OK - I've had another email from Beresford, which I tack on below. He clearly has not been following (or even aware of) this thread and seems a little bemused by it. He didn't intend for the TC-7510 to be a "hi-end" bit of kit (although it sure sounds it to me!) and is in fact currently in R&D for a better / more expensive (but not by much
) unit. The claims he makes for component layout certainly ring true for me as Musical Fidelity have been saying this for years, also - and they do the Value For Money trick too (IMO).
Anyway, here's what Beresford emailed me ...
________________
The more expensive version will hopefully be out in the spring of next year.My aim is to do what I did with other products I designed when working for my previous employer. And that is to ask the customers what they want, and at what price. Everybody would want a high end DAC.
I read some of the comments on head-fi. I am actually disappointed in what some people wrote. I always offered everyone the chance that if the DAC didn't live up to their expectations after a few days of use, to get in touch with me. You know that yourself, and you followed that route. I am not trying to fleece anyone.If it is that easy to design a good sounding DAC at such an attractive price, why are others not doing it as well?
I used high frequency RF component lay out techniques to tame unwanted HF and RF interference, digital signal losses, track capacitance etc. That's why I used surface mount resistors and caps in large parts of the digital circuit. Those surface mount components don't exhibit inductance and reactance compared to standard resistors and caps. So I don't have to develop signal feedback loops to correct for signal distortions. These feedback loops take a bit of the edges from signals. It is not the use of the components that makes my unit sound good.It is the attention to the layout. We spent many months moving components about on the PCB until we were happy with how adjacent components interacted with each other. How many audio designers take that into consideration? Video, digital and RF engineers have to however. I use that knowledge to get the best out of what I have. My circuit might look less than impressive, but those short tracks and compact layout hold the key in this case. If anyone takes the same circuit and tries to build it using standard resistors and caps, and spread the components out, it won't sound the same. Amazing that! Now if anyone of the experts on head-fi can tell me why the two designs would sounds different, I'll be impressed at their knowledge. I use laser trimmed surface mount components, whilst the TCC uses standard production line surface mount parts. Even the chips I use are the close tolerance versions. And once I switch the bigger caps to better ones, things might take off.
I have a TCC version you can borrow and compare if the guys on head-fi think I am talking BS and that the two boards are in fact the same. They are not, and you only have to listen to the two to hear the difference.
Any idea what I shall call my high end DAC?
Stanley
______________
End Quote.
I think it's clear that there ARE 2 versions of this DAC, but they are being marketed separately and distinctly - he's got his own name on the better one - fair enough? Personally, at first blush, I think so.
The eBay ad for the TCC unit seems to be in error - it clearly states that the TCC unit is the same as the Beresford one being marketed elsewhere. Beresford says that, in important ways, it is not the same at all.
So, sorry Bruce, but the Beresford-branded one seems to be the better researched and produced product - and is the one I've been raving about. Why not contact Beresford and see if he'd do a swap, or send one for comparison?
