You got to be ?& · Kidding me

What is so hard to believe? Physics hasn't changed, only our application of it.

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.

FWIW, the chip its self is but small portion of the sound of a D>A conversion. Transport clocking, output filters and output stage are just as important, if not more so.

I am not sure about any of this but I have run the path of afordable CD players from early Magnavox units to CA 840, Rega Apollo, Sony SACD 777ES. The one thing that sticks in my mind is that while these later units (from an objective point of view) are better I swear I enjoyed the cheap Maganvox players more. They just seemed more musical. Keith

ALEX, I SEE YOU ARE A DESIGNER YOURSELF, AND A DAC GURU AS WELL, THE GURU I WAS MENTIONING IS "Pedja Rogic" FROM AUDIAL , HE IS FROM SERBIA AND IT SEEMS THAT HAS A LOT OF FOLLOWERS ON THE DIY COMMUNITY. BY THE WAY, HOW MUCH IS YOUR DAC?

REGARDS

Karim

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).