new dac in town? audio mirror non-oversampling d1 dac

doug s. · « **on:** 1 Apr 2005, 08:18 pm »

http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?dgtlconv&1115408249

hi all,

vlad from audio mirror was kind enuff to allow me to audition one of his demo dacs. i was quite curious to compare it to my long-standing modded art di/o dac. well, i have only had it running in my system for about 4 cd's worth of music. so, final thoughts are a bit off in the future. but i wanted to post my initial impressions, which are quite favorable. this dac has all the slam detail & extension that my di/o does. which is something that i've heard can be a trade-off w/non-oversampling dacs, compared to oversampling iterations like a modded art di/o. (this is the first non-oversampling dac i've heard.) while four cd's isn't enough time to get a firm grasp on the differences, and some a-b comparisons are also certainly in order, my initial impressions are that the audio mirror dac has the edge in smoothness, which is mighty impressive, considering it gives up nothing in the detail dept.

more later!

doug s.

BobM · « **Reply #1 on:** 1 Apr 2005, 09:28 pm »

Any link to information and pricing about this product would be helpful. I did a Dogpile search but only saw tubed preamps and amps - no digital products.

Is this a prototype? What DAC does it use? Transformer or cap coupled? poswer supply type? Topology? Price?

inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks,
Bob

BobM · « **Reply #2 on:** 1 Apr 2005, 09:41 pm »

Sorry - I missed the link to Audiogon. Good price, but I need to see the innards and more info on the parts selection.

non oversampling and 8 DAC processors ... sounds like another one of the TDA1543 based DAC's. Loads of those designs on the DIY Audio board. They do have a reputation ... but what makes this one more special than all of the others?

I'm still looking for one made from the TDA1545A chip, which may be better overall (based on reviews I've read elsewhere). Of course I would love to also see transformer outputs, black gates or oil filled caps, tantalum resistors and such.

Enjoy,
Bob

doug s. · « **Reply #3 on:** 1 Apr 2005, 09:42 pm »

Quote from: BobM

Any link to information and pricing about this product would be helpful. I did a Dogpile search but only saw tubed preamps and amps - no digital products.

Is this a prototype? What DAC does it use? Transformer or cap coupled? poswer supply type? Topology? Price?

inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks,
Bob

click the link at the top of the pic, for audio mirror's ad on agon.

i had queried vlad about his dac compared to the ack! & scott nixon iterations; he answered me thusly:
========================
"Yes the idea is the same. There is some differences though. I started
with this project - non-oversampling DAC about 5 years ago. First I
tried TDA 1541 DAC which is probably one of the best. I still have TDA
1541 S1(which is superior) in my CD player, but......
It is very difficult to use tube output hooked up to this DAC (1541)
because it has current output. Converting current to voltage is pretty
simple, but you are trying to optimize sound vs noise. It was not very
successful task. Than I paralleled TDA 1541. The result was better, but
then I realized that this chip is out of production. Than I tried TDA
1543. It was much promising. I started with 2 in parallel, than 4. I
also design it with a tube output stage. Than I tried just from
curiosity with op amps. How big I was surprised. That was the first
time when solid state sounded better than tube. I put a lot of effort
to make tube a winner with this DAC, but unfortunately with no success.
Finally I added another 4 TDA1543 in parallel and ended up with 8 DAC's
in parallel. This was the best sound I've ever heard from a digital
source. I mean it. To prove you that I am a serious Hi-Fi enthusiast, I
am sending you a pictures of my system. Paralleling the DAC's made the
biggest improvement. Other than that, the other mod's that they (Bolder
Cable) are doing are common. Originally I am using fast recovery
diodes, separate power supplies for digital, analog and digital
interface circuit. Metal film resistors, carbon ones, Auricap's
capacitors etc."
============

hth,

doug s.

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #4 on:** 2 Apr 2005, 02:33 am »

Nice find Doug...among other things, I like the choice between optical and coax digital outputs (as well as the reasonable costing)

BRN · « **Reply #5 on:** 2 Apr 2005, 02:04 pm »

I can't wait to read your review of this DAC. I'm finishing the CD-Pro2 kit and have been trying to decide on what DAC to get for it. I'm adding this one to the list.

Brad

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #6 on:** 2 Apr 2005, 07:48 pm »

You should ask the guy if he could implement battery power and some type of reclocking mechanism. I'm curious as to how much the price would be if he offered those features.

doug s. · « **Reply #7 on:** 2 Apr 2005, 08:01 pm »

hi all,

more listening has so far born out my initial reaction. all the goodness of my modded art di/o, yet somehow smoother. all the detail is still present & accounted for. soundstaging perhaps a hair more recessed than the di/o, but this may be a gain matching issue, not quite sure. soundstaging is still excellent, in any ewent.

i am going to send a link to this thread to vlad, perhaps he will chime in himself. i was gonna post a pic of this dac's internals, but vlad said the one i have is an early demo iteration that is a bit different than the present production. so, i will ask vlad to send me (or post here) a pic of its internals on present production dacs.

doug s.

Jay S · « **Reply #8 on:** 3 Apr 2005, 12:01 am »

This is interesting. Conceptually, the beauty of the non-OS dacs has been the sheer simplicity -- straight 16/44.1, very simple circuit designs. Now this new audio miror dac is adding complexity (multiple dacs in parallel). I am not criticizing and the new dac may sound better but it is conceptually starting to move away from the purist simplicity of the previous non-OS dacs.

Academic observations aside, I'm be happy to read more of this new dac. If it matches the modded DI/O on dynamics and slam but is smoother then it sounds like a clear winner to me.

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #9 on:** 3 Apr 2005, 01:51 am »

I don't think paralleling dacs is very complex. We do that with capacitors in all kinds of circuits all the time. The dddac1543, dac-ah from diyzone, and a plethora of designs on diyaudio all offer parallel dac designs. The whole "ultimate" simplicity concept is a 47 labs thing, but it is not necessarily the key to the entire concept.

The diyzone dac-ah kit is around $100-130, I think. Might be interesting to see how the two compare. It also has 8 tda1543 chips in parallel but could use some better parts.

BobM · « **Reply #10 on:** 4 Apr 2005, 01:32 pm »

From various postings on the DIY Audio site it seems that parallelling the chips is common. However, sufficient heatsinking is required. There seem to be various analogue sections, from tube to transformer to op-amp. It's curious to hear that tubes didn't work as good as op-amps for this designer. Op-amps should definitely give better slam and dynamics - perhaps that's why.

Looking forward to seeing the insides.

There was a recent post at Audio Asylum about the "Digital Renaissance" DAC (off of e-bay) at about $300 from Taiwan. They only used one DAC chip, but had a mini tube for the buffering.

Enjoy,
Bob

doug s. · « **Reply #11 on:** 4 Apr 2005, 01:42 pm »

Quote from: BobM

From various postings on the DIY Audio site it seems that parallelling the chips is common. However, sufficient heatsinking is required. There seem to be various analogue sections, from tube to transformer to op-amp. It's curious to hear that tubes didn't work as good as op-amps for this designer. Op-amps should definitely give better slam and dynamics - perhaps that's why.

Looking forward to seeing the insides.

There was a recent post at Audio Asylum about the "Digital Renaissance" DAC (off of e-bay) ...

from looking at vlad's other offerings (and from owning the audio mirror 6c33c tube monoblocks), i'm sure if there was a way to make this unit sound better w/tubes, he woulda found it.

if vlad doesn't wanna add his two-cents'-worth here, i wil take a pic of the demo model i have, tho i understand there's more room around the transformer in the production iterations...

doug s.

doug s. · « **Reply #12 on:** 12 Apr 2005, 10:47 pm »

hi all,

per vlad's request, i dint take a pic, due to the different layout of the pre-production units.

ok, final thoughts here. while i haven't heard the s/n or the ack!, based upon what i have read from folk that compared 'em to the modded di/o, (which i own), i have the same comments re: audio mirror vs di/o. some folk prefer one, some the other.

in my case, i think i will stick w/my self-modded di/o. yes, the audio mirror is a tad smoother. but, i find the di/o to be not at all harsh or digital sounding. the presentation of the audio mirror was slightly recessed when compared to the di/o; i preferred the more up-front sound from the di/o. also, the di/o did have better bass response - yust a tad deeper. and, i think that the reason why the di/o isn't quite as smooth, is because the initial attack of the notes isn't as sharp. with the audio mirror, you *do* hear the detail, but it's not as sharp. some may prefer its softer presentation. even tho i am a winyl fan, i still prefer the presentation of the di/o - it is *not* at all edgy, imo.

i'd love to have a chance to audition another non-os dac sometime, but as i said before, my readings of others who *have* compared them with the di/o mirror my own findings here. (no pun intended!)

for those considering a non-os dac, i would definitely include the audio mirror dac.

music listened to included santana, lyle lovett, hawaiian slack key guitar, michael brook/nusrat fateh ali khan, warious latin/african/caribbean music on the putumayo label, peter broggs, & a nice jerry douglas/russ barenberg/edgar meyer disc - skip hop wobble.

i woulda liked to have listened another week or three,

but vlad was still awaiting a parts shipment to complete the production units, & he had a customer who wanted the demo unit, so i sent it back, as i dint think it fair it keep it any longer since i wasn't a buyer...

doug s.