This ocxo is a at cut , it only compare with some low phase noise XO like CCH-957 , it's 1HZ is not so good as SC CUT OCXO , If a SC CUT can put a -120dBc/Hz on 10HZ
So, is there a guaranteed phase noise spec somewhere? Or are you referring to one sampled unit? How as it measured, etc.? Right now it seems pretty vague as to what is being promised.
That's no a power transistor , it's a LT1086 , for OCXO's 5V power
Put it on top the OCXO , can collect the heat generated during LT1086 works ，Reduce heat loss in OCXO
Put it on top the OCXO , can collect the heat generated during LT1086 works ，Reduce heat loss in OCXO
You use ES9038q2m in syncronous or asynchronous (like 99.99% ESS-based DACs) mode?
If async, how OCXO + ESS9038' PLL influences to the final parameters?
If async, how OCXO + ESS9038' PLL influences to the final parameters?
Now it works in async，I2S directly input to ES9038Q2M
I don't care about the final parameters，just to do，Listen to it
If a OCXO much better than CCHD575, and no much cost， why not ？
I don't care about the final parameters，just to do，Listen to it
If a OCXO much better than CCHD575, and no much cost， why not ？
It's up to you.
But I didn't understand why this oscillator phase noise is so important, if in async. mode, the final phase noise will be determined by the PLL, which is much worse than the oscillator phase noise.
Doesn't matter.
In my designs I2S is also directly to ES9038, but DAC operates in sync. mode from low jitter oscillator.
Just from ESS's spdif input I put it to async.
Yes，the PLL jitter is very important when use async mode，if the MCLK frequency from i2s link is enough ，you can use sync mode，but many front end is 22.5792/24.576MHZ，are you using 45.1584/49.152MHZ ?
Just if must to use async , chose OCXO is better than XO
I2S input via HDMI link, the other way to work in SYNC mode , may use a SI5381 to lock on LRCLK in i2s link ,output MCLK 90.3168/98.304MHZ, and than need a good 54MHZ osc , to give a MCLK for ESS ,45.1584/49.152MHZ is no enough when DSD512
Just if must to use async , chose OCXO is better than XO
I2S input via HDMI link, the other way to work in SYNC mode , may use a SI5381 to lock on LRCLK in i2s link ,output MCLK 90.3168/98.304MHZ, and than need a good 54MHZ osc , to give a MCLK for ESS ,45.1584/49.152MHZ is no enough when DSD512
And ,if the dac works close to the I2S front end, a 10MHZ OCXO, and a SI5341 PLL, is a good idea
I use 100 MHz oscillator in async. and 45/49 MHz in sync. mode.
For me DSD512 is not so important, I can simply implement it, but don't want to do this. In all my devices I use maximum PCM384/DSD256 for 2ch. stereo (and PCM192/DSD128 for 8ch).
Last edited:
You would expect an OCXO to be worse phase noise than a free running XO, as it's hot. Even worse with some old OCXOs I have seen that used a crude thermostat heater.
Hey. I am becoming a big fan of your products. Got your UAC1 and found it to be better than my other DDCs including Matrix and Singxer (disappointed that the one I got didn't have clock inputs). So, got curious about your dacs. I ordered one of your R2R dac but order was cancelled because you stopped production of it. Then, I ordered your cirrus logic dac but order was cancelled because you stopped production of it. I hate sabre chips but that's all you got now so forced to order this one. Turns out, it sounds lovely. Out of the 3 HDMI cables I have, I have to use the warmest sounding one to get the right balance of getting rid of any trace of the sabre's sound signature. Love your products and how they are DC powered, so it's easy to upgrade PSU.
Attachments
Not sure whether the ES9038Q2M dac has fully burned in or whether my ears have become accustomed to it, but it is sounding better now than when I originally posted. (Actually I am pretty sure it has improved as I like it more than some of my other previous favorite dacs now) I've switched back to the more neutral sounding HDMI cable and the sound still exhibits good balance of detail and smoothness. I've just ordered the SI384 w/ your -100db clock (via alix) as I am curious as how the sound will differ with this DAC. I do hope you'd make a R2R dac with i2s input again. I missed the boat on that one.
