AD5543 dac - 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 9th November 2012, 06:14 PM   #1
ash_dac is offline ash_dac  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Default AD5543 dac

Do you think it would be possible to build an audio dac using the AD5543 ? (though it is rather pricey there are even selected versions )

The data looks to come in MSB first on a three wire SPI. I have yet to compare it to the I2S standard. I was thinking of the evaluation board as there seems to be software included to send waveform data to the dac (though I think another evaluation board is required for that).

AD5543 datasheet and product info | 16-Bit DAC in µSOIC-8 Package | Precision & General Purpose D/A Converters | Analog Devices

http://www.analog.com/static/importe...D5543_5553.pdf
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th November 2012, 03:23 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Nice NOS find. I2S is for stereo DACs but the 5543 (and 5553) are mono so you'll need to implement something more like I1S. There are many, many ways to do that but probably the easiest is to use a microcontroller with I2S or USB in and some kind of parallel to serial translation peripheral that can drive the two mono DACs. That limits the possibilities to oh, I dunno, probably a few thousand different parts. A couple good starting points on microcontroller selection are NXP's Cortex M4s and Atmel's AVRs. I'm sure you'll get lots of other selections.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2012, 01:10 AM   #3
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: 98
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
I think what would scupper this for audio duty is the zero crossing glitch at 7nV-s. Compare this figure with the considerably cheaper DAC8581 which sports 0.5nV-s and I can't see anything to favour this ADI part. R2R architecture DACs such as this are generally regarded as not sounding so good, this is probably down to glitching.
__________________
It doesn't have to take the form of a conspiracy, rather a consensus... James H Kunstler
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2012, 01:21 AM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Off topic and not directed at you twest820, but why is it that there is some unspoken convention about the number in i2s standing for the number of channels?

I thought I2S stood for Inter-Ic-Sound. IIS then becomes I2S. This acronym in my mind has no bearing on the number of channels of audio between the two chips .... Or have I missed something somewhere and it is a standard?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2012, 04:29 AM   #5
qusp is offline qusp  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
qusp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
I think its just a made up standard, i've seen it for I8S as well
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2012, 06:30 PM   #6
ash_dac is offline ash_dac  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
I think what would scupper this for audio duty is the zero crossing glitch at 7nV-s. Compare this figure with the considerably cheaper DAC8581 which sports 0.5nV-s and I can't see anything to favour this ADI part. R2R architecture DACs such as this are generally regarded as not sounding so good, this is probably down to glitching.
Interesting chip DAC8581. I have never seen an off-system linearity adjustment like the one in the datasheet
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th November 2012, 02:18 AM   #7
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: 98
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Yes its interesting I agree, I also hadn't seen it before. A bit weird though to put it in the datasheet rather than in an appnote coz it makes the chip look better than it really is, until you realize that you need external hardware and software to achieve it.

Rather a no-no for audio though I suspect where DNL probably matters more than INL.
__________________
It doesn't have to take the form of a conspiracy, rather a consensus... James H Kunstler
  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
The DAC "do you have experience with this dac", Best diy dac for the money? murphythecat8 Construction Tips 9 17th March 2014 07:30 AM
CS8416+CS4398 DAC Kit Support USB + coaxial DAC Board bleachershane Digital Line Level 3 25th March 2012 01:03 AM
Will a modern budget DAC beat a high end 1990's DAC? daws0n Digital Source 3 9th July 2011 08:24 PM
Ebay dac with: DAC TDA1541, AD1865, AD1955, PCM63, & CS4398! sharpi31 Digital Line Level 2 10th January 2011 07:03 AM
diyclub.biz DAC-38, DAC-60, DAC-68. Anybody heard? TonyDasilva Digital Line Level 21 13th April 2009 05:10 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:01 PM.


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