AD1896 vs SRC4192

Marek · 5th November 2003, 05:42 PM

Hi,
I plan to build a DAC with DIR1703 + AD1853 + active I/V stage and some ASRC (AD1896 or SRC4192).Which i should choose? The SRC4192 has a little better specs,but in datasheet there is no jitter attenuation characteristic like in AD1896...

Please help me!

Marek.

tiroth · 7th November 2003, 01:30 AM

I think the answer is that it is still a big unknown which IC is better in practice.

Brian Brown · 7th November 2003, 02:06 PM

Since the SRC4192 and AD1896 are footprint compatible, why don't you try them both? You won't need a separate board layout.

The SRC4192 requires an external oscillator for its internal logic, it doesn't have the circuitry to use a plain crystal like the AD1896 does. The AD1896 can also work with an external oscillator. So as long as you put an oscillator on your board for this (probably best to use 30MHz), you can use either.

Brian.

jwb · 8th November 2003, 05:39 PM

I continue to use the Analog part, simply because the Analog datasheet explains in depth the workings of their circuit, and although I'm sure TI/BB has talented people, their datasheets seem consist mainly of errors, confusion, and misinformation. It makes me wonder if they really understand their own products.

tiroth · 8th November 2003, 07:05 PM

Indeed . You would think it worth the minimal cost of creating a good datasheet when balanced against the volume of ICs used and the free advice doled out by their support engineers ($$).

5th November 2003, 05:42 PM	#1
Marek diyAudio Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Katowice	AD1896 vs SRC4192 Hi, I plan to build a DAC with DIR1703 + AD1853 + active I/V stage and some ASRC (AD1896 or SRC4192).Which i should choose? The SRC4192 has a little better specs,but in datasheet there is no jitter attenuation characteristic like in AD1896... Please help me! Marek.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How to connect CS8414 to SRC4192? ( 5V->3.3V)	dieringe	Digital Source	10	12th October 2006 05:44 PM
SRC4192 Use...	MWP	Digital Source	33	26th April 2005 07:17 PM
SRC4192's are on the way... :)	Tieftoener	Digital Source	27	25th November 2003 08:36 PM
New ASRC - TI SRC4192	tiroth	Digital Source	1	27th August 2003 10:49 AM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	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

7th November 2003, 01:30 AM	#2
tiroth diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA	I think the answer is that it is still a big unknown which IC is better in practice.

7th November 2003, 02:06 PM	#3
Brian Brown diyAudio Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Wisconsin	Since the SRC4192 and AD1896 are footprint compatible, why don't you try them both? You won't need a separate board layout. The SRC4192 requires an external oscillator for its internal logic, it doesn't have the circuitry to use a plain crystal like the AD1896 does. The AD1896 can also work with an external oscillator. So as long as you put an oscillator on your board for this (probably best to use 30MHz), you can use either. Brian.

8th November 2003, 05:39 PM	#4
jwb diyAudio Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Francisco, USA	I continue to use the Analog part, simply because the Analog datasheet explains in depth the workings of their circuit, and although I'm sure TI/BB has talented people, their datasheets seem consist mainly of errors, confusion, and misinformation. It makes me wonder if they really understand their own products.

8th November 2003, 07:05 PM	#5
tiroth diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA	Indeed . You would think it worth the minimal cost of creating a good datasheet when balanced against the volume of ICs used and the free advice doled out by their support engineers ($$).

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)