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

Showing 2 responses by jax2

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).
And if that is truly your goal, then there are absolutes in this hobby, and indeed some gear is actually better than others and not just different sounding.

Because we are human and as individual as our faces and fingerprints, we each perceive and judge things in ways entirely unique to the individual; your "absolute" may in fact not fit into someone else's version of an "absolute". It's all good - whatever puts a smile on your face and gets your feet tapping and head bobbing. We are not machines, and even if you could quantify all the things that make up a realistic representation of live music in one's home environment there would be those who prefer something slightly (or not so slightly) different. The "hobby" for me is my enjoyment of music and how it moves me and inspires me. This requires no absolutes at all - I just find what works for me and enjoy it.