>> Showing schematics
I doubt that these are of any help. How many of you guys have tried to build such a device based on the schematics? How many of you have even tried to modify his prebuild devices?
Guys. John knows what he is doing!
>> Evolving your designs to MKx
Nobody is saying that evolving your products is a bad thing.
Commercial products do suffer of price/cost/competition/market value implications which puts a lot of pressure on companies, especially those little ones like EC-design.
At a certain point you need to get your product out - even though you know there are still flaws ( or better space for improvements) in there and "it's good enough" -- for now.
But you won't tell the market "it's good enough"! The market has to tell you that it's good enough!
The actual issue in this discussion is about "attitude". I won't repeat myself. We all know that not any audio device is perfect out there. Telling the market "it's good enough", which pretty much implies that there is nothing better out there or "you guys talking nonsense" that's not OK.
I know John. He is a pretty innovative guy and good at what he is doing. Beside that he's a pretty nice and supportive guy. Marketing for sure is not his strongest side.
If you run your marketing in a forum like this one, you'll get into a situation where you need defend your product design decisions sooner or later. That won't work!
I'd advise John not to mix his commercial and his DIY ambitions. (To avoid discussions like this in an open non-commercial DIY forum)
Enough non-tech talk from my side. I'm outta here. 😉
Cheers
I doubt that these are of any help. How many of you guys have tried to build such a device based on the schematics? How many of you have even tried to modify his prebuild devices?
Guys. John knows what he is doing!
>> Evolving your designs to MKx
Nobody is saying that evolving your products is a bad thing.
Commercial products do suffer of price/cost/competition/market value implications which puts a lot of pressure on companies, especially those little ones like EC-design.
At a certain point you need to get your product out - even though you know there are still flaws ( or better space for improvements) in there and "it's good enough" -- for now.
But you won't tell the market "it's good enough"! The market has to tell you that it's good enough!
The actual issue in this discussion is about "attitude". I won't repeat myself. We all know that not any audio device is perfect out there. Telling the market "it's good enough", which pretty much implies that there is nothing better out there or "you guys talking nonsense" that's not OK.
I know John. He is a pretty innovative guy and good at what he is doing. Beside that he's a pretty nice and supportive guy. Marketing for sure is not his strongest side.
If you run your marketing in a forum like this one, you'll get into a situation where you need defend your product design decisions sooner or later. That won't work!
I'd advise John not to mix his commercial and his DIY ambitions. (To avoid discussions like this in an open non-commercial DIY forum)
Enough non-tech talk from my side. I'm outta here. 😉
Cheers
Hi bernhard,
Yes, this was verified by measurements (scope) when I tested the silvercore volume control at my place using the MK4 to drive it. The TVC load was 10K as specified by the manufacturer.
Oscillation (on left channel only) could be stopped with approx. 1nF connected in parallel with the 10K resistive load. Swapping channels didn't solve the problem so I expect a problem with one of the TVCs inside the unit. I assume similar effect was achieved using the filter cable during the demonstration.
The channel that didn't oscillate sounded very good, and I must admit I didn't expect this. Looking at the silvercore TVC specs and fully screened TVC construction (transformer, wiring and switch located within a mu-metal screen) this may well be one of the best TVCs available today. When using the 1nF load (to stop the oscillation in the other channel) sound quality was clearly degraded compared to the unfiltered output. I expect something similar happened at the demonstration where both channels were filtered.
Diy audio member who compared the MK5 with optimized Sabre DAC reported that level of detail of the MK5 was on par with the Sabre DAC. On top of that the MK5 offered natural sound quality (no listening fatigue), something the Sabre DAC and many other DACs still fail to offer.
I am answering you right now no?
This only proves that I DO take criticism seriously and perform improvements after careful evaluation, that however takes time.
The ALPS pot was the most practical solution at that time. It performed better compared to my stepped volume control with metal foil resistors and the lightspeed volume control. Since system transparency and resolution weren't as high as they are now, the degrading effect (plastic film resistive element noise spectrum) wasn't that clearly audible then.
The choice for wire wound pots was made based on the fact that wire wound resistors produce lower noise levels. This became more important as audio set resolution and transparency increased over time.
You put quite some time and effort in your projects, so you should have discovered by now that overall audio set performance is limited by the weakest link. In order to maximize performance one has to locate and fix the weakest link. After fixing this weakest link, it's obvious that another component now could become the weakest link, and so on. This is exactly why I "jump" from one audio component to the next during optimizing.
These are relative rather than absolute remarks about perceived sound quality. They indicate perceived improvements relative to previous designs. During development the goals can be set higher as overall performance increases.
Yes, this was verified by measurements (scope) when I tested the silvercore volume control at my place using the MK4 to drive it. The TVC load was 10K as specified by the manufacturer.
Oscillation (on left channel only) could be stopped with approx. 1nF connected in parallel with the 10K resistive load. Swapping channels didn't solve the problem so I expect a problem with one of the TVCs inside the unit. I assume similar effect was achieved using the filter cable during the demonstration.
The channel that didn't oscillate sounded very good, and I must admit I didn't expect this. Looking at the silvercore TVC specs and fully screened TVC construction (transformer, wiring and switch located within a mu-metal screen) this may well be one of the best TVCs available today. When using the 1nF load (to stop the oscillation in the other channel) sound quality was clearly degraded compared to the unfiltered output. I expect something similar happened at the demonstration where both channels were filtered.
Diy audio member who compared the MK5 with optimized Sabre DAC reported that level of detail of the MK5 was on par with the Sabre DAC. On top of that the MK5 offered natural sound quality (no listening fatigue), something the Sabre DAC and many other DACs still fail to offer.
I am answering you right now no?
This only proves that I DO take criticism seriously and perform improvements after careful evaluation, that however takes time.
The ALPS pot was the most practical solution at that time. It performed better compared to my stepped volume control with metal foil resistors and the lightspeed volume control. Since system transparency and resolution weren't as high as they are now, the degrading effect (plastic film resistive element noise spectrum) wasn't that clearly audible then.
The choice for wire wound pots was made based on the fact that wire wound resistors produce lower noise levels. This became more important as audio set resolution and transparency increased over time.
You put quite some time and effort in your projects, so you should have discovered by now that overall audio set performance is limited by the weakest link. In order to maximize performance one has to locate and fix the weakest link. After fixing this weakest link, it's obvious that another component now could become the weakest link, and so on. This is exactly why I "jump" from one audio component to the next during optimizing.
These are relative rather than absolute remarks about perceived sound quality. They indicate perceived improvements relative to previous designs. During development the goals can be set higher as overall performance increases.
It was not meant serious, maybe that wasn't clear enough.
I use TVCs myself, so I know they are not oscillating, but there is some ringing when unterminated.
Hi there.
I've just been informed by Silvercore that - as matter of fact - there have been minor
problems with that 1st series of TVCs. The problem has been identified and fixed.
If that TVC on the show was making problems - who knows.
A fact is that that the Anagram converter sounded extremely clean without filter cable on the same TVC and the SD-player did not.
BTW: There've been 3-4 SC transformers in the chain at the show. I never expected slightest details to get through all that. They did perform quite well though.
Good to hear that the SD player comes close to the Sabre. 😉 Whatever that means!!?!? What Sabre config are we talking about? There are a minimum of 100 different ways of running and powering that Sabre device. Upsampling? Clocking? Output? Input? Powering?
Cheers
I've just been informed by Silvercore that - as matter of fact - there have been minor
problems with that 1st series of TVCs. The problem has been identified and fixed.
If that TVC on the show was making problems - who knows.
A fact is that that the Anagram converter sounded extremely clean without filter cable on the same TVC and the SD-player did not.
BTW: There've been 3-4 SC transformers in the chain at the show. I never expected slightest details to get through all that. They did perform quite well though.
Good to hear that the SD player comes close to the Sabre. 😉 Whatever that means!!?!? What Sabre config are we talking about? There are a minimum of 100 different ways of running and powering that Sabre device. Upsampling? Clocking? Output? Input? Powering?
Cheers
god save the queen!
guys! i am a little bit confused of all this discussions:
@bernhard
you are criticising john's thread and have been commenting this thread in a very negative way now since years why john does not follow your advise(opinion) and is developing a dac based on a old-fashion dac of tda-1541a or a cheap dac 1543.
bernhard! look, as the name of the thread was starting and still saying: "building-ultimate-nos-dac-using-tda1541a "
it is not building-ultimate-nos-dac-using-modern dac chips. it is "building-ultimate-nos-dac-using-tda1541a" !!! so either you understand that and stop please this negative comments or you open another thread and develop your own goal/passion as you wish and let all of us enjoy your value. so please do not put such comments again and think over "your" attitude!
@ klaus (soundcheck)
most of all i am very surprised about your comments, because i always thought that if qualified people around can add value to this thread you are one of them!
from the point of view of a developer there is nothing wrong to optimize a design to "infinity" if you are able to make it better and better! from the marketing/sales aspects this is a different story. however, john has always claimed to be a developer rather than a salesman! marketing/sales were never john's first priority, otherwise he might made a lot of money with his designs until now, so i have to object your remark that he "just" want to sell his units!
imo there is also nothing wrong to have an optimized high-end chain contained of a specific source, pre-/ power-amp and speakers ! if this leads to achieve the highest performance then why not and i like this approach!
i remember even you mentioned last year that probably the best solution has to be an "integrated system" which is closely adapted to each other. so why are you now afraid to see that this dac can reveal its best performance with an optimized power-amp (circlotron) or john's speakers with improved design?
i , myself, never had the impression that john has a "i know all, teacher-like" attitude! he might sometimes express himself in a very enthusiastic form, everytime he has mastered an issue and improved his design, but come on, klaus, please, all of us are more and less of the same attitude, otherwise no (diy) forum could be ever exist :-D ... ( ... back to the good old time at the bastanis forum i can remember some posts from some people which made more the impression of "i know the best" ;-) but those kind of information/comments are the "ghost" of every lively and successful forum and therefore most welcome !)
it is very respectable to see all the informations that john has been sharing with us during the past 4 years developing this (hopefully never ending 🙂 ) dac! i have been educating myself through this thread a lot and has used many of the design aspects in many other of my non-dac applications!
god save the queen! :-D
mamal
guys! i am a little bit confused of all this discussions:
@bernhard
you are criticising john's thread and have been commenting this thread in a very negative way now since years why john does not follow your advise(opinion) and is developing a dac based on a old-fashion dac of tda-1541a or a cheap dac 1543.
bernhard! look, as the name of the thread was starting and still saying: "building-ultimate-nos-dac-using-tda1541a "
it is not building-ultimate-nos-dac-using-modern dac chips. it is "building-ultimate-nos-dac-using-tda1541a" !!! so either you understand that and stop please this negative comments or you open another thread and develop your own goal/passion as you wish and let all of us enjoy your value. so please do not put such comments again and think over "your" attitude!
@ klaus (soundcheck)
most of all i am very surprised about your comments, because i always thought that if qualified people around can add value to this thread you are one of them!
from the point of view of a developer there is nothing wrong to optimize a design to "infinity" if you are able to make it better and better! from the marketing/sales aspects this is a different story. however, john has always claimed to be a developer rather than a salesman! marketing/sales were never john's first priority, otherwise he might made a lot of money with his designs until now, so i have to object your remark that he "just" want to sell his units!
imo there is also nothing wrong to have an optimized high-end chain contained of a specific source, pre-/ power-amp and speakers ! if this leads to achieve the highest performance then why not and i like this approach!
i remember even you mentioned last year that probably the best solution has to be an "integrated system" which is closely adapted to each other. so why are you now afraid to see that this dac can reveal its best performance with an optimized power-amp (circlotron) or john's speakers with improved design?
i , myself, never had the impression that john has a "i know all, teacher-like" attitude! he might sometimes express himself in a very enthusiastic form, everytime he has mastered an issue and improved his design, but come on, klaus, please, all of us are more and less of the same attitude, otherwise no (diy) forum could be ever exist :-D ... ( ... back to the good old time at the bastanis forum i can remember some posts from some people which made more the impression of "i know the best" ;-) but those kind of information/comments are the "ghost" of every lively and successful forum and therefore most welcome !)
it is very respectable to see all the informations that john has been sharing with us during the past 4 years developing this (hopefully never ending 🙂 ) dac! i have been educating myself through this thread a lot and has used many of the design aspects in many other of my non-dac applications!
god save the queen! :-D
mamal
>> I remember even you mentioned last year that probably the best solution has to be an "integrated system"
Yes of course, I'd still recommend that approach.
And if John develops an amp perfectly matching his 500R passive outputstage and his own speakers SPL/impedance/etc. Fair enough. I've done that too.
The problem is: Don't ever try to run single parts of that solution in a different chain. You might end up being kind of disappointed. We all know that John is well aware of that risk.
He pointed that out more than once.
Just to make one thing clear: Even after that overheated discussion over here,
I still do believe that John's SD-player approach ( lets leave out of equation the DAC, the samplerate and bitdepth limitations) is a pretty unique product solution - I said that before.
It also seems that John starts thinking into a different direction. See latest development of 64bit I2S. We might see sooner or later a Sabre 32 by EC-designs - who knows.
With that one as base he'd for sure face a lot more flexibility in all directions, without compromising SQ too much.
Cheers
Yes of course, I'd still recommend that approach.
And if John develops an amp perfectly matching his 500R passive outputstage and his own speakers SPL/impedance/etc. Fair enough. I've done that too.
The problem is: Don't ever try to run single parts of that solution in a different chain. You might end up being kind of disappointed. We all know that John is well aware of that risk.
He pointed that out more than once.
Just to make one thing clear: Even after that overheated discussion over here,
I still do believe that John's SD-player approach ( lets leave out of equation the DAC, the samplerate and bitdepth limitations) is a pretty unique product solution - I said that before.
It also seems that John starts thinking into a different direction. See latest development of 64bit I2S. We might see sooner or later a Sabre 32 by EC-designs - who knows.
With that one as base he'd for sure face a lot more flexibility in all directions, without compromising SQ too much.
Cheers
i do very hope (and i am somehow sure ) that john will sooner or later develop systems using different dac chips, especially, because the tda1541a will not be available in the market for ever ;-) ... however, in the meantime, i hope this thread will get the maximum out of the very nice tda1541a 🙂 .
cheers
mamal
ps.: a friend of mine who owns a successful audio high-end brand and is also the developer of his products, mentioned one time as we were discussing the capability of the dac chips available in the market and which one might be better or the best, that you can almost take any good dac chip and design a very enjoyable audiophile unite around it ... and i think this statement is true!
Hi guys,
Allow me to intrude.
TVC as in Transformer Volume Control? I use one for years and they ring unless "treated". I know some people wire them as Autoformers (if you can live without galvanic insulation) and they claim the sonic perfomance is way better this way than in TVC configuration. I never had the courage to try it though. Autoformers are probably not prone to ringing. 🙁
Dear Soundcheck, you know I love you but sometimes you overreact. 😀
Cheers everybody,
M.
Allow me to intrude.
TVC as in Transformer Volume Control? I use one for years and they ring unless "treated". I know some people wire them as Autoformers (if you can live without galvanic insulation) and they claim the sonic perfomance is way better this way than in TVC configuration. I never had the courage to try it though. Autoformers are probably not prone to ringing. 🙁
Dear Soundcheck, you know I love you but sometimes you overreact. 😀
Cheers everybody,
M.
As long as I - what you call - overreact, I know I'm still alive 😀
I overreact ( and obviously not only me) while John tries to talk things down.
That's the situation.
Progress is made by challenging people. Not by pampering them. 😉
As long as a discussion stays kind of fair and objective, discussions like this one
I consider rather constructive.
IMO a fact is that John faces a conflict of interest by posting his stuff as ec-designs over here.
TVC: I was running my S&B TX102 in autoformer mode a couple of years back.
The level of detail heavily improved running that mode. It still sounded
boring compared to a piece of wire.
Hi guys.
It's been quiet around here for a while. 😉
Anybody around, who tried to hook up e.g. a Sabre (Buffalo) to the new player firmware? Any impressions to post?
THX.
Cheers
It's been quiet around here for a while. 😉
Anybody around, who tried to hook up e.g. a Sabre (Buffalo) to the new player firmware? Any impressions to post?
THX.
Cheers
Hi Ecdesigns,
i wish you and all Happy New Year.
Thanks for sharing and selling good sounding stuff.
Best regards,
Bostjan
i wish you and all Happy New Year.
Thanks for sharing and selling good sounding stuff.
Best regards,
Bostjan
There have been many interesting updates since my last post, but I decided not to document this project anymore in order to avoid conflict of interest.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.