- 积分
- 8012
- 在线时间
- 2302 小时
- 最后登录
- 2016-5-22
- 阅读权限
- 150
- 精华
- 17
- UID
- 6
- 帖子
- 6498
- 精华
- 17
- 经验
- 8012 点
- 金钱
- 1636 ￥
- 注册时间
- 2004-3-16
|
楼主 |
发表于 2004-10-13 16:14
|
显示全部楼层
Peter Daniel装的TDA1543 NOS DAC竞与ML麦仔的有一拼
比较结果，各擅胜场。TDA1543在低音上略胜一点，ML则胜在分析力上。总体音色上相近。。。。是了，PETER D这解码是用电池供电的，ML的解码是ML 35，使用的转盘是ML 31。5。ML35是CS8412+PMD100+Ultra-Analog 的解码模块+分立输出
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/s ... d=489639#post489639
Peter Daniel []
diyAudio Member
Offline
Registered: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Post #110
In order to have some reference, I got hold of ML31.5 Reference transport and ML35 DAC. The transport is from 1996, the DAC is dated 1992. It's using CS8412 receiver, PMD100 HDCD filter and Ultra-Analog dual DACs with discreet output stage.
I was pretty much impressed by the transport, as it seems to be another level above my CD-Pro implementation. The bass notes are better defined, rock solid, with more control and overall it provides more musicality.
Peter Daniel has attached this image:
Peter Daniel []
diyAudio Member
Offline
Registered: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Post #111
I was not impressed by the DAC initially, but later I used better support (dedicated platform) and warming up helped definitely. I got better results using Tosling than RCA connection (and I expect balanced line to be even better).
I spent whole afternoon yesterday comparing ML DAC and my battery operated NOS implementation od TDA1543.
I was using ML380S for switching and both DACs were connected to the preamp using Kimber Silver Streak cable. For amp connection, I used an interconnect sent to me by Steve Eddy, and it appears to be very good (and I prefer it now to Silver Streak).
My DAC is using passive output, with Riken resistors.
The was basically no difference in volume level between two DACS.
I was pretty much surprised with the outcome. The bass on TDA DAC was actually better, deeper with more punch. Overall tonality was very close. ML DAC seemed to have a bit etched highs, with more analytical signature, but overall it was very listenable, but I preferred it only on some selected material.
The non oversampling TDA wasn't at all any inferior to ML dac. It had it's own character, which could be characterised by more smoothness and more analog sound. It also seemed to be a bit more natural. It was actually better on more complex recordings (I preferred ML dac on some simple, female vocal recordings, where not too many instruments were involved).
I could sense that the small DAC could be improved by using better coupling caps (I had BG N 4.7u) as clarity wasn't the best (comparing to ML DAC) and could be definitely improved.
All in all, I had pretty hard time picking the better DAC, but eventually decided on nos TDA1543. It sounded less digital and was more forgiving to less properly recorded material.
Of course both DACs could be still improved: ML could be tweaked and better passive parts installed (sa well as FIFO buffer as seen on later designs), TDA1543 is still not finalized, as I'm still experimenting here.
However since it was my first time listening to actually good oversampling DAC, I now believe that oversampling can bring great results when properly implemented.
I was also nicely surprsed that those two DACs were not that far apart sonically
Here's the inside pic of ML dac.
Peter Daniel has attached this image:
<img src="attachments/dvbbs/2004101316105360292.jpg" border="0" onload="if(this.width>screen.width*0.7) {this.resized=true; this.width=screen.width*0.7; this.alt=\'Click here to open new window\nCTRL+Mouse wheel to zoom in/out\';}" onmouseover="if(this.width>screen.width*0.7) {this.resized=true; this.width=screen.width*0.7; this.style.cursor=\'hand\'; this.alt=\'Click here to open new window\nCTRL+Mouse wheel to zoom in/out\';}" onclick="if(!this.resized) {return true;} else {window.open(\'attachments/dvbbs/2004101316105360292.jpg\');}" onmousewheel="return imgzoom(this);" alt="" />
|
|
[复制链接]
15086| 33
发表于 2004-4-25 23:16
