You got to be ?& · Kidding me


To be as short as possible, I just came across many articles on the web regarding a trend amongst DAC designers to disregard all the Industry has learnt and done in 30 years and go back to the basics.

I am on the market for a new DAC, so I was researching many options such as Weiss, Berkley Alpha, Bryston, etc...

And then I came across an article regarding a DAC GURU from Eastern Europe that on his point of view a 1980´s TDA1541A D/A chip and using no Up-sampling is far more musical approach than any up-to-date Burr Brown, Crysta or Wolfson DAC with 24 Bit 96 or 192 Khz technology.

But it seems that he is not alone, there are many DAC designers using this scheme as well. SO I HAVE TO ASK, "ARE YOU SERIOUS??!!!"
kapa11
Hello Karim,

I will have to agree with 4est's post above...
IME, NOS DACs have a very organic presentation that is rather nice on simple music, but breaks up or washes out on complex passages. I prefer the native sample rates in a more modern (revealing) chip.
because my experience it similar.

Although in most cases you can obtain nice sound with the "Addition by subtraction" effect, I've always been a fan of analog-like sound combined with tight linearity, resulting in uncolored presentation.

The new DAC-S is $5000.

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
I have just a few rambling thoughts - The DAC I'm currently using in my main system utilizes PCM1704 Burr Browns. Not exactly brand spanking new technology, yet it's one of the finest digital front ends I've heard - both natural and resolving. This leads me to add one thing that hasn't seemed to be mentioned yet, and would defer to those that know better to correct me or amend this; The question puts an emphasis on the DAC chip chosen. I think its not just the DAC chip that is used (certainly this has major significance), but also the rest of the parts and how they all go together, that makes a great DAC. Just because you have all the right ingredients in the kitchen doesn't make for a great meal. Also, you can ferret out all the detail that's in those zeroes and ones, until you can hear a mouse fart in the corner of the recording studio, but if it doesn't render sound that very closely resemble the sounds that originated them, game over. I know a mouse fart when I hear one.

FWIW I've heard the TDA1541A sound quite good in an MHDT Paradisea+ which I owned for my office system for many years. Not exactly a statement DAC, but very compelling and engaging and natural sounding NOS DAC - huge bang for the buck, though I'd say lacking some in resolution compared to more modern designs. For what I listen to, in that implementation that chip sounds great though. The same company's Havana DAC uses a different chip and does gain more extension at both ends and perhaps rendering more detail, but I found the midrange magic of the Paradisea+ to suck me in more overall. I think that'd be a very personal call, but I'd call the older chip, in this case, more musical in that specific comparison. I tend to listen to more simple, stark music with much smaller, acoustic arrangements so this kind of chip works very well for most of that. When music gets more dense and layered, I'd have to agree that it seems to be surpassed by more resolving designs. My current DAC is audibly more resolving than either of the MHDT DAC's but that did not stop me from enjoying them very much (and I'm sure I still would).
our hobby is so subjective that some audiophiles will prefer a non over sampling dac with a tube in place of a current production dac with over sampling.

what is one's criteria of sound?

is timbre preferred over dynamics, etc. .

the nos dac may excel at certain aspects of sound.
Hello Mrtennis,

what is one's criteria of sound?

I was at live concert yesterday. Hiromi played solo piano. She is a virtuoso, no doubt about that, so it was an amazing experience.

our hobby is so subjective that some audiophiles will prefer a non over sampling dac with a tube in place of a current production dac with over sampling.

At the concert, no one asked me what kind of sound I prefer that is inline with my "subjective hobby" being an audiophile myself.

Best,
Alex Peychev
Maybe 20 years ago a Philips TDA 1541 chip set was something. I remember installing sockets in my CD player, so I could easily change chip sets because Philips was always coming out with another 1541 that was a little better than the previous, like the TDA 1541A-S2 Crown chip set. The truth is I had two Tandberg CD players, one was 14 bit the later model was 16 bit, other than that they were identical. I compared those players over and over again and there was vertually no difference in the sound.