the combo also to sound bright, dry and faintly unpleasant. The Teac did sound similar with my non oversampling CS8412/TDA1541 DAC, leading me to eventually get rid of the Teac.
The best I get from any transport that I tried (I have not tried any of the extreme "battleship" ones) is any of the old, first generation Pioneer DVD-Players (the ones that use the full DVD Chipset to decode CD and have only one laser - resulting in CDR's being unplayable, as well as many "copy protected" CD's) with a clock upgrade fitted.
Looking at the block diagram and all it would appear that these units read the CD asyncronously and use the 12MB DRAM buffer of the DVD Player to hold the data, then clocked out by the Audio clock. Combined with using a really short digital interlink (< 12") to avoid any of the impedance mismatch problems of using RCA's and so on to cause reflections the results with most DAC's I tried have been much better then any dedicated CD transport or player I had my hands on.
Sadly 2nd generation and later players generally have dual laser systems and play CD's syncronously and are usually NDFG as Transports. Shame.
Anyway, as for lifting tracks, I did not lift a single one while working on the unit. Just get a good solder station, select the temperature well and use a solder sucker for desoldering. No sweat. Finally, I suspect the effect of the Os-Con's in the Digital section will be quite major. There are many chips with local decoupling and the elcap's fitted are generic junk.
The whole supply lines on the Digital board where quite noisy, but that may also have been aged electrolytics. Classic "generic" 'lytics really need changing every 4 - 6 years or they become troublesome (even if unit is not in use). How old was your unit when you where working on it?
Sayonara
Koinichiwa,
fmak said:
Funny. I would certainly not describe the sound of the LHH-1000 (even before re-build) as "dry" or "upfront". And that was with NE5534's. I have noticed that the DAC is however quite sensitive to the transport and digital link (despite the dual PLL and reclocking).
When I used a Teak P-500 Transport I found the combo also to sound bright, dry and faintly unpleasant. The Teac did sound similar with my non oversampling CS8412/TDA1541 DAC, leading me to eventually get rid of the Teac.
The best I get from any transport that I tried (I have not tried any of the extreme "battleship" ones) is any of the old, first generation Pioneer DVD-Players (the ones that use the full DVD Chipset to decode CD and have only one laser - resulting in CDR's being unplayable, as well as many "copy protected" CD's) with a clock upgrade fitted.
Looking at the block diagram and all it would appear that these units read the CD asyncronously and use the 12MB DRAM buffer of the DVD Player to hold the data, then clocked out by the Audio clock. Combined with using a really short digital interlink (< 12") to avoid any of the impedance mismatch problems of using RCA's and so on to cause reflections the results with most DAC's I tried have been much better then any dedicated CD transport or player I had my hands on.
Sadly 2nd generation and later players generally have dual laser systems and play CD's syncronously and are usually NDFG as Transports. Shame.
Anyway, as for lifting tracks, I did not lift a single one while working on the unit. Just get a good solder station, select the temperature well and use a solder sucker for desoldering. No sweat. Finally, I suspect the effect of the Os-Con's in the Digital section will be quite major. There are many chips with local decoupling and the elcap's fitted are generic junk.
The whole supply lines on the Digital board where quite noisy, but that may also have been aged electrolytics. Classic "generic" 'lytics really need changing every 4 - 6 years or they become troublesome (even if unit is not in use). How old was your unit when you where working on it?
Sayonara
What about those decoupling caps around TDA1541 (14 pcs or so); the original value is 0.1u. I was thinking about using BG N there, is bigger value better (like 1u maybe)?
Koinichiwa,
Well, you know my take onto BG's.
I did use 3u3 Os-Cons on the two most significant Pins supplied by the switching logic, the others are Foil & Film, 0.1uF or therabouts. This was based on the experience of someone who worked a lot with TDA1541. His take, MSB 1 & 2 go "big", for the rest it makes not much difference.
Capacitor quality is important because there are two things happening here. A network switches a number of current sources around, scaled in current (and thus voltage on the Pins) in appx 6db steps (lower bits). The Capacitors remove switching noise and average the voltage. The lower the voltage, the less linear the electrolytic capacitors and the more relevant the marginal ac and dc behaviour of the Cap. You need to combine excellent DC stability with very low ESR to sink the switching pulses effectively.
Sayonara
Peter Daniel said:
Well, you know my take onto BG's.
I did use 3u3 Os-Cons on the two most significant Pins supplied by the switching logic, the others are Foil & Film, 0.1uF or therabouts. This was based on the experience of someone who worked a lot with TDA1541. His take, MSB 1 & 2 go "big", for the rest it makes not much difference.
Capacitor quality is important because there are two things happening here. A network switches a number of current sources around, scaled in current (and thus voltage on the Pins) in appx 6db steps (lower bits). The Capacitors remove switching noise and average the voltage. The lower the voltage, the less linear the electrolytic capacitors and the more relevant the marginal ac and dc behaviour of the Cap. You need to combine excellent DC stability with very low ESR to sink the switching pulses effectively.
Sayonara
The following mods have been introduced during production:
Q351 changed from 74LS624N to 74LS628N
Q356 SDT250S added (4822 116 30228)
R351 changed from 1K to 2K2
R361 560R added between Pin 11 and 12 of Q351
I have no access to the manual and cannot give the reason for the mods nor do I know if they are relevant for what you want with the DAC. Just my 0.0002$
Happy tweaking 😉
/Hugo
Q351 changed from 74LS624N to 74LS628N
Q356 SDT250S added (4822 116 30228)
R351 changed from 1K to 2K2
R361 560R added between Pin 11 and 12 of Q351
I have no access to the manual and cannot give the reason for the mods nor do I know if they are relevant for what you want with the DAC. Just my 0.0002$
Happy tweaking 😉
/Hugo
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Well, I know😉
Kuei Yang Wang said:
And I like them too😉 And this location seems to be specifically suited for the convenient size of 5 X 7mm non polar, good quality electrolytics. Since the size of up to 4.7u is the same, I would be tempted to use higher value if it doesn't interfere with anything else. What about those green ERO square type caps? .68 or 1u comes in pretty small size too.
Somehow the idea of stacking caps as illustrated doesn't appeal to me much.
Attachments
- Status
- Not open for further replies.