I did identify the SCL_06 and SDA_07 pinouts for I2C on the chip in the PDF with schematics (pin #21 and #22). However, I am unsure on how to tap in on those lines on the PCB of an ESS ES9018 evaluation board. Is there an example to be found on how to accomplish that?
Can you post some photos? and especially if you can identify any jumpers in those lines.
Otherwise you will have to use the destructive way:
Cut the lines with a knife, scrape off the solder mask and solder the wires to those points.
That is an expensive board though...
Otherwise you will have to use the destructive way:
Cut the lines with a knife, scrape off the solder mask and solder the wires to those points.
That is an expensive board though...
Hello glt,
What Arduino board would I need to get to control a sabre 9018 dac and a fancy graphic display. Sorry for the silly question but is the Arduino UNO all I need.
What Arduino board would I need to get to control a sabre 9018 dac and a fancy graphic display. Sorry for the silly question but is the Arduino UNO all I need.
According to my memory of two years ago, there are no jumpers on the I2C lines.
You need to identify the paths and cut them. Two long lines traverse from USB controller section to DAC section. I cut them at the middle of the straight lines.
The same method "glt" described was applied. In my case a switch on a small sub board was added.
You need to identify the paths and cut them. Two long lines traverse from USB controller section to DAC section. I cut them at the middle of the straight lines.
The same method "glt" described was applied. In my case a switch on a small sub board was added.
Unless you are planning on extensively modifying the code I have, don't use the fancy graphics display.
To use the existing version of the code you can use the UNO and a 4x20 LCD text display as specified in the intro page of the blog
Unfortunatly that was also my conclusion after examining the board. But as "glt" pointed out it is an expensive board and I don't want to damage it... Maybe I have to go for a Buffalo III-SE board in the long run...
Hi Coris,
I'm using the 125Mhz Fox Xpresso and the sound quality is very good, but when there are quiet moments in the music, I hear crackle - HF spikes - almost like vinyl records. Has anyone else reported this ? It's a new build so the problem could be elsewhere.
Cheers
Tom
I also tested 125Mhz Fox Xpresso, same noise problem,
but fox is not a SAW oscillator,
I haven't try SAW oscillator yet.
but fox is not a SAW oscillator,
I haven't try SAW oscillator yet.
Hi Tom
I have read this before (reported by Joe Rasmunssen) about crackles/spikes on using 125Mhz clock. I thought that it were something special with his device, but now you report the same... I can hear exactly the same kind of spikes, in the quiet moments (silence between tracks), but when I used an 133Mhz clock...
Now I just wonder why I do not have such distortions on my device. For me it is working just fine with 125Mhz, and I use this clock frequency for few month now. I used before this last SAW, the Fox oscillators of 122,880 Mhz and 125 Mhz, with very good results too. No any crackle/spikes.
The only difference between our devices/setups it may be this SAW oscillator I use in the last time, quite large decoupling capacities I have on both analogue and digital power rails of ESS9018... And my oscillator is connected very near to the DAC chip (2-3mm from its clock input pin).
Could you publish a picture of your setup around the DAC chip? It may be interesting to find out why this functional difference between our devices...
Last edited:
Hi,
What are you using as an I2S source ?
I have experienced a similar crackle using a WM8805 connected to AMB y2 DAC. To remove the problem I used only the BCLK, LRCLK and DATA from the WM8805 and the DAC worked perfectly. It didn't work at all with MCLK connected and had a crackle until I disconnected GND.
So based on that, I wonder if this might be due to different I2S sources ?
cheers
What are you using as an I2S source ?
I have experienced a similar crackle using a WM8805 connected to AMB y2 DAC. To remove the problem I used only the BCLK, LRCLK and DATA from the WM8805 and the DAC worked perfectly. It didn't work at all with MCLK connected and had a crackle until I disconnected GND.
So based on that, I wonder if this might be due to different I2S sources ?
cheers
Hello again,
I just hooked up the wm8805 and tried the 125Mhz clock. The crackle has almost completely gone. It is just barely noticeable in the background when the ES9018 is locked and auto-mute, and then there's a moment of quiet "fzz" when the auto-mute switches off and the music starts.
So I think you are right - cabling, layout etc is very important to eliminate the crackle, just as much as the I2S source is.
I also agree that this clock frequency sounds very good, especially, the high-end treble detail is excellent, but for me, unless I can improve routing etc, the "fzz" will be too annoying.
cheers
I just hooked up the wm8805 and tried the 125Mhz clock. The crackle has almost completely gone. It is just barely noticeable in the background when the ES9018 is locked and auto-mute, and then there's a moment of quiet "fzz" when the auto-mute switches off and the music starts.
So I think you are right - cabling, layout etc is very important to eliminate the crackle, just as much as the I2S source is.
I also agree that this clock frequency sounds very good, especially, the high-end treble detail is excellent, but for me, unless I can improve routing etc, the "fzz" will be too annoying.
cheers
Also depends on the chip itself (different chips behave differently when used beyond specification due to variations in the manufacturing process)
you guys are really confused at why this might be happening? weve had the subjective 'its better because it sounds better and nothing is wrong with my setup because its not blowing smoke' but as yet we have zero possible technical reasoning why it could perform better running out of spec. its these exact reasons why I warned about using these parts at these speeds.
probably the DPLL just has no idea what to do running at these speeds
glt is right too of course, there will be some variation from Die to Die as to at which point over-spec it starts to Die...
probably the DPLL just has no idea what to do running at these speeds
glt is right too of course, there will be some variation from Die to Die as to at which point over-spec it starts to Die...
sorry Coris, I just fail to see anything you are doing here as in anyway engineered, or with any kind of design goals, just play with it till it starts to malfunction, for no fathomable reason... its bizarre
Do you think that this DAC chip sounds better with an DPLL witch "just has no idea what to do running at these speeds", it use 25% more current when clocked with 125Mhz, or get so warm to smoke out in an setup witch is running for month?
Sorry, but such assertions as yours above it sounds only stupid...
Sorry again, but I can hardly see your real contribution here in this forum... The only I can read in your post are critics and negations to everything and everybody. I understand you wish to show that only you know best, but I fail to see how you share that your knowledge in this forum... It is an enough bizarre contribution form a such high qualified engineer...
Last edited:
I must ask, can the ES9018 run synchronous in x2048fs? i thought max was x1024fs
Why i ask, is because then wouldn't it be possible to run 44.1/48kHz files with 90.3168/98.304M clocks?
there is no such thing as 'sync mode', we can only provide it with conditions that the clocks are in sync with (a multiple of) FS, so the DPLL is practically inactive. not sure where you got max 1024x FS being max from. the number 1024 returns no results in datasheet search. you are probably thinking of the fifo
'sync mode' is the new 'current mode'
it IS possible to run 44.1/48 with 90.3168/98.304
think about it, the buffalo and ackodac both have used 100MHz as stock clocks in the past. I repeat, there is no 'sync mode'
'sync mode' is the new 'current mode'
RollE2k said:
it IS possible to run 44.1/48 with 90.3168/98.304
think about it, the buffalo and ackodac both have used 100MHz as stock clocks in the past. I repeat, there is no 'sync mode'
Last edited:
More than fifty ES9018-based DIY DAC users in Japan are enjoying a stable lock at "lowest" by applying synchronous MCLKs of 90.3168/98.304 MHz for 44.1/48 kHz I2S sources.
Hi,
Just a short comment @KlipschKid etc.: Henry Ott (in Electromagnetic Compatibility Engineering) recommends placing & routing the clock as the first thing to do and keep the wires/tracks from the clock to the circuitry as short as possible. He puts it quite literal in writing "get paranoid about clocks"
Best regards,
Jesper
Just a short comment @KlipschKid etc.: Henry Ott (in Electromagnetic Compatibility Engineering) recommends placing & routing the clock as the first thing to do and keep the wires/tracks from the clock to the circuitry as short as possible. He puts it quite literal in writing "get paranoid about clocks"
Best regards,
Jesper