Another thing is that the maximum output of 2 Vrms from the ES9023 DAC and 63uVrms noise gives you only 16 Bit performance at the best, IF we can keep the overall system noise down to the 63uVrms from the regulator.
20uVrms noise gives you the potential of getting 18 Bit performance.
Examples :
2Vrms is +/- 2.8V which gives a signal range of 5.6V.
16 Bit : 5.6/65535 = 85.4uVrms Per LSB
17 Bit : 5.6/131071 = 42.7uVrms Per LSB
18 Bit : 5.6/262143 = 21.3uVrms Per LSB
19 Bit : 5.6/524287 = 10.6uVrms Per LSB
20 Bit : 5.6/1048575 = 5.34uVrms Per LSB
In short, by using that MIC5205 you are limiting the potential performance of the DAC to 16 Bit at the best.
With better regulators 18-20 Bit performance should be possible with a good layout, not that it is trivial to do so, but starting out with limiting the performance to 16 Bit due to the use of an unsuitable regulator is not a good starting point. With a MIC5205 you will never, ever get more than 16 Bit performance, no matter how good the rest of the layout is.
20uVrms noise gives you the potential of getting 18 Bit performance.
Examples :
2Vrms is +/- 2.8V which gives a signal range of 5.6V.
16 Bit : 5.6/65535 = 85.4uVrms Per LSB
17 Bit : 5.6/131071 = 42.7uVrms Per LSB
18 Bit : 5.6/262143 = 21.3uVrms Per LSB
19 Bit : 5.6/524287 = 10.6uVrms Per LSB
20 Bit : 5.6/1048575 = 5.34uVrms Per LSB
In short, by using that MIC5205 you are limiting the potential performance of the DAC to 16 Bit at the best.
With better regulators 18-20 Bit performance should be possible with a good layout, not that it is trivial to do so, but starting out with limiting the performance to 16 Bit due to the use of an unsuitable regulator is not a good starting point. With a MIC5205 you will never, ever get more than 16 Bit performance, no matter how good the rest of the layout is.
Last edited:
According to the datasheet, 3.3V power supply output 1.9Vrms. So, theoretically, adp151-3.3 will give 18 bits performance at best. O-dac also use the same mic onboard regulator, so I am sure the choice is a good compromise, but it will be interesting to compare which is this hobby all about, IMHO 
Åke, the regulator pin outs are compatible, but if you switch to adp151, you also need to replace one resistor, R11, from 130K to 220K.
Åke, the regulator pin outs are compatible, but if you switch to adp151, you also need to replace one resistor, R11, from 130K to 220K.
the Ti reg I linked is 4.17uV and adjustable, but not hand solderable, yo0u would need a rework station or toaster oven if you didnt get the boards stuffed at the fab
otherwise why not use an adjustable reg like lt1763 and resistor divider to get 3.6v? as with the 9018/12 if the analogue reference supply is pushed harder (these at least are 4v tolerant, I run 3.6-3.75v for AVCC) it does increase performance, but if in the act of doing so you increase the noise floor to a point that limits it much worse, simply because you can get it in a set voltage 3.6v.... seems an odd tradeoff to me.
but hey as you say, different strokes.
otherwise why not use an adjustable reg like lt1763 and resistor divider to get 3.6v? as with the 9018/12 if the analogue reference supply is pushed harder (these at least are 4v tolerant, I run 3.6-3.75v for AVCC) it does increase performance, but if in the act of doing so you increase the noise floor to a point that limits it much worse, simply because you can get it in a set voltage 3.6v.... seems an odd tradeoff to me.
but hey as you say, different strokes.
Never play with numbers before morning coffee
TI is out of my league, but I will try the adp on my second 2.6 board to compare and will see there will be reversible way to use the LT as well. But whatever method to manage the LT to work may introduce more noise, I will see. First thing first, need to start populating my digikey shopping cart ....
The V3 is still in development. So it certainly can have more options to play with, but it will be up to JP and Subbu to decide against their design goal and objectives. I am sure they are also reading this thread.
At 1.9Vrms, it should be 19 bit, not 18 (5.3740115366/262143/2*1000000=10.25)
TI is out of my league, but I will try the adp on my second 2.6 board to compare and will see there will be reversible way to use the LT as well. But whatever method to manage the LT to work may introduce more noise, I will see. First thing first, need to start populating my digikey shopping cart ....
The V3 is still in development. So it certainly can have more options to play with, but it will be up to JP and Subbu to decide against their design goal and objectives. I am sure they are also reading this thread.
Right. I tried ADP151 with very good results in the starting phase of this DAC but since there is no 3.6 V version MIC5205 was chosen. Secondly ADP151 dies with 5.5 V or higher at the input (tested this myself). I think the clipping condition of ES9023 with 3.3 V is worse than accepting the already quite low noise of a 3.6 V version of the MIC5205.
So the 3.6 V is the most critical reg. One could use ADP151 for the WM8804 and the XO (did that on a few DACs). Point still is to find a better hand solderable 3.6 V reg with lower noise numbers.
Last edited:
J-P,
Neutrality already did:
LT1761 is available as an adjustable reg between 1.22 and 20V ...
I have just received my ackodac ES9023 design, with his own design <1uV 3.6V regulator and micro-coax u.fl i2s intput and synchronous master clock and still, the sound is excellent! I haven't tried your design so it is impossible to compare the two unfortunately.
Neutrality already did:
LT1761 is available as an adjustable reg between 1.22 and 20V ...
I have just received my ackodac ES9023 design, with his own design <1uV 3.6V regulator and micro-coax u.fl i2s intput and synchronous master clock and still, the sound is excellent! I haven't tried your design so it is impossible to compare the two unfortunately.
Last edited:
As there are two major DAC related group buys on the forum, can someone explain if and where this module and the Subbu DAC V3 complement or overlap eack other?
IMHO, they don't overlap particularly well. I've said it before . With the 2.6 design that has been shown, I believe the i2s implementation is less good than the spdif implementation. I am not sure what changes are in store for V3 so that remains to be seen ....
The amenero board does not offer spdif output. The interesting parts of the amenero board are its ability to play back higher sample rates and DSD files, neither of those are possible with the ES9023 dac chip.
Having said that people have used them together successfully.
The amenero board does not offer spdif output. The interesting parts of the amenero board are its ability to play back higher sample rates and DSD files, neither of those are possible with the ES9023 dac chip.
Having said that people have used them together successfully.
Tried to implement U.FL connectors in the V3 but testing will show if they stay or not. The Subbu DAC is a SPDIF DAC with a possibility for I2S the somewhat less elegant way. Any of you that want to use USB can use whatever module before the Subbu DAC you want but that does not take away that it IS a SPDIF DAC originally. We will not design a USB DAC for a group buy.
Of course I can understand and accept criticism. We try to make a very good sounding ES9023 DAC for an affordable price (no more no less). I like the view of AckoDAC products a lot but they are really not comparible looking at prices. It would have been easier for me to buy an AckoDAC but the price made me go this way which, of course, ended up way more expensive and time consuming...
The 2.6 prove that a cheap DAC can sound exceptionally good, even with those darn MIC5205
Of course I can understand and accept criticism. We try to make a very good sounding ES9023 DAC for an affordable price (no more no less). I like the view of AckoDAC products a lot but they are really not comparible looking at prices. It would have been easier for me to buy an AckoDAC but the price made me go this way which, of course, ended up way more expensive and time consuming...
The 2.6 prove that a cheap DAC can sound exceptionally good, even with those darn MIC5205
Last edited:
Thanks for the info. I hope this is not an inappropriate question and don't want to expand the answer beyond the minimum response, but with all the knowledgeable DAC folks here, is there a design that matches up better with the amenero?
I have every intention of buying and implementing the DAC at the focus here, but I have built two others and am aware of several more designs. Maybe one of those " Pick & Compare" spreadsheets might even be in order.
Hope this isn't thread hijacking, if it is just ignore the question, but I'll openly admit to a fair amount of confusion
I have every intention of buying and implementing the DAC at the focus here, but I have built two others and am aware of several more designs. Maybe one of those " Pick & Compare" spreadsheets might even be in order.
Hope this isn't thread hijacking, if it is just ignore the question, but I'll openly admit to a fair amount of confusion
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.