Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/8/2016(UTC) Posts: 10  Location: Krakow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administration, Customer
Joined: 10/24/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,979
Location: Nashville, TN
Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 83 post(s)
|
ES9038 is essentially 4 ES9018/28 output stages in parallel. So each of the 8 channels is equivalent to 4 channels in parallel (one stereo mode channel) of the ES9018/9028.
I am working on a very special output stage that will work for both new DACs. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/24/2008(UTC)
Posts: 100
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Hi Russ,
that is great to hear. I can't wait but take your time to get it right...
Cheers
Thomas
P.S.: So the ES9028Pro is more of an incremental upgrade to the ES9018 and the ES9038pro requires a more complete redesign of the I/V stage?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administration, Customer
Joined: 10/24/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,979
Location: Nashville, TN
Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 83 post(s)
|
That is correct. The 9028 is essentially a 9018 with an improved core and digital stage. The analog stage is basically the same. There is big downside to the ESS chips (old and new) that makes dual mono less than desirable. I will talk more about that later.
ES9038 absolutely needs a special output stage - it's output current and current consumption is huge - it needs very special care to be sure. This is because the analog output is directly referenced to the AVCC input - there is no PSRR. So with the huge currents involved you need very special care indeed.
Cheers!
Russ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/8/2016(UTC) Posts: 10 Location: Krakow
|
Originally Posted by: Russ White  That is correct. The 9028 is essentially a 9018 with an improved core and digital stage. The analog stage is basically the same. There is big downside to the ESS chips (old and new) that makes dual mono less than desirable. I will talk more about that later.
ES9038 absolutely needs a special output stage - it's output current and current consumption is huge - it needs very special care to be sure. This is because the analog output is directly referenced to the AVCC input - there is no PSRR. So with the huge currents involved you need very special care indeed.
Cheers!
Russ Russ, What does it mean: "This is because the analog output is directly referenced to the AVCC input - there is no PSRR." technically and how it impact overall performance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administration, Customer
Joined: 10/24/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,979
Location: Nashville, TN
Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 83 post(s)
|
It means that the analog output is really just raw FETs with Drains and Sources connected to the analog rails. It's actually just like a switch.
That means any noise/ripple present on the analog supply will definitely be present in the output signal. This is compounded by the fact that the DAC itself (as a significant load) is causing ripple all the time - so the AVCC supply has to have excellent load regulation and PSRR itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/17/2016(UTC) Posts: 4  Location: Umeå Thanks: 1 times
|
I own three BuffaloIIIse's using them in a 3-way dsp xo and has used John Broskies "Unballancer" for output stages. I like them a lot regardless of them being somewhat in the voltage region. I'm hoping for them to be a good fit for the BuffaloIV as well. I'm planning for one 8-channel dac using 4-channels for l/r-hp and the remaining 4 for l-r subs and l-r midbass. As I read this the avcc inputs will draw 4 times as much current as the ess9018 did, is this correct ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/8/2016(UTC) Posts: 10 Location: Krakow
|
Thanks Russ for explanation.
I am just wonder how close to R2R dacs es9028pro is ... especially to R2R Vout types.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administration, Customer
Joined: 10/24/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,979
Location: Nashville, TN
Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 83 post(s)
|
Not at all - it is a completely different kind of analog stage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administration, Customer
Joined: 10/24/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,979
Location: Nashville, TN
Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 83 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: dahlberg I own three BuffaloIIIse's using them in a 3-way dsp xo and has used John Broskies "Unballancer" for output stages. I like them a lot regardless of them being somewhat in the voltage region. I'm hoping for them to be a good fit for the BuffaloIV as well. I'm planning for one 8-channel dac using 4-channels for l/r-hp and the remaining 4 for l-r subs and l-r midbass. As I read this the avcc inputs will draw 4 times as much current as the ess9018 did, is this correct ? Yes - the whole chip uses much more current.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/17/2016(UTC) Posts: 4 Location: Umeå Thanks: 1 times
|
Originally Posted by: Russ White Originally Posted by: dahlberg I own three BuffaloIIIse's using them in a 3-way dsp xo and has used John Broskies "Unballancer" for output stages. I like them a lot regardless of them being somewhat in the voltage region. I'm hoping for them to be a good fit for the BuffaloIV as well. I'm planning for one 8-channel dac using 4-channels for l/r-hp and the remaining 4 for l-r subs and l-r midbass. As I read this the avcc inputs will draw 4 times as much current as the ess9018 did, is this correct ? Yes - the whole chip uses much more current. I imagine this is mostly for the avcc section and the digital side is similar (for current draw) to the BuffaloIII, right ? How about pcb size, will it fit in 100x125mm ? Edited by user Monday, November 28, 2016 11:21:02 PM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administration, Customer
Joined: 10/24/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,979
Location: Nashville, TN
Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 83 post(s)
|
It uses more current from all supplies - but mostly from AVCC.
The I/V stage is still being worked on - it will be the largest board - probably a bit larger than the current IVY-III
I will finalize dimensions when I am able.
|
 1 user thanked Russ White for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/27/2011(UTC)
Posts: 40
Location: Europe
|
Russ, will the dac board comes with U.FL sockets?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/13/2016(UTC) Posts: 30  Location: PA Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
|
I am planning to use I2S outputs of the miniSHARC board to feed an 8-channel DAC feeding 8xUcD180 amplifiers. Buffalo III is known to work well in this configuration. Are there any reasons to expect that the miniSHARC+Buffalo IV will not be as happy a marriage as miniSHARC+Buffalo III? I'm planning a basic decoupling plus RC filter for the output stages, at least for now. I'm trying to decide between getting a Buffalo III now and Buffalo IV later... Thank you for your advice and suggestions. Edited by user Tuesday, December 13, 2016 9:21:54 PM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administration, Customer
Joined: 10/24/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,979
Location: Nashville, TN
Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 83 post(s)
|
It will indeed work for that application as well or better.
|
1 user thanked Russ White for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/19/2016(UTC) Posts: 2 Location: Boston Thanks: 1 times
|
Originally Posted by: Russ White That is correct. The 9028 is essentially a 9018 with an improved core and digital stage. The analog stage is basically the same. There is big downside to the ESS chips (old and new) that makes dual mono less than desirable. I will talk more about that later...
Are you talking about chip to chip variations making a chip for each channel a problem? Resonessence seems to parallel half the channels from each of two DAC chips to make an output channel. That's mentioned here: http://www.resonessencelabs.com/service-support/faqs/ under the question of "What's the difference between the Invictus and Invictus Mira?" Quote:"Doubling the number of channels reduces the noise by 3db. However, Resonessence does a little more. Firstly, we use a circuit level implementation that distributes the left and right channels equally between the Sabre chips, this ensures perfect channel to channel matching. And secondly, we actually also parallel the AD797 output amplifiers so that they also have their noise reduced by 3db at the same time. This second level of connectivity in parallel extends to the regulators as well: their noise goes down too."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/19/2016(UTC) Posts: 1  Location: Oslo
|
Originally Posted by: Russ White It uses more current from all supplies - but mostly from AVCC.
The I/V stage is still being worked on - it will be the largest board - probably a bit larger than the current IVY-III
I will finalize dimensions when I am able. Sounds good! :) I don't know if this is decided yet, but will it be a discrete stage such as the Legato, or integrated like the IVY?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administration, Customer
Joined: 10/24/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,979
Location: Nashville, TN
Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 83 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: markk02474 Originally Posted by: Russ White That is correct. The 9028 is essentially a 9018 with an improved core and digital stage. The analog stage is basically the same. There is big downside to the ESS chips (old and new) that makes dual mono less than desirable. I will talk more about that later...
Are you talking about chip to chip variations making a chip for each channel a problem? Resonessence seems to parallel half the channels from each of two DAC chips to make an output channel. That's mentioned here: http://www.resonessencelabs.com/service-support/faqs/ under the question of "What's the difference between the Invictus and Invictus Mira?" Quote:"Doubling the number of channels reduces the noise by 3db. However, Resonessence does a little more. Firstly, we use a circuit level implementation that distributes the left and right channels equally between the Sabre chips, this ensures perfect channel to channel matching. And secondly, we actually also parallel the AD797 output amplifiers so that they also have their noise reduced by 3db at the same time. This second level of connectivity in parallel extends to the regulators as well: their noise goes down too." That really does not solve the chip to chip matching issue. Which is not about output level - but output impedance. There is no way to make two DAC chips perform identically. :) Even if their output is the same. What you "could do" but would be foolish in my opinion - is parallel multiple chips - but with the ES9038 you would really see no net gain - because you would hit the limits of the analog stage.
|
1 user thanked Russ White for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administration, Customer
Joined: 10/24/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,979
Location: Nashville, TN
Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 83 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: Gbatokai Originally Posted by: Russ White It uses more current from all supplies - but mostly from AVCC.
The I/V stage is still being worked on - it will be the largest board - probably a bit larger than the current IVY-III
I will finalize dimensions when I am able. Sounds good! :) I don't know if this is decided yet, but will it be a discrete stage such as the Legato, or integrated like the IVY? It is completely new- but most like the IVY. Later I may do a more legato like stage - but it is not really practical with the ES9038 without some major re-factoring. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/13/2016(UTC) Posts: 30 Location: PA Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
|
Russ, Is it correct to assume that you will recommend powering the new Buffalo (just the DAC, not including the I/V stage) with Placid HD v2.1 or there will be a new power supply released? Thank you, Andrey Edited by user Wednesday, January 4, 2017 4:50:26 AM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
