I have now searched for a while, but have not found any comments about how many TDA1541A I would have to parallel to come at a performance level of the double-crown version. In theory I understand that paralleling DACs helps to cancel out errors between them, achieving less distortion, higher resolution etc. Additionally I would get a higher mA-Output.
Economically it could make sense as well: For the 75$ a double-cronw-Dac costs these days, I can get 25 TDA1541A ! With the benefits of higher OUtput (about 100mA?), I should be even able to come up with outputstages like designed for the TDA1543, meaning not additional outoutstage required.
Why has nobody went into that direction yet ? Is it to difficult to drive so many TDA1541A in parallel ?
Best Regards
Economically it could make sense as well: For the 75$ a double-cronw-Dac costs these days, I can get 25 TDA1541A ! With the benefits of higher OUtput (about 100mA?), I should be even able to come up with outputstages like designed for the TDA1543, meaning not additional outoutstage required.
Why has nobody went into that direction yet ? Is it to difficult to drive so many TDA1541A in parallel ?
Best Regards
Re: Re: How many TDA1541A are needed in parallel to achieve double crown standard ?
Which reminds me of the latest Krell space heaters: if you take 25 pieces of s*** in parallel you get by some miracle a wonderfull part or 25 times a piece of s***? Remember 1+1 = 3?
Elso Kwak said:
Hi Blitz, The average error is much greater than the error of a selected one.
Sounds almost like a quote from EE J. O' Mega.
Which reminds me of the latest Krell space heaters: if you take 25 pieces of s*** in parallel you get by some miracle a wonderfull part or 25 times a piece of s***? Remember 1+1 = 3?
Guys, in what mood are you now in ? Sorry to have asked the question, but when reading all the comments that parallel 1543 - a significant worse DAC than the simplest 1541A - creates a wonderfull sounding DAC, the question what happens if you take a much superior DAC and do more or less the same is a valid one, or do I miss something here ?
I beg your pardon? 1541A much superior to 1543? You must be kidding.
without taking care of proper PS and output stage (I had OPA627 there) I still preffered TDA1543 to double crown TDA1541 S2.
I'm not sure if when properly implemented TDA1541S2 will be much better than 1543 chip, probably not, as Rudolf recently commented on that.
I also tried paralleling 2 and 4 TDA1543 and the results where much inferior to using a single chip.
If you don't want to spend so much money on S2 version, why don't you listen to A version and choose the one that sounds best.
I recently checked few of TDA1543 chips in listening comparisons and there was definitely a difference between those that had different markings. The one without white line (Thailand is written instead) sounds darker than the other chip. The one with white line is preffered by me and it has definitely much more high frequency extention. I was also trying to pick up some better sounding chips from among "white line" group, and although I was under the impression that some sounded better, I couldn't be 100% sure, but I did my choice
without taking care of proper PS and output stage (I had OPA627 there) I still preffered TDA1543 to double crown TDA1541 S2.
I'm not sure if when properly implemented TDA1541S2 will be much better than 1543 chip, probably not, as Rudolf recently commented on that.
I also tried paralleling 2 and 4 TDA1543 and the results where much inferior to using a single chip.
If you don't want to spend so much money on S2 version, why don't you listen to A version and choose the one that sounds best.
I recently checked few of TDA1543 chips in listening comparisons and there was definitely a difference between those that had different markings. The one without white line (Thailand is written instead) sounds darker than the other chip. The one with white line is preffered by me and it has definitely much more high frequency extention. I was also trying to pick up some better sounding chips from among "white line" group, and although I was under the impression that some sounded better, I couldn't be 100% sure, but I did my choice
Attachments
Peter,
Thanks for the hint. I will go out now and search Rudolf's threat. So, as the TDA1543 is your favorite, can you sell me your double crowns ?
It is quite surprising that you prefer the 1543 for me as the reports of Thorsten, Giorgio and others have given me the impression that the TDA1541a is much superior, which would not be really surprising when looking at the data sheet.
I am less concerned about the price of the double crown than about making the right design choice for my next DAC project to come with something which beats clearly my Sheldon-DAC which plays extremly well so far. That's why I was wondering if a DAC with 1541A in parallel and a passive I/V-conversion would not be a superior product to the well know and highly praised parallel-1543-DACs.
Thanks for the hint. I will go out now and search Rudolf's threat. So, as the TDA1543 is your favorite, can you sell me your double crowns ?
It is quite surprising that you prefer the 1543 for me as the reports of Thorsten, Giorgio and others have given me the impression that the TDA1541a is much superior, which would not be really surprising when looking at the data sheet.
I am less concerned about the price of the double crown than about making the right design choice for my next DAC project to come with something which beats clearly my Sheldon-DAC which plays extremly well so far. That's why I was wondering if a DAC with 1541A in parallel and a passive I/V-conversion would not be a superior product to the well know and highly praised parallel-1543-DACs.
I won't sell my 4 pcs of S2 chip, but I saw Rudolf selling them
I still didn't push those double crown chips to their limits and I'm working on a DAC using them. You can always buy them from the same source I did, the Chinese guy advertising on a forum.
I just say that with careful implementation TDA1543 may sound much superior to bad implementation of TDA1541S2.
I'm not the only one preferring that chip, Elso does it too.
As to Thorsten's choice, IIRC his recent comments on his system, he's using either TDA1543 or 1545 based DAC
Regarding I/V conversion on TDA1543 DAC, I also thought that resistor should be better than active circuit, but after trying few active implementations, I have to say that the sound is actually much more detailed when using active circuitry. But after coming back to a singlr resistor, the sound is also surprisingly good, maybe even more musical, but again less detail (a bit veiled, IMO).
I still didn't push those double crown chips to their limits and I'm working on a DAC using them. You can always buy them from the same source I did, the Chinese guy advertising on a forum.
I just say that with careful implementation TDA1543 may sound much superior to bad implementation of TDA1541S2.
I'm not the only one preferring that chip, Elso does it too.
As to Thorsten's choice, IIRC his recent comments on his system, he's using either TDA1543 or 1545 based DAC
Regarding I/V conversion on TDA1543 DAC, I also thought that resistor should be better than active circuit, but after trying few active implementations, I have to say that the sound is actually much more detailed when using active circuitry. But after coming back to a singlr resistor, the sound is also surprisingly good, maybe even more musical, but again less detail (a bit veiled, IMO).
Peter Daniel said:I recently checked few of TDA1543 chips in listening comparisons and there was definitely a difference between those that had different markings. The one without white line (Thailand is written instead) sounds darker than the other chip. The one with white line is preffered by me and it has definitely much more high frequency extention. I was also trying to pick up some better sounding chips from among "white line" group, and although I was under the impression that some sounded better, I couldn't be 100% sure, but I did my choice
Interesting Peter.
I think the ones with Thailand print are ones Reichelt in Germany carries. I've been measuring idle current consumption of several TDA1543 and the all Thailand ones had "low" idle current consumption (40mA), the striped ones round 50mA, and the very old ones salvaged from old cd players could even consume up to 60mA.
Never compared them btw.
I just used the Thailand ones for lowest consumption and assuming they were most recent production, hence sounding best because of better quality control...
I like the TDA1543 mainly because it's easy to get very decent sound, and almost as easy to get great sound.Peter Daniel said:
Haven't gone as far as Peter with SLA's (yet
)
Bricolo said:
So you like the sound of the TDA1541?
I don't have much experience with 1541 cheap. All I did, was changing electrolytics, simplifying output stage and converting to non oversampling in my Marantz CD94. It sounded pretty good, but no match to TDA1543 based DAC with Marantz as a transport. This Marantz is a prettygood transport, and I noticed the CD-Pro to be only marginally better (a bit more resolution and better clarity).
I still remember how Marantz sounded with 1541 chips, both regular version and double crown. The latter is more refined, less harsh and pretty pleasing. 1543 seems to have better resolution and to be more neutral. I diodn't noticed anything special about the difference in bass (as Elso claims) but my current speakers don't reproduce the deepest bass, so maybe that's why.
But when I converted my Marantz to TDA 1543 DAC, using I2S, reclocking, clock, active discrete output and batteries, it became so much better player, that the previous version with TDA1541S2, doesn't even come close. So it's all the matter of implementing those two chips.
I'll be experimenting with double crown version soon.
PS: To answer your question, TDA1541 may be more refined and 1543 chip with stripe seems more refined too
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.