All ways are known:
- using high output current OP
- using OP with additional discrete transistor output stage
- using the separate OP for each channel ans summing later.
The 1st option works fine with one 9038pro in stereo 2x4, with OPA1656, OPA1622, AD8397.
The last option is only one that recommended for 9039pro.
No, only a dual mono es9038pro. And I also said that in my proposal an I2S input would be enough.
Sorry for my English...
If the manufacturer of the es9038pro itself proposes a mono operation option with 8 channels, why is it so stupid? or unnecessary?
I believe that if the manufacturer itself proposes it in its datasheet, the idea is neither bad nor so crazy. If it were stupid or unnecessary, the manufacturer would never propose it in a data sheet.
I believe that if the manufacturer itself proposes it in its datasheet, the idea is neither bad nor so crazy. If it were stupid or unnecessary, the manufacturer would never propose it in a data sheet.
Mono operation of ES9038PRO improves DR/SNR but these are already good enough at 8-channel operation. If 2 channels only is needed then ES9039Q2M would deliver similar performance for a fraction of the cost. IMO it would be much better for this exercise unless the complication with output stage of mono ES9038PRO is the point.
Actually DAC is already designed in the form of IC on chip package.All the seniors, i am thankful for your contribution and learning from your experiences.
if you guys ever design a DAC please share it .
that will be very helpful for me
there are power supply, analog output, and master clock module to implement.
And there are pretty compact solutions also in minimalistic form IC based circuits are used.
Also with factory implementations, typical implementations etc.
PCB routings and examples also already done by recommended factory layouts...
.
So there is out of the issue to talk about almost any "design"
That's spoon-feeding, not the way to learning. IMO better if you make a design first and ask for comments.
They may propose such things if they think it will help sell more dac chips. They may also get tired of people asking them how to make a dual mono dac, so they just put the answer in the datasheet. Those aren't necessarily good reasons for someone else to think its a good idea design with dual mono-mode 8-channel dac chips. Maybe a logical reason for designing a dac box that way would be because some potential end-user customers will think its better, so maybe its a good way to sell some dac boxes?
Last edited:
Manufacturer proposed various solutions.
Schematics in the datasheets are just an examples. This not means that this is the best.
If all you want to do is "design" any working DAC you can just copy any reference design found in a datasheet or evaluation board documentation.All the seniors, i am thankful for your contribution and learning from your experiences.
if you guys ever design a DAC please share it .
that will be very helpful for me
AKM are particularly good at documenting their products, they are your best bet.
If your goal is to design a "bells and whistles" dac, your strategy will need to change.
If your goal is to design an excellent sounding dac, again, your strategy will need to change.
So, you need to define your scope of work.
Another point, if your dac chip of choice will require a microcontroller to function, you will need to become familiar with microcontrollers. Are you willing to do that?
Maybe the interest in Lumin derives from things like this: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/lumin-x1-latest-review-like-we-have-been-saying
Its a $14k dac. These things must add something to the cost: http://www.lundahl.se/wp-content/uploads/datasheets/7401.pdf
https://www.luminmusic.com/lumin-x1.html
Its a $14k dac. These things must add something to the cost: http://www.lundahl.se/wp-content/uploads/datasheets/7401.pdf
https://www.luminmusic.com/lumin-x1.html
Last edited:
