I have already got mine so.....
Don't keep us waiting! [emoji846]What does it sound like? What's your output stage? Current or Voltage mode?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It's a multichannel dac and will be used for a digital crossover (3-way). I haven't listened to it and it might take a while before I will have the time to put it all together. Output stages will be John Broskies "Unbalancer". The amount of currect drive is depedent on a resistor that also regulates the amount of gain and it will be different for different registers. Somewhere near 80% of current drive, it's not done yet so....
More coming out of the production line...
I will have to load firmware and test thoroughly, all point by point as this is a new product. Shipping starting from next week. Yours will take slightly longer as it is dual mono - a bit more elaborate testing
Thank you for your patience...
Attachments
Received the boards today! I must say the quality of these boards is exceptional. Looking forward to the build!
Anybody have any information on recommended IV stages and in particular if anybody has tested the 'composite' IV stage recommend in the data sheet?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Anybody have any information on recommended IV stages and in particular if anybody has tested the 'composite' IV stage recommend in the data sheet?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good to hear!
I will be looking into suitable ones but will take time. The 9038 specs exceed some of best IC OpAmps out there and IV is in the signal path so care is needed. I know there are guys trying Trafos and tubes and claim sounds great but these generally produce higher distortions if you look at the spectra. Exploring hybrid designs...
I believe these approaches throw away the benefits of the better technical performance of this DAC chip? Solid state is the way to go with this to extract the improvements over other DAC chips in the same range? Thats why I believe there is some merit in the ESS recommended "composite" IV stage and wondered if anybody had tried it out or ruled it out for any other reason?
Is this the same as shown in the data sheet or something new that we are not aware of?
Last edited:
I am only aware of the one shown in the data sheet. Why have I not heard of anybody giving it a try? Surely you would have thought nobody is more aware and proficient at this than the manufacturer of the DAC chip?
Thanks for this!
I only have data sheet V2.5 where it shows only a typical diagram with blanks for end user to decide component types. I can get the other document that you mentioned from ESS, will take sometime but was thinking if you could forward a copy to me, email, if that is alright
Thanks for this!
I only have data sheet V2.5 where it shows only a typical diagram with blanks for end user to decide component types. I can get the other document that you mentioned from ESS, will take sometime but was thinking if you could forward a copy to me, email, if that is alright
Check your mail Acko
Thank you!
Yes, we did talk about it even though I did not sight this technique from ESS, maybe you thought so but the 9038 is fairly new and output is like 9018 on steroids. I would say no one has tried it yet ? because still in migration process, I think.
Having said that technically not much different from the 9018 concept-wise so even the previous recommended IV is valid and works really great!
But there is another twist why people have moved away from this type of design .... will talk about later, bedtime already Hint: feedback
Yes, we did talk about it even though I did not sight this technique from ESS, maybe you thought so
but the 9038 is fairly new and output is like 9018 on steroids. I would say no one has tried it yet ? because still in migration process, I think.Having said that technically not much different from the 9018 concept-wise so even the previous recommended IV is valid and works really great!
But there is another twist why people have moved away from this type of design .... will talk about later, bedtime already
Hint: feedback
Last edited:
@theMystical,
After going through the ESS document it appears that their 'Composite Design' is not actually recommended for your pure IV mono blocs. There is simply not enough drive even on the beefed up IV design to handle what is coming out of the 9038 firing in all cylinders! May be it will just make it but we are cutting close so I guess ESS took a risk averse position here.
We did talk about this concern last year but kept going in excitement. It looks like a jump too far now but not an error of expediency for being ahead of the curve. That is why no one talks about it and if you look at the commercial products most top out at 9028 with lower drive similar to 9018 so very easy to rejig existing 9018 designs and jump onto 'DAC PRO' bandwagon. In fact I asked one of them during an exhibition why 9038 was excluded, they simply shrugged off saying too expensive, not sweet sounding?,not worth it but the low down is looking more like Simpsons
I have already discussed alternatives with you to keep going this way but they are looking pricey, so I am not sure what your budget is like....
After going through the ESS document it appears that their 'Composite Design' is not actually recommended for your pure IV mono blocs. There is simply not enough drive even on the beefed up IV design to handle what is coming out of the 9038 firing in all cylinders! May be it will just make it but we are cutting close so I guess ESS took a risk averse position here.
We did talk about this concern last year but kept going in excitement. It looks like a jump too far now but not an error of expediency for being ahead of the curve. That is why no one talks about it and if you look at the commercial products most top out at 9028 with lower drive similar to 9018 so very easy to rejig existing 9018 designs and jump onto 'DAC PRO' bandwagon. In fact I asked one of them during an exhibition why 9038 was excluded, they simply shrugged off saying too expensive, not sweet sounding?,not worth it but the low down is looking more like Simpsons
I have already discussed alternatives with you to keep going this way but they are looking pricey, so I am not sure what your budget is like....
Last edited:
I agree and a pure mono-block IV design seems like a step too far.
Far more feasible is the "inverse phase" mono-block which doesn't have to deal with any more current but ultimately should provide the same result.
Far more feasible is the "inverse phase" mono-block which doesn't have to deal with any more current but ultimately should provide the same result.
Unfortunately, the 'inverse phase mono' feature that was available in the 9018 is not supported in the new Pro series. Yes, I remember we talked about it before also. I am sure we will come up with something eventually. Also, another thought, 'ESS recommended' may not be the best for all cases so I am taking all their guidelines as typical only to get going initially and then progress.
IC OpAmps with heaps of global negative feedback produce vanishingly low THD and dead zero virtual gnd for the DAc to drive into ideally but limits the dynamic performance somewhat. e.g. AD4898 -130dB THD re:9038 -120dB THD at the pins
On the other-hand those who favor tubes can expect like -65dB THD based on some of efforts that I can see. Though there are claims of warmth, musical ?, magical performance for dynamics.
I believe some of us can still hear right down to -100dB!
Trafos will be even worse THD-wise
Solid state, no feedback OPCs NTD1 looks really good! Something to consider....
Last edited: