Hi,
There are many boards from Tinysine that use I2S input to ADAU1701 and then use the inbuilt DACs of the chip. It is comforting that the ADCs are not used and one can feed I2S from Toslink, Coaxial, bluetooth, and of course one could take HDMI ARC converter and feed Toslink to these amp boards from TV too.
The board I have in mind is this https://www.tinysineaudio.com/products/tsa1702c-spdif-coaxial-dsp-audio-receiver-board
Does the DAC quality matter on real speakers?
My speakers are https://jblpro.com/en/products/jbl-nano-k8
And I am building 12 inch stereo subs using TPA3255 for a 2.2 system.
The reason why I ask this question is I have a feeling that one could make out the deficiency of the ADAU170 DACs using headphone based listening but probably not speakers.
Warm Regards,
WonderfuAudio
There are many boards from Tinysine that use I2S input to ADAU1701 and then use the inbuilt DACs of the chip. It is comforting that the ADCs are not used and one can feed I2S from Toslink, Coaxial, bluetooth, and of course one could take HDMI ARC converter and feed Toslink to these amp boards from TV too.
The board I have in mind is this https://www.tinysineaudio.com/products/tsa1702c-spdif-coaxial-dsp-audio-receiver-board
Does the DAC quality matter on real speakers?
My speakers are https://jblpro.com/en/products/jbl-nano-k8
And I am building 12 inch stereo subs using TPA3255 for a 2.2 system.
The reason why I ask this question is I have a feeling that one could make out the deficiency of the ADAU170 DACs using headphone based listening but probably not speakers.
Warm Regards,
WonderfuAudio
Yes. ADC and or DAC quality can reasonably be expected to have some effect on resultant sound. Whether or not there is an objectionable effect is likely going to be up to the person doing the listening.
To put it in somewhat blunt terms, by some measures the TinySine board could be considered a toy for tinkerers to have some fun with.
Also, the JBL speakers you link to are clearly built to a low-ish price point. Probably they are not intended for serious hi-fi; maybe more for low cost gaming, or maybe for simple monitoring when working out in the field. Maybe some things like that.
Last edited:
So Mark, you are implying the DACs (hence DSP) need upgrade (probably with ADAU1452 with better external DAC chips) and also the speakers ?
ADAU devices are more than enough for most applications as loudspeakers are the weak link in the signal chain when it comes to quality / fidelity / distortion. And with speakers, bigger is always better.
One thing many people would like to avoid in many of the ADAU range of devices is the sigma-delta ADC / DACs, but some have S/PDIF Tx/ Rx which is handy.
One thing many people would like to avoid in many of the ADAU range of devices is the sigma-delta ADC / DACs, but some have S/PDIF Tx/ Rx which is handy.
Think it is best to measure the specific board. I have mixed experiences with the implementation of those cheap boards.
I have for 15 years run a miniDSP with ADAU1701. No external ADC/DAC. Home use
In my setup it is silent and has a good gainstaging between the components. No hiss in my 90db+ sensitivity high end speaker elements.
Extremly transparent sound. Thats why I stick with it, even with its 90dB THD/N
The good thing with 1701 only is the common masterclock on input/output conversion.
Think the main reason to go external ADC/DAC is balanced system. Then there is a real benefit in system noise suppression.
But if noise is no problem, why go balanced?
I have for 15 years run a miniDSP with ADAU1701. No external ADC/DAC. Home use
In my setup it is silent and has a good gainstaging between the components. No hiss in my 90db+ sensitivity high end speaker elements.
Extremly transparent sound. Thats why I stick with it, even with its 90dB THD/N
The good thing with 1701 only is the common masterclock on input/output conversion.
Think the main reason to go external ADC/DAC is balanced system. Then there is a real benefit in system noise suppression.
But if noise is no problem, why go balanced?
And of course the ADAUs has limited drive capability. So there has to be attention on the loading. Eg 10k+ like olden day 47k input poweramps
The problem with some implementations is the inferior analog components in signal chain in input/output. Where the resistors or capacitors distorts more than the ADC/DACS. Sometime horrible amounts more. It is analog filters that are supposed to filter out HF to avoid aliasing, but destroys the performance itself with excesive distortion. Good intentions, but bad implementation.
It kind of looks like to me that everyone is trying to tell you more or less the same things in their own way. Basically, the ADAU line of DSP processors is good enough for many purposes. Sometimes people need more than that in which case they may use things like SHARC chips and or FPGAs. But for the most part ADAU are pretty common.
The problems are with analog aspects of ADC and DAC circuitry, including electronic noise coupling when the data converter function is located inside the DSP chip. SPDIF has its issues too, mostly with clock jitter, although their are ways to make that less bad. That said, jitter is something that only affects mixed signal functions where analog is a part of it: DACs, ADCs, and ASRCs.
Speakers are another matter. Its not low-cost to make good ones. You might look around at semi-professional monitors from Mackie or better manufacturers. JBL knows how to make good speakers too of course, but the ones you are looking at are an attempt to break into the very low-cost entry-level part of the market. Not the same as the professional or semi-professional studio part of the market, and certainly not anywhere near the professional mastering room part of the market.
In case its still not clear about the speakers, there is a lot more to it than just specified frequency response. It can be almost meaningless without a response graph and without knowing how the graph was taken. Sometimes there are tricks used to make a FR graph look smoother than it really is (such as by sweeping the signal generator faster than the filters can settle). Distortion is another big factor in speakers, as is dispersion as a function of frequency.
Last edited:
Well, I agree that it can be a problem, but not with the 1701. It is just engeenered low cost, good enough.
To put it in perspective the ESS9039 has DSP inside the DAC and measures incredible. Better than -120dB thd+noise even in pretty basic, but good engeneering, circuits implementations.
But we agree the 1701 is not state of the art and the difficult part is making good filters.
But using it with a standard 24 dB LR filter for SUB, main filtering is good enough for most applications.
Then the user can spend a lifetime to get the bassresponce right. That is an art.
But using it with a standard 24 dB LR filter for SUB, main filtering is good enough for most applications.
Then the user can spend a lifetime to get the bassresponce right. That is an art.
Before I forget. One main quality with the 1701 and other integrated chips is that the outputs can be in phase. No clock drift between the DACs. For filtering it is the most important aspect in my view.
True, however we are talking about rather different extremes between that and ADAU parts.
For ES9039Q2M, I count 5-different power rails, each of which should be on its own voltage regulator. Plus, it needs a good local crystal clock for good performance (again, ideally on its own voltage regulator), and not a PLL for lowest-cost clock recovery from a SPDIF stream. So with lots of internal design tricks and good surrounding circuitry, yes, it is possible to get good measurements from what amounts to several ICs in total.
