Please continue, this weird'*** thread is giving me information about my favourite chip.
Audial owner Pedja Rogic has this to say about grades:
"
One of the questions I’ve been receiving from prospective customers has been like this:
“Which TDA1541A grade is used in the Audial DACs?”
And it obviously suggested people’s ultimate wish to have something precious – still, more often than not, it was naive to some extent. I say this not only because Audial DACs are famous for using all quality parts (and not one or two for marketing purposes), but also because those who really know the difference between TDA1541A grades are extremely rare. Err, I’ll take the trouble to say this, if you can find one at all.
So, is S1 (single crown) really better than plain TDA1541A (or non -A), and is S2 (double crown) then better than S1? So if you have a plain TDA1541A (or non -A), can you improve upon it by installing S1, and can you further improve by using S2?
The only positive answer goes partially to the last part – if you have S2 you can not go further than that – and if S2 were still available I would put them into the Audial DACs (indeed, at least to avoid those questions). But at the end of the day, the whole situation with TDA1541A grades is not that simple.
To avoid misunderstandings at this level, let me remind you these specifics: TDA1541 (non -A) was launched in 1985, and it had no grades – funnily enough, this early 1541 was normally specified for exceptional 1/2 LSB linearity.
The grades came with TDA1541A, which superseded TDA1541 in 1988. Both S1 and S2 grades are specified for their THD+N of 0.45% (-47 dB) at -60 dBFS, as opposed to 0.8% (-42 dB) specified for non S TDA1541A. In addition, S2 is specified for THD+N of 0.0014 % (-97 dB) at full level, as opposed to 0.0018% claimed for non S2 grade. It is important to understand that the S versions are guaranteed by Philips for this performance, but the fact they are guaranteed doesn’t mean that non S grades can’t match the same performance level. As a side notice, apart from the S grades, there is also the R1 grade, however Philips documentation is kinda confusing about it – sometimes it is slightly better specified than unmarked TDA1541A, sometimes it is inferior – and my findings are that it is indeed inferior.
Going through a bunch of different TDA1541A (and non -A) series over the time, one thing came to me quite clearly: every series of TDA1541(A), and there were quite many as there were different production runs that spanned more than one decade and different countries, so, every series of TDA1541(A) performs somewhat distinctively. This means that each series shows both somewhat characteristic distortion pattern, and somewhat characteristic sonic properties.
I tried to point out this issue about five years ago by posting these plots for several different TDA1541A series:
http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=13118#p13118
(Scroll down to the last post at this page, and also see the next page comments, please.)
As you can see at these plots, two out of three non S1 TDA1541A chips in fact fulfill S1 criteria, and it is only the one marked as R1 grade that doesn’t do. And what might surprise you more, both of these non S1 chips perform in fact slightly better than S1 chip, even though the difference in this regard can be considered negligible.
In addition to this, my later experience with additional TDA1541A series in some way also confirmed Carlos’ guess. It doesn’t apply entirely, as you can see series HSH8844 performing better than HSH8910 (S1 grade at that), or say HSH9314 (this one I measured later, so it was not shown at these graphs), however newer TDA1541A series, those made in the late 90s, often perform better than the older ones. (Please note: two first numbers of the code mark the year, and another two numbers mark the week of production, so 8844 means that it was made in 1988, week 44.)
Apart from S2 versions, I ultimately found the best performing version of TDA1541A, both objectively and subjectively, the one made in Taiwan in 1998. In fact, there were S2 series originating from the same process, and samples not marked as S2 achieve actually very similar performance. An effort to improve upon this sample of TDA1541A by installing (genuine) S2 sample was reported also by customers as ineffective – no sonic improvements were noticed.
Taiwan made 1998 series is the one used in the recent Audial DACs. And once the available stock is depleted, Audial will cease TDA1541A based DACs production – it became too tough to ensure the same or similar performing TDA1541A chips on a regular basis. And in days when even TDA1541A series that didn’t pass basic the quality control are leaking to the market, and as I went through the mess of receiving completely fake TDA1541A samples even from renowned stores, it would be too much still to ask for that.
"
Audial owner Pedja Rogic has this to say about grades:
"
TDA1541A and Model S USB, part 4: TDA1541A grades and series
Nov 1, 2011, by PedjaOne of the questions I’ve been receiving from prospective customers has been like this:
“Which TDA1541A grade is used in the Audial DACs?”
And it obviously suggested people’s ultimate wish to have something precious – still, more often than not, it was naive to some extent. I say this not only because Audial DACs are famous for using all quality parts (and not one or two for marketing purposes), but also because those who really know the difference between TDA1541A grades are extremely rare. Err, I’ll take the trouble to say this, if you can find one at all.
So, is S1 (single crown) really better than plain TDA1541A (or non -A), and is S2 (double crown) then better than S1? So if you have a plain TDA1541A (or non -A), can you improve upon it by installing S1, and can you further improve by using S2?
The only positive answer goes partially to the last part – if you have S2 you can not go further than that – and if S2 were still available I would put them into the Audial DACs (indeed, at least to avoid those questions). But at the end of the day, the whole situation with TDA1541A grades is not that simple.
To avoid misunderstandings at this level, let me remind you these specifics: TDA1541 (non -A) was launched in 1985, and it had no grades – funnily enough, this early 1541 was normally specified for exceptional 1/2 LSB linearity.
The grades came with TDA1541A, which superseded TDA1541 in 1988. Both S1 and S2 grades are specified for their THD+N of 0.45% (-47 dB) at -60 dBFS, as opposed to 0.8% (-42 dB) specified for non S TDA1541A. In addition, S2 is specified for THD+N of 0.0014 % (-97 dB) at full level, as opposed to 0.0018% claimed for non S2 grade. It is important to understand that the S versions are guaranteed by Philips for this performance, but the fact they are guaranteed doesn’t mean that non S grades can’t match the same performance level. As a side notice, apart from the S grades, there is also the R1 grade, however Philips documentation is kinda confusing about it – sometimes it is slightly better specified than unmarked TDA1541A, sometimes it is inferior – and my findings are that it is indeed inferior.
Going through a bunch of different TDA1541A (and non -A) series over the time, one thing came to me quite clearly: every series of TDA1541(A), and there were quite many as there were different production runs that spanned more than one decade and different countries, so, every series of TDA1541(A) performs somewhat distinctively. This means that each series shows both somewhat characteristic distortion pattern, and somewhat characteristic sonic properties.
I tried to point out this issue about five years ago by posting these plots for several different TDA1541A series:
http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=13118#p13118
(Scroll down to the last post at this page, and also see the next page comments, please.)
As you can see at these plots, two out of three non S1 TDA1541A chips in fact fulfill S1 criteria, and it is only the one marked as R1 grade that doesn’t do. And what might surprise you more, both of these non S1 chips perform in fact slightly better than S1 chip, even though the difference in this regard can be considered negligible.
In addition to this, my later experience with additional TDA1541A series in some way also confirmed Carlos’ guess. It doesn’t apply entirely, as you can see series HSH8844 performing better than HSH8910 (S1 grade at that), or say HSH9314 (this one I measured later, so it was not shown at these graphs), however newer TDA1541A series, those made in the late 90s, often perform better than the older ones. (Please note: two first numbers of the code mark the year, and another two numbers mark the week of production, so 8844 means that it was made in 1988, week 44.)
Apart from S2 versions, I ultimately found the best performing version of TDA1541A, both objectively and subjectively, the one made in Taiwan in 1998. In fact, there were S2 series originating from the same process, and samples not marked as S2 achieve actually very similar performance. An effort to improve upon this sample of TDA1541A by installing (genuine) S2 sample was reported also by customers as ineffective – no sonic improvements were noticed.
Taiwan made 1998 series is the one used in the recent Audial DACs. And once the available stock is depleted, Audial will cease TDA1541A based DACs production – it became too tough to ensure the same or similar performing TDA1541A chips on a regular basis. And in days when even TDA1541A series that didn’t pass basic the quality control are leaking to the market, and as I went through the mess of receiving completely fake TDA1541A samples even from renowned stores, it would be too much still to ask for that.
"
Hi, the way i see it your difference in opinion with Brijac is between camp: Preference in subjective sound VS better measurements
How do you subjectively (in your own opinion) hear the sound differs between late 90's chip and older?
You can also pm if you want or not answer, your choise..
I honestly want to know if there is more to this chip, something like a silent upgrade. But i know that upgrades to these chips are basically improving manufacturing processes. Which in r2r is a big deal, better laser trimming is huge improvement. I always like to get proven wrong if i am, i don't cling to my findings. But i certainly demand valid information.
Subjectively, yes i hear the differences, and most substentialy in 1998 chip vs the rest. Even in my stash '95 which i find quite good, 98 is audibly different. I'm in the process of designing me a tda1541a dac, so i managed to contact and hear, albeit in cd players, different chips (manufacturing dates). I haven't heard s2 yet, but '93+ regulars i heard sound as well as/better than <'90 s1. Even with different devices.
Subjectively, yes i hear the differences, and most substentialy in 1998 chip vs the rest. Even in my stash '95 which i find quite good, 98 is audibly different. I'm in the process of designing me a tda1541a dac, so i managed to contact and hear, albeit in cd players, different chips (manufacturing dates). I haven't heard s2 yet, but '93+ regulars i heard sound as well as/better than <'90 s1. Even with different devices.
Wayback machine for the thread:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210223143617/http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=13118
https://web.archive.org/web/20210223143617/http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=13118
Then you have still to make a lot of experiments and sometimes hoping hazard and futher investigations drive you on some paths. Despite being basicly 16/44 than can be upsampled, layout and especially ground decoupling can be quite complex within the three or half three voltages decoupling and its (eachh) power supplies. Of course in the limitations of what the chip can do, it is not 21 bits. But subjectly my based 1541A dac is digging a lot of 4 to 5 grand commercial dacs.
Of course the whole setup is also optmised to each others devices of my whole setup - hey it's diy- in a whole equilibrium that is it hard to make valid benchmark. I like to hear the critics of some non hifi trained ears involved in true acoustic music at home.
Don't get me wrong it is staying poor vs live music, but it is high end on the tonal equilibrium - vs many hifi heard-... something few can get from on the shelf assembled parts as it is setuped in the listening room - by me for my ears-.
But I exagerate things, it is staying good hifi but non blind test proof between live and playback (of course, who can claims that). It seems always in the low end room is the limitation of the reproducction (things are always compressed vs if it was reverbs in a small club for illustration with true non amped instruments (jazz in mind as main ref). And anyway my listening room is no more than 2.7 m heigth for the ceilling and 5.5 m large for 11/12 m deep. And I am listening beyond the usual perfect triangle (further so very tiny sweet spot according the reccordings... here are the biass.
Of course a short translation above could be : self biass or devil in the details, but anyway I perform trained ears sessions at home... but wine being good there I could be fooled by others, which is a sort of biass ! But frankly, differences are big enough when your system is resolving enough. the thing being at the end is : is it musical enough to be heard and not asking question anymore, what some call : natural listening. Something the answer is not so universal.
Of course the whole setup is also optmised to each others devices of my whole setup - hey it's diy- in a whole equilibrium that is it hard to make valid benchmark. I like to hear the critics of some non hifi trained ears involved in true acoustic music at home.
Don't get me wrong it is staying poor vs live music, but it is high end on the tonal equilibrium - vs many hifi heard-... something few can get from on the shelf assembled parts as it is setuped in the listening room - by me for my ears-.
But I exagerate things, it is staying good hifi but non blind test proof between live and playback (of course, who can claims that). It seems always in the low end room is the limitation of the reproducction (things are always compressed vs if it was reverbs in a small club for illustration with true non amped instruments (jazz in mind as main ref). And anyway my listening room is no more than 2.7 m heigth for the ceilling and 5.5 m large for 11/12 m deep. And I am listening beyond the usual perfect triangle (further so very tiny sweet spot according the reccordings... here are the biass.
Of course a short translation above could be : self biass or devil in the details, but anyway I perform trained ears sessions at home... but wine being good there I could be fooled by others, which is a sort of biass ! But frankly, differences are big enough when your system is resolving enough. the thing being at the end is : is it musical enough to be heard and not asking question anymore, what some call : natural listening. Something the answer is not so universal.
Last edited:
If my memory is still corect, one of my mod was cited in Audial manual of the revised 2014 Aya2 and further Aya 4 if I am not wrong about something intersting to test and dig. Further investigations of mine were not shared but with 2 audio friends from Australia and Spore than signed blood agreement with me ! As Pedja (as i know) didn't not use it on its flag ship, it is hard to know if it is good enough, but again the major improvment were not shared with audial and still migth be personal biass. One of the major contibutors with Pedja Rogic being John from ECDesign and Thorsthen Loesch (AMR and Ifi). I just had luck because I spent time on this ship. But of course when you give some advice on parts, etc, being passives and not always actives, people have the habits to focus on objectives datas.... Go figure !
Last edited:
That said :
I found the early S1 to be quite good at acoustic and classic music in non simultaned mode and being a strong alternative to more resolved music for acoustical music enthusiasts. My personal preference is going to (my musical tastes being quite large) being late Taiwan in simultaneous mode and my work about the 3 voltages ground ground layout and decoupling and powering but staying private, sorry. This late ship having a tigther mid bass when used well and a marvelous high end, than I just founf on the tda1545A with sota layout (pcb, decoupling, powersupply).
My next ref being the ad1862 is below what I can extract from the TDA1541A Taiwann
I found the early S1 to be quite good at acoustic and classic music in non simultaned mode and being a strong alternative to more resolved music for acoustical music enthusiasts. My personal preference is going to (my musical tastes being quite large) being late Taiwan in simultaneous mode and my work about the 3 voltages ground ground layout and decoupling and powering but staying private, sorry. This late ship having a tigther mid bass when used well and a marvelous high end, than I just founf on the tda1545A with sota layout (pcb, decoupling, powersupply).
My next ref being the ad1862 is below what I can extract from the TDA1541A Taiwann
