ES9018 opinions. Can it beat the TDA1541?

[Luke]

the tda however had a novelty that wore off in about 2 weeks.....

while i can see what might appeal to some people, it really didnt do anything for me.

That is a very good summary of my feelings about this chip.

 

[ThorstenL]

Hi,

I think 1541 was measured with A too. That curve is as old as Earth...

Depends on the datasheet (there are about halve a dozend at least).

Had I used the A-Weighted figure I would have noted 18.7 Bits equivalent strictly for SNR of the TDA1541.

Yes at 0dB...
Example: PCM1794A. THD+N at 0dB is 0.0004% (at 44.1kHz SR and 4.5V output). That makes -108dB. SNR and DR alone are at 129dB.
Another one: AD1955. THD+N at 0dB is -110dB. SNR and DR are at 120dB (stereo).

I said not at 0dBfs to the "21-22Bit" that you had claimed earlier.

Now you claimed above:

"Yes at 0dB..."

So at 0dBFS the performance in your examples equals 21 to 22 Bits, yes? Let's see.

"Example: PCM1794A. THD+N at 0dB is 0.0004% (at 44.1kHz SR and 4.5V output). That makes -108dB."

And that makes it 17.9 Bit equivelent, 3 to 4 Bit short of your claim.

More interesting, doubling Sample Rate reduced this by another 6dB or 1 Bit every time it is doubled, so at 192KHz this DAC is down to less than 16 Bit equivalent resolution at 0dBfs!

A non-oversampling TDA1541 at 192KHz practically matches that!

"Another one: AD1955. THD+N at 0dB is -110dB. SNR and DR are at 120dB (stereo)."

That is 18.3 Bit's equivalent. Again 3 to 4 Bit's short from your claim.

The fact that numbers you posted singluary fail to support your claim should be blindingly obvious to you, so kindly explain why you make me waste my time with this nonsense?

Ciao T

 

[SoNic_real_one]

I guess you have your own formulas...
Dynamic range - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
16 bit means 20xlog(2^16)=96.32dB
20 bit means 120.41dB
21 bit means 126db
22 bit means 132dB
Dymanic range was my claim. THD+N is always lower - even on your TDA1541. Don't compare THD+N (on what you don't like) with SNR (on TDA)...
BTW, those where examples. No problem, whatever floats your boat. I know that mine (true, not an "crown" one) sucks compared with PCM1792...

 

[ThorstenL]

Hi,

I guess you have your own formulas...
Dynamic range - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, not at all.

However you advance -108dB and -110dB respectively as evidence for 21 to 22 Bit Performance, where -126dB to -132dB would be expected, so posting this was useless as evidence and you should have known that.

So, again, why do you waste my time?

Ciao T

 

[SoNic_real_one]

You are picking and choosing. You compare THD+N on the rest with only N on yours...

 

[ThorstenL]

Hi,

You are picking and choosing. You compare THD+N on the rest with only N on yours...

You WHAT? Did you read the thread, here a reminder from post # 72:

First, in recent times I made a comparison table that normalised various DAC's technical data.The TDA1541 showed itself as one of the best five Multibit DAC's, it comes out as having an effective resolution in terms of THD & N of 15.8 Bit at 0dBFS, essentially a perfect result (perfect would be 16 Bit).

I clearly state THD & N.

Pleas just stop wasting my time with nonsense.

Ciao T

 

[tessier]

Hi,

I don't have to John Brown (aka. ecdesigns) has documented an incredible development journey over several years in thishere forum, where he tries to get the optimum performance from the TDA1541. The later single TDA1541 designs have been slowly converging closely mostly towards the same design goals (if with slightly different realisations in hardware) that we designed into the AMR CD-77 from 2004 onwards (it was released in 2006).

I have experimentally tried some of his circuits, they work well and generally are quite close in results to my own. So for all seeking best quality from a TDA1541, have a read.

Ciao T

Hello

Have you try the first John Brown's circuits where he use 8 or 4 TDA1541A to do a shift registered dac ?

Thanx

Paul

 

[marcelnl]

I'm currently using a Teradac design with 8 TDA 1543's (I would have loved an 8*1541 S2 design, bt was unable to find 8 of them) and recently compared it to a Tentlabs B dac. I'd say they are different ;-) yet I like some parts of the new chip and some parts of the old design.

 

[SoNic_real_one]

Hi,
Pleas just stop wasting my time with nonsense.

Haha, it's easy, stop reading my "nonsense" if truth is bothering you that much.
Phillips gives SNR for the TDA1541 at 95dB and linearity at 1/2LSB (of 16 bit, that makes 0.003% distortion by itself, even if the rest is perfect).

You somehow want to convince the world that they where wrong, in reality SNR is more like 110dB. And distortion at levels of 15.8 bit when even Philips sayed that everithing past 15.5 was not possible...

Good luck!

 

[ThorstenL]

Hi,

Have you try the first John Brown's circuits where he use 8 or 4 TDA1541A to do a shift registered dac ?

No, I have yet to be convinced of the merit of this style of circuit, it seems so does John Brown...

Ciao T

 

[ThorstenL]

Hi,

Haha, it's easy, stop reading my "nonsense" if truth is bothering you that much.
Phillips gives SNR for the TDA1541 at 95dB and linearity at 1/2LSB (of 16 bit, that makes 0.003% distortion by itself, even if the rest is perfect).

Philips does not do any such thing.

Stop making up stuff on the spot to support your ridiculous position.

Just read the datasheet. The one I have used as basis is February 1991, TDA1541A. It states for typical performance (which I have used everywhere):

EL integral linearity error                                 0.5LSB
EdL differential linearity error                            0.5LSB

THD total harmonic distortion at 0 dB; 	                    -100dB
                                                           0.0010%

THD total harmonic distortion including noise at 0 dB;       -95dB
THD total harmonic distortion including noise at -60 dB;     -42dB

S/N signal-to-noise ratio at bipolar zero                   -110dB
S/N signal-to-noise ratio at full scale                     -104dB

Case proven, case closed. Now please stop wasting my time.

Ciao T

 

[AndrewGM]

Where is the exact recipe? If you have developed your own design, OK, but the readily available DAC kits don't use these optimizations, and nor do the old CD players. So for most people, newer DAC chips will beat the TDA1541.

Of course, if you want to share the optimum TDA1541 design, please be my guest........

How - who said - who can prove - under what listening conditions - whose ears ?
A 6 year old boy - an 80 year old man ?

Beat ?

In what way ?

This is stupid

 

[erin]

How - who said

I said. If I was quoting someone else, I would have cited it.

- who can prove - under what listening conditions - whose ears ?
A 6 year old boy - an 80 year old man ?

A 6yo would have a better chance of recognising the HF rolloff of a non oversampling DAC than the 80yo.

Beat ?
In what way ?
This is stupid

In the way that modern DAC chips do provide more detail or do I mean more clarity? Or perhaps its just a different presentation? Whatever it is, I have heard it with my own ears. And I will trust my ears before anyone elses anyday.

If you choose to pick out random quotes without reference to the the whole discussion you will tend to find them stupid.

My comment was directed at Thorsten who was saying that the TDA1541 with the optimal implimentation as used in the AMR77 was fandiddly-tastic, to which I enquired if he could share his recipie and he declined, to which I said that without the fandidly-tastic optimisations that modern dacs would beat a non fandangled TDA1541. And by beat, I mean in a multitude of ways which inclues the cost of the circuit, and accesabiltiy to ordinary people - who are not able to buy an AMR77. Sound quality vs cost.

Now if you came to pick on me because I said one thing against the TDA1541 you really have chosen the wrong person as I have 3 TDA1541 DACs at home, and 1 Philips CD player with the same chip. I regularly listen to them. I like them and appreciate them for what they are, and have been an avid supporter and promoter of them.

FWIW, I dont like the sound of TDA1541 when it is used with a SAA7220.
So, that is why I run my TDA1541s in NOS mode. To me this sounds better.
Should I listen to other oversampling filter chips? Perhaps? I only have so much money and friends to borrow equipment from.... my experience comes from what I have heard. If you think my experience is not good enough. Well OK, there is nothing I can do about that - you will just have to ignore my posts.

But its my personal honest opinion that newer DAC chips with simpler circuits can and do sound just as good if not better than the TDA1541 DACs I have heard.

In case you were wondering, I have never said that TDA1541 sounds bad. In fact quite the opposite. I think they sound great.

But I also think that most companies 'flagship' DAC chips sound good when used in a well designed circuit.

The argy bargy that goes on regarding sound is really quite funny. If you hear a good sounding sound system, its a good sounding system. It does not matter what makes up the system as long as it all works well together.

If someone in Australia has an AMR77 CD player I can listen to. Please let me know. I would love to hear it.

 

[erin]

Beat ?

The word "beat", I used in the context of the title of this thread " ES9018 opinions. Can it beat the TDA1541?"

Now, next point is, dont you want something to "beat" the TDA1541?
Or for the rest of all eternity must we be stuck with (no matter how good- or not good it is) the same old sound presentation of the TDA1541?
Don't you want something else to be "better"?

I certainly do!
Bring on the newer and better I say.

 

[ThorstenL]

Hi,

A 6yo would have a better chance of recognising the HF rolloff of a non oversampling DAC than the 80yo.

There is no inherent requirement for a DAC without oversampling filter to have a recognisable HF rolloff, be the listener 6 or 60 Years old.

And by beat, I mean in a multitude of ways which inclues the cost of the circuit, and accesabiltiy to ordinary people - who are not able to buy an AMR77. Sound quality vs cost.

I believe if we operate strictly on "SQ vs. Cost" basis the lowest cost Sony/Technics/Philips etc mini-stacks probably offer the best ratio in commercial products, just as the small "raving handbag" Family cars probably provide the best cost/performance ratio for individula transport, but are easily beaten by public transport where it exists.

Non of that means that I like to take public transport or one of these excuses for a car, or that I would like to listen to one of these generic Mini Stacks, their superior cost performance ratio non withstanding.

If someone in Australia has an AMR77 CD player I can listen to. Please let me know. I would love to hear it.

You can contact the Oz distributor, they are listed on AMR's website. They should know which dealer has stock, maybe even one near you.

Note, I also said that I feel John Browns designs around the TDA1541 are in many ways as good as what is in the CD-77 and in many ways more amenable to diy implementations. So you can try to mod your existing DAC's with some of his circuitry, you may find small things make large differences.

I also agree on the SAA7220, BTW, one of the reasons it sounds SO BAD is that it really pollutes the powersupplies that it is attached to, the other that it is designed for a very specific and precise response of the analogue stage, which most DIY'ers fail to preserve when they modify the analogue stages.

While I still preferred Non-OS, my LHH-1000 DAC restoration kept the SAA7220, the correct analog stage response and instead addressed the obvious problems as well as parts quality and the result sounded nothing but stunning and in one occasion did rather well against a silly expensive dCS stack (including detail and dynamics), so don't discount the SAA7220 too quickly.

Ciao T

 

[stoolpigeon]

Hi Thorsten,

how do you compare the ecdesigns multi dac approach with Stan Curtis' Cambridge 4 dac arrangement?

I got totally lost in the ecdesigns thread but still have a soft spot for my old Cambridge and am wondering if it is worth upgrading.

Or should I just stick to upgrading a single dac player such as Marantz CD80 using my single crown dac?

Thanks, sp

 

[ThorstenL]

Hi,

how do you compare the ecdesigns multi dac approach with Stan Curtis' Cambridge 4 dac arrangement?

They seem essentially identical. I have not really experimented with this configuration, I fail to see a real benefit from it. I would build something using a single....

Ciao T

 

[erin]

Hi,
There is no inherent requirement for a DAC without oversampling filter to have a recognisable HF rolloff, be the listener 6 or 60 Years old.
Ciao T

I thought this for quite a while. And I have had vigourous discussions with other diyaudio members about this. I originally thought that I could not hear the HF rolloff, but I now do think I can hear the rolloff.

I was told that it is mathematically proven that there is rolloff.

I dont doubt what I hear, but I find it hard to argue with the maths. Something about sin/x I think it was?

What is your take on the matter?

 

[stoolpigeon]

Thanks Thorsten - can I ask for your view on one more thing?

Is there any great difference between os or non os with a single dac or a multi dac arrangement?

sp

 

[GoranB]

I think that TDA1541 qualities are overrated. It's fame is mostly due to the fact that is cheap to find old CD players with it and it is packed in a big DIP capsule that DIY begginers can tinker/work easyer with...
I have a player with TDA1541 and several other players with modern DAC's. All of them have modded analog stages (better opamps) and... TDA1541 is my least favorite. Tried even the "NOS" mod... sounded horrid.
That is my conclusion, your milage might vary.

Try to add a separate discrete power supply +5V, -5V and -15V to TDA1541, also +5V for SAA7220 and +5V to SAA 7310, then test how it will sound...i dont think it will be your last favorite.