It would be best to gain some more practice and have some assistance with the DAC. This is not a good project for starters. I foresee a dead DIR9001 board if you go on like this.
The reg that is off is not the reg for the WM8804. So it seems things are mixed up. First do a good diagnosis together with an experienced person. Don't do any more attempts to repair it yourself. If you want this DAC desperately I can send you one of the previous versions (ready made).
Last edited:
How many brushes, knives and palates of color did Picasso own in the process of perfecting his canvases? How many instruments and voices did Beethoven listen to before he produced the 9th? 😀
And lets not forget - no NASCAR driver uses just one car all season long to get to the winner's circle at Daytona or Homestead ! 
Last edited:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/group-buys/211201-es9023-wm8804-s-pdif-dac-group-buy.html
Group buy is closed. I have some leftovers from the first run but those are built ones. I do not know if there will be a second run considering the time and effort this project took.
Group buy is closed. I have some leftovers from the first run but those are built ones. I do not know if there will be a second run considering the time and effort this project took.
jean-paul and subbu, thanks for tking the time to realize this project.
looking forward to build this.
looking forward to build this.
If I am going to use this DAC with my computer that has a spdif out,or will I benefit more in using a USB to I2S card?
What do you think?
What do you think?
Can not give a real answer but there are some new ideas in the rev. 3.x of the Subbu DAC. Stay tuned and follow the thread on the rev 3.
Consider also that in spdif you can more easily achieve an isolated connection and avoid the computer's electrical noise. With current version of the DAC board i2s termination isn't optimal so that is another point for you to consider.
Sorry JP, I didn't mean to imply that there was an error in the design, I think it works well as intended. Certainly all anecdotal reports I've read have been exemplary!
I was, however, being intentionally vague because I think, when making the choice to add a usb->i2s stage before the dac (even more so when spdif is available at the source device), then the user has some decisions of their own to make. I don't have a sufficiently well thought out solution to the issues and how they could be ameliorated when applying your pcb design in this way. Without solutions I was hesitant to comment at all.
My preference for i2s would be to change to rf connectors rather than a wire connected through hole or a pin header connection. I would also like to see an independent return path for each i2s signal connection provided as close as practical to the signal termination. These are both not an issue with the wm8804 and i2s only travelling within the confines of your pcb.
When connected from a separate usb->i2s to this dac board then the i2s signal is driving a termination resistor as well as the trace back to the empty mounting location for the wm8804. I am not sure of the impact of this as I am far from a RF designers but this topology looks/feels a lot like an antenna for noise to me. Also I don't have a good alternative in mind for how the option can be provided without this situation coming up. Perhaps the users who are connecting i2s to these pcbs could cut those traces? Is that something they want to do? What if they want to add the wm8804 later? This is a decision for the user.
Along with that I think with i2s you have the opportunity to play with different mclk frequencies and have synch clocking for all input Fs. Adding that feature to this design wouldn't be trivial either. This is not important though for this discussion though.
I think for the intended use case this design is great, when trying to modify or adapt a design to a different application then the user must take on additional responsibility for the impacts of the decisions they make.
EDIT: I forgot my earlier point also, with spdif you can provide an interface that is isolated from the source components noise so this may be another consideration that the user needs to make.
I was, however, being intentionally vague because I think, when making the choice to add a usb->i2s stage before the dac (even more so when spdif is available at the source device), then the user has some decisions of their own to make. I don't have a sufficiently well thought out solution to the issues and how they could be ameliorated when applying your pcb design in this way. Without solutions I was hesitant to comment at all.
My preference for i2s would be to change to rf connectors rather than a wire connected through hole or a pin header connection. I would also like to see an independent return path for each i2s signal connection provided as close as practical to the signal termination. These are both not an issue with the wm8804 and i2s only travelling within the confines of your pcb.
When connected from a separate usb->i2s to this dac board then the i2s signal is driving a termination resistor as well as the trace back to the empty mounting location for the wm8804. I am not sure of the impact of this as I am far from a RF designers but this topology looks/feels a lot like an antenna for noise to me. Also I don't have a good alternative in mind for how the option can be provided without this situation coming up. Perhaps the users who are connecting i2s to these pcbs could cut those traces? Is that something they want to do? What if they want to add the wm8804 later? This is a decision for the user.
Along with that I think with i2s you have the opportunity to play with different mclk frequencies and have synch clocking for all input Fs. Adding that feature to this design wouldn't be trivial either. This is not important though for this discussion though.
I think for the intended use case this design is great, when trying to modify or adapt a design to a different application then the user must take on additional responsibility for the impacts of the decisions they make.
EDIT: I forgot my earlier point also, with spdif you can provide an interface that is isolated from the source components noise so this may be another consideration that the user needs to make.
Much better info. I think you are right about SPDIF being the main way to use this DAC and I2S use is (theoretically) hindered by the way of connecting things. But let's not forget that RF connectors and crimping cables is a bit too hard for people that build this DAC.
Anyway, build one and smile 😉
Anyway, build one and smile 😉
Last edited:
I have an admission to make, I chose to not use one of the current designs, mostly for the reasons discussed above. Though it was from reading your comments along with those from the Open Source USB Interface guys and EUVL's experiments with this chip that lead me from my previous prototype dac based on wm8741 DAC chip to now build one based on the es9023 chip. I also want to experiment with synch clocking and have only computers as source (some of the ones I use don't have spdif) so I have a usb device already and an ES9023 board on the way. With my previously mentioned concerns about i2s interfacing I've decided to go with what will surely be a more expensive route to my solution. Who knows if the extra cost will realise any tangible improvement over what you've offered here? I for one don't know for sure! But for me the experiments are in some ways as important as the destination in this hobby. I'm here to learn and building some nice gear to enjoy music while I chose my next project is an excellent perk!
I have one of these already - Q N K T C USB-I2S Module and Analog Board 1.1 - great fun and I hope to do some more experiments with it. It's not particularly neat for modifying with separate power supplies though. The ground is shared from computer usb power through to all of the analogue output stage.
In the next few weeks I will have:
WaveIO XMOS based usb to i2s decide connected to ES9023 via u.fl leads.
Next up after that is experiments with JG Filter Buffer and SE-SE 'The Wire' on the output of these DACs.
Where would we be without the font of information and ideas that are available on these forums?!
I missed responding to this last time. u.fl cables can be purchased without need for any crimping by the builder. They are limited by the number of attach/detach cycles that they can handle so it is advisable to use a proper tool for disconnecting them. Nothing about using u.fl terminations is any harder than soldering an 0805 resistor though IMO.
The alternative to provide gnd with each signal connector is no extra challenge for the builder, but certainly is a challenge in the design/layout stage.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.