Thank you Kwak
I understand that ad1865-N-K is already good enough. But I just got the idea from pcm1702 application note, in which paralleling was mentioned. I just wonder if that is untrue to claim that the SNR or the DR improved.
http://focus.ti.com/lit/ug/sbau029/sbau029.pdf
I understand that ad1865-N-K is already good enough. But I just got the idea from pcm1702 application note, in which paralleling was mentioned. I just wonder if that is untrue to claim that the SNR or the DR improved.
http://focus.ti.com/lit/ug/sbau029/sbau029.pdf
Paralleling DACs
Hi Patpet,
Paralleling certainly improves signal to noise ratio but if this iinfluences sound quality I wonder......Noise is usually not a problem with digital audio.
😕
PatPet said:Thank you Kwak
I understand that ad1865-N-K is already good enough. But I just got the idea from pcm1702 application note, in which paralleling was mentioned. I just wonder if that is untrue to claim that the SNR or the DR improved.
http://focus.ti.com/lit/ug/sbau029/sbau029.pdf
Hi Patpet,
Paralleling certainly improves signal to noise ratio but if this iinfluences sound quality I wonder......Noise is usually not a problem with digital audio.
😕
Do you mean that it does not affect performance in other areas except S/N?
I also remembered that Accuphase uses paralleled DAC. Take a look of what they mentioned
http://www.accuphase.com/pdf/dc-101_dp-100.pdf
I also remembered that Accuphase uses paralleled DAC. Take a look of what they mentioned
http://www.accuphase.com/pdf/dc-101_dp-100.pdf
PatPet,
the situation is, that DAC sound is judged subjectively by most people.
This is the reason why some technically bad performing chips like TDA1543 are praised to heaven.
The human ear is pleased by low and even order harmonics and disgusted by high and odd order harmonics.
Now if a circuit of any kind produces the right harmonics, it is preferred over another circuit that adds nothing to the signal.
If one stacks chips, the lovely harmonics might get lost
I recently found that SAA7220C combined with TDA1541 shows dominant even order harmonics and sounds very good 😀
Maybe I make a RF relay switch between 7220A and 7220C.
the situation is, that DAC sound is judged subjectively by most people.
This is the reason why some technically bad performing chips like TDA1543 are praised to heaven.
The human ear is pleased by low and even order harmonics and disgusted by high and odd order harmonics.
Now if a circuit of any kind produces the right harmonics, it is preferred over another circuit that adds nothing to the signal.
If one stacks chips, the lovely harmonics might get lost
I recently found that SAA7220C combined with TDA1541 shows dominant even order harmonics and sounds very good 😀
Maybe I make a RF relay switch between 7220A and 7220C.
Sound quality
Sound quality is subjective by definition. But that is the only result what counts. I do not listen to measurements but to sound. The TDA1541 has so little energy at 6000Hz that it sounds dull and boring to my ears. King Gang Bang will raise in anger now...... The nice thing about DIY is you can build whatever you like.
🙄
Bernard,Bernhard said:PatPet,
the situation is, that DAC sound is judged subjectively by most people.
This is the reason why some technically bad performing chips like TDA1543 are praised to heaven.
The human ear is pleased by low and even order harmonics and disgusted by high and odd order harmonics.
Now if a circuit of any kind produces the right harmonics, it is preferred over another circuit that adds nothing to the signal.
If one stacks chips, the lovely harmonics might get lost
I recently found that SAA7220C combined with TDA1541 shows dominant even order harmonics and sounds very good 😀
Maybe I make a RF relay switch between 7220A and 7220C.
Sound quality is subjective by definition. But that is the only result what counts. I do not listen to measurements but to sound. The TDA1541 has so little energy at 6000Hz that it sounds dull and boring to my ears. King Gang Bang will raise in anger now...... The nice thing about DIY is you can build whatever you like.
🙄
Re: Sound quality
1) That`s the point.
Some people love Ghetto Blasters.
I prefer clean sound over rich harmonics, the harmonics make every CD sound the same.
2) What does that mean ?
Did you measure that ?
Did your ears tell you ?
Bad implementation of chip ? ? ? 😀 😀 😀
Dr. Guru`s advice:
Try 3D Voodoo ground plane and don`t forget hell`s gate decoupling caps 😀 😀 😀
QSerraTico_Tico said:
1) That`s the point.
Some people love Ghetto Blasters.
I prefer clean sound over rich harmonics, the harmonics make every CD sound the same.
2) What does that mean ?
Did you measure that ?
Did your ears tell you ?
Bad implementation of chip ? ? ? 😀 😀 😀
Dr. Guru`s advice:
Try 3D Voodoo ground plane and don`t forget hell`s gate decoupling caps 😀 😀 😀
Kwak: Do you have a good schematic layout of AD1865-K modified with your clock (Or any good source DIY project, which is a good starting point to a mod)? I would like to use my computer as a source, locked to external clock, and I found your clock is the best for implementing into DIY projects!
Thanks
Thanks
Elso Kwak said:
Yes, it was my experience. When paralleling you loose ambience and directness, with less resolution in highs. Sort of similar effect to using regulated supply on a GC 😉
But, in my recent DAC, using TDA1541S2 I actually prefer 2 paralleled DACs, but only when oscillator caps from each chip are connected together. Otherwise I would prefer a single chip.
BTW, both of my DACs (parallel TDA1541 and a single TDA1543) sound pretty much similar. However, when it comes to a purity of the sound, my choice is well implemented TDA1543. I guess the other DAC still needs more work.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.