Yes it does!
Looks very promissing. Much better than sm5819. Now we must wait for a CD/DVD/SACD-player with this chip so we can diy our way into an high performance digital (PCM) output for SACD.
Looks very promissing. Much better than sm5819. Now we must wait for a CD/DVD/SACD-player with this chip so we can diy our way into an high performance digital (PCM) output for SACD.
There's no need to wait for players with PCM4204 (there probably won't be any since PCM4204 is supposed to be used in professional audio equipment) - it could be hooked to any player with DSD DAC.
Or, if SACD over FireWire does not use additional DTLA encryption layer on top of the SACD stream (someone, please tell me that it doesn't) and there are any SACD players with FireWire output capability, external FireWire "ripbox" with digital 24/192 output could be realized with TSB43CB43A, PCM4204 and SPDIF transceiver.
Is there any interest in a such device?
Or, if SACD over FireWire does not use additional DTLA encryption layer on top of the SACD stream (someone, please tell me that it doesn't) and there are any SACD players with FireWire output capability, external FireWire "ripbox" with digital 24/192 output could be realized with TSB43CB43A, PCM4204 and SPDIF transceiver.
Is there any interest in a such device?
I'm not shure what you are talking about, but as I understand it the pcm4204 chip can convert a digital dsd-signal directly to high-res pcm. The pcm than can be used in dsp-based digital correction and crossover machines.
The point is that you probably could mod just about any SACD player, not only the ones using some form of DSD-PCM conversion
My point is having a high-res pcm output from sacd (after modding or implementing a diy-kit in a sacd-player). And this pcm 4204 has the ability to do just this (DSD-24/176,4 the sm5819 can only do 88,2)
You might want to check the PCM4202 link: it's a 2 channel part (the 4204 is 4 channels), in a 28 pin SSOP package compared with the 4204 in a 64 pin quad flat pack which needs heatsinking to the circuit board, so for that reason I'd say the 4202 looks easier to use in a DIY context.
The '04 supports TDM for up to 8 channels on a single serial link, whereas the '02 doesn't, but I don't think that's a deal breaker.
The '04 supports TDM for up to 8 channels on a single serial link, whereas the '02 doesn't, but I don't think that's a deal breaker.
PCM4202 doesn't support DSD input mode (at least as the datasheet says)
Heatsinking could be sorted out without access to reflow soldering equipment by placing thermal interface between board and powerpad and/or conventional heatsink on top of the chip
Heatsinking could be sorted out without access to reflow soldering equipment by placing thermal interface between board and powerpad and/or conventional heatsink on top of the chip
Oops, you're right, forgot to check that.
I presume you're thinking of recreating the system clock from the various bit clocks?
I presume you're thinking of recreating the system clock from the various bit clocks?
That's one possibility, other is using the player's system clock since it's there and could be tapped from the same DSD DAC we're getting the DSD bitstream from
DSD to PCM Conversion IC Choices
The SM5819AF can output 44.1kHz, 88.2kHz, or 176.4kHz. It's a fairly easy part to use. One hassle is that it uses a 2.5V core, but it can still interface to 3.3V. Also it's a six channel device.
The SM5816AF can output 44.1kHz or 88.2kHz PCM in I2S format. It can also output 352.8kHz PCM, but only single channel bitstream outputs, not I2S. A slight advantage is that it only requires a single 3.3V power supply.
I haven't used the PCM4204.
It wasn't clear to me from the data sheet if it would be necessary to provide the +5V analog supply if it was only being used for DSD/PCM conversion. Perhaps the analog supply pins could just be tied to 3.3V power for this application. Also, being a four channel device, two would be required to convert all six channels of a multichannel SACD.
The TI PowerPAD package requires the part to be soldered to a thermal sink integrated into the PC board. Heatsink grease or thermal pads have a much lower thermal conductivity (typically 0.5 to 1.0 W/mK) than a direct soldered connection (typically 30 to 50 W/mK). Also, the top of the part can't be used to attach a heatsink because there's no direct connection to the internal die. The case plastic would act as an insulator. (I suppose you could "dead bug" the IC upside down to do this and bend down the pins to touch the board.)
I've had good luck doing home reflow soldering of PowerPAD devices by applying solder paste to the thermal contact area of the PC board and then tack soldering two corner pins to hold the IC in place. The solder can be reflowed by sticking the whole thing in a 500F oven. A spot of 400F thermal indicating wax on top of the IC tells when to pull the board out of the oven. I finish by soldering the outside leads to the board by hand.
************************
The NPC parts are straightforward to use. In my opinion they are sonically excellent. They are a little bit of a hassle to get ahold of, since there aren't retail distributors for them. I have been able to purchase samples from NPC through their distributors, although there was quite a bit of a lead time. (I think the SM5816AF was ~$28US each and the SM5819AF was ~$16US each, but that was almost two years ago.)
The big advantage I see to the TI parts is that they're easily available from a variety of sources. If anything, I think they'd be a little more difficult to use than the NPC parts. I can't comment on their sound from personal experience, but I would anticipate them to be sonically excellent as well.
***********************
I suppose the (Philips / SONY promoted) benefits of SACD(DSD) vs DVD-A(PCM) are lost when using these chips, but it sure beats running the signals through a low-level analog stage. (I'm using mine to connect to an Equibit Class D amplifier.)
I don't think the improvement in sound quality of a direct digital connection can be overstated, especially compared to the analog outputs of a typical consumer level SACD player.
Regards,
Brian.
The SM5819AF can output 44.1kHz, 88.2kHz, or 176.4kHz. It's a fairly easy part to use. One hassle is that it uses a 2.5V core, but it can still interface to 3.3V. Also it's a six channel device.
The SM5816AF can output 44.1kHz or 88.2kHz PCM in I2S format. It can also output 352.8kHz PCM, but only single channel bitstream outputs, not I2S. A slight advantage is that it only requires a single 3.3V power supply.
I haven't used the PCM4204.
It wasn't clear to me from the data sheet if it would be necessary to provide the +5V analog supply if it was only being used for DSD/PCM conversion. Perhaps the analog supply pins could just be tied to 3.3V power for this application. Also, being a four channel device, two would be required to convert all six channels of a multichannel SACD.
The TI PowerPAD package requires the part to be soldered to a thermal sink integrated into the PC board. Heatsink grease or thermal pads have a much lower thermal conductivity (typically 0.5 to 1.0 W/mK) than a direct soldered connection (typically 30 to 50 W/mK). Also, the top of the part can't be used to attach a heatsink because there's no direct connection to the internal die. The case plastic would act as an insulator. (I suppose you could "dead bug" the IC upside down to do this and bend down the pins to touch the board.)
I've had good luck doing home reflow soldering of PowerPAD devices by applying solder paste to the thermal contact area of the PC board and then tack soldering two corner pins to hold the IC in place. The solder can be reflowed by sticking the whole thing in a 500F oven. A spot of 400F thermal indicating wax on top of the IC tells when to pull the board out of the oven. I finish by soldering the outside leads to the board by hand.
************************
The NPC parts are straightforward to use. In my opinion they are sonically excellent. They are a little bit of a hassle to get ahold of, since there aren't retail distributors for them. I have been able to purchase samples from NPC through their distributors, although there was quite a bit of a lead time. (I think the SM5816AF was ~$28US each and the SM5819AF was ~$16US each, but that was almost two years ago.)
The big advantage I see to the TI parts is that they're easily available from a variety of sources. If anything, I think they'd be a little more difficult to use than the NPC parts. I can't comment on their sound from personal experience, but I would anticipate them to be sonically excellent as well.
***********************
I suppose the (Philips / SONY promoted) benefits of SACD(DSD) vs DVD-A(PCM) are lost when using these chips, but it sure beats running the signals through a low-level analog stage. (I'm using mine to connect to an Equibit Class D amplifier.)
I don't think the improvement in sound quality of a direct digital connection can be overstated, especially compared to the analog outputs of a typical consumer level SACD player.
Regards,
Brian.
No doubt using the part specifically engineered for DSD-PCM conversion would be easier than exploiting some "side-effect" of an ADC, but TI's parts are so much easier to purchase in sample quantities that it's may be worth the trouble
As for DSD benefits over 192/24 PCM - I think that's mostly marketing and real difference is too small to be perceptible. One may want to consider the fact that (almost) all audio material that goes to SACD disks is processed in studios in PCM formats, also most audio DACs are sigma-delta anyway and digital filters that are used for these conversions are pretty good these days
As for DSD benefits over 192/24 PCM - I think that's mostly marketing and real difference is too small to be perceptible. One may want to consider the fact that (almost) all audio material that goes to SACD disks is processed in studios in PCM formats, also most audio DACs are sigma-delta anyway and digital filters that are used for these conversions are pretty good these days
SACD vs DVD-A
I meant my comment about the "(Philips / SONY promoted) benefits of SACD(DSD) vs DVD-A(PCM)" to be somewhat in jest.
Even after a couple of years, I can't say that one format sounds better to me than another. There's too much variation in the quality of the production and mastering of different albums for me to be able to attribute a sonic advantage to DVD-A vs SACD.
Most of the time a given album just comes out as one or the other. I'm usually just happy when something is released on either high definition format. (I'm getting more concerned about the general lack of awareness of DVD-A and SACD. I have to order most of mine online. The few that do show up in local stores are always hidden in some obscure place. It seems that a majority of people that I run into, even the ones that are "into audio", have no experience listening to these formats. Of the ones that have heard them, its usually been on a home theater system with sub-optimal speakers.)
I've tried comparing a couple albums that were released on both formats, particularly some earlier Telarc high def releases. Even here I ran into difficulty making comparisons because the recording levels on the two formats weren't exactly the same. I was never able to be sure that I was playing them back at precisely the same volume, and the time it took to switch back and forth also made direct comparisons difficult. I thought that I could discern differences in the imaging, but I was never consistent in preferring one over the other.
I am highly convinced that both of these formats are superior to CDs.
One thing that I do have to mention...
Most (but not all) DVD-A's require a video monitor to navigate.
Worse yet are DVD-A's that autostart before I'm settled and ready or that have to play some introductory fanfare and image for the company that released them. These things don't have anything to do with the sound quality, but they can really detract me from getting into the mood to listen.
SACD's just slip into the player and operate like a regular CD... wonderful.
Regards,
Brian.
nbdy said:
I meant my comment about the "(Philips / SONY promoted) benefits of SACD(DSD) vs DVD-A(PCM)" to be somewhat in jest.
Even after a couple of years, I can't say that one format sounds better to me than another. There's too much variation in the quality of the production and mastering of different albums for me to be able to attribute a sonic advantage to DVD-A vs SACD.
Most of the time a given album just comes out as one or the other. I'm usually just happy when something is released on either high definition format. (I'm getting more concerned about the general lack of awareness of DVD-A and SACD. I have to order most of mine online. The few that do show up in local stores are always hidden in some obscure place. It seems that a majority of people that I run into, even the ones that are "into audio", have no experience listening to these formats. Of the ones that have heard them, its usually been on a home theater system with sub-optimal speakers.)
I've tried comparing a couple albums that were released on both formats, particularly some earlier Telarc high def releases. Even here I ran into difficulty making comparisons because the recording levels on the two formats weren't exactly the same. I was never able to be sure that I was playing them back at precisely the same volume, and the time it took to switch back and forth also made direct comparisons difficult. I thought that I could discern differences in the imaging, but I was never consistent in preferring one over the other.
I am highly convinced that both of these formats are superior to CDs.
One thing that I do have to mention...
Most (but not all) DVD-A's require a video monitor to navigate.
Worse yet are DVD-A's that autostart before I'm settled and ready or that have to play some introductory fanfare and image for the company that released them. These things don't have anything to do with the sound quality, but they can really detract me from getting into the mood to listen.
SACD's just slip into the player and operate like a regular CD... wonderful.
Regards,
Brian.
SM5816AF vs SM5819AF
Yes.
While I haven't done any sort of carefully controlled experiment, I can't hear any difference between the two (I think they both sound great).
SM5819AF advantages:
- Cheaper.
- 176.4kHz output (also 44.1kHz and 88.2kHz).
(I'm personally not convinced that anything over 88.2kHz / 96kHz is an advantage for audio, but that's another topic.)
SM5819AF disadvantages:
- It requires two power supplies 2.5V and 3.3V (I used a four layer board).
SM5816AF advantages:
- 352.8kHz output (also 44.1KHz and 88.2kHz).
(The 352.8kHz is probably mostly intended for use with studio DAWs where the signal will then be converted back to DSD.)
- Optional user RAM filter coefficients can be loaded from an external processor (I haven't used this feature).
- It only requires a single 3.3V supply (I used a two layer board).
SM5819AF disadvantages:
- It costs more.
The SM5816AF might appear a bit more intimidating at first because of all the extra pins. But in a basic DSD-PCM configuration, many of the pins are either tied off or left disconnected.
I can't give a generalized recommendation of one over the other. I think it would depend on which was easiest to use for a specific situation.
Regards,
Brian.
aaronboumans said:
Yes.
While I haven't done any sort of carefully controlled experiment, I can't hear any difference between the two (I think they both sound great).
SM5819AF advantages:
- Cheaper.
- 176.4kHz output (also 44.1kHz and 88.2kHz).
(I'm personally not convinced that anything over 88.2kHz / 96kHz is an advantage for audio, but that's another topic.)
SM5819AF disadvantages:
- It requires two power supplies 2.5V and 3.3V (I used a four layer board).
SM5816AF advantages:
- 352.8kHz output (also 44.1KHz and 88.2kHz).
(The 352.8kHz is probably mostly intended for use with studio DAWs where the signal will then be converted back to DSD.)
- Optional user RAM filter coefficients can be loaded from an external processor (I haven't used this feature).
- It only requires a single 3.3V supply (I used a two layer board).
SM5819AF disadvantages:
- It costs more.
The SM5816AF might appear a bit more intimidating at first because of all the extra pins. But in a basic DSD-PCM configuration, many of the pins are either tied off or left disconnected.
I can't give a generalized recommendation of one over the other. I think it would depend on which was easiest to use for a specific situation.
Regards,
Brian.
thanks Brian,
I would prefer the sm519af because of the 176,4khz out. This causes less loss when processed in dsp xovers (I presume). I agree that anything above 96khz would not be a tremendous aprovement, but when you want to process the signal al lot the higher rate would be helpfull(?)
You do not have a nice pcb laying around in a dusty corner that I could take off your hands for a appropriate compensation🙄?
I would prefer the sm519af because of the 176,4khz out. This causes less loss when processed in dsp xovers (I presume). I agree that anything above 96khz would not be a tremendous aprovement, but when you want to process the signal al lot the higher rate would be helpfull(?)
You do not have a nice pcb laying around in a dusty corner that I could take off your hands for a appropriate compensation🙄?
aaronboumans said:
Here's the most salient analysis of this topic that I've seen:
http://lavryengineering.com/forum_images/Sampling_Theory.pdf
(I think that super-high ultrasonic capabilities are of value for certain audio restoration applications and also for creation of certain audio sound effects, issues which he doesn't address in this paper. But for sound reproduction, including digital crossovers, I completely agree with this paper.)
From a practical standpoint, going from 88.2kHz to 176.4kHz doubles the processing power required.
Even if you still doubt that 88.2kHz sounds just as good as 176.4kHz, consider this:
For a given amount of processing power (even if you have some sort of monster multi-SHARC or multi-FPGA convolver to do your processing), by cutting the sampling rate in half you can double the number of filter taps used in your crossover. Higher resolution filters have a clear audible advantage that isn't ambiguous. At this point it would be a very rare system that wouldn't benefit from more taps.
For many systems with more modest processing power, it would probably be a better trade off to drop the sampling rate further to 44.1kHz.
Sorry, all gone.
I posted my SM5816AF / MuxIt interface design here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22741
The bare boards can be ordered from a board shop using the Gerber files I posted and are practical to have made in single quantities.
The big part of the job isn't building the board. It's getting a clean patch into the SACD player's circuit board. This will be different for every unit and has to be figured out on an individual basis.
I didn't post my SM5819AF board design because it had some bugs and required some tricky wiring hacks to make it work.
Regards,
Brian.
Brian,
Yes, really interesting post you've done, thanks!
I tried to view the gerber files and recently I have made it.
In my very honest, the PDF files are bit difficult to read 'cause of limitted resolution.
May I ask your faver of email me more higher resolution?
Also, I would love to obtain the original PCB artwork if available for my DIY based project.
(Well, it's not the same but for DIY based SACD DAC)
My PCB software includes Eagle, Altium DXP, OrCAD, PADS etc.
Best regards,
Kohjin
Yes, really interesting post you've done, thanks!
I tried to view the gerber files and recently I have made it.
In my very honest, the PDF files are bit difficult to read 'cause of limitted resolution.
May I ask your faver of email me more higher resolution?
Also, I would love to obtain the original PCB artwork if available for my DIY based project.
(Well, it's not the same but for DIY based SACD DAC)
My PCB software includes Eagle, Altium DXP, OrCAD, PADS etc.
Best regards,
Kohjin
SM5819AF CAN do 1FS, 2FS, and 4FS, which means 44.1, 88.2 and 176.4
See the datasheet ftp://ftp.npc.co.jp/pub/pdf_e/5819a_nc0210ce.pdf
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.