I think "tone" used 14 BG NX capacitors for that purpose, and he also had some pics if memory serves me right. Maybe you should invite him to the thread 😎
I know some sources recomend MCap-ZN, as used in the picture above. The cost of that capacitor is more than 0.1uF NX-HiQ...
i am also really intrested in this question!
/kasra
I know some sources recomend MCap-ZN, as used in the picture above. The cost of that capacitor is more than 0.1uF NX-HiQ...
i am also really intrested in this question!
/kasra
Yeah, he used NX type. I would go even further by using higher value and N type. I have some 4.7u, N type . I guess they still should be OK, not too big value?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14038
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14038
Peter:
see edited above =D
anyways
I am at this stage myself on my tda1541 dac. I am going to buy 0.1 MCap-ZN. But are there better solutions than that, then im intrested!
/kasra
ps. I got the PDF for the TZ2200 =D
see edited above =D
anyways
I am at this stage myself on my tda1541 dac. I am going to buy 0.1 MCap-ZN. But are there better solutions than that, then im intrested!
/kasra
ps. I got the PDF for the TZ2200 =D
Peter Daniel said:
Using N is not going further as NX HiQ is the best series BG make. What about 0.1 uF 50V NX HiQ on the other pins and 3u3 Os-Cons on the two most significant Pins supplied by the switching logic as Kuei posted if you insist on using BG here ?
jean-paul said:
Would they (0.1 uF 50V NX HiQ) be better than those MCap-ZN I pictured previously?
Koinichiwa,
seekers for the tao,
PHYSICALLY, maybe. Please try. I am not the pope.
Same here. Loop area matters.
I'd rather have 0.1uF of BG-NX-HiQ or Siemens MKT before I'd touch BG-N's 100 times the value in the same application. Of course, decent Foil & Film Polyprops make most MKT's look and sound BAD!
Maybe, Using physocally large axial capacitors posse many problems. I guess it's a question of various paramameters. Is a bad capacitor with a short loop better than a good capacitor with a long loop....
Sayonara
seekers for the tao,
Peter Daniel said:
PHYSICALLY, maybe. Please try. I am not the pope.
Peter Daniel said:
Same here. Loop area matters.
Peter Daniel said:
I'd rather have 0.1uF of BG-NX-HiQ or Siemens MKT before I'd touch BG-N's 100 times the value in the same application. Of course, decent Foil & Film Polyprops make most MKT's look and sound BAD!
Peter Daniel said:
Maybe, Using physocally large axial capacitors posse many problems. I guess it's a question of various paramameters. Is a bad capacitor with a short loop better than a good capacitor with a long loop....
Sayonara
I pooged it many moons ago. It was a LOT of work. I got through the analog stage, but didn't fininsh the improved regs because they changed it (POOGE 5.51?) after I got the parts. I pretty much followed their POOGE specs exactly, including the source for the DAC caps. I think you all talking too much money for the returns, though.
One thing I didn't like was the order of changes. I think they had a rational for the order, but I don't recall. The analog stage was last. Therefore, the thing didn't have enough resolution to reveal changes in preceeding stages. It was hard to judge changes one at a time, especially since I couldn't A/B it with another one. I had to go on memory. While I didn't really notice much change in sound in the digital section, I can say that the caps around the DAC gave most bang for the buck/work other than the analog section. I would do those first, then see if you want to bother with doing more. I always wanted to replace the whole digital filter section, anyway.
As I said, it was a lot of work. Taking each board in and out was very time consuming, if I recall. I seem to remember each board having so many attachments to all the other boards, it seemed. I removed the headphone section all together. I seem to remember that sucker really being in the way, and I didn't forsee needing it.
I really should finish the regs for the analog section. But man, I wouldn't go through the whole thing again, or spend that much money on such an old DAC, especially with 24/96 out now. But it's your time and dollars. Concentrate on the analog and DAC caps.
One thing I didn't like was the order of changes. I think they had a rational for the order, but I don't recall. The analog stage was last. Therefore, the thing didn't have enough resolution to reveal changes in preceeding stages. It was hard to judge changes one at a time, especially since I couldn't A/B it with another one. I had to go on memory. While I didn't really notice much change in sound in the digital section, I can say that the caps around the DAC gave most bang for the buck/work other than the analog section. I would do those first, then see if you want to bother with doing more. I always wanted to replace the whole digital filter section, anyway.
As I said, it was a lot of work. Taking each board in and out was very time consuming, if I recall. I seem to remember each board having so many attachments to all the other boards, it seemed. I removed the headphone section all together. I seem to remember that sucker really being in the way, and I didn't forsee needing it.
I really should finish the regs for the analog section. But man, I wouldn't go through the whole thing again, or spend that much money on such an old DAC, especially with 24/96 out now. But it's your time and dollars. Concentrate on the analog and DAC caps.
My $0.02
I agree with some of the comments regarding size of caps and that may be more important than the actual quality of the cap, not meaning you could use crap.
When I shortened the leads of the caps to the minimum possible noticed that the sound was more clear, say more detail.
So IMO one should use a very compact cap to reduce the loop length.
Question,
Is the polarity of the circuit reversed at the pins? Meaning that the pins are more negative than ground?
This has to do in the event that one would try a small lytic at the MSB.
I agree with some of the comments regarding size of caps and that may be more important than the actual quality of the cap, not meaning you could use crap.
When I shortened the leads of the caps to the minimum possible noticed that the sound was more clear, say more detail.
So IMO one should use a very compact cap to reduce the loop length.
Question,
Is the polarity of the circuit reversed at the pins? Meaning that the pins are more negative than ground?
This has to do in the event that one would try a small lytic at the MSB.
DAC-960!!!!!
UGH! I sold my service manual and stash of spare parts for those many moon ago to a forum memeber.
It has a nasty RX chip, which despite saying "Sony" on it, if you look on its underside, you will see a "TI" logo.
Good luck..........
Jocko
UGH! I sold my service manual and stash of spare parts for those many moon ago to a forum memeber.
It has a nasty RX chip, which despite saying "Sony" on it, if you look on its underside, you will see a "TI" logo.
Good luck..........
Jocko
which are MSB pins?
The idea of using 3u3 OsCon at the MSB pins as proposed by Kuei Yang Wang sounds interesting to me. Would anyone out there told me which pins are MSB pins of TDA1541A so that could try it out in my dac.
Dennis
The idea of using 3u3 OsCon at the MSB pins as proposed by Kuei Yang Wang sounds interesting to me. Would anyone out there told me which pins are MSB pins of TDA1541A so that could try it out in my dac.
Dennis
Looking at schematic here http://www.ndh.net/home/kboehm/T-DAC-S1.htm it seems like it's pin 13 and 18.
Re: which are MSB pins?
Hi Dennis, Please see over here:
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=tweaks&n=68352&highlight=elso+msb+tda1541&r=&session=
Hope this helps,
😎
DWong said:
Hi Dennis, Please see over here:
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=tweaks&n=68352&highlight=elso+msb+tda1541&r=&session=
Hope this helps,
😎
- Status
- Not open for further replies.