Peter
Regarding the problem with higher frequencies in multi dac dacs...
In a bi-amped system, where the crossover point is 1700 hz...why not implement two dacs...the 8 dac dac for the lower frequencies and a one dac dac for the higher frequencies. Following each dac would be the appropriate LC passive high pass or low pass filter...I wonder how well this will work...
for the higher frequency dac...would I use the 1541 chip? Is it the same pin-out as the 1543????
Regarding the problem with higher frequencies in multi dac dacs...
In a bi-amped system, where the crossover point is 1700 hz...why not implement two dacs...the 8 dac dac for the lower frequencies and a one dac dac for the higher frequencies. Following each dac would be the appropriate LC passive high pass or low pass filter...I wonder how well this will work...
for the higher frequency dac...would I use the 1541 chip? Is it the same pin-out as the 1543????
audionut said:
I don't know much about digital but I do know that these chips have completely different packages and need different rails - perhaps 1545 would be OK, it is a contender I believe.
mike
I like to keep things simple and single DAC is good both in highs and lows. Will be comparing it tomorrow agains Partsconnexion modified Shangling SACD.😉
Tda1545 is like Tda1543 in pinout.
Tda1545 is like Tda1543 in pinout.
Thanx Peter
I think that I shall implement a Bi-Amped sort of DAC over the next 3 weeks and report back...
Maybe I shall try the 1545 if it is the same pin out as the 1543.
I think that I shall implement a Bi-Amped sort of DAC over the next 3 weeks and report back...
Maybe I shall try the 1545 if it is the same pin out as the 1543.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Interesting info Kuei! That gives even more motivation to ditch the S/P-DIF output transformer in my Philips CD-960...
Fedde
TTL
Does that mean I can use the 5v TTL direct from the CDR602s I have into the 8412? Or would I need to use a transformer?
Sorry if this appears like a daft question - I would try, but don't want to kill my 8412 in my DacKit.
Cheers
Jon
Does that mean I can use the 5v TTL direct from the CDR602s I have into the 8412? Or would I need to use a transformer?
Sorry if this appears like a daft question - I would try, but don't want to kill my 8412 in my DacKit.
Cheers
Jon
As promised yesterday, here's my comparison of Shangling SACD T200 to TDA1543 DAC. Shangling was modified by Pertsconnexion and here's a complete review of the t-100 modified unit, which is similar to T-200 http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/shanling/T100.html
We used my SB 102 preamp and GC monoblocks as well Raymod Lumley 150 monoblocks.
We listen first to a DAC driven by CD-Pro2 transport and it sounded very good. The detail, ambience, air, rythm, bass, soundstage, everything was there and basically it was hard to imagine how it could be further improved. All 3 guys in a room said: don't touch it, leave like that, it's perfect 😉
We used my SB 102 preamp and GC monoblocks as well Raymod Lumley 150 monoblocks.
We listen first to a DAC driven by CD-Pro2 transport and it sounded very good. The detail, ambience, air, rythm, bass, soundstage, everything was there and basically it was hard to imagine how it could be further improved. All 3 guys in a room said: don't touch it, leave like that, it's perfect 😉
Attachments
Later we listened to Shanling. Well, it has two outputs, one is solid state, the other is tube stage. SS output was not modified and is a stock version, tube output was extensively modified by PC.
The player, with a SS output, sounded actually worse than TDA1543 DAC. It was more mechanical sounding and less involving. It didn't really produce that special "feeling" of being there.
But when the player was used with a tube output, it sounded better than TDA 1543 DAC. It produced more liquidity, warmth, better pace and bigger soundstage. TDA1543 was still fine in that comparison, but Shangling had a noticable advantage. It was just more natural sounding and a bit more involving.
TDA543 sounded more dry and less liquid. Shanling had more harmony and was more musical. We noticed similar effect when driving the DAC directly from Shanling, used as a transport only.
But, since the SS output (on Shanling) produced much less satisfactory results than TDA1543 DAC, it means that the digital section of the DAC is probably in no way inferior to what's inside Shanling, and it's the tube stage that improves sound noticably.
Later on we also plugged in those big tube monoblocks, driven directly from the player (with pots atached directly to the inputs) and to me, the GC monoblock/preamp combo sounded better, and was much more accurate.
The GC gets really improved with a TVC. TVC, OTOH, was not really preferred on Ray Lumley monoblocks, and we preferred them with the pots on the input. Those pots were high quality, custom built, switching attenuators.
The player, with a SS output, sounded actually worse than TDA1543 DAC. It was more mechanical sounding and less involving. It didn't really produce that special "feeling" of being there.
But when the player was used with a tube output, it sounded better than TDA 1543 DAC. It produced more liquidity, warmth, better pace and bigger soundstage. TDA1543 was still fine in that comparison, but Shangling had a noticable advantage. It was just more natural sounding and a bit more involving.
TDA543 sounded more dry and less liquid. Shanling had more harmony and was more musical. We noticed similar effect when driving the DAC directly from Shanling, used as a transport only.
But, since the SS output (on Shanling) produced much less satisfactory results than TDA1543 DAC, it means that the digital section of the DAC is probably in no way inferior to what's inside Shanling, and it's the tube stage that improves sound noticably.
Later on we also plugged in those big tube monoblocks, driven directly from the player (with pots atached directly to the inputs) and to me, the GC monoblock/preamp combo sounded better, and was much more accurate.
The GC gets really improved with a TVC. TVC, OTOH, was not really preferred on Ray Lumley monoblocks, and we preferred them with the pots on the input. Those pots were high quality, custom built, switching attenuators.
Attachments
Peter Daniel said:
You may be right here but the above is not quite 100% logical.
It may be that your IV stage is considerably better than the shanling solid state o/p.
Too many variables to come to definitive conclusion.
the parts connection Valve o/p on your DAC or your I/V on the shanling the definitive test if it is possible technically.
But I do get the feeling that your DAC with valve o/p would be rather special. Do have plans for this.
mike
You are right about that. It's not really possible to state what exactly influences the differences.
However, this was a very good test for me, to check how good TDA1543 really is. Previously, I compared my Broadhust design based DAC, with very elaborate PS, multiple transformer and regualtors, parallel PCM1704K DACs, discreet output stage and so on, and that DAC didn't have any chances with Shanling (modfied) player. Yet today, that simple, Philips economy DAC, with only 2 resistors for output stage and BG coupling caps was quite a contender in comparison to Shanling. Another issue to consider is the interface between DAC and the transport. If connected directly through the I2S, it would probably be even better. And indeed, a tube output stage (with TDA1543) could definitely bring much more refinement. I'm not into SS outputs anymore😉. Also, the owner of the Shanling said to me honestly: "don't worry, it's not the DAC, it's the tube output that makes Shanling better." 😉 That is actually something I would like to investigate myself and build my first tube stage. It seems like it's a must requirement for a great sound.
BTW, Partsconnexion is also providing extensive mod to the SS output, but the owner of the player, just didn't want it.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17353&highlight=
However, this was a very good test for me, to check how good TDA1543 really is. Previously, I compared my Broadhust design based DAC, with very elaborate PS, multiple transformer and regualtors, parallel PCM1704K DACs, discreet output stage and so on, and that DAC didn't have any chances with Shanling (modfied) player. Yet today, that simple, Philips economy DAC, with only 2 resistors for output stage and BG coupling caps was quite a contender in comparison to Shanling. Another issue to consider is the interface between DAC and the transport. If connected directly through the I2S, it would probably be even better. And indeed, a tube output stage (with TDA1543) could definitely bring much more refinement. I'm not into SS outputs anymore😉. Also, the owner of the Shanling said to me honestly: "don't worry, it's not the DAC, it's the tube output that makes Shanling better." 😉 That is actually something I would like to investigate myself and build my first tube stage. It seems like it's a must requirement for a great sound.
BTW, Partsconnexion is also providing extensive mod to the SS output, but the owner of the player, just didn't want it.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17353&highlight=
I did some more tests and parts swapping and my preferences are as follows (mostly regardin BG caps):
The caps I'm using are N type and the start of the foil is marked with short lead or NP written on that side. I much prefer when short lead is on the voltage supply and long lead is to the ground. If I put it the other way, there is slight improvement in bass, but the sound is more edgy. For the output coupling I decided on 22/6.5 NX HiQ as they sounded smoother than 4.7N type. But that was in the other system. When I came home I had to go back to 4.7N type, as the NX sounded too mellow and distant. I tried again super-e configuration and again, me and the other guy we didn't like it, it provides less open sound. So I'm using a single cap, and the short lead is to the output from the chip, it sounds better this way. I also tried NX Hi Q on the receiver and input driver bypass and N type was definitely better in this position: more direct and less veiled.
I still have to check with N type 33/16, but presantly those are on backorder.
I also tested RF filter on the AC line and also didn't like it. Rikens sounded the best from what I tried. That's about all, the DAC is pretty much a finished design 😉
The caps I'm using are N type and the start of the foil is marked with short lead or NP written on that side. I much prefer when short lead is on the voltage supply and long lead is to the ground. If I put it the other way, there is slight improvement in bass, but the sound is more edgy. For the output coupling I decided on 22/6.5 NX HiQ as they sounded smoother than 4.7N type. But that was in the other system. When I came home I had to go back to 4.7N type, as the NX sounded too mellow and distant. I tried again super-e configuration and again, me and the other guy we didn't like it, it provides less open sound. So I'm using a single cap, and the short lead is to the output from the chip, it sounds better this way. I also tried NX Hi Q on the receiver and input driver bypass and N type was definitely better in this position: more direct and less veiled.
I still have to check with N type 33/16, but presantly those are on backorder.
I also tested RF filter on the AC line and also didn't like it. Rikens sounded the best from what I tried. That's about all, the DAC is pretty much a finished design 😉
I'm using 8V PS and resistors suggested to me by fedde were 3K and 1k6. I couldn't get Riken in 3K value, so I settled on 2k7. I'm still using 1k6 for Rref, but I guess I have to readjust that value now and do some more measurements.
Konnichiwa,
Hmmm. The T-200 SACD Player and T-100 CD Player are very different and sound that too (I had them side by side for a good while), which is preferable depends upon system context and music, to my ears at least.
Funny that. The "Tube" output is merely a cathode follower buffer following after all the solid state section. In case of the T-200 this consists (IIRC) out of PCM1738 -> 2 X OPA627 as I/V -> OPA(2)604 as Balanced to differential -> TI/BB Volume Control Chip (forgot number) -> OPA(2)604 as buffer. Following after that are some 6N3 (Chinese) or WE396A as parallel "bootstrap" follower.
Go figger.
The T-100 BTW is 2 X PCM-1704 parallel -> OPA(2)604 as I/V (OPA627 pluggable and brings a lot) -> NE5532 as GIC Filter (OPA627 pluggable and brings a lot) -> OPA(2)604 as Buffer (OPA627 or BUF634 pluggable and brings a lot). Following after that are some 6N3 (Chinese) or WE396A as parallel "bootstrap" follower. Volume control is handled digitally by the HDCD Filter.
If these are the Shanling SP-80 - they need a lot of work (IMHO) to get the best (or just a little).
Their input is a solid state "preamp" OPA(2)604 -> Volume Control Chip (same as in player) -> OPA(2)604 -> Valve Amp. Plus - the Valve Amp really needs decent NOS 6SL7 & 6SN7 to shine, VT-229/231 (IIRC) did best. Better EL34's also do not go amiss. I preferred the Amp's by far with that F%$€£@ preamp board bypassed (it's just a jumper) and TVC directly into the actual amp and all NOS Valves (big surprise - NOT).
Ah, Lumley Monoblocks. Bit of a mixed bag if these are the earlier generation. I am not familiar with any current ones (if they make any). For me the best PP Amp's on a budget are still the various quicksilvers, if money is no object get an ANJ Baransu/Shinri, Kegon/Kassai, Ongaku or Neiro (in order of preference).
Sayonara
Peter Daniel said:
Hmmm. The T-200 SACD Player and T-100 CD Player are very different and sound that too (I had them side by side for a good while), which is preferable depends upon system context and music, to my ears at least.
Peter Daniel said:
Funny that. The "Tube" output is merely a cathode follower buffer following after all the solid state section. In case of the T-200 this consists (IIRC) out of PCM1738 -> 2 X OPA627 as I/V -> OPA(2)604 as Balanced to differential -> TI/BB Volume Control Chip (forgot number) -> OPA(2)604 as buffer. Following after that are some 6N3 (Chinese) or WE396A as parallel "bootstrap" follower.
Go figger.
The T-100 BTW is 2 X PCM-1704 parallel -> OPA(2)604 as I/V (OPA627 pluggable and brings a lot) -> NE5532 as GIC Filter (OPA627 pluggable and brings a lot) -> OPA(2)604 as Buffer (OPA627 or BUF634 pluggable and brings a lot). Following after that are some 6N3 (Chinese) or WE396A as parallel "bootstrap" follower. Volume control is handled digitally by the HDCD Filter.
Peter Daniel said:
If these are the Shanling SP-80 - they need a lot of work (IMHO) to get the best (or just a little).
Their input is a solid state "preamp" OPA(2)604 -> Volume Control Chip (same as in player) -> OPA(2)604 -> Valve Amp. Plus - the Valve Amp really needs decent NOS 6SL7 & 6SN7 to shine, VT-229/231 (IIRC) did best. Better EL34's also do not go amiss. I preferred the Amp's by far with that F%$€£@ preamp board bypassed (it's just a jumper) and TVC directly into the actual amp and all NOS Valves (big surprise - NOT).
Peter Daniel said:
Ah, Lumley Monoblocks. Bit of a mixed bag if these are the earlier generation. I am not familiar with any current ones (if they make any). For me the best PP Amp's on a budget are still the various quicksilvers, if money is no object get an ANJ Baransu/Shinri, Kegon/Kassai, Ongaku or Neiro (in order of preference).
Sayonara
Hi,
Being a tube guy doesn't necessarily mean being biased but that guy sounds like he is to me.
As far as I understand it, there is definetely something not quite kosher with the off the shelf Shanling SS output.
The DAC itself should be fine or no tube stage could possibly "improve" it.
Enter PC which offer to mod it, either with a new SS output or a tube. Am I correct?
Not that I mind anyone modding their DAC by adding a tube stage but I reckon it helps to understand why it does what it does...
Cheers,😉
Being a tube guy doesn't necessarily mean being biased but that guy sounds like he is to me.
As far as I understand it, there is definetely something not quite kosher with the off the shelf Shanling SS output.
The DAC itself should be fine or no tube stage could possibly "improve" it.
Enter PC which offer to mod it, either with a new SS output or a tube. Am I correct?
Not that I mind anyone modding their DAC by adding a tube stage but I reckon it helps to understand why it does what it does...
Cheers,😉
Kuei Yang Wang said:
What was your impression when comparing both outputs?
I also, don't know exactly how this unit was modifed, but the tube output sounded substantially better, to the point that switching to SS was practiaclly unlistenable.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.