DAC AD1862: Almost THT, I2S input, NOS, R-2R

Jump to Latest
#5,004
what you hoping to achieve via a differential DAC configuration ?
Click to expand...

A general answer why people would design / manufacturer / sell / buy balanced (fully symmetrical differential) gear :
1) lower distortion by even harmonic cancellation
2) signal immunity to noise pick-up
3) higher output amplitude
4) reduction of random noise

Whether each individual wants any of the above is a personal choice.
There are hi-end gear that are fully balanced, there are those that are single ended.

Here an example of a Topping D10 SE vs Bal version :
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...topping-d10s-usb-dac-and-bridge-review.14859/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/topping-d10-balanced-review-usb-dac.25094/


Cheers,
Patrick
 
#5,005
EUVL said:
A general answer why people would design / manufacturer / sell / buy balanced (fully symmetrical differential) gear :
1) lower distortion by even harmonic cancellation
2) signal immunity to noise pick-up
3) higher output amplitude
4) reduction of random noise

Whether each individual wants any of the above is a personal choice.
There are hi-end gear that are fully balanced, there are those that are single ended.

Here an example of a Topping D10 SE vs Bal version :
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...topping-d10s-usb-dac-and-bridge-review.14859/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/topping-d10-balanced-review-usb-dac.25094/


Cheers,
Patrick
Click to expand...

I concur with your #1 on your list, and with #2 under certain conditions. I view #3 as not easily lending itself to practical use. Benefit #4 is an interesting case, because for a differential configuration, the DAC outputs are functionally in series. As a result, random noise is actually increased by +3dB. However, the signal is increased by +6dB. The net result is that SNR is improved by (+6dB signal - 3dB noise) = +3dB SNR. If the two DAC output were instead connected in functional parallel, that's when random noise would decrease by -3dB, while the relative signal level remains the same. Giving, (0dB signal + 3dB noise) = +3dB SNR

Weighing against the potential benefits, however, is the not insignificant greater cost of a second pair of PCM63 DAC chips, plus an increased implementation complexity. Just my 2 cents.
 
#5,006
A pair of whatever DAC ICs is a fraction of the total cost of a complete build.
Any modern DAC, e.g. AK4493 or ES90xx, have inherent differential outputs.
People just throw it away with a differential opamp Sallen Key.

I have absolutely no desire to convince anyone one way or another.
I merely pointed out some technical facts.
And I always build balanced for myself, with very few exceptions (for headphones).


Cheers,
Patrick
 
#5,008
EUVL said:
A pair of whatever DAC ICs is a fraction of the total cost of a complete build.
Any modern DAC, e.g. AK4493 or ES90xx, have inherent differential outputs.
People just throw it away with a differential opamp Sallen Key.

I have absolutely no desire to convince anyone one way or another.
I merely pointed out some technical facts.
And I always build balanced for myself, with very few exceptions (for headphones).


Cheers,
Patrick
Click to expand...
Sorry, Patrick, I wasn’t intending to be confrontational. I was only attempting to point out some additional technical facts.

I agree, that DAC cost is normally a small fraction of the BOM cost. The cost problem comes with these vintage DACs, such as the PCM63. I think I recall seeing some (I don’t recall the grade) offered on eBay for around $100 each, and you would need to buy an additional pair of those for differential, so four in total!

Those modern DAC chips featuring differential output largely began doing so in order for the chip to dispense with requiring a negative supply. In other words, it was primarily for power supply implementation cost savings. 🙄

Best regards,
Ken
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ripster and kazap
#5,013
EUVL said:
For what it is worth, here our own distortion measurement of a balanced PCM56-K DAC.
Typical datasheet spec is -94dB THD.
We measured, in balanced mode without trimming, H2 at -122dB and H3 -112dB.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...st-tht-i2s-input-nos-r-2r.354078/post-6925148


Patrick
Click to expand...
Interesting. I’ve been intending to someday build a PCM56 based DAC, largely because of the persistent and compelling advocacy of member, bernhard. Is there a schematic of your differential PCM56 DAC in that thread which shows how the differential currents are subsequently summed? For example, by dual op-amp I/Vs, which then feed a single differential amplifier? Perhaps, something else?

Also, how the inverted output current half of each PCM56 differential DAC pair is produced. For example, by simple digital inversion of the sample data bits feed to the signal inverting DACs? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
#5,014
The measurement was made with the internal opamp of the PCM56, so that we do not end up with measuring the distortion of the IV converter itself.
The negative phase has its data inverted using a 74xx86. Nothing special.
See Pass Labs D1 DAC schematics.
The measurement was made using the differential input of the distortion analyser directly.
SDATA are 8x over-sampled.


Patrick
 
#5,015
Brijac said:
@miro1360 what do you think about balanced pcm63? 😁 Have you given any thought about making your dac's balanced?
Click to expand...
The cost of the "used" PCM63 went crazy high 🤣
... if you want the PCM63 as balanced, just stack 2 of my stereo PCM63 DACs, and invert DATA for the second DAC (inverter can be CD74HCT04 decoupled with ceramic capacitor and powered directly from DACs pcb) ... tricky part will be the I/V, you can use a differential opamp or a custom discrete build (ideally based on some functional diagram from some commercial DAC service manual).

I can build something in the future, but probably only with the AD1865N (the main reason is the simplicity (it is dual, +-5V PSU) and price availability of the AD1865, which will significantly reduce costs, moreover AD1865 is great DAC) 🙂
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brijac
#5,016
Ripster said:
Dont bother with raspberry i2s it is verry bad 😀 You can read more info in this thread.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the suggestion and excellent link, took me a while to digest it but in the end it was worth reading. It is not a matter of bitrate rather the clock. I am too lazy to design a new circuit for that. I guess Amanero/XMOS would still be ok.

On a side note a gentleman by the name of "diyaudiophiler" has made PiHAT DACs around AD1865 and AD1868. Although he has not shared schematics but I could guess that he migh have designed a clock signal for the DAC.

Vunce said:
Congrats on your new DAC rehanabid! I would suggest to remove the MSB trimming components if your not going to use a proper trimming procedure.
Also, there is no fruit in my audio system, no RPi used. 🤣
Click to expand...

Sorry my bad, I thought you used RPi as audio source for your DAC. You are right, after listening to the DAC for a while I agree that there is no need for the trim pot circuit, will remove it soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ripster
#5,017
  • Like
Reactions: Ripster and rehanabid
#5,020
Time to make a PCM63 version. 😉
Since I don't have shifters (74hct164d), I will go directly from JLSound.
1662457860906.png


Question about connection: BCK=BLCK=Pin4, LRCK=Pin2? What about JP1 and JP2? Do I need to cut connection for DL and DR?

1662458375833.jpeg



Final Q: why???
1662458576207.png

OPs are not aligned.😢
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom