WM8805 upgrade board (cs8414 pins) - dissapointed - Page 3 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Line Level

Digital Line Level DACs, Digital Crossovers, Equalizers, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 13th November 2011, 02:38 PM   #21
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
abraxalito any chance the designer speaks english and you have his email? I can't get the schematics, and I'm curious what has been implemented in the circuit.

re: Grounding, I've attached a picture of the completed dac. I use separate mains transformers for each PS. How could I improove grounding?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg dac_inside.jpg (912.3 KB, 475 views)

Last edited by mfrimu; 13th November 2011 at 02:50 PM. Reason: added image; missing letters here and there.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2011, 02:41 PM   #22
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorstenL View Post
Hi,


Yes, it will. The inputs on the 8805 expects SPDIF levels, you need to switch it (in software) to CMOS levels if you want to feed these.

Further, looking at your DAC, I am unsurprised that there is no appreciable improvement, given the design as it is.

One of the main "on board" jitter generators (the digital filter) is not addressed by re-clocking and many of circuit choices are extremely dubious, including the apparent lack of any competent HF decoupling for digital circuitry. To me this DAC appears like a ruddy waste of a rather decent chipset.

Ciao T
Could you expand on these improvements, or should I start a new thread on that subject? I'm quite suprised at how good the dac sounds, actually, but another level of improvement would be great!
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2011, 03:06 PM   #23
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfrimu View Post
Could you expand on these improvements, or should I start a new thread on that subject? I'm quite suprised at how good the dac sounds, actually, but another level of improvement would be great!
Sorry, I really do not have the time to fix every ones else's bad design, especially bad PRC Design. Maybe abraxalito would like to help out.

If you like the way the DAC sounds, why not just enjoy the music and stop messing with it.

Ciao T
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2011, 07:09 PM   #24
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Virginia
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorstenL View Post
As Cirrus logic found out in their CS8416 when it had around 10 times of the jitter of the earlier parts, it does not work as you might think it does.
I did not say that it does work well. You just cut that part of my reply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorstenL View Post
Well, whatever is in there does appear to work in practice like what they claim (according to AP Sys 2722).
I really don't care if 8805 it is "working", I wasn't at all my point.
I care that they deceive purposely about the function of that crystal (on the marketing part of their datasheet) and probably about the FIFO buffering. And that false information gets spread on forums...

Then people ask legitimate questions like the one that started that thread "why is not sounding better"?

Last edited by SoNic_real_one; 13th November 2011 at 07:13 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2011, 07:24 PM   #25
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
 
jean-paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic_real_one View Post
I did not say that it does work well. You just cut that part of my reply.

I really don't care if 8805 it is "working", I wasn't at all my point.
I care that they deceive purposely about the function of that crystal (on the marketing part of their datasheet) and probably about the FIFO buffering. And that false information gets spread on forums...

Then people ask legitimate questions like the one that started that thread "why is not sounding better"?
Hi, I don't like the way you want to achieve success. If you like me to agree with you then I will agree with you.

However, you are linking 2 different things together. "Why is it not sounding better" is about a design that obviously is not working good/as it should. It is not depending on the used WM8805. That chip is by now a known good component so one tends to assume that an adapter PCB to replace CS8414 would perform better. However the way the chip is applied on this adapter PCB is of importance, the way the designer implemented it is not OK and some functions even don't work at all.

It has nothing to do with "false information that get spread on forums". Call it whatever you want to call it (dejittering, a good PLL, a good chip) but WM8805 and WM8804 are simply ahead of CS8416 and DIR9001 and being a simple person I tried them in hardware mode and found out that they are good. I never tried AKM parts so I don't have an opinion on those.

I think Thorsten pointed out that WM8805 does achieve what Wolfson claims so stating that they are lying is quite bold. Wolfson has a good reputation and deceiving and lying are strong words. You are not working for Cirrus are you ?
__________________
It's only audio. Official member of the Norske Brillegeit Gang.

Last edited by jean-paul; 13th November 2011 at 07:35 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2011, 11:28 PM   #26
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 101
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfrimu View Post
[any chance the designer speaks english and you have his email?
I met him earlier this year (I went with a cute interpreter) - he speaks not a word of English and I don't have his email. I could attempt to get a message to him if you want to ask him something - I have an associate who chats to him on QQ from time to time. PM me if that's any use.

Quote:
I can't get the schematics, and I'm curious what has been implemented in the circuit.
He sent me the schematic for the DAC I linked to along with the DAC itself. He's very sensitive about having his designs copied, that might be one reason he doesn't give out schematics.

Quote:
re: Grounding, I've attached a picture of the completed dac. I use separate mains transformers for each PS. How could I improove grounding?
The separate meains trafos are potentially a good thing, especially because they're EI types, hence low capacitance to mains. Unfortunately the board in your picture is beyond practical remedy because its using what looks like a single groundfill for ground. Unless you enjoy spending many thankless hours with a craft knife 'hacking up the turf' so to speak, I'd choose a different starting point if your aim is good sound.
__________________
No matter if we meanwhile surrender every value for which we stand, we must strive to cajole the majority into imagining itself on our side - Everett Dean Martin
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2011, 01:32 AM   #27
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Virginia
There is nothing wrong with a ground fill by itself.
Bad is when you have digital power rails mixed with the analog one, when you have ground loops - like I see with the unshielded bifilar signal conductors. Is bad also the fused ground (like the one on 12-12V transformers for analog). Also, rotate the analog transformers with 90 degrees in relation with digital ones.
I personally think that is overkill. You have too many transformers, they don't help at all. What's the reason to have one for each OpAmp I/V filtering stage and one for DAC's? One transformer can handle all those miliampers with ease and no interference. Maybe use bigger filtering capacitors instead... And I like to see more decoupling capacitors close to DAC and OpAmp (the ones close on rectifyers don't count) - are they on the back? You need one between each rail and ground. Same on digital side - decoupling is too far "out" from chips.

Last edited by SoNic_real_one; 14th November 2011 at 01:34 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2011, 01:35 AM   #28
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 101
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic_real_one View Post
There is nothing wrong with a ground fill by itself.
Well of course I agree, a groundfill by itself has no sound.
__________________
No matter if we meanwhile surrender every value for which we stand, we must strive to cajole the majority into imagining itself on our side - Everett Dean Martin
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2011, 01:48 AM   #29
diyAudio Member
 
stormsonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Agree with ThorstenL.
CS8414 is not the weakest link in this DAC. Even input buffer alone is contributing much more jitter than receiver chip.


Quote:
He sent me the schematic for the DAC I linked to along with the DAC itself. He's very sensitive about having his designs copied, that might be one reason he doesn't give out schematics.
Are you telling us that Chinese designers are affraid that another Chinese designers will copy their POC designs? This must be joke, who in their right mind would do that?
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2011, 01:58 AM   #30
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 101
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormsonic View Post
Are you telling us that Chinese designers are affraid that another Chinese designers will copy their POC designs? This must be joke, who in their right mind would do that?
I appreciated the irony too. No I'm telling you that I know of one Chinese designer who is afraid of other Chinese designers copying his designs. His designs certainly aren't state of the art, but they're so cheap I don't much care and they do serve as great modding platforms. His fear is such that he sells almost totally on eBay and avoids the local taobao (where Chinese are much more likely to buy and copy).
__________________
No matter if we meanwhile surrender every value for which we stand, we must strive to cajole the majority into imagining itself on our side - Everett Dean Martin
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: NOS Quad TDA1543 + CS8414 SPDIF DAC Board pftrvlr Swap Meet 5 8th June 2010 12:00 AM
FS: NOS Quad TDA1543 + CS8414 SPDIF DAC Board pftrvlr Swap Meet 3 20th April 2010 07:06 AM
FS: NOS Quad TDA1543 + CS8414 SPDIF DAC Board pftrvlr Swap Meet 0 26th July 2009 08:28 PM
Micro Jacks and Micro Pins for board-board connection jazzist Parts 1 12th May 2008 03:02 PM
Selling CS8414 to CS8412 converter board spencer Swap Meet 8 1st May 2007 07:08 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:42 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2