Amanero Isolator/Reclocker GB

[iancortez]

Yes I'm using the hifiduino setup and code to control an es9018 dac

 

[mvaldes]

GLT code use the following math co calculate the sample frequency:

DPLL value / (2^32*64/Crystal-Frequency)
where Crystal-Frequency could be 80 OR 100Mhz MCLK

If you use different MCLK then you should modify the math
With some basic programming skill (that I don't have….) it is possible to write a small piece of code that can easily handle two different MCLK at same time

 

[iancortez]

Got my setup working with full sync mode with SI590 7 ppm clocks, the frequency displayed by the dac is not correct, using the 98xx and 90xx frequencies. the dac has full lock and plays without artifacts, no clicks or pops. Any ideas why synced frequency displayed would be different than async ? I am using a 100 MHz clock for the on dac xo.

GLT code use the following math co calculate the sample frequency:

DPLL value / (2^32*64/Crystal-Frequency)
where Crystal-Frequency could be 80 OR 100Mhz MCLK

If you use different MCLK the you should modify the math
With some basic programming skill (that I don't have….) it is possible to write a small piece of code that can easily handle two different MCLK at same time

Thank you that makes sense, I will have a look at the code, I also wondered if it is important to install the 90xxx clock at position x1 or x2 on the AKX302. I currently have x1 = 90xxx and x2 = 98xxx

 

[acko]

Thank you that makes sense, I will have a look at the code, I also wondered if it is important to install the 90xxx clock at position x1 or x2 on the AKX302. I currently have x1 = 90xxx and x2 = 98xxx

The positions are correct. You can check the enables lines of the XO to confirm

I was expecting stable lock especially at the low 44.1KHz.
Now, I have got my wires crossed but with 44.1KHz then 2048Fs=90.3168MHz XO. In all my posts I kept mentioning 90.3136MHz What is your actual Si590 frequency?

So should have been 90.3168MHz (for 44.1KHz base) and 98.304MHz (for 48KHz base)

 

[iancortez]

The positions are correct. You can check the enables lines of the XO to confirm

I was expecting stable lock especially at the low 44.1KHz.
Now, I have got my wires crossed but with 44.1KHz then 2048Fs=90.3168MHz XO. In all my posts I kept mentioning 90.3136MHz What is your actual Si590 frequency?

So should have been 90.3168MHz (for 44.1KHz base) and 98.304MHz (for 48KHz base)

My si590 frequency is 90.3136MHz and 98.304MHz

 

[acko]

My si590 frequency is 90.3136MHz and 98.304MHz

Really sorry but you need to replace the 90.3136MHz XO with 90.3168Mhz type. Otherwise the error in fs will give less than favourable results. I only found out my mistake when I checked my AKX701 Clock Module that got the factory fixed frequencies printed on the case. With the si590 you can have any frequencies so need to be careful about ".xxx" stuff! My apologies again

 

[iancortez]

Really sorry but you need to replace the 90.3136MHz XO with 90.3168Mhz type. Otherwise the error in fs will give less than favourable results. I only found out my mistake when I checked my AKX701 Clock Module that got the factory fixed frequencies printed on the case. With the si590 you can have any frequencies so need to be careful about ".xxx" stuff! My apologies again

No worries....now you will have to develop a PCB that will use the 90.3136 xo

 

[acko]

No worries....now you will have to develop a PCB that will use the 90.3136 xo

Thanks, you will never know

BTW, for the 98.304MHz XO, this is correct and will kick in with 192KHz source. If you have such files then you could test again and see.

 

[iancortez]

Thanks, you will never know

BTW, for the 98.304MHz XO, this is correct and will kick in with 192KHz source. If you have such files then you could test again and see.

I noticed that 192KHz was displayed correctly yesterday, but dsd 128 and most others were a little off, also got some strange noise once while playing 44k files, just ordered the new xo, I will keep you updated.

 

[mvaldes]

I don't know if this is too much OT, anyway...

I noticed that 192KHz was displayed correctly yesterday, but dsd 128 and most others were a little off.....

search "boolean SRExact=true;" in the code
if you change SRExact from default "true" to "false" you will have nominal format displayed instead of exact one

if necessary, you can change the values in the "if" condition to display the correct sr for DSD and PCM
this is where sr print routine start:


if(SRExact==true)
lcd.print(sr, DEC); // Print DSD sample rate in exact format
else // Print DSD sample rate in nominal format
if(sr>6143000)
lcd.print("6.1 MHz");
else
if(sr>5644000)
lcd.print("5.6 MHz");
else
.........

 

[iancortez]

I don't know if this is too much OT, anyway...



search "boolean SRExact=true;" in the code
if you change SRExact from default "true" to "false" you will have nominal format displayed instead of exact one

if necessary, you can change the values in the "if" condition to display the correct sr for DSD and PCM
this is where sr print routine start:


if(SRExact==true)
lcd.print(sr, DEC); // Print DSD sample rate in exact format
else // Print DSD sample rate in nominal format
if(sr>6143000)
lcd.print("6.1 MHz");
else
if(sr>5644000)
lcd.print("5.6 MHz");
else
.........

Thanks, I will try it, I am going to try the correct xo first, and your code is much appreciate!

 

[Mull3t]

This is correct for the 9023 DAC but if 100MHz XO on AKX302 is used you will get 50MHz with a div/2 and not 49.152 as you have indicated

Yup... meant 98.304Mhz. Not sure I'm going this route anymore. I only bought one clock board to experiment with. I suppose I could buy another

If in doubt please post your setup and will try my best to help out

Thanks! I'm glad we can all use this experience to learn at our different levels of expertise or lack there of. Just as long as there isn't any magic smoke in the end I'm happy. As always have more questions...

Is it worth it to go the faster potato chip route for re-clocking if going with an on-board 49.152Mhz XO in PSync mode? If I'm reading correctly it seems like it fits better when you're running a faster than 98.304Mhz XO.

Is it the general consensus that bang-for-buck the Si590 is the way to go for AKX302 XOs? Some of the Fox XOs seem pretty spendy. The Crystek is somewhere in between.

Finally, what's the difference between using a 50Mhz XO vs. 49.152Mhz XO? I know the latter is a direct multiple of 48Khz, 96Khz, etc. Not sure about the former. Does it only matter when dividing/multiplying clocking?

 

[RollE2k]

I started wondering - if running the Amanero/isolator with 45M/49M clocks, have anybody tried both isolator boards, and if so - which one is to perfer? Or is there anything making one better suitable than the other?
I'm wondering because i will run one isolator to the Amanero, and the other to my SPDIF -> I2S-board, and i'm wondering which one would suit each place the best.

 

[hochopeper]

IMHO, they should be broadly interchangeable between those two applications. Both will certainly manage higher clock frequencies quite easily. The potato FF may give some improvement at faster clock speeds, though it will depend on the quality of the impedance matching provided at the DAC you're using.

 

[qusp]

why are so many people still pushing so hard to be told the answer to this comparison, when the whole point was for people to find out for themselves, for their application and report back to Acko? that was why these were made available cheaply.

 

[Mull3t]

I think the reason people are asking for answers are for two reasons... 1) they think others might have made the comparison already and want to see what others impressions are. 2) they are novice in this area and don't fully know what the purpose of the higher speeds allowed by the potato FFs.

I'm not afraid to admit I'm in the 2nd camp. I'm learning a great deal with this project thus far just by reading through the thread several times. Because the 1st and 2nd times things don't always click. I'm reading through the thread for the third time.

The thing that makes this project great is there are so many options provided by Acko. At the same time, this complicates and confuses things because there are so many directions one can go in. One wants to make the right choice, but it's almost as if there is no wrong choice. There are many right choices. I'm at the point where I've made my decisions in terms of configurations -- build more than one DAC. For me it's about spec'ing the right parts so I don't waste money.

 

[RollE2k]

IMHO, they should be broadly interchangeable between those two applications. Both will certainly manage higher clock frequencies quite easily. The potato FF may give some improvement at faster clock speeds, though it will depend on the quality of the impedance matching provided at the DAC you're using.

Thanks alot for that, i'll probably run the potato for the amanero and the other isolator for the SPDIF reclock, since if i change to faster clocks later it can maybe benefit from that.

And qusp, i don't know why you are so much against people with less skill than yourself asking questions. Not everybody does have the same amount of time to experiment and try - at least i've got other hobbies on the side.
As i'v learned from when i was a kid - there is no dumb questions, just dumb answers. At least i have learned alot by asking, so let people ask - you don't have to answer.

 

[qusp]

made the comparison with what? connected to what? waste money? the thing costs less than a decent meal. if you are building one, the cost to get the rest of the parts is only a few dollars plus the $10 for the potato chips.

nobody will EVER be able to truthfully tell you what is the best option, there is no best option, both are very good options. if you have a very well laid out dac, use the potato chips, if you are unsure, build both, or just build the Ti version.

the potato chips put pressure on dac layout and design, as well as your ability to route wiring well and solder neatly, so if you have to ask and you can only build one, just build the ti version; because the chances of you building the potato chip version into a dac of a standard where you can really hear a difference is very slim.

i'm going to do something that I hate other people doing, i'm going to use a car analogy. the potato chip version is like a formula 1 car, very high performance, very high revving and with lightning acceleration (slew rate) but its twitchy/unforgiving and if you cant drive it properly, you'll spin off the start line and likely off the road.

the ti version is like an Audi A8 quattro, its got high performance that is more than enough for any lead-foot daily driver on the autobahn, but it wont send you skidding off the road, unless you do something really stupid.

i'm not against people asking questions that have meaningful answers, nobody can give you an honest answer to this question that actually means something to you in your build, especially since we dont even know what that build is... nor do you specify the feedback be related to the same end use. the whole point of the thing was to make it possible for people to try both, so that Acko could get feedback.

I AM against filling this thread up with meaningless questions and answers. even what i've written above has been written in here numerous times.

 

[RollE2k]

Well, there are alot of people here that disagree with you what a meaningless question is. but lets skip that, and try to answer the question or just ignore it - it's not harder than that.
In longer threads there is always great if somebody does summarize everything now and then to skip questions asked alot on many pages.. just look at the Paradise Phono thread, where it works perfectly!

And if you read my post again, i was thinking if there is anyone how had tried one or the other, AND if there was any technical reason why i would choose one over the other..
I have already built both of them, but i won't get my XO's from mouser until July, so i cannot try until then - hence the question.
Always these waiting times....

 

[iancortez]

Small update, I have replaced the lower frequency clock, with the correct 90.3681 XO on the dual clock board, with the es9018 dac in synchronous mode and the dpl on the lowest setting, unlocks are less frequent but still present.