I just recently upgraded my plain TDA1541A to a double crown S2 in my DAC and can hear no appreciable difference. I've discussed it with one forum member who immediately suggested a rebrand but I'm alittle more meticulous when unravelling a mystery. The lettering on my chip looks flawless so i'd like my forum memebers thoughts on how to look deeper into the source of this chip.
Here's the source of the chip:
TDA1541A S2
Regards,
Dan
Here's the source of the chip:
TDA1541A S2
Regards,
Dan
They look pretty genuine in the pictures.
What model DAC are you using? It's possible that your DAC is less than perfect, maybe any TDA1541A will sound poor in it, S2 or not (no offense meant, just a suggestion).
The other thing is that, judging by the photos, the seller took absolutely no ESD precautions whatsoever, and the chip could be static damaged. In not one of the photos in the eBay listing is the chip on an ESD safe surface, which would have turned me off buying it straight away (aside from the price). Was is packaged in an ESD safe way when you received it?
edit: grammar
What model DAC are you using? It's possible that your DAC is less than perfect, maybe any TDA1541A will sound poor in it, S2 or not (no offense meant, just a suggestion).
The other thing is that, judging by the photos, the seller took absolutely no ESD precautions whatsoever, and the chip could be static damaged. In not one of the photos in the eBay listing is the chip on an ESD safe surface, which would have turned me off buying it straight away (aside from the price). Was is packaged in an ESD safe way when you received it?
edit: grammar
FWIW, I think someone in the CD650 thread mentioned buying these from this seller and from memory, they were OK.
I have no idea, but wouldn't static damage do more than just make the DAC sound the same as a lesser 1541?
I have no idea, but wouldn't static damage do more than just make the DAC sound the same as a lesser 1541?
AFAIK, no-one has ever demonstrated that there's an audible difference between the two chips (demonstrated, not asserted). So maybe your ears are telling you the truth...
If everything meets spec on a bench test, then the chip is doing its job. Don't worry, there's lots of "huge, obvious changes" that mysteriously go away when the comparison is done blind.
The DAC does look nice.
I've heard static damaged TDA1541As described as sounding grey (whatever that means). I would expect static damage to the analog part of the chip to result in an incremental loss of linearity. Since the TDA1541A S2 is a regular TDA1541A selected at final testing for higher than average linearity, I don't think that expecting a static damaged S2 to sound like a regular grade chip is so far fetched.
But SY could be quite right, I have heard both sides of this argument from forumites I respect. I haven't heard an S2 (nor even an S1), so I can't comment. However, Philips set out in black and white that the THD+N of an S2 is lower.
I've heard static damaged TDA1541As described as sounding grey (whatever that means). I would expect static damage to the analog part of the chip to result in an incremental loss of linearity. Since the TDA1541A S2 is a regular TDA1541A selected at final testing for higher than average linearity, I don't think that expecting a static damaged S2 to sound like a regular grade chip is so far fetched.
But SY could be quite right, I have heard both sides of this argument from forumites I respect. I haven't heard an S2 (nor even an S1), so I can't comment. However, Philips set out in black and white that the THD+N of an S2 is lower.
Attachments
I wonder if the difference of linearity between the plain TDA1541A and S1/S2 could be clearly and visibly detected by using this objective method:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113620
Unfortunately I have no S1 at hand...
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113620
Unfortunately I have no S1 at hand...
I think the difference in sound is more due to better, more modern processing for the Taiwan chip resulting in more bright sound.
I noticed the same with a 20 year old AD711 versus a new one
I noticed the same with a 20 year old AD711 versus a new one
maybe there is no difference between these two specific TDA.
Unmarked chips are not nescessary rejects with worse specs, they may be just untested.
Regards
Unmarked chips are not nescessary rejects with worse specs, they may be just untested.
Regards
Why not a double crown chip marked A to meet a buyers requirement and they had a fantastic high spec chip yield in some batch ? After all they are all off the same pattern but marked when tested . So it could be a A with double crown performance !
I purchased fourteen TDA1541 Dacs in one tranasction from a reputable Electronics supplier. They were all Marked as HSH supposedly meaning that they were made in Holland, they did not have Taiwan printed on them. They date code indicates that they were manufactured in 2002, which is strange because I have read that they were last made in 1999.
Anyway, I built a couple of the TDA1541 DAC kits from analogmetric which i think are great sounding and fantastic value.
I fitted a 28 pin DIL ZIF socket to the dac kit so that i could easily remove, replace and compare the 14 DAC ICs.
I found that some of the DAC IC's sounded quite flat and lacking dynamics, whereas others sounded better, some sounded very refined and detailed but not hugely dynamic and there were a couple that really shone above the rest, these 4 dacs had the works, they had great detail, and absolultely huge dynamics.
These four are my Double crowns 🙂
I've never heard a Crowned TDA1541 but from my experience, each and every TDA1541 sounds a little different.
As someone else has said, the crown DAC's are only the ones that were tested, its highly likely that there are many "above average" TDA1541's out there living in old CD players, and in electronics warehouses.
Anyway, I built a couple of the TDA1541 DAC kits from analogmetric which i think are great sounding and fantastic value.
I fitted a 28 pin DIL ZIF socket to the dac kit so that i could easily remove, replace and compare the 14 DAC ICs.
I found that some of the DAC IC's sounded quite flat and lacking dynamics, whereas others sounded better, some sounded very refined and detailed but not hugely dynamic and there were a couple that really shone above the rest, these 4 dacs had the works, they had great detail, and absolultely huge dynamics.
These four are my Double crowns 🙂
I've never heard a Crowned TDA1541 but from my experience, each and every TDA1541 sounds a little different.
As someone else has said, the crown DAC's are only the ones that were tested, its highly likely that there are many "above average" TDA1541's out there living in old CD players, and in electronics warehouses.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.