ackoDAC based on ES9018

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#321
sounds like you are headed the way of this complexity too. the elements themselves past the dac are pretty simple circuits, but i just cant stand the hit and miss nature of passive xo and having a penchant for expensive caps when they are needed, i just know i would spend a stupid amount of dosh on the xo trying to get it right, at least fiddling with knobs is free. i wont accept digital xo that comes after the dac, seems a waste and that becomes the bottleneck, as with analogue active xo, lots of fiddling with opamps or other active filters is bound to screw with the sound/linearity/phase. so i figure get it right before the amps. i've been primarily a headphone guy previously, so i like the idea of room correction

yeah there is probably some filtering going on past my ears, but the filter has been omitted in the iv stage itself.

anyway good chatting, should probably stop polluting acko's thread, even though its related.
cheers

Jeremy
 
#323
Guys,

Thanks for all the comments and feedback, all valuable information! No problems with healthy debates as this is what the forum is for.

Yes, DAC can get complicated depending on what you are after but all these are made from simple modules added together. At this stage a lot of development work is still going on, especially with IVs, digital filtering etc and will sort out website slowly.

For those who need additional information there are user's manuals that are available upon request and of course happy to help on specifics if you drop me a line

Cheers, Acko
 
#324
qusp said:
i have used budP's onetics (not sumR as i wrote above, richard makes my power transformers, doesnt make signal tx) and they are very well suited, but no matter what type of transformer, it still is about the worst thing the dac could see at its output, inductive, high impedance.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. The Sabre chip sounds best in current mode, and presenting a high impedance is bad.
The tranny should present a low impedance, paired with a primary resistance as low as possible, lower than lets say 5 Ohms, because if the resistance is higher than the presented impedance, the whole thing is "technical rubbish". Dynamic will suffer, as you noticed.
I think it is not off topic in this thread, because Ackodac is so easy to use this way, better than Buffalo. At the moment I use Buffalo with a few LiPoFe's, without regulators at all, but I would fancy a teflon board.
 
#326
you have mcu, you are not using the defaults. defaults are only set if you start up without the mcu. however, the dac is an async dac and runs at over 1.5mhz internally, so as long as your source switches to the right mode it'll be fine. there is a NOS mode i think, but i wouldnt recommend it, i think the power of the sabre is in this async mechanism
 
#327
I was wondering if someone tested attached schematic with ES9012. It has been taken from the great Broskie's website.
 

Attachments

  • aikido_amplifier_1.png
    aikido_amplifier_1.png
    9 KB · Views: 740
#329
yes i did tried out the BCF (with AD1852) with 6n27p and 6sn7 and found the 6sn7 version exhibited the best sound with very smooth yet a bit sirupy sound and best detail. the 6gm8 version was pretty good sounding but ultimately lacked detailed. maybe i ll try out again that circuit because i had a good experience with it overall but IMO the D1 would be superior in lots of aspects.
 
Last edited:
#330
What's the D1?
I already use the BCF (6N2P + 12SX7) with very good result in my 44KHz/16bit players with the tda1540/1541 dacs, but I'm wondering if it the sligtly modified schematic (with double cathoder resistor to allow dc offset) is suitable for the ES9012 specifically. As far as I read around it likes to see very few ohms loadings.
 
#332
fvale said:
What's the D1?
I already use the BCF (6N2P + 12SX7) with very good result in my 44KHz/16bit players with the tda1540/1541 dacs, but I'm wondering if it the sligtly modified schematic (with double cathoder resistor to allow dc offset) is suitable for the ES9012 specifically. As far as I read around it likes to see very few ohms loadings.
Click to expand...

yep its the board quoted above and sounds magnificent. the sabre likes to see no loading at all, even a few ohms effects performance considerably, some see this as a fault, and i suppose you could see it that way, but you can work through it and are well rewarded.

therefore i really dont think passive iv of any kind, whether at the input to a tube stage, or jfet stage is the way to go with the sabre. it still sounds very nice in voltage out, or partial voltage/partial current out (its a transition, rather than a boundary), but you do lose an edge without essentially presenting zero impedance and biased input imo
 
#333
I checked the D1 thread and it sounds appealing. However, there was a GB and that makes a big difference. I would not make such a move without at least a board ready.

In the meantime I have my LL1674...But still looking for something better. One of my friends has a "solid" DA converter using two PCM1794. Very good sounding. It crossed my mind to put the IV converter diagram here but since it's commercial stuff I don't know if I can.
 
#335
its just a neat way of connecting all the modules together without wires and also i think the base of an enclosure made entirely out of fr4 copper lined, shielded (grounded) with all panel mount connectors 'pcb mounted' and smd indicator leds. at least he has done one of these for someone, not sure if its the same base board. the dac is comprised of quite a number of modules now and this can make a very neat solution for some. not really for me though as i have conceived a mongrel of a dac and i tend to like more esoteric wiring 😀
 
#336
FS regular board

Acko gave me the permission to put my DAC (regular, rev. A) for sale on his thread since I bought the Premium new version. If you know someone who could be interested, I ask $115 (CAN or US) for the main board only. It will be on the "swap meet" section in few days if I have no news. Thanks.
Pierre
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom